[akr71]

Just for the sake of my own curiosity how difficult is it to ship beer across the border?  Does a lot of it get held up?  I've never shipped any internationally before.

I have shipped internationally (and I'm Canadian) - usually just swapping homebrews, but I have entered the odd contest.  It is a real PITA.  Besides the higher courier fees, you have to fill our NAFTA paperwork and if you state that it is alcohol, you have basically guaranteed it will not get delivered (and may not get sent back to you either).

It is far easier to stretch the truth a little on the paperwork and claim the contents as 'glass collectibles-gift'  I had a guy send me his beer the States who labeled it 'personal belongings-underwear & socks' - the guy worked at a hotel  What customs agent is going to poke through someones dirty underwear...

Not everyone is comfortable with such creative descriptions though.

BTW - Hi Tony!  Seeya back over at the Brewnosers.org   

[Jimmy K]

If you want to discuss ideas for how we can increase participation in a Canadian first round site and increase Canadian membership in the AHA let me know...

Tom,
I'm wondering if there is a reason why all first round judging sites are the same size. It seems like if Canadians want to organize a first round, but there are relatively few Canadian members, it would be fine to add a 12th site in Canada with a lower entry limit (like 200 instead of 750). I realize it would increase final round judging and that's another matter, it just seems like logistically it would be OK to have a 1st round site accepting less than 750 entries and that would allow Canadians a site without the burden of a 12th full-size site. Perhaps there is something I'm not thinking of.

[Hokerer]

Tom,
I'm wondering if there is a reason why all first round judging sites are the same size. It seems like if Canadians want to organize a first round, but there are relatively few Canadian members, it would be fine to add a 12th site in Canada with a lower entry limit (like 200 instead of 750).

Wouldn't that be sort of unfair to everyone entering in a US region?  That is, it'd be a lot easier to place high when you're only competing against 200 entries vs 750 (divided by number of categories, of course).

[markaberrant]

Based on our growth plans, we were expecting to be at or near 750 entries in Canada this year, and had been preparing as such.

We've had a few US entrants over the years inquire about entering the Canadian Qualifier.  We were open to exploring this idea.

We also proposed promoting the Canadian Qualifier as the "International" site for all international entries.  I don't believe there have been too many historically, but likely could have increased this if folks were made aware.

We also suggested that if say we only accepted 500 entries (2/3 of 750), then only gold and silver winners (2/3) would advance to 2nd round.

Not saying I have all the answers, but these were some ideas put forth.

[phillamb168]

Just to say, Ali has done a good job setting up BJCP-y things on this side of the pond; perhaps eventually we could also see a true 'international' turn-in site in Bristol?

[udubdawg]

Really nice, thorough reply.  Thanks Tom.  A lot of stuff I wasn't aware of in there, and while I want everyone involved (it would be great if our membership came with one guaranteed NHC entry slot) it seems like the current rules are fair for almost everyone, and provides equal playing field to all outside the country.

[bluesman]

Getting more judges everywhere is our best solution, and hopefully the recent changes to the BJCP program will help with that, but that will take time to build the numbers we need and it is out of the AHA's control.

Agreed Tom. One of the bottlenecks at this point is the limited judging pool. We need to increase the number of judges in an effort to be able to accommodate the increasing demand for entry into the competition. The BJCP is a limited resource and has done a very fine job of making ends meet with the national competition so far, but there is a limited number of judges.

It's my hope that as AHA or BJCP members, we can all work together to help further this cause by recruiting/training more judges. With a larger judging pool, we will be able to accommodate more entries into the competition.

[udubdawg]

It's my hope that as AHA or BJCP members, we can all work together to help further this cause by recruiting/training more judges. With a larger judging pool, we will be able to accommodate more entries into the competition.

I sort of agree, but I think we've done the first part - recruit more judges - rather well.  In fact I would say that lately I haven't even bothered to recruit more judges as they are just put off by the wait list.

I recently signed up to help grade BJCP exams, and I hope others do too. 

cheers--
--Michael

[giant_macaskill]

Really nice, thorough reply.  Thanks Tom.  A lot of stuff I wasn't aware of in there, and while I want everyone involved (it would be great if our membership came with one guaranteed NHC entry slot) it seems like the current rules are fair for almost everyone, and provides equal playing field to all outside the country.

If by equal, you meant virtually eliminated, then yes, you have done an excellent job.  It's cost prohibitive, a royal pain in the ass, and pretty much a roulette wheel at customs, to bother with 1st round entries out of this country.  I understand that you have your reasons, but there's no sense sugar coating the end result.

[morticaixavier]

Really nice, thorough reply.  Thanks Tom.  A lot of stuff I wasn't aware of in there, and while I want everyone involved (it would be great if our membership came with one guaranteed NHC entry slot) it seems like the current rules are fair for almost everyone, and provides equal playing field to all outside the country.

If by equal, you meant virtually eliminated, then yes, you have done an excellent job.  It's cost prohibitive, a royal pain in the ass, and pretty much a roulette wheel at customs, to bother with 1st round entries out of this country.  I understand that you have your reasons, but there's no sense sugar coating the end result.

I'm not sure that you can really lay the blame for international shipping law at the feet of the AHA. and it seems like that is really what it comes down to. If I want to enter a contest in the UK or even Canada I would have to deal with exactly the same thing (I live in the USA).

[Jimmy K]

We also suggested that if say we only accepted 500 entries (2/3 of 750), then only gold and silver winners (2/3) would advance to 2nd round.

This is what I was thinking. If it was 250, then only gold winners would advance. That would keep the 'odds' fair.

[Jimmy K]

(it would be great if our membership came with one guaranteed NHC entry slot)

Trouble is - there are currently 750*11 sites = 8250 entry slots and over 30,000 members

[giant_macaskill]

Really nice, thorough reply.  Thanks Tom.  A lot of stuff I wasn't aware of in there, and while I want everyone involved (it would be great if our membership came with one guaranteed NHC entry slot) it seems like the current rules are fair for almost everyone, and provides equal playing field to all outside the country.

If by equal, you meant virtually eliminated, then yes, you have done an excellent job.  It's cost prohibitive, a royal pain in the ass, and pretty much a roulette wheel at customs, to bother with 1st round entries out of this country.  I understand that you have your reasons, but there's no sense sugar coating the end result.

I'm not sure that you can really lay the blame for international shipping law at the feet of the AHA. and it seems like that is really what it comes down to. If I want to enter a contest in the UK or even Canada I would have to deal with exactly the same thing (I live in the USA).

I'm not blaming the AHA for international shipping laws.  I am clarifying the end result of removing the Canadian 1st round site.  It's not that big of a deal to me not to be included in the NHC, but puts a lot of people off the AHA to say the least.

[udubdawg]

Really nice, thorough reply.  Thanks Tom.  A lot of stuff I wasn't aware of in there, and while I want everyone involved (it would be great if our membership came with one guaranteed NHC entry slot) it seems like the current rules are fair for almost everyone, and provides equal playing field to all outside the country.

If by equal, you meant virtually eliminated, then yes, you have done an excellent job.  It's cost prohibitive, a royal pain in the ass, and pretty much a roulette wheel at customs, to bother with 1st round entries out of this country.  I understand that you have your reasons, but there's no sense sugar coating the end result.

1.  *I* did not do it.

2.  ...ya know what?  nevermind.  I get that you're upset, so I'll drop it.  Best of luck. 

[giant_macaskill]

I understand that YOU did not make this decision.  I just wanted to define the terms 'fair' and 'equal', which you did use.

...ya know what?  Finish what you had to say.  I'm not upset, and nothing you're going to say on this subject will change that.