RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Hold traditional HTs and FTs?

  • Hold FTs that involve O/H Amat /Qual stakes without a Derby ?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Hold Quals at HTs?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • A combination of 2-3 of the above. Explain

    Votes: 0 0.0%
1 - 20 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,967 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
What do you want your club to do in 2006-7?
What direction would benefit your club and the sport in general?
Or maybe you want no changes?

Tim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,345 Posts
YOu need a "None of the above" option with this poll or you ned to retitle the thread. You only mention Hunt tests once and that option only entertwines it with field trails. There are those of us who like out hunt tests pretty much the way they are.

Count my vote as "NONE of the Above."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
Lady Duck Hunter said:
YOu need a "None of the above" option with this poll or you ned to retitle the thread. You only mention Hunt tests once and that option only entertwines it with field trails. There are those of us who like out hunt tests pretty much the way they are.

Count my vote as "NONE of the Above."

My vote: 'NONE OF THE ABOVE".......same reason as "Lady Duck Hunter"......

Norene S.
GO SEAHAWKS!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,967 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
The HT game will undergo change in the next 1-2 years, like or not. The MNRC and AKC will either make changes or part company. Clubs that are current members of the MNRC will make decisions accordingly.

Tim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Tim Carrion said:
The HT game will undergo change in the next 1-2 years, like or not. The MNRC and AKC will either make changes or part company. Clubs that are current members of the MNRC will make decisions accordingly.

Tim
What are the changes they are discussing? I'm not up to date on what they are discussing or what the problems are so I would appreciate any help getting caught up...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
712 Posts
Funny thing, I was just taking about this with a friend a few minutes ago. The Master National places an incredible burden on small clubs that want to hold a weekend stake. Not too long ago, a club here had 4 master stakes going at the same time. Luckily they had the grounds and help to pull off a super event. But what about the club that has to split three ways and doesn't have the grounds? That is happening more and more.

So, here is my proposal. Add a MN stake. Only dogs that have their master title may enter. If you have your master title, you can only enter the MNQualifying stake. Up the anty on what is required. No more one triple and two doubles because we are running out of time. Make it a land quad and water triple with double blinds in each. Clubs do not have to have this MNQ stake if they don't want to. It is a compromise for the regional qualifiers that are being proposed.

Maybe you have to qualify at 2 or 3 MNQ stakes to be eligible for the MN. This would bring the Master stake numbers down to a reasonable level. Judges would not feel pressured to either set up an elimination test or a throw away third series because the entries would not be massive. People who just want the Master title and have no interest in the MN wouldn't have to feel like the are competing in a "mini-field trial" and we can offer the stake that is described in the rule book.

So, there is my .02.

Carol
 
G

·
Tim Carrion said:
The HT game will undergo change in the next 1-2 years, like or not. Tim
Only if we all act like mindless rodents going over the cliff.

You can go on liking n' support'n the FT game. Leave the HT game to us other folks!

Bob Gutermuth said:
It ain't broke so don't fix it.
YUP!

Lady Duck Hunter said:
There are those of us who like out hunt tests pretty much the way they are.
You got it! The Lady is right as rain!

Lawrence Jeur
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,222 Posts
I liked the Open and Amateur I went to this Fall without the two minor stakes! Everthing went real smoothly and you didn't have to wait around all day to run a dog. Plus, this club has a weekend only for the minor stakes. So. I think it would be nice it the clubs down here (when they return to running FT's) seperated the major stakes from the minor stakes. That would mean one extra weekend down here of putting on a trail. Instead of having two full trails and one for just the DQ, have two trails for just the major stakes and two just for the minor stakes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,360 Posts
I really like Carol's idea about adding a stake for MNQ. Maybe the MNQ stake could have a higher standard. Great idea I think. I wouldn't mind seeing some Qual's at hunt tests also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,967 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I voted for several changes. IMHO the HT is the "birthplace of future FT Amat/handler, club member, worker,judge, etc and the the Qual is their intro into FTs.
In that same light clubs need to offer their members a venue that these people can attend, work, run and progress with their dog with a reasonable expectation of success ie the O/H Amat/Qual.
These venues could produce the competitive trial the FT people want to decrease FT numbers and meet the demands of the AKC for a more limited MN.

Tim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,314 Posts
My vote would be for the Traditional Field Trial.
But............



Hold Quals at HTs?
While I am not dead set against the above, in the interest of getting this MN thing straightened out,
Have a MHQ(MHX) rather than a "Q" at a HT

Hold FTs that involve O/H Amat /Qual stakes without a Derby ?
If only one AA stake is to be run it should be an Open.
I'm for having as many Derbies as possible.

Hold a 2 O/H Amat/ Qual only?
My answer to your OH questions is No, and also if you must have two AA stakes make one or both of them an Open

A combination of 2-3 of the above. Explain
A Traditional Field Trial.
Add a MHQ(MHX) to the Traditional HT

john
 
G

·
john fallon said:
My vote would be for the Traditional Field Trial.
But............



Hold Quals at HTs?
While I am not dead set against the above, in the interest of getting this MN thing straightened out,
Have a MHQ(MHX) rather than a "Q" at a HT

Hold FTs that involve O/H Amat /Qual stakes without a Derby ?
If only one AA stake is to be run it should be an Open.
I'm for having as many Derbies as possible.

Hold a 2 O/H Amat/ Qual only?
My answer to your OH questions is No, and also if you must have two AA stakes make one or both of them an Open

A combination of 2-3 of the above. Explain
A Traditional Field Trial.
Add a MHQ(MHX) to the Traditional HT

john
John, you are one cool dude! I agree with you except for the MHQ(MHX) idea. The HT clubs have enough problems what with judges n'grounds n'weekend help! The MH Test standards don't need adjust'n.

FT Clubs want to put on MH tests one day, and offer Quals the next day? That's been done and it's a good way for the curious HT people to dip their feet into a new pond.

But the HT clubs don't need another program. Any dog with a Master Hunter Title can continue to attend weekend tests. Passes at those tests can be used to qualify for the MN, and also for an advanced title. A dog who passes let's say 50 MH legs after he gets his MH title will receive a MHX. People who want to attend the MN can qualify their MH titled dogs at the weekend tests.

A lot of HT clubs are complain'n 'bout the big entries at weekend test due to the MN. These clubs would now have an option: they can opt out of MNRC membership n'watch their entries drop to managable levels. Local HT people who don't give a hoot 'bout the MN can still go to those same WE tests with their MH titled dogs and eventually get an MHX title. They'll probably want to go to the MNRC member HT cause they'll need lot's of passes to get that MHX!

Handlers who want to run long marks and blinds can go and try out them there Quals.

Lawrence Jeur
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,967 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Bob Gutermuth said:
It ain't broke so don't fix it.
Please explain why "It ain't broke"
-There have been multiple means proposed to control FT #'s
-The AKC is ready to remove their name from the HT premier event
- Most AFCs are awarded to dog's that are pro trained
- The average age of the FT worker/judge/handler is increasing
- The Ht program is attracting more and younger people then Fts
- There have been proposals to increase the # of FTs as grounds and people decrease
-Some clubs do not belong to the MNRC because they don't have the grounds to split a Master at 60.

Quess what? It's broke and we need some fore-thought and planning because any change in either venue usually takes 2 years.

You maybe getting some ribbons but think beyond a recent weekend.

Tim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
163 Posts
John and Tim are both right, it is broke.

I see more average income young people in H/T, lets face it, most of them are in it for a SH and their out. Most of them have family committments and dont have the time nor money to compete in the White coat game. I'm all for OH events but not at the loss of the Derby.

The MH Stake is broke, its chock full of folks who are qualifying for the MN and looking at that MNH suffix designation as a qual that says their a better H/T dog than the rest of the MH out there. I think the MHX would be a great alternative to keep sound numbers in the MH stake. It could also solve any standard deviation by judges wanting to reduce numbers to get the test done. An added plus is you could offer one MHX test per year as a club if your members wanted it.

I think 50 passes @ $65(Avg) per pass is crazy, thats $3250 in entry fees to complete if you passed every test. It would only hurt the game and make the master stake even larger.

My comments are not meant to offend anyone, just an expression of MY opinion.
 
G

·
Robert S. Libberton said:
John and Tim are both right, it is broke.

.....

I see more average income young people in H/T, lets face it, most of them are in it for a SH and their out. Most of them have family committments and dont have the time nor money to compete in the White coat game. I'm all for OH events but not at the loss of the Derby.


I think 50 passes @ $65(Avg) per pass is crazy, thats $3250 in entry fees to complete if you passed every test. It would only hurt the game and make the master stake even larger.

My comments are not meant to offend anyone, just an expression of MY opinion.
Not offended at all my man. This is what the forum is about!

Actually, with inflation, that $65 average per test (as opposed to per pass) will probably grow to be $100. So you're talking closer to $4,000 in future dollars. But we're talking about a period covering several years for each dog. And those people who love to go to the weekend tests and keep their dog well trained will be in line of a lifetime achievement award.

If you think 50 passes is crazy, make it 30 passes. Hell, make it 20 passes. I don't care! But you do want to make sure that the MHX becomes a lifetime achievement. Otherwise, well ... what's the point?

Now, all those average income young people your seeing in H/Ts? The people who have family committments and dont have the time nor money to compete in the White coat game? Let's call'm regular HT Joes. And they're important, cause they're our workers and organizers, and future HT Judges.

But, recognize that the MN is forcing regular HT Joe's to place their dogs with PRO's. If you have an MNX title available only to those dogs that go to the MN -- you'll compel even more HT Joe's to place their dogs with PRO's.

So @ current Pro fees of $700 per month (which may/may not include birds), and your dog staying a a truck 7-10 months per year, for probalby 2-3 years --- why that's $9800-$21,000 in today's monies to train your pup to run it's first AKC master's test, and then , another $9800-$14,000 to eventually qualify for the MN!

Remember, Robert, I'm talking up to $42,000 in todays $$$. Add inflation into that mix and you gotta a whole lot of crazy!

And if you have a MNX title going to only dogs at the MN ... And only 20% of dogs qualify at the MN (that's what the AKC wants to see). Well, that means the other 80% of the dogs at the MN have to stay on a PRO's truck another year to get that MNX -- maybe another 2 years.

So, let's see $4000 paid out over 5-9 years for my suggested MHX title vs. $42,000 paid out over 3-5 year period for the MN MHX. Now that's really crazy.

No wonder the average Joe's bailing out of the game after the SH!

Lawrence Jeur
 
G

·
Robert S. Libberton said:
The MH Stake is broke, its chock full of folks who are qualifying for the MN and looking at that MNH suffix designation as a qual that says their a better H/T dog than the rest of the MH out there. I think the MHX [meaning a new master hunter stake] would be a great alternative to keep sound numbers in the MH stake. It could also solve any standard deviation by judges wanting to reduce numbers to get the test done. An added plus is you could offer one MHX test per year as a club if your members wanted it.
I agree with you about folks who are qualifing for the MN and looking at the MNH suffix designation as a qual .... In fact, your observations jives with lots of RTF posts stating flat out that the MN is distroying the HT program.

But I don't agree with your conclusion. Adding a new, higher level MHX stake to the WE tests even once a year ... well lots of clubs lack the grounds, help, desire. If you need to attend the MN to get this new MHX title, well all that would do is get even more people trying to qualify their dogs for the MN.

Now, judging form the posts on this board, all sorts of folks have stated that they have no interest in attending an MN. Let's take 'em at their word. In fact, they may or may not like the HT game enough to keep taking Old Yellar to a weekend test even after he gets that MH.

With the MHX title coming out of the WE Tests -- not the MN -- Clubs can control their weekend numbers by opting out of the MNRC. And they would still meet the needs of their local residents. Why, the Average Joe can continue to go to WE tests and get points towards an advanced title.

Those other people -- who want to get to the MN? If enough of them live in the area, the local clubs will accomodate by staying with the MNRC. There are areas in this country like Washington & Oregon where lots of people want to get to the MN. But there are other areas where only 1 or 2 people tops care about this event. Why should these clubs go nuts putting on events for out of town PROs when their own members could give a hoot?

If enough clubs opt out of MNRC due to lack of interest at the local level? Well, that says something about the need for an MN doesn't it?

Lawrence Jeur
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,062 Posts
tIM:

The numbers debate is nothing new. As I read thru the stacks of RFTN that we recently acquired going back to 1967, there is a lot of debate starting in the early 1970's concerning the size of trials! It wasn't solved then and likely whatever solutions are proposed won't suit everyone.

The AKC MN debate is an academic exercise. The winner WILL be the AKC, which is fine with me. This H/T game was started for Joe Sixpack to run his dog on the weekends where titles, not competition was the name of the game. For my money thats where the H/T needs to stay, dancin with the one what brung em.

I really don't care who trained the dog that is running. So long as the handler is in compliance with the regulations in force its a non issue with me.

I see more and more folks younger than me gravitating to the F/T game many from a hunt test beginning. Niether game is having a problem attracting dogs, owners and entrants.

If clubs opt out of the MN that is the MNs loss. It appears to me that it will colapse under its own weight, and or inability to handle its own popularity in some quarters


Your push for, at various times, Amateur trained stakes, more O/H amateurs, O/H quals etc bespeaks a problem with the pros. How about explaining your dislike of pros or of competing with pros?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,967 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
Bob Gutermuth said:
tIM:

The numbers debate is nothing new. As I read thru the stacks of RFTN that we recently acquired going back to 1967, there is a lot of debate starting in the early 1970's concerning the size of trials! It wasn't solved then and likely whatever solutions are proposed won't suit everyone.

The AKC MN debate is an academic exercise. The winner WILL be the AKC, which is fine with me. This H/T game was started for Joe Sixpack to run his dog on the weekends where titles, not competition was the name of the game. For my money thats where the H/T needs to stay, dancin with the one what brung em.

I really don't care who trained the dog that is running. So long as the handler is in compliance with the regulations in force its a non issue with me.

I see more and more folks younger than me gravitating to the F/T game many from a hunt test beginning. Niether game is having a problem attracting dogs, owners and entrants.

If clubs opt out of the MN that is the MNs loss. It appears to me that it will colapse under its own weight, and or inability to handle its own popularity in some quarters


Your push for, at various times, Amateur trained stakes, more O/H amateurs, O/H quals etc bespeaks a problem with the pros. How about explaining your dislike of pros or of competing with pros?

Bob,
I have NO dislike for professional trainers. I, like others, have learned how to train with their help and experience. Pros have developed new methods and concepts which we all use . Over the years I've had the oppurtunity to expose myself to the likes of Carr, Doar, Sweezey etc.
Being "Pro -Amateur " does not mean "Anti-Pro". I hope you can see the difference.
There are plently dogs with younger handlers than you or I, that doesn't take much, but are there really more handlers or more dogs per handler?

My push for a true amateur stake and O/H stakes is to provide "your gun totten joe sixpack" with a competitive venue if he/she wants to play and not just work. That IMHO is how to keep working club members so a pro can charge whatever he/she wants for any given weekend.
Tim
 
1 - 20 of 47 Posts
Top