RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

RHTAC recommendations to AKC

3K views 14 replies 11 participants last post by  Tim Carrion 
#1 ·
Greetings:
I asked our BOD members (Sooner Retriever Club)to comment on the RHTAC proposals. Below are five.
BillB


1 AKC’s 4 points will do very little, they are just trying to look like they are doing something! EE points are a start



Recommendations to AKC:
· The 200 miles ‘non-compete’ regulation be revised to ‘100 miles’;

· The ‘non-compete’ mileage regulation be automatically waived for any club
selecting the ‘option’ to limit entries;

1. Not good! Could kill a club that wants to limit MH to 60 because of resources. Another club could then say a double master with no limits. Mileage limits could kill a club that is struggling to hang in there.


· Add an option that clubs would be permitted to hold up to six (6) events {currently limited to four (4)} per calendar year. All other related regulations would remain unchanged; and

1 I guess I would rather see 1 and 3 eliminated altogether and keep
AKC regulations out of the way of clubs hosting events.

· That AKC would take into consideration a reasonable period of implementation of revisions that affect EE to give them an opportunity to address their internal business requirements.
1. I like all of these.
2. I do not understand 1 and 2. I like 3 and 4
3. Only reasonable


Recommendations to EE:
· Open AKC retriever hunting test entries no more than fourteen (14) days prior to the event;
1. Need to be more clearly stated, 14 days prior to closing
2. Essentially the same thing
3. Needs to be worded as 14 days prior to close. Also needs to include a minimum notice period of at least 7 days for the opening day

· Openings would be only Tuesday thru Thursday;
1. Fine
2. I first thought this was ridiculous, but have not realized that this is for pro’s and road warriors so that they do no open while they are at others test and may not have access to internet. I can live with this.

· Openings would be at 4 pm ET for each event;
1. I think 6 or 7 for the time zone the event is held in or maybe noon in each time zone.
2. 6 pm central time to allow people that work to be home...

3. Need to be 7 pm local to be fair to all who work Tuesday through Thursday.

· A ‘stand-by’ list that accommodated entries submitted after the limited event was ‘full’ be established and dogs from the ‘stand-by’ list would be entered when ‘entered dogs’ are ‘scratched’ in the priority they had been added to the ‘stand-by’ list; and

1. I like this one. How about "one dog" at a time rather than "group" entries?
2. Would like to see an O/H master as an option.
3. I am okay with this if the last bullet (multiple entries) is dealt with.


· If multiple dogs are attempted to be entered, the available spaces would be filled and the remaining dogs would go on the ‘stand-by’ list

1 How about "one dog" at a time rather than "group" entries?
2. Essentially that same thing
3 I like all but agree that more time is needed for working folks
4. Multiple entries need to be eliminated. Especially if a stand-y list is enacted. This would allow 3 or 4 pros to rapidly fill a test and stand by list not even allowing amateurs to slip in as pros drop out.
5. Needs to be an addition of an “Owner Handler” Master stake or limits to number of dogs that can be handled at an event by a single person Of course allowance of different fees for owner handler and open master should be allowed as it is for FT!
 
See less See more
#3 · (Edited)
First of all I don't have the answer. However, I do know that adding layers and layers of new regulations will do nothing but confuse everyone (clubs included).

I think all of this is bigger than the RHTAC. Maybe even revamp the RHTAC. We need to try to bring the sport back to what it was intended.
 
#4 ·
Somewhat related.
Another region 1 club has opened for entries before the premium list was complete and all judges listed. So, either clubs are opening before the premium and judges' panel is approved by AKC; or the clubs are not posting the complete and approved premium; or, EE does not have a stopgap process to insure that premiums are complete and approved by AKC before allowing the entries to open; or, all of the above.
One club apparently rebooted the entry and reopened. Don't know what happened for those who entered the first go-round but missed the redo.
Another club was apparently allowed to retain the filled master entries even though the other stakes were not yet opened or the premium complete.
Seems pretty sloppy to me. Before I send my money in I'd like to know that the event and the judges have been approved by AKC.
And I think this issue of non-complete premiums might distract the "powers that be" from addressing the limited entries issues.
Just my $0.02 worth.
 
#5 ·
Good Dogs...I doubt that either club intended to open their events before they were approved or before the judges panels were approved. I think that perhaps EE is doing some program changes and this is a problem in regard to that. I have never heard of this being a problem before and the HT Secretaries know what should be done before an event is open for entries...
 
#6 ·
Let's not re-invent the wheel.

-In agility we keep a waiting list. When someone scratches, someone gets put it. It prevents a club from getting screwed, like what happened in DE with a full entry then last minute scratches that brought it down to less than half (if I remember right).

-Have an opening date.

Not related to AKC:


Sue Puff
-Change MN qualifications to make it mean something. Like, back to 5 out of 7 tests to Q. But, the way it is now, AKC is probably making more money....the non MN faction is getting frustrated with not getting into tests though....
 
#7 ·
The change to 5 out of 7 would only help the clubs and participants whose tests fall in June, July, and maybe the clubs whose tests are in the last half of May. The clubs and participants of tests in August thru the first half of May will get no relief.

That said, it could be a piece of the puzzle.-Paul
 
#9 ·
Bill,
It was good to talk w/you yesterday and as promised, this confirms our verbal telecom. As I noted, we are deeply grateful for your board’s interest and inquiry and delighted to respond.
Also, I remind folks of two important items that were in the notice sent. First, the comment in the info we sent to submitters, i.e., any changes in AKC regulations or EE procedures will be monitored and if additional actions are needed, they will be carefully evaluated, and second, we realize no change will going to make everyone happy, the diversity of participants’ interest is simply too wide. If you or your board members have questions, please let us know.
My responses are in your text below in brown bold, underlined italics:

Bill T. Teague, Chairman
Retriever Hunting Test Advisory Committee
American Kennel Club
734 CR 630
Nacogdoches, TX 75964
713-252-3918



Greetings:

I asked our BOD members (Sooner Retriever Club)to comment on the RHTAC proposals. Below are five. Each member's comments are one color.
BillB

1 AKC’s 4 points will do very little, they are just trying to look like they are doing something!
Based on conversations w/numerous club representatives and their submissions to the committee, if the recommendations to AKC are implemented, they will be most helpful to them.

