[Lisa Van Loo]

If you can stand it, yet another poll on the MN. These are some viable options that have been kicked around this and other boards for a couple of years. I left some other options (like eliminating Pros) out, because they have already been voted on and turned down by member clubs of the MNRC. Each option has its merits. Each has its pitfalls. Both plusses and minuses have been discussed at length.

These are not listed in any particular order. I have no stake in the MN one way or the other. However, if a clear "voting public" trend toward one or a few options emerges, then those who belong to MNRC Member clubs should consider putting together a proposal, having their several clubs approve the proposal, and taking it to the MNRC BOD. Those who participate in the event should be the agents of change, IMHO.

There are a number of choices, here. You only get one choice in a poll, so choose wisely. If you like several options, pick the one you like best!

Here are the options:

Separate event. Jettison AKC and go it alone. Like SRS and WRC before it, the Master National will survive within its own niche, without AKC.

Limit entries. Use a percentage. Keep the number of passes needed to enter the MN the same, but dogs must achieve those passes within a certain number of total starts.

Limit entries. Increase the number of passes needed to enter the MN.

Limit entries. Dogs that handle on marks cannot count that test as one of the passes needed for MN entry.

Don?t limit entries. Use more hired help.

Don?t limit entries. Just use more splits.

Don?t limit entries. Allow any dog with a MH title to enter a regional event. Dogs passing regionals will get to go to the MN.

Offer a fourth level, the MHX level. Dogs with their MH can enter this level. If they earn X number of passes in a year, they can enter the MN for that year. If they earn a total of Y passes in their lifetime, they earn the MHX designation.

Use averages. A dog's average must be above a certain number in order to enter the MN.

Lisa

 

[Bob Gutermuth]

Lisa one more option is needed: Do away with the MN.

 

[Doug Main]

Lisa,

You forgot a choice. Scrap it . . . as Master National IS an oxymoron! :wink:

 

[Lisa Van Loo]

I don't think of eliminating the MN as a viable alternative. After all, it is a popular event! That's its whole problem, really.

While a non-comppetitive National event does seem to be an oxymoron, I note that AKC held its first Tracking National this year. Seems this is the wave of the future. Likewise, agility MACH titles can be earned without defeating another dog (but it does help with the point tally). Yet, there is an Agility National every year, too.

Lisa

 

[john fallon]

For some reason it would not let me vote, but if I were to do so my choice would be..........

Offer a fourth level, the MHX level. Dogs with their MH can enter this level. If they earn X number of passes in a year, they can enter the MN for that year. If they earn a total of Y passes in their lifetime, they earn the MHX designation.

john

 

[Bob Gutermuth]

Lisa the event may be popular, but as evidenced on these boards, it sure causes a lot of bickering. It also drives clubs up the wall trying to figure out how to put on the huge tests that occur in the east and central time zones when the MN is in one of those time zones in a given year.

 

[alaskan peakes]

I like the idea of a regional event and inviting the passing MH dogs to attend the MN if they choose --


Juli

 

[Angie B]

I like the idea of a regional event and inviting the passing MH dogs to attend the MN if they choose --


Juli

I've always liked this idea. If as it stands 300 dogs qualify nationally than that means there will be on the average 80 dogs qualifying for their respected regionals. I know it won't be that even, but how tough could that be to put on? No other stakes to deal with?

Angie

 

[Doug Main]

I like the idea of a regional event and inviting the passing MH dogs to attend the MN if they choose --


Juli

I've always liked this idea. If as it stands 300 dogs qualify nationally than that means there will be on the average 80 dogs qualifying for their respected regionals. I know it won't be that even, but how tough could that be to put on? No other stakes to deal with?

Angie

As a handler that runs mostly bitches and a working amateur with limited time off. I think this is the worst of the ideas!!!

 

[Angie B]

I like the idea of a regional event and inviting the passing MH dogs to attend the MN if they choose --


Juli

I've always liked this idea. If as it stands 300 dogs qualify nationally than that means there will be on the average 80 dogs qualifying for their respected regionals. I know it won't be that even, but how tough could that be to put on? No other stakes to deal with?

Angie

As a handler that runs mostly bitches and a working amateur with limited time off. I think this is the worst of the ideas!!!

