New AKC rules proposal

[Steve]

Was there a discussion on this that I missed.

There were several listed ( http://www.akc.org/pdfs/events/field...rim_Report.pdf ), but one very interesting one is:

1. To judge an all age stake, judges must have completed 2 apprenticeships (at judges expense) or

2. One apprenticeship and judge of two or more minor stakes or

3. Handled a dog in at least 15 all stakes in the last 5 years with one placement or JAM.

Seems like a nightmare to track all this. Also what about the judge who has been in the game for 20+ years, has judged over 20+ times, and is between dogs or on a bad luck streak. What value is there in this person apprenticing a stake.

My guess is that this will get voted down, but who knows.

[K G]

This proposal is for BRAND NEW JUDGES for AA stakes ONLY....someone who has NEVER judged an AA stake before.

I don't know what the odds are of it passing. I can appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure it'll pass in its current form.

kg

[Howard N]

Wow, I just read the entire document. I think there's gonna be lots of discussion

10 yards max for retired guns? I think they should be a little more lienient.

Diversion birds not marks. My opinion, if the dog could see it go down it's a mark no matter how many blinds you run before picking it up.

If I feel strongly about some of this there will be other people who feel just as strongly with the opposite viewpoint. I'd love to be at the meeting when this is all discussed and voted on.

[TxFig]

I read all the proposals a couple of weeks ago, not because I run FT's, but because what shows up in the FT game has a habit of "tricking down" to the HT game. Where it applies, of course.

That said, when I read the proposals, I was very pleasantly surprised - I agreed with all of them. Although like others have mentioned, the requirements for new judges (15 finishes) seems excessive (but I do agree with the reason behind it).

10 yards max for retired guns? I think they should be a little more lienient.

This is one of those things that won't filter to the HT game as retired guns aren't allowed in HT anyway. But I agree, 10 yards seems to be EXTREAMLY close. Otoh, I *liked* the idea that they had to move AWAY from the direction the bird was thrown.

Diversion birds not marks. My opinion, if the dog could see it go down it's a mark no matter how many blinds you run before picking it up.

Maybe diversions in a FT are different than in a HT? In a HT, the dog will almost never be on the line w/ the handler when the diversion bird is thrown. Meaning, the picture it has to retrieve the bird is different - sometimes DRASTICALLY different - than what it saw when the bird was in the air.

Different background. Different distance. Different landscape.
That's not a mark.

If I feel strongly about some of this there will be other people who feel just as strongly with the opposite viewpoint. I'd love to be at the meeting when this is all discussed and voted on.

How did I do above?

[Steve Amrein]

I have heard of apprenticeships in HT but how do you apprentice in a FT ? Do you sit in the chair with the 2 actual judges and interact and ask ???? Be involved with set ups thru callbacks and placements ? Does that mean that a new AA judge gets to take time off from work, trialing or whatever plus travel expenses to go apprentice before he gets the chance to do it for real. That sounds like a big incentive to bring in new judges NOT

[EdA]

Diversion birds not marks. My opinion, if the dog could see it go down it's a mark no matter how many blinds you run before picking it up..

1000 dittos to that, here's hoping lots of people feel the same way we do

all these ticky tacky proposals and not a single word on Limited Entry Open Stake proposal

[EdA]

That sounds like a big incentive to bring in new judges NOT

not to mention the inconvenience factor for the judges who are already under considerable pressure, who would want to judge 80 all-age dogs with an apprentice looking over their shoulder

and who chooses these apprentices and who chooses whose shoulder they look over, will it be voluntary for the judges to have an apprentice around????

[Doug Main]

Diversion birds not marks. My opinion, if the dog could see it go down it's a mark no matter how many blinds you run before picking it up..

1000 dittos to that, here's hoping lots of people feel the same way we do

all these ticky tacky proposals and not a single word on Limited Entry Open Stake proposal

You beat me to it. I was going to say the same thing!!!

[junbe]

I agree that these proposed rules are ticky tacky and do not improve the sport. Some in fact I think are against the principle that a judge should be able to use his/her background to set up tests fairly to evaluate dogs. I think simpler is better and I am definitely against micromanaging rules based on isolated incidents.

Some important bookkeeping is completely ignored--it shows a complete lack of people updating the book. For example the restricted stake has no more status than the derby stake in the book--yet this is not updated. See Standard Procedure for Non-Slip Retriever Trials, sec. 44 under General Provisions. I find this lack of detail quite disturbing.

Jack

[Lonny Taylor]

Are they talking about a hunt test diversion bird or bull dog as they were called in the FT game where the bird is thrown when the dog is returning with or on the way too another retrieve? If so, I agree with that rule because of the inequity of it. To many times a little slowness by the bird boy or judge signaling late and it is very unfair for the dog to mark the bird. Or are they also referring to the poison bird thrown before a blind? That is a mark and should be scored as such. Guess Ill have to read the link.

LT