The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 87

Thread: RAC Meeting - Rule changes? Proposed rules?

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    owings mills, md
    Posts
    1,491

    Default

    Proposal 1: A step in the right direction, allowing the return to being able to have an Amatuer without an Open, but if fails to meet the real problem of clubs not having the resources(land.people ...) to hold 2 major stakes. A change that could help clubs would be the option to hold an Amatuer without an Open provided the club holds at least 1 Open in that calander year.

    Proposal 2: Allowing clubs to limit dogs/handler would be more appropriate in the Open than the Amatuer where it is not uncommon for 1-2 handlers to have 30-40% of the entry.


    Tim
    You order a Lab; ask a Golden; but negotiate with a Chesapeake!

  2. #12
    Senior Member Charles C.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Marshall, TX
    Posts
    1,535

    Default

    I like the idea of having the option to have an Am without an Open occasionally. The amateurs put on the trials. The limitation on amateur handler entries I'm not so sure about.

  3. #13
    Senior Member TBell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Piney Point on Sardis Lake, MS
    Posts
    484

    Default

    Thank goodness the RAC committee has the foresight to talk about the issue of limiting Amateur entries.

    Quote Originally Posted by BonMallari View Post
    Lainee : I sarcastically call proposal # 2 the Medford-Washburn rule...in a previous thread I brought up the fact that at one time Lanse actually had 4 AA dogs active in the circuit, but was told that he "never" entered all of them in the same stake..heck Clint had 4 dogs at one time less than 4 years ago...just not a fan of legislation that limits the size of a single person's entry..If one thinks that a rule is going to curtail certain people from owning,co owning,bringing or having a truck load of dogs they are delusional at best...Mr Medford has SIX dogs at the National Amateur, if you dont want him entered at your trial, there is another trial that will welcome him with open arms.
    the amateur owner makes this game possible , they are the lifeblood of the sport
    This is an issue that needs direction, as it it NOT simply a two person problem as BonMallari suggests.

    A six dog handler in the Amateur has been the exception, not the rule. It has not been the lifeblood of the sport........do your research. With EE it is easy.

    This is a growing trend that needs to be addressed. Is this the direction we want it to go??

    Quote Originally Posted by Tim Carrion View Post
    Proposal 1: A step in the right direction, allowing the return to being able to have an Amatuer without an Open, but if fails to meet the real problem of clubs not having the resources(land.people ...) to hold 2 major stakes. A change that could help clubs would be the option to hold an Amatuer without an Open provided the club holds at least 1 Open in that calander year.

    Proposal 2: Allowing clubs to limit dogs/handler would be more appropriate in the Open than the Amatuer where it is not uncommon for 1-2 handlers to have 30-40% of the entry.


    Tim
    The Open is the OPEN....Open to all entries.

    The question is how do you maintain the integrity of the Amateur stake while not discouraging the weekend warriors?

    Quote Originally Posted by FOM View Post
    Thoughts on these two new proposals?

    I'm NOT a fan of #2 - think about it this way, I have two dogs, my husband has two dogs...one of us judge for the club, but the other will have to choose which dog not to run? That's a good way to keep us from judging in the future...just another question to add to my list when asked to judge...(if it becomes a rule and of course if we ever end up with more than a couple dogs a piece)...and we limit the Amateur who normally puts on the event and judges? I'm not in favor of limiting the Amateur....

    FOM
    Lainee, an exclusion for this particular circumstance would be sufficient and acceptable don't you think?

    AGAIN, thank goodness the RAC is attempting a discussion on this very heated issue.

  4. #14
    Senior Member FOM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Falcon, CO
    Posts
    9,091

    Default

    Tammy,

    The problem is, who decides what the "exceptions" are? That could be come political - it's just like determining who a Pro is or is not...I still have not seen enough to convince me that it is a problem that needs a solution...I know on this circuit I do not see it as an issue...

    Lainee
    "You can't eat a pig whole, but you can eat a whole pig." - Joe S.

    Proudly Owned By:
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    MHR HR Flash Of Mischief SH CD CGC - Flash (10/15/98 - 10/8/12)
    Lightning Fast Quack Attacker*** - Bullet
    Gotta Heart Of A Warrior - Ranger (12/26/07 - 8/10/2010)
    SML's Gettin' Sexy With It*** - Tango
    FOM's Raising a Ruckus in the Rockies - Riot

  5. #15

    Default

    Why are we limiting the amateur who works trials, has grounds for trials and is not getting any thing back for working trials.Why don't pros help out at trials? I know we host, chair, and organize 4 major trials, 2 hunt test, 1 hunt test with a dq and a double dq here at Rebel Ridge. The amateur is the one not getting paid to be at the trial .Why not limit the number a pro runs ?Hunt tests now have limited entries. Also clubs should be allowed to have what events the club want to host.Clubs are hurting for help and grounds.