EE points are a start
We could not have received any better collaboration than EE provided, they are excellent. They, specifically John Stracka, have been excellent to work with and are committed to making changes that will help both the issues identified, i.e., equality (a fair chance at entering) and quantity (accommodating all entries)
Recommendations to AKC:
· The 200 miles ‘non-compete’ regulation be revised to ‘100 miles’;
· The ‘non-compete’ mileage regulation be automatically waived for any club
selecting the ‘option’ to limit entries;

1. Not good! Could kill a club that wants to limit MH to 60 because of resources. Another club could then say a double master with no limits. Mileage limits could kill a club that is struggling to hang in there.
As a reminder, all clubs have an ‘option’ to limit their entries, it’s not a requirement. The regulation to allow the option of limiting entries was implemented at the request of clubs because they couldn’t handle large entries. So, if a competing club reduced entries, wouldn’t that achieve the original goal of a club to reduce their entries?


· Add an option that clubs would be permitted to hold up to six (6) events {currently limited to four (4)} per calendar year. All other related regulations would remain unchanged; and

1 I guess I would rather see 1 and 3 eliminated altogether and keep
AKC regulations out of the way of clubs hosting events.

· That AKC would take into consideration a reasonable period of implementation of revisions that affect EE to give them an opportunity to address their internal business requirements.
1. I like all of these.
2. I do not understand 1 and 2. I like 3 and 4
3. Only reasonable


Recommendations to EE:
· Open AKC retriever hunting test entries no more than fourteen (14) days prior to the event;
1. Need to be more clearly stated, 14 days prior to closing
2. Essentially the same thing
3. Needs to be worded as 14 days prior to close. Also needs to include a minimum notice period of at least 7 days for the opening day

Based on my conversations w/EE, I believe this will ultimately be changed to read, “30 days before closing”. The shorter timeframe was designed to prevent large numbers of dogs being entered only to have most of them ‘scratched’ w/in a day or two of the closing, which prevented many from getting entered.

· Openings would be only Tuesday thru Thursday;
1. Fine
2. I first thought this was ridiculous, but have not realized that this is for pro’s and road warriors so that they do no open while they are at others test and may not have access to internet. I can live with this.
Rationale behind this recommendation was that most folks are traveling to an event on a Friday, running/working the event Sat/Sun and traveling home on Monday. Based on my conversations w/EE, I think they will decide to use Wednesday and use a CT zone of ~ 7 pm rather than the recommended 4 pm ET.

· Openings would be at 4 pm ET for each event;
1. I think 6 or 7 for the time zone the event is held in or maybe noon in each time zone.
2. 6 pm central time to allow people that work to be home...
3. Need to be 7 pm local to be fair to all who work Tuesday through Thursday.
See comment above.


· A ‘stand-by’ list that accommodated entries submitted after the limited event was ‘full’ be established and dogs from the ‘stand-by’ list would be entered when ‘entered dogs’ are ‘scratched’ in the priority they had been added to the ‘stand-by’ list; and

1. I like this one. How about "one dog" at a time rather than "group" entries?
2. Would like to see an O/H master as an option.
3. I am okay with this if the last bullet (multiple entries) is dealt with.
It’s my understanding the system now requires entries for individual dogs must be individually ‘clicked’. Once all dogs names have been ‘clicked’, one can click ‘enter’ and all dogs ‘clicked’ go in; it’s the same for all entries. I think there was some confusion on the EE’s “VIP Service”. It’s my understanding the VIP Service is open to any one that has large entries and the only benefit of that service is that entry fees on the large entries are paid by check monthly rather than charged to a credit card.


· If multiple dogs are attempted to be entered, the available spaces would be filled and the remaining dogs would go on the ‘stand-by’ list

1 How about "one dog" at a time rather than "group" entries?
2. Essentially that same thing
3 I like all but agree that more time is needed for working folks
4. Multiple entries need to be eliminated. Especially if a stand-y list is enacted. This would allow 3 or 4 pros to rapidly fill a test and stand by list not even allowing amateurs to slip in as pros drop out.
5. Needs to be an addition of an “Owner Handler” Master stake or limits to number of dogs that can be handled at an event by a single person Of course allowance of different fees for owner handler and open master should be allowed as it is for FT!
The idea of an “Owner Handler” has been mentioned multiple times in your comments and has been discussed by the RHTAC. Again, we appreciate your interest and respect your opinion. If such an option were offered, how would you define/respond to the following:
1. What would be your ‘objective’ if such an event was an option?
2. Owner. How would you define ‘owner’? Numerous current ‘exclusive’ owners, i.e., not ‘co owners’ have indicated that if this was implemented, they would simply list their pro as a ‘co-owner’ so the pro could run the dog in the event;
3. Documentation: how do you see a club documenting the ownership of an entered dog to determine which flight it would be eligible to enter?
4. Do you believe there would be the ‘perception’ that dogs in an ‘owner handler’ flight would be held to a different standard than the ‘open’ flight?
5. How would you control the ‘judge shopping’ by entrants? and
6. Would a dog be eligible to enter both the ‘open’ and the ‘owner-handler’ flights? Please explain the rationale behind your decision?
Thanks again for your interest and ideas and I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,
Bill
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top