[Lady Duck Hunter]

The Master National Proposals to be voted on this year can be found here:
http://www.masternational.com/event/2009JudgeSlateAmendments.pdf

 

[mostlygold]

More and more we limit the amateur. May as well call it the Pro Master National and be done with it. I like that little caveat that one Q must be under the owner. I'm sure people will find a way around that one quick enough. I can see a lot of short time co-ownerships in the future.

Regards

 

[Pete]

More and more we limit the amateur. May as well call it the Pro Master National and be done with it. I like that little caveat that one Q must be under the owner. I'm sure people will find a way around that one quick enough. I can see a lot of short time co-ownerships in the future

The rules are made up by amatures are they not? Most judges are amature are they not?. This is not an AKC recognized event as far as I understand it.

So wouldnt those in charge be able to make up any rules they want.
And while they are at it ,,I'm sure there intent is to limit numbers,,, not to make sure the "PRO" has an advantage.


I would like to see the stats on pro run dogs at HT.

The MN is a party for those who are serious about this venue of doggy games.
From what I understand it is not for the average guy who trains a gun dog a day or two a week as would be a weekend hunt test.
Why would a "national" be for the average.

I personally dont care one way or another,,,I'm all for people enjoying there dogs but I also think that everytime an amature changes a rule the first response is it will favor the "pro"

Basically everything favors the person who puts the most effort in something.

HT were made for the ocassional weekend trainer,,,the the MN was not.

Pete

 

[ErinsEdge]

I think the MN HAS greatly influenced the weekend tests for the amateur that doesn't care to qualify for the MN. I wonder how they are going to ascertain exactly who ran the dog at the HT since amateurs often list their name with their pro as the handler. I'm also surprised that if they are making that rule, that they make one that the co-ownership can't be with a pro. Why don't they just get it over with and have an amateur MN and a pro MN instead of making rules that just promote judge shopping and co-ownerships?

 

[Lady Duck Hunter]

The rules are made up by amatures are they not? Most judges are amature are they not?. This is not an AKC recognized event as far as I understand it.
So wouldnt those in charge be able to make up any rules they want.
And while they are at it ,,I'm sure there intent is to limit numbers,,, not to make sure the "PRO" has an advantage.


I would like to see the stats on pro run dogs at HT.

The MN is a party for those who are serious about this venue of doggy games.
From what I understand it is not for the average guy who trains a gun dog a day or two a week as would be a weekend hunt test.
Why would a "national" be for the average.

I personally dont care one way or another,,,I'm all for people enjoying there dogs but I also think that everytime an amature changes a rule the first response is it will favor the "pro"

Basically everything favors the person who puts the most effort in something.

HT were made for the ocassional weekend trainer,,,the the MN was not.

Pete

Just to set the record straight here, the event is recognized by the AKC. It is a licensed event. They just do not recognize a title for dogs that pass at this level.

 

[Lady Duck Hunter]

Nancy, you make some very good points.

 

[DEDEYE]

So, I must be retarded or something. I don't get why everyone is having a stroke on pro's running MN. It's not a competetion. Just passing the tests correct?

 

[Jim Danis]

I was reading the proposed changes and correct me if I'm wrong but it states

(2) All contestants shall be required to obtain qualifying scores in a minimum of six (6) Master Hunting tests conducted by member clubs and one shall be by the dog’s owner.

So If I'm reading this right and if it is approved does that mean that the 5 of 7qualification rule would be changed to 6 qualifying scores with one by the owner? 5 of 7 would go away?

The Owner having to run qualify in at least one test is a good idea as far as I'm concerned. My whole goal for this years MN was to run and qualify my dog myself. I also plan on handling him myself in the MN. Thankfully we accomplished that goal.

 

[Lady Duck Hunter]

Dedeye, I don't think anyone is complaining about Pros running the Master National. I think the problem is in anything that makes it harder for the amateur to get there or anything that makes it harder for the weekend clubs to put on their events.

There would have to be extra record keeping on the part of the local clubs to be sure who was running each dog.

 

[DoubleHaul]

Dedeye, I don't think anyone is complaining about Pros running the Master National. I think the problem is in anything that makes it harder for the amateur to get there or anything that makes it harder for the weekend clubs to put on their events.

There would have to be extra record keeping on the part of the local clubs to be sure who was running each dog.

I get the recordkeeping part--what a nightmare that somebody is going to have to verify who actually handled the dog at east test--but I don't get how the proposed change hurts amateurs (although I am only thinking about it while multi-tasking on a conference call).

Is it the 6 passes? Or, is it that the amateur will have to run the dog for at least one, thereby requiring the amateur actually to attend one test (or perhaps more if the handling skills aren't up to snuff).

