RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

RAC Meeting - Rule changes? Proposed rules?

14K views 86 replies 28 participants last post by  john fallon 
#1 · (Edited)
There were two items that have previously been up for discussion and now have passed into law.

The first is the definition of Amateur Status.
The second is the prohibition of Layout Blinds.

A brief summary was given for each of the above mentioned rule changes.
Anyone have the actual wording for these two new rules? When do they go into effect (or is it affect...)?

And since it's no outlawed....anyone want to buy a couple layout blinds? <sigh>

The committee is in the infancy stage of discussion on the following two rule changes:

1. If a club holds 2 trials per year, then every other year, their 2nd trial of the year can have an Amateur
Stake with minor stakes, but no Open.
2. Limit Amateur Handlers to 3 dogs , per stake, at a clubs' discretion.

The above two topics are young and just beginning to have formal discussions.
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
 
#65 ·
#68 ·
Thanks, Bon. I missed this. I have been going by the posts here on RTF. I guess lifetime term has meant lifetime. One post said Pete Simonds selected the members. Kate Simonds has been on the committee for awhile (don't know how long) and is now Chairman. I thought she has been chairman as I recall her representing the RAC at the Natl Am in Klamath Falls. Was Pete Simonds her husband?

Western representative Bill Daley retiring... I wonder who on the west coast will be selected (I assume selected, not elected). I am trying to think of people who have all the 4-criterias. There are probably some. Any ideas on who would qualify?

Helen
 
#71 · (Edited)
The AKC judging directory only goes back to 1998. I went to see how many Linda Erwin has judged. Since 1998, Linda has judged 22 stakes. (1 or 2 a year). I don't know how much judging she did prior to 1998. She may not qualify under the 40+ judging points criteria. She certainly qualifies for the rest.

Other than Arnie or Linda Erwin, I am scratching my head trying to come up with others.

PS - Robin Gulvin has judged 41 (major and minor) stakes since 1998.
 
#72 ·
The AKC judging directory only goes back to 1998. I went to see how many Linda Erwin has judged. Since 1998, Linda has judged 22 stakes. (1 or 2 a year). I don't know how much judging she did prior to 1998. She may not qualify under the 40+ judging points criteria. She certainly qualifies for the rest.

Other than Arnie or Linda Erwin, I am scratching my head trying to come up with others.
Don't you think someone who has judged 20 or 30 all age stakes is knowledgeable enough? Why do you think it needed to be 40? They had to set it somewhere... But they chose a pretty high number for a reason.
 
#73 ·
Bill,
If the criteria had been, "judged 20 all age stakes in the past 15 years", I think that would have been a reasonable criteria. It means that the person would have 'recent' judging experience and would have to have judged more than 1 all age stake per year every year.

If their point system is counting only all age stakes to get to 40+, it is going to be darn tough finding a person who has done that. Linda Erwin has judged 22 stakes in 15 years -- that's counting judging minor and major stakes.

Setting the judging criteria so high, they must have a person in mind who they want to represent the Western Region on the RAC. It will be interesting to see who is appointed.
 
#82 · (Edited)
As I understand it, but I could be wrong......The AKC is a club made up of MEMBER clubs, each of which is represented at its meetings by a delegate, for which there an arduous approval process by the AKC.

Within the structure of the AKC there are numerous committee posts some more important than others, comprised of the member/delegates, most with long standing membership appointments ... The RFTAC is one such committee .

With this in mind, I see no usefulness in even considering a person for RFTAC who is not already a member of a MEMBER club, and is one that if not already its delegate, one who the existing club delegate would be willing to step aside for.

Do the 40 point judges suggested in this thread meet this criteria?


john
 
#83 ·
As I understand it, but I could be wrong......The AKC is a club made up of MEMBER clubs, each of which is represented at its meetings by a delegate, for which there an arduous approval process by the AKC.
Within the structure of the AKC there are numerous committee posts most with long standing membership appointments ... The RFTAC is one such committee .

With this in mind, I see no usefulness in even considering a person for RFTAC who is not already a member of a MEMBER club, and is one that if not already its delagate, one who the existing club deligat would be willing to step asside for.

Do the 40 point judges suggested in this thread meet this criteria?


john
to answer your question that would be a Yes to those that I mentioned....BUT the other side of the coin would be that members of the RAC who are not affiliated with a specific club would actually be non biased and could not be accused of showing a bias toward a particular club..
 
#86 ·
Here is a link that allows the user to search for AKC "member" clubs and to identify the delegate from that club
 
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