  6. #16
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    25

    Default

    I don't want to get in on either side of either discussion (because I'm not totally sure how I feel about either proposal), but a question...... How much help at a trial can one expect from an amateur who is running four or more dogs in two or more stakes?

  7. #17
    Senior Member TBell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Piney Point on Sardis Lake, MS
    Posts
    484

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FOM View Post
    Tammy,

    The problem is, who decides what the "exceptions" are? That could be come political - it's just like determining who a Pro is or is not...I still have not seen enough to convince me that it is a problem that needs a solution...I know on this circuit I do not see it as an issue...

    Lainee
    Agreed that there will be those that push the 'exceptions' ruling also.

    With all due respect, Lainee, most of us aren't able to run our dogs when we judge anyway. You have the unique luxury of having a husband who can!

    From what I am hearing, the weekend warriors who put on a few trials a year are getting more than a little weary of the large number of handlers running multiple dogs, pro or am. It is very stressful for field trial committees, judges, and workers (mostly all Amateurs) when there are 80-100 Opens and 80 dog Ams.

    The number of willing Amateur workers and judges are getting smaller each year, so making it optional for a club to limit dogs per handler is something which needs to be discussed. If it is not a problem in your region, then don't implement the option.

  8. #18
    Senior Member BonMallari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    LV/CenTex/Idaho
    Posts
    12,452

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by REBEL RIDGE FARMS View Post
    Why are we limiting the amateur who works trials, has grounds for trials and is not getting any thing back for working trials.Why don't pros help out at trials? I know we host, chair, and organize 4 major trials, 2 hunt test, 1 hunt test with a dq and a double dq here at Rebel Ridge. The amateur is the one not getting paid to be at the trial .Why not limit the number a pro runs ?Hunt tests now have limited entries. Also clubs should be allowed to have what events the club want to host.Clubs are hurting for help and grounds.
    the problem is not with the amateur....the perceived problem is with a few individuals that dont seem to do much more than show up and run their dogs, or bring a representative or family member to work a trial..its a microcosm of what is going on in our country right now...one one extreme you have the blueblood wealthy Wall St. crowd, and on the other extreme the group that wants all things equal....and then you have the middle that actually does the majority of the work and makes the country/game work...basically class warfare retriever style
    All my Exes live in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by lanse brown View Post
    A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

  9. #19
    Senior Member EdA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,633

    Default

    There is very little support from the people here about limiting amateur entries, most everyone agrees that would not be a healthy thing for our sport and that in most instances delays can be minimized by using common sense and not holding handlers at the open when they are needed at the amateur. I doubt if that proposal will ever make it to a vote.

    The change in the way that the Retriever Advisory Committee is formed and maintained is the single most dynamic thing that has happened in retriever field trials in my 40 year tenure and I applaud Doug Ljungren for his reformation efforts and plan.

  10. #20
    Senior Member FOM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Falcon, CO
    Posts
    9,091

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TBell View Post
    Agreed that there will be those that push the 'exceptions' ruling also.

    With all due respect, Lainee, most of us aren't able to run our dogs when we judge anyway. You have the unique luxury of having a husband who can!

    From what I am hearing, the weekend warriors who put on a few trials a year are getting more than a little weary of the large number of handlers running multiple dogs, pro or am. It is very stressful for field trial committees, judges, and workers (mostly all Amateurs) when there are 80-100 Opens and 80 dog Ams.

    The number of willing Amateur workers and judges are getting smaller each year, so making it optional for a club to limit dogs per handler is something which needs to be discussed. If it is not a problem in your region, then don't implement the option.
    My club has to hire help because myself and my husband are the only truly active FTers in the club and trust me I'm ready to say "screw this crap" and not put on a trial, but every time I think of this I ask myself, if others didn't do the same I wouldn't have trials to run...anyway, you and I have talked about this before (we can chat is person in a couple weeks at CWRC, see you are entered) and for now we have to agree to disagree....
    "You can't eat a pig whole, but you can eat a whole pig." - Joe S.

    Proudly Owned By:
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    MHR HR Flash Of Mischief SH CD CGC - Flash (10/15/98 - 10/8/12)
    Lightning Fast Quack Attacker*** - Bullet
    Gotta Heart Of A Warrior - Ranger (12/26/07 - 8/10/2010)
    SML's Gettin' Sexy With It*** - Tango
    FOM's Raising a Ruckus in the Rockies - Riot

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •