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."
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...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.
Only if we all act like mindless rodents going over the cliff.Tim Carrion said:The HT game will undergo change in the next 1-2 years, like or not. Tim
YUP!Bob Gutermuth said:It ain't broke so don't fix it.
You got it! The Lady is right as rain!Lady Duck Hunter said:There are those of us who like out hunt tests pretty much the way they are.
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.john fallon said:My vote would be for the Traditional Field Trial.
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
Please explain why "It ain't broke"Bob Gutermuth said:It ain't broke so don't fix it.
Not offended at all my man. This is what the forum is about!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.
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.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.
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?