[HarryWilliams]

NAHRA has adopted an approach to increase the participation of their premier event. How? By increasing the performance criteria AND by inviting Master Hunters from all hunting retriever venues. Check it out!!!

https://secureservercdn.net/166.62....nd Rule Changes to the NAHRA Invitational.pdf

 

[stonybrook]

While I truly love NAHRA and I feel it is the most complete testing venue of a fully trained hunting retriever, I have to admit that I fail to see the logic in many of the changes. Adding an honor and a double blind are good additions and should probably be added into the standard testing program.

How does making the testing more difficult at the Invitational yield added entries (if that is the goal)?

What is the reasoning behind making the double blind worth 10 points total? Should the difficulty of the blinds be adjusted so that each is worth half of what the 3rd (single blind) is worth.

Why can’t the judges determine which blind they wish to have picked up first (what’s the downside or issue with judges selecting the order of pick up - we do all the time in actual hunting situations where we know there’s a cripple that scooted into the cattails while another bird lays stone dead on the water)?

While I favor any ideas that increase interest and participation, I don’t believe in allowing dogs that haven’t earned a MHR title to enter the program’s most prestigious event. If they have their 2 passes (or a 3rd pass or an Intermediate title), and then qualify at the Invitational, do they then earn their MHR at the Invitational (and also qualify for the following year’s Invitational)?

I was really looking forward to this year’s event and cancelled my lodging earlier this week. I look forward to attending and participating in Iowa in 2021.

My 2 cents -

TL

 

[HarryWilliams]

An Invitational qualification earns 40 Senior points and would also entitle the dog to be qualified to enter the next year’s Event.

 

[DDietrich]

I agree with Travis' feelings towards NAHRA's testing program being the most complete. I too do not understand for the pointing system of a double blind. Would not a double blind incorporated within the marks give you a more accurate interpretation of the dog's abilities, not a separate test ie: AKC?

I do like the idea of titled dogs qualifying each year but, I do not like allowing dogs not titled as a MHR to run in the programs top event. This only waters down the quality of dogs running. I'm not saying that a MR or HRC titled dog isn't as good but there are aspects of a NAHRA test that the other venues do not require. This only depreciated the status of a dog qualifying for the Invitational. Can you imagine a MHR being allowed into the Grand, or the Master National with this same criteria?

It reminds me of when I was a Union Sheet metal worker and the union decided to let anyone with 6 years experience in the HVAC trade into the union as a journeyman. I argued that if someone has been doing it wrong for years that does not entitle them into our organization, that it lowers the quality of worker that the unions so stand behind.

Once again I am in no way saying that a dog that runs one venue is better than another, there are just different requirements for each title that should not be compromised.

I understand NAHRA is looking for more participation but I believe this is the wrong way to go about it.

 

[HarryWilliams]

While I truly love NAHRA and I feel it is the most complete testing venue of a fully trained hunting retriever, I have to admit that I fail to see the logic in many of the changes. It is easy to "fail" and more difficult to understand other's decisions. Adding an honor and a double blind are good additions and should probably be added into the standard testing program.

How does making the testing more difficult at the Invitational yield added entries (if that is the goal)? It is an attempt to increase the prestige and to also offer others a chance to participate.

What is the reasoning behind making the double blind worth 10 points total? Ideally another marking series would have been the addition BUT time was a big consideration. Adding a double blind increases the performance level. One score for the double blind was in keeping with "marking is paramount" .

Why can’t the judges determine which blind they wish to have picked up first (what’s the downside or issue with judges selecting the order of pick up .................? As we attempt to increase participation, I think it best to insure the "over the top" tendency, like running a long blind downwind of the short blind first, is not encouraged. When making big changes it might be good to be careful with each step.

While I favor any ideas that increase interest and participation, I don’t believe in allowing dogs that haven’t earned a MHR title to enter the program’s most prestigious event. Well the BOD disagrees with that logic as they are trying to be inclusive vice exclusive. The CKC has used a similar model with their National Master. The first year they invited all Master titled dogs. Now AKC MH dog's with 2 qual's are invited. We kinda thought it worth trying to follow that model. Time will tell. Hopefully you will end up supporting the proposal.

I was really looking forward to this year’s event and cancelled my lodging earlier this week. I look forward to attending and participating in Iowa in 2021. Should be a great event. Holding the tail regards, Harry

My 2 cents -

TL

The replies in bold were mine and reflected my opinion of the BOD's decision making. I'd like to thank Travis for his long time support of NAHA and of voicing his opinion. Harry

 

[Keith Stroyan]

I think this is worth a try. I've had HRCH's, MH, and many MHR's. I like NAHRA third best after hunting and training, but HRC and AKC/HTs are comparable games, my 4th and 5th choices. (I can't run much of anything with my wife's current health.)

An HRCH ready for a Grand only needs to spend a week or so learning to trail; the dog will likely have less trouble than its handler. A MH ready for one of their Nationals, needs to spend a little time on upland and the trail. Two NAHRA passes would show that they've done those extras. I think those handlers would also be amazed at how useful trailing can be in real hunting. Their dogs can do it, but learning a que will put them right to work in the field or marsh. (I have clear memories of a trail one of my dogs ran duck hunting when a crippled duck got up on an island opposite us and took off running. Well, that was a blind to a trail.) Having handlers and judges learn how to set up test trails is the only real challenge.

The different dogs will have slightly different strengths and weaknesses, but so would a group of MHRs to some extent. Many of them are already HRCHs or MHs. I think it would be fun to see good dogs from all three games run well designed tests set at the top of the NAHRA Standard. An event with under 100 dogs could be much more fun to run than the enormous national HTs.

All the games can learn from each other and this would be a great way for handlers with dogs at the top of their game to learn about The Original!

A double blind? Meah. I'd be more concerned about judges who could set up excellent tests, marks, blinds, upland and trail. Tests at the top of The Standard with good help, good grounds, good birds. Handlers would just have to be careful about the hangovers in a multiple day event ;-).

 

[The Snows]

Can you imagine a MHR being allowed into the Grand, or the Master National with this same criteria?

The idea of a reciprocal program between different hunt test programs is not a new idea. Both the AKC and the CKC allow MH's from the other program to run in their National event. The dog must run and pass two Master tests in the other's program during the qualification period running up to that year's event. If the dog has qualified at either country's National Master, this gives them an automatic invitation to the other's National event.

For MH and HRCH dogs to qualify to run the Invitational ..... they need two NAHRA Senior two passes during that year's Invitational qualification period to qualify. In a time when clubs are struggling for entries, this hopefully may increase weekend test entries moving them from a break-even to a money making event.

 

[Hunt'EmUp]

Biggest issue with NAHRA entries IMO was when they got rid of the day of entry option. Our local clubs would almost double our entries the day of, particularly started entries (the hook ). Just as our HRC club doubles their entries day of. Where as now our club has canceled very small NAHRA tests, and haven't put even put on a NAHRA test in several years due to lack of entries. If it is a wish to get more entries at the local level, bringing back the day of entry option would greatly help. If it's that they want more Invitational entries; that I'm not sure if this new item will help overly much. I just can't see overly many UN-NAHRA people putting into it unless it happened to be local. Although it is a great event well done with a smaller crowd, I Completely recommend going to one.

Not a fan of a double blind series, outside of the marking series. Marks tend to add a bunch of influence to blinds. Would rather see blinds in marking series, and run 3 of them if you want a double blind. Honoring not a big deal and they really should've done that any way. I would like to see if in the sit-to flush series as a brace, we don't see that very much anymore. With 2 birds shot and not always a fly-away. MHR dogs should be able to do these things. .