RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Should clubs be allowed to change their Open after the close?

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

Proposed rule change

4K views 24 replies 12 participants last post by  john fallon 
#1 ·
RFTN report of the 2006 NAFC includes a proposed rule that would allow clubs to change the status of their Open to a Special, Limited or Restricted after the entries close if too many dogs were entered. The now ineligible entrants would be notified and refunded their fee.

Would vote in favor or to reject such a rule change?

IMHO this type of change would enhance the disregard for those Amat's that make plans (vacation time, hotel & travel arrangements...) to run and many times work the trial on Friday.

Tim
 
#3 ·
I would encourage our club to vote against this proposal!

FOM
 
#4 ·
I voted "Yes".

If the entries are above 100, I don't think any club has an alternative. They have to try and get entries down to be fair to the dogs, handlers, workers and judges.
 
#5 ·
Mr Booty said:
If the entries are above 100
If a club anticipates this type entry they should hold a Restricted All-Age

This proposal is merely a band aid from the Retriever Advisory Committee who refuses to address the problem of entry numbers with any useful alternatives
 
#8 ·
It does take considerable amount of planning to attend a FT. For example for the past Friday I had to have my vacation request in, a request to flex my time so I don't have to suck up all my vacation time and that had to be in 3-4 weeks early. I also have to do a little sucking up to my co-workers so I can take a few Fridays off - they too want to be able to take a 3 day weekend once in a while, too. So if I made plans for a trial and then didn't get to run I'd be livid! Also why not just make it a limited, Restricted or Special from the get go then there is no question. Life is stressful enough why add the stress of not being able to plan for a hobby??

Oh well, I don't have a dog in this particular fight at this time, but I will in the future, I hope ;)

Lainee, Flash and Bullet
 
#9 ·
Ed said:
Mr Booty said:
If the entries are above 100
If a club anticipates this type entry they should hold a Restricted All-Age

This proposal is merely a band aid from the Retriever Advisory Committee who refuses to address the problem of entry numbers with any useful alternatives
This proposal was put forth by a member our our club, SLRC. Normally, our March trial numbers stay between 80-95 dogs. A managable number. However, March before last (we didn't host a trail last March due to the hurricanes), we had two unexpected Pros enter their truck of dogs. That brought the number to 127!

Of the 120 Open starters, there wasn't an Amateur there that was happy with the test. It was absolutly brutal and many would have wished to stay at home had they known what they were getting into or just run the Amateur.

A Restricted Stakes will now be standard fair for SLRC unless we can have the option to have a regular Open and change it to a Restricted IF need arises. And, with a Restricted as standard fair, the Amateurs with dogs not qualified to enter will have absolutley no chance of entering.

What if we only have 60 dogs entered? Then we stay with a regular Open and everyone can enter! If we come out the box with a Restricted, they have no chance whatssoever of entering.

That is the reason for the proposal.

If it isn't approved, look for the club to consider running a Restricted and O/H Amateur only. No Derby or Q.
 
#10 ·
Mr Booty said:
This proposal was put forth by a member our our club, SLRC. Normally, our March trial numbers stay between 80-90 dogs. A managable number.
Franco,

we obviouisly do not share the view of what number in the Open constitutes "manageable". The proposal put forth by "your member" and also a member of The Retriever Advisory Committee is another attempt to ignore the problem.

Rather than having a sane and sensible approach to keep the entry at 65 or 70 dogs we choose to let people plan their field trial schedules and then discover 10 days before the trial that they are no longer eligible to enter. This is the ultimate display of arrogance that continues to be displayed by the people empowered to govern out sport.

Frankly, I am embarrassed that RAC can do no better than this proposal. I sincerely hope that the retriever field tral community rejects this proposal and demands a logical and sensible solution to the problem.

I acknowledge and applaud the contributions that the members of the Retriever Advisory Committee have made, but I believe that this committee should be accountable to the clubs and people who make this sport functional. Just as I believe in term limits for politicians, I believe in term limits for the governing body of our sport.
 
#11 ·
I made an edit to add; No Derby or Q.

If that Open was a Restricted from the get-go, there would still have been over 100 entries.

We had Mark Smith, Farmer, Eckett, Rorum and a handful of other Pros. That was 70 entries in themselves, just with 4 Pros.

I think the real solution is a Restricted and O/H Amateur only for the Winter trial.
Since I moved away from New Orleans, it really doesn't matter to me what SLRC does anyway but, I understand their reasoning for it.
 
#13 ·
Ed said:
Mr Booty said:
I acknowledge and applaud the contributions that the members of the Retriever Advisory Committee have made, but I believe that this committee should be accountable to the clubs and people who make this sport functional. Just as I believe in term limits for politicians, I believe in term limits for the governing body of our sport.
So do I.