Gee Doug.... Sorry about your sex choice of canines and you and everyone else is a Am with limited time off. I'm a pro and I would only like to give so much time to a select group from my kennel. The reason I like it is that it doesn't mess with the system as it is. And it is a fair way to sort through the group. Let's not go through the, "But it's not fair to everybody" thing again...... :roll: :roll:

Thanks Lisa!!!

Angie

 

[Bubba]

Would you be as enchanted with the idea if the "Regionals" were held in Butte Montana? Think the arguments about inconsistent judging are entertaining now, wait till any given regional passes a significantly different percentage of dogs.

There are lots easier ways for you to limit the size of the group you invest time in. Unless someone with a one eyed poodle and a FAT checkbook decided to muck that system up for you.

Just wondering regards

Bubba

 

[Tim Carrion]

I voted, it is probably not hard to figure out my vote! :wink:

The additional option that some have offered, to drop the MN, will probably come true if AKC licensure is lost.
IMHO if AKC licensure is lost:
Why should a club be a member of the MNRC?
When you are not a MNRC member your HT entries go down and in the Mid-Atlantic area that means you don't need to have a split Master.
Therefore your club can provide an AKC HT for the area needing less grounds, personal and mechanics.
What is the downside to that???? :?

Tim

 

[Gun_Dog2002]

Would you be as enchanted with the idea if the "Regionals" were held in Butte Montana?
Bubba

Geez Steve, we said regional not outer space....... :lol:

/Paul

 

[Uncle Bill]

I threw a dart and guess what???I landed on the majority group...so far. Guess we 10 are just too logical. Playoffs are used for everything from Little League to the NFL. Can't be all bad.

If AKC doesn't back it, then the MN can go its own way. Develope their own judges. Run their own program. others are doing it, although not on the same scope as the MN. But my guess is once they also go on their own, without AKC affiliation, they may just have solved their numbers problem.

UB

 

[Angie B]

Would you be as enchanted with the idea if the "Regionals" were held in Butte Montana? Think the arguments about inconsistent judging are entertaining now, wait till any given regional passes a significantly different percentage of dogs.

There are lots easier ways for you to limit the size of the group you invest time in. Unless someone with a one eyed poodle and a FAT checkbook decided to muck that system up for you.

Just wondering regards

Bubba

I like the idea because it's a format everyone understands. I don't care if you bowl or you drive your kids to football..... The tier system of districts, states, regionals and then nationals is one that everyone understands. Again!!! It's not going to be fair for everyone. Even in the judging department at the regionals.......... or the percentages that pass at those regionals. I would assume like I posted, that the turnout would be could be quite different from one region to another. Same like anyother competition venue that uses this type of system. Heck my daughter's high school band went through the same system.......

No fat checkbook one-eyed poodle training regards,,,,

Angie

 

[Bob Gutermuth]

The biggest problem with a regional system would be finding clubs to put them on. The mountain zone would be likely the toughest what with the distances between clubs. Clubs aren't exactly beating the door down now to put on the MN.

 

[Angie B]

The biggest problem with a regional system would be finding clubs to put them on. The mountain zone would be likely the toughest what with the distances between clubs. Clubs aren't exactly beating the door down now to put on the MN.

Are you kidding???? Comparing the master national and the regionals would be like comparing apples to oranges. Regionals is wayyy smaller.

Hey if they can hold a regional bocci ball tournament in the mountain zone I'm sure there would be some club willing to step up to the plate. Has the National Open ever had a problem getting a moutain zone to hold it's event???? Chances are the numbers attending would be pretty reasonable for that zone.....

Angie

 

[Bob Gutermuth]

Angie, where are they going to get the workers? The MN seems to have trouble getting enough bodies to fill all the jobs??

 

[Tim Carrion]

Is the MN about how many events you can attend or the quality of dog work?
Tim

 

[Angie B]

Angie, where are they going to get the workers? The MN seems to have trouble getting enough bodies to fill all the jobs??

The Master National was fine this year. Regionals will be quite a bit smaller. Where would the workers come from on a weekend test? Many clubs hire,,,, even for their field trials. Workers are a mute point....

Angie