Hahhha If you have groceries ...they will come to where the groceries are !
Some here are calling for more intervention by the FT committee than them articulating their time constraints and pointing out the special conditions,hazards or problems inherent to the grounds.......The judges with due regard to the recommendations of the FT committee shall determine the tests to be given in each series, _
In matters such as the one in question, I am more in favor of the RAC submitting a proposal to all the the clubs for a vote, than I am having an individual FT committees be able to dictate to the judges the nuts and bolts of their test..........
"i guess the old saying 'those of us that think we know everything annoy those of you that does' " --bobbyb 9/13/06
"A Good Dog is a Good Dog"
I am opposed to the proposal to ban layout blinds.
There are legitimate concerns about the misuse of layout blinds:
- Use in too hot conditions
- Use in too cool conditions
- Use in conditions where the bird boys might be injured
However, I believe that these conditions can be addressed through common sense.
Where there is no common sense, there is always reason for concern.
I believe that it is the duty of the Field Trial Committee to intervene whenever the judges do something that endangers the dogs, the workers or the contestants.
I am opposed to efforts to legislate common sense by broad brush bans of practices that may - under some circumstances present risk where common sense is absent.
If this continues, we will be running Field Trials on golf courses, where everything is green and pristine (so the dogs cannot get hurt), the bird boys throw bumpers (so no birds get shot), and tweet on kazoos (so no danger of gun shots exists)
Vote against the proposal
Last night at the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club's annual meeting, the RMRC voted against the two proposals submitted: a) a change in the definition of "Amateur"; and b) prohibition against layout blinds.
What's wrong with the change in amature proposal ?
What was your clubs issue with the proposal ?
Did I missed something.
We thought that the proposal was poorly worded. We were only asked to address the following language (which I will call section 1)
the regular and systematic personal instruction of other individuals regarding the above pursuits at any level.
The following language, which is intended to clarify what the above section means, was not included for approval (which I will call section 2)
Any person participating in an occasional organized seminar or workshop to improve the training and handling of field trial, hunting test or hunting dogs will be exempt from the above provisions as will a person who receives payment for providing educational material. (such as books. videos, etc) to the public on the training and handling of field trial, hunting test or hunting dogs.
The club believed that section 1 was meaningless without section 2 and that the Rule Book should be amended to include both sections. To put it another way, the club believed that the Rule Change was poorly worded and confusing.
Ted, was there any discussion regarding what constitutes compensation? As currently worded, "money, goods & services" I am seeing where someone could say an amateur is a pro because they help out a fellow amateur training partner on a regular & systematic basis in return for assistance in cutting the training fields or a gift such as a bottle of their favorite drink is given as a "thank you" for their help. As explained to Maryland Retriever Club, by a member of the RAC, one should look at co-ownership to prevent anyone from filing a complaint at a field trial.
Every attempt by RAC to redefine Amateur status has resulted in confusion, simple is better, complexity leads to confusion
All we have to vote on is what we received from the AKC. Here is the proposal in its entirety:
Over the past years there have been a number of enterprising individuals who have used their skills in various ways which has allowed them to produce some income from the sport of
Retriever Field Trials. Many of these efforts have gone a long way in educating amateur trainers in methods of training their dogs for field trials. The Advisory Committee feels that people partaking in these educational tools should not be considered professionals: therefore, writing books, making videos and taking part in seminars would not classify a person as a professional. The committee believes that the clearest line that can be drawn between the amateur and the professional is the real life training and/or handling of a dog for compensation.
That being said, we recognize that someone who instructs an individual on the handling and training of their dog(s), and is compensated for that instruction, is acting as a professional.
Therefore it is proposed that under the STANDING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE RETRIEVER ADVISORY COMMITTEE page 36, Under 3. Amateur Definition (a) WILL READ AS FOLLOWS:
3. Amateur Definition: The following definitions and standards should be followed in determining the status of any person to be an Amateur:
(a.) For purposes of eligibility to judge under Section 3 of Chapter 14 of the Rules for Retriever trials, a person shall be considered an Amateur who, during the period of two years preceding the trial in question, has not received compensation from the direct training of a dog for hunting, hunting tests or field trials and/or the handling of a dog in the same, and/or the regular and systematic personal instruction of other individuals regarding the above pursuits at any level.
Compensation as provided above is defined as money goods or services to a person or any member of their household. Any person participating in an occasional organized seminar or workshop to improve the training and handling of field trial, hunting test or hunting dogs will be exempt from the above provisions as will a person who receives payment for providing educational material. (such as books. videos, etc) to the public on the training and handling of field trial, hunting test or hunting dogs.
To agree with the underlined wording please check the yes box.
To disagree with the underlined wording please check the no box.
Please note that the language in blue is what the clubs were instructed to consider.
Please note that the language in red was not part of the vote.
Please note that only the underlined language above was subject to our vote.
The club did not believe that the underlined language - absent further explanation - offered any improvement to the language currently found in the Rule Book.