With that said, who among us has the stature to fill the shoes of the "Top Two" ? The Chairmen of the RAC and it's Committee for Rules respectively.

Catch twenty two regards

John
 
#15 ·
While out training last week I met up with some club mebers from our local club. The sec. was also present and said that we cant have a open and it needs to be a limited, restricted or special for AKC to approve. Our club has the help and grounds to handle a big trial. While not the most fun to enter it is nice to run on your "home" grounds, that said we may lose workers/club members to go to another trial that they can run in the open. RTF has discussed many ways to fix the problem and this proposal is not going to help.While it may reduce the number of dogs it does not fix the problem. this year I have a derby dogs that will not age out this trial season plus a QAA dog so it personally has no effect exept may looking for workers that go to a trial that they can run. I would be pi$$ed if I send entries sched. time off work to find out I have been dropped 10 days before the trial and not giving me time to run elsewhere.
 
#16 ·
Sort of like raising the Sale prices when the customer gets to the Register.

Won't bother me as an individual one way or the other, so I suppose my opinion has no bearing on it one way or the other. But it just doesn't seem right to advertise something then change the rules after people have made decisions based upon the original "Rules".

Jerry
 
#17 ·
K G said:
I think Ed Aycock and Jack Unbehaun would be two excellent choices!

But that's just me..... :wink:

kg
It is not my intent to disparage either of the men that you mentioned or anyone else that may be considered by some to be viable replacements for the "Top Two" .

Its just that IMO, within the hallowed halls of the AKC, when it comes to stature, there is no one living and compeating in the game now that holds a candle to "PETE" and "Nelson".

Heck, "Pete's" committee, the one he chairs within the AKC oversees, among other things, the very games that we play!
Simply being on that committee requires some stature, to chair it :shock:
How long would it take any replacement to get on it? and then chair it?

Outside the AKC there are a few Business Titans that have enough stature that in time could fill the void, the likes of Steve Bechtel comes immediately to mind as a possibility.

But would they be bothered

But that's just me........ :wink:
john
 
#18 ·
john fallon said:
Its just that IMO, within the hallowed halls of the AKC, when it comes to stature, there is no one living and compeating in the game now that holds a candle to "PETE" and "Nelson".
Nelson was a relatively young man when he assumed Auggie Belmont's position as Auggie's hand picked successor. That was 30 years ago, the world and the sport have changed. Pete Simonds and Nelson Sills have provided selfless leadership that can not be questioned. I admire and applaud the thankless job that they have done without compensation. However, no one is irreplaceable and the need for new leadership is just around the corner.

Given the current state of Retriever Field Trials it is time to begin the process of replacing members of The Retriever Advisory Committee on some logical and cyclical timetable. I do not profess to be a person qualified to serve in any such important capacity. The contributions these of two men who have made is evident by the unparalleled popularity that our sport currently enjoys, but it is time for some orderly process for selection of members to this most powerful body to be instituted.

The Retriever Advisory Committe is autonomous and all powerful, I believe that those who support the sport should at least have some input into who serves on that committee. .... a pretty radical idea coming from someone as conservative as me :shock:

Just sayin'.....IMHO
 
#20 ·
Compounding the replacement conundrum is the fact that in order to be effective at all, the replacement must, most assuredly, be a seated delegate of an AKC Member club .

A rather daunting situation by it's debilitating limitation, don't you think?

john
 
#21 ·
john fallon said:
Compounding the replacement conundrum is the fact that in order to be effective at all, the replacement must, most assuredly, be a seated delegate of an AKC Member club .
Pete's likely replacement already meets those criteria
 
#24 ·
Shayne Mehringer said:
Look up stature in the dictionary, there's probably a picture of John.

SM
What about, "It's All About The Dogs", Guthrie! A man not afraid to state what's on his mind.

John, the RAC Delegate from the Central Time Zone is not a member of a Member Club.
 
#25 ·
Shayne Mehringer said:
john fallon said:
Its just that IMO, within the hallowed halls of the AKC, when it comes to stature, there is no one living and competing in the game now that holds a candle to "PETE" and "Nelson".
John Russell.

Look up stature in the dictionary, there's probably a picture of John.

SM
Could be!! I don't know much about him.

How about a little thumbnail Bio on him?

Not his FT prowess. I have heard more than a little about that.

His FT politics and his record on interfacing with the AKC as a Member club Deligate.
Does he have enough tenure for a Standing Committee chairmanship? That kind of stuff............

john
 
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