[Hunt'EmUp]

GAWD This seem likes a case of the possible solutions bringing about way more pain and confusion than the problem. Instead of making new formats of the same old master test, why not just limit the number of dogs a single handler can sign up and run? Then a single handler wouldn't be holding a majority of the spots, and couldn't be filling a flight with one click in a limited test. Might get it back to at least a 15min filling time .

 

[Thomas D]

A master test is a master test. Everyone running to the same standards.

The prior post are clear it's about ams getting in the test, not about changing standards.

 

[1tulip]

If there were more degrees of freedom (so to speak), the amateurs needing to not necessarily compete for limited Pro-Am/"Open" Master slots, it might actually be good for both pros and amateurs.

I agree that an Amateur should not be a "shamateur", running dogs off someone else's truck. Entries should probably be limited to some agreed upon number of dogs and no more.

And certainly, the variables are sort of mind-boggling but probably worth thinking about now as the MARC is just beginning to get it's show on the road.

 

[Sabireley]

If there were more degrees of freedom (so to speak), the amateurs needing to not necessarily compete for limited Pro-Am/"Open" Master slots, it might actually be good for both pros and amateurs.

I agree that an Amateur should not be a "shamateur", running dogs off someone else's truck. Entries should probably be limited to some agreed upon number of dogs and no more.

And certainly, the variables are sort of mind-boggling but probably worth thinking about now as the MARC is just beginning to get it's show on the road.

How about an Owner-Handler Master? Pros could run the dogs they own and it eliminates the shamateurs.

 

[Terry Marshall]

Check out the P versus A at the Mid South Mississippi RC event 4/1/16, if you really want to understand where the game is going....at least here in the south....you yankees may or may not have the same issue.

 

[LGH]

Lake Charles just filled up in less than 3 minutes. I couldn't get 1 dog in

 

[joeyrhoades]

GAWD This seem likes a case of the possible solutions bringing about way more pain and confusion than the problem. Instead of making new formats of the same old master test, why not just limit the number of dogs a single handler can sign up and run? Then a single handler wouldn't be holding a majority of the spots, and couldn't be filling a flight with one click in a limited test. Might get it back to at least a 15min filling time .

This!!!

Limit the number of dogs that can be entered at one time and by one handler. It will take a little longer for the flights to fill up, and give the commoner like me a chance to actually enter a test (granted I am still a while from entering Master Tests).

 

[Mike Perry]

Lake Charles just filled up in less than 3 minutes. I couldn't get 1 dog in

Not only are the pros better trainers, they are more efficient on computers too.

 

[LGH]

Maybe so. I was doing it from my phone

 

[Tobias]

Alaska does not have this problem - and never will because of the obvious reason we don't have the numbers - nor pros with huge numbers of dogs on their trucks

I think the obvious solution is to have a limit to the number of dogs an individual can enter at one time. This would probably force the actual owner of said dog to complete the entry, rather than the pro. Making it the owner's responsibility seems appropriate.

 

[Oncini]

So then, How do we get this into EE's entry process? Seems to me the most fair way to give more people a chance to get entered.

 

[LGH]

So then, How do we get this into EE's entry process? Seems to me the most fair way to give more people a chance to get entered.


Ask Mike P. Apparently he's the holy grail of dog trainers and a expert computer operator

 

[paul young]

Why do you think EE would care? They are experiencing no problems from this policy. After all, the folks that don't get in can pay a $10 fee to get on a waiting list. Most still won't get entered, but again, that is not a problem for EE.

This is the reality of the situation, folks. Heck, they even came up with a 'recording fee' if a club chooses to use their competition to manage their event. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to impose a limit on the number of entries one individual can make in a single transaction. It doesn't affect their bottom line. -Paul

 

[Dave Kress]

Folks i may be incorrect here however I don't believe EE gets to make these entry decisions. It's the Akc that won't allow limited entries by the handler so maybe to change any of this contact the Rhtarc

Also I thought the wait list came about as ht entries ask for a wait list. People were entering dogs and scratching after a call to the buddy. It's hard to believe but some ht folks were being unethical as they had placeholders All this bs just paints the complete program in a bad way
Dk

 

[Oncini]

What is Rhtarc ??

 

[Hunt'EmUp]

So then, How do we get this into EE's entry process? Seems to me the most fair way to give more people a chance to get entered.

HRC has had a limit on the Number of dogs a handler can enter forever, EE also takes entries for HRC tests, thus if they are following HRC rules for sign up they must already have an option in order to limit dogs per handler. Hunt test secretary has this in place already as well. So theoretically the coding system is already in place, the thing that must be done would be petitioning the AKC to allow Limits on number of dogs a handler can run in a test. Now I assume you could write it such that you could have limits for a certain period of time allowing individuals to get in then say 48hrs. prior to close remove the limit and let the flight fill. If you wanted. Of course EE could just limit a maximum # of dog a handler can sign-up before refreshing is required, and you wouldn't need AKC involvement. But if we look at it from a business stand-point that isn't in EE best interest, as the more dogs a single person signs up at a time the more $4.50 they can accrue, it's in their interest to let people sign-up as many dog as they want, for a single credit card transaction, rather than having to do multiple card charges, each one requiring a CC fee, that EE has to pay.

 

[Brad B]

CC fees are a precentage not a flat rate per transaction...usually.

 

[FOM]

CC fees are a precentage not a flat rate per transaction...usually.

But the percentage goes down a little with a larger transaction....so it is better cost savings to allow a single, large transaction and a bunch of smaller ones....I could be wrong, but I recall this from some personal research I did a while back.

 

[Golddogs]

But the percentage goes down a little with a larger transaction....so it is better cost savings to allow a single, large transaction and a bunch of smaller ones....I could be wrong, but I recall this from some personal research I did a while back.

Lanee, it has more to do with total $$ volume that individual transactions. WalMart for example has a huge annual $$ volume and the cc fees are lower than EE could ever hope for and are charged the same fee if is a few dollars or a few hundred on a transaction.

 

[paul young]

Folks i may be incorrect here however I don't believe EE gets to make these entry decisions. It's the Akc that won't allow limited entries by the handler so maybe to change any of this contact the Rhtarc

Also I thought the wait list came about as ht entries ask for a wait list. People were entering dogs and scratching after a call to the buddy. It's hard to believe but some ht folks were being unethical as they had placeholders All this bs just paints the complete program in a bad way
Dk

I could be wrong but I thought the discussion was how many dogs could be entered by an individual in one TRANSACTION. Individuals could enter as many dogs as they want using multiple transactions to do so.

I don't think the AKC has any jurisdiction over how many entries per transaction EE allows, unless the AKC is running EE. Therefore, RHTAC would have no input into the process, either. -Paul