At first glance, I was thinking this would hurt pros, since for at least one pass they lose the handling fee, and give an advantage to the serious ams vs the regular folks.

 

[Gun_Dog2002]

So 8 years later and we're still trying to find a way to reduce the number of dogs entered. The 5 of 7 or 8 passes method certainly isn't working. This year there are 369 dogs entered or 184.5 per side. From what I can tell this issue will most likely never get fixed. Any option that gets proposed is labeled bad for the amateur and only good for pro's. Of course that is "wrong" so we end up in this ongoing situation of too many dogs entered to be run in a week fairly. This forces the judges to take one test, make it a real ball buster that falls beyond the spirit and intent of the HT program just so they can finish by Sunday. I find it interesting that people are more upset about the chance to go vs going and getting screwed. Interesting human behavior. Maybe some clubs should get together and propose that it become an amateur/owner event.

/Paul

 

[SueLab]

Maybe some clubs should get together and propose that it become an amateur/owner event.

/Paul

Surely you jest! Or you were not at the meeting that got very ugly over this very issue(either Oregon or Ga...can't remember which for sure)

 

[K G]

Surely you jest! Or you were not at the meeting that got very ugly over this very issue(either Oregon or Ga...can't remember which for sure)

Wouldn't be ugly at all if there were a NEW National club, much like the National Amateur Retriever club....

kg

 

[Lady Duck Hunter]

Maybe it was GA there was a vote on it in Wisconsin in '04. Overwhelmingly voted down to have the event be an all amateur one.

Now Proposing two separate events one "amateur" - one "open", that hasn't really been hashed out much, that I'm aware of. It would require either a 2nd MN board or a willingness of the board to dedicate twice as much time to the event.

I really don't know what can be done or if anything needs to be done. Hosting the MN is a huge undertaking, I agree. But it is no bigger than many of our weekend tests around here....just longer.

Thank you to all who work so hard to make it happen.

 

[paul young]

the WHOLE HT PROGRAM was supposed to be for amateurs.

-ancient history that apparently few remember or care about. there was vey little pro involvement before the inception of the MN.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH HAVING A MN. it just needs to be seperate from the HT program. then they could limit it any way they want, and qualify who gets to go anyway they want. they could also test the dogs any way they want.

i would think that would be desirable over the system in place now. they will Never be able to effectively limit entries as long as they are tied to the weekend game.-Paul

 

[Gun_Dog2002]

Surely you jest! Or you were not at the meeting that got very ugly over this very issue(either Oregon or Ga...can't remember which for sure)

Have you seen how much humor I post on this board... Of course I jest. I've come to realize when it comes to the MN, most things turn into a joke. The organization is stuck trying to make too many people happy, not enough clear direction and leadership selected by popularity vs true leadership skills. Making tough decisions doesn't make people like you. This is why after all these years the really tough decisions still haven't been made and the innovative items that did get done returning to the age old methods. I think of the challenge my good buddy Bubba had as president getting the MN to create its own website and leave the archaic working-retriever.com FT site in the dust. What do we see now? MN BOD kissing the FT clubs ass and putting updates back on working-retriever. Why is that? Seriously why is that? They have a great website, why would you want to go back to a poorly designed archaic infrastructure when you have a very nicely done web site? Doesn't make any sense. Do I even have to get into the fact the clubs a few years voted one way and the BOD ignored it? The whole thing is a political quagmire, that sadly is affecting the weekend HT, in fact dominating it. Its pretty sad when my first time Junior clients come over and ask me about this MN thing that everyone is talking about. I mean really. Should the discussion in the gallery of first time Junior handlers be focused on the MN? People continue to focus on doing the right thing for the amateur. The weekend event is for amateurs. Why are we letting the MN impact that sport so much?


/Paul

 

[dnf777]

I'm just lurking on this one, but GunDog2002 made some interesting points and raised even better questions. Can't wait to hear the responses.

 

[paul young]

......sounds of crickets chirping.......

 

[Howard N]

Nobody has said anything about the Alaskan proposal of allowing dogs that test exclusively in Alaska to go if they pass 4 out of 6 tests. We have 3 AKC clubs that put on AKC hunting tests in Alaska. Each club puts on a double header hunt test each year. There are only these six masters in the entire state.

In the time I've been in organized retriever games (1992) I can only remember 3 Alaskans, other than a couple from the panhandle who live closer to Seattle than Anchorage, who have gone to the master national. I think 2 of them had passes outside the state of Alaska. I'd like the Alaskan proposal to pass so if someone from our state wanted to go to the master national they'd have a realistic chance to qualify.

 

[badbullgator]

Wouldn't be ugly at all if there were a NEW National club, much like the National Amateur Retriever club....

kg

My take

AKC hates the MN club
The MN club hates the AKC

In the middle the two never shall meet