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
 
#2 ·
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>



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 : 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
 
#13 ·
Thank goodness the RAC committee has the foresight to talk about the issue of limiting Amateur entries.

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??

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?

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. :)
 
#3 ·
I am not a fan of the second one either, but it is at the club's discretion and not a blanket rule, so it doesn't bother me as much. The first one sounds like fun except it would essentially be a D/Q. The pros will go run an open somewhere that weekend and how many Ams would pull their dogs off the truck to go run a different Am only?
 
#4 ·
I kinda thought this might get more attention....

Doug, Lisa and Kate have worked this past year to overhaul how the committee is set-up. With the retirement of Nelson Sills, the opportunity arose to revise and adjust the committee. They will continue to have one member from each time zone, plus a chairman. They will initiate term limits of 8 years.
/Paul
 
#5 ·
Paul,

I wanted to discuss "rules" (actual and proposed) I did not want to get into the political BS of how members are chosen, etc...it would be better as it's own thread...

Lainee
 
#6 ·
along with the departure of Nelson Sills, you have Bob Kennon Jr who has been on the RAC for 29 years and Bill Daley who has been there almost as long

the new qualifications eliminate 95% of the people in the game

1. at least 40+ judging points

2. at least 20 years in the sport

3. having titled a dog

4. recently running a dog on the circuit

I can name the possible nominees on one hand :rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
#9 · (Edited)
Fine....I'll play...these are the immediate questions that popped up in my head when I read the blog:

1) Judging points...is anyone actually keeping track of points past 8? And are we talking just Championship points?
2) Define "in the sport" - specifically FTs? What about the person who takes a few off in between dogs/family obligations? Who is keeping track of years in the sport? What makes up a year?
3) Well if it was easy, everyone would have a FC/AFC...does title dog include one that the owner never put a hand over??
4) So running a dog once a year, does that count? Minor stakes?

And yes I know they are in the process of trying to define the criteria, so maybe they will answer these questions in the process? But i do have to wonder if the qualifications eliminates too many "qualified" people?

And does the community have a say whether they want a specific person to be their representative??
 
#7 · (Edited)
I am not in favor of limiting the number of Opens a club has in a year, It will make it much more difficult for those trying to put DC's on Labs......

As for the rest of it, it is what it is. It is a matter of being able to show up at an AKC General Membership Mtg with some stature. You know, the kind carried by Auggie, Nelson, and Pete ....... and Bon, you and I both know there are but a hand full of people in the game( if that many) that have that kind of stature.

john
 
#8 ·
I get kinda pissed off at the mind set of if you can't train the dog to do something or can't beat someone, change the rules to make it, or them, illegal.
 
#11 ·
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
 
#41 · (Edited)
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.Tim
I am the treasurer for 2 clubs. The Open stake is always larger than the Amateur stake because of the pros. Pros also have dogs entered in the minor stakes (Qualifying and Derby) which they handle. If a club did not have an Open, it would lower the amount of entries in the minor stakes as the pros would not come to the trial with their dogs.

I will have to go back through my financial statements for trials, but it seems to me that if the clubs did not have an Open stake, they would lose money on that trial. Clubs have to make profits on their events or they will cease to exist. They could probably survive losing money on one trial every other year, tho.

Are there any other club treasurers on RTF ? Have you put a pencil to this? What do you think about this new proposal the Committee is discussing?

Helen
 
#14 ·
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
 
#17 ·
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.
 
#15 ·
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.
 
#18 ·
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
 
#19 ·
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.
 
#21 ·
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.
Wow. I am shocked to hear that--a very strong statement. Would you mind elaborating?

As I am not a 'player', my knowledge of the politics and such at the upper echelon is limited. My take on it was that it was a snoozer: essentially changing the RAC from a few bigwigs who serve forever to another (or possibly even the same) bunch of bigwigs by way of the extreme requirements. Obviously I am wrong but I would love to understand a little more of your perspective, if you have the time.
 
#23 ·
They had better be a big wig they have some big shoes to fill.......... BTW to have any credibility at the AKC MEMBER Mtg I would like to suggest that this person be additionally required to be a long time member of a member club

When EF Hutton speaks regards
john
 
#24 ·
E. F. Hutton has been insignificant to non existent since a check kiting and fraud scandal in the mid 1980s. New blood and ideas from currently active people with length of term limits is a monumental change for the better for the Retriever Advisory Committee.
 
#38 ·
Yes, the sport does have many husband/wife teams too it seems. Personally I would never let me husband run my dog though! :)

The sport is constantly changing sometimes for the better and sometimes not. These are simply issues that can be discussed sometimes civilly and sometimes NOT!

The original purpose of the Amateur stake was to find the best dog that an Amateur could train. Times have changed much like America, but there are still Amateurs out there training their one special dog and beating the pants off of everyone including multidog handlers both pro and am! Cudos to them, as it makes it mean that much more!!

I was simple bringing to light that many 4+ dog handler teams seem to be happening more frequently and whether it is a good direction for the Amateur stake to go. It is happening mostly in the Eastern regions, but be assured it will soon be coming to a region near you.

I now realize that many of you simply aren't aware of it because you don't sit and view entries at every field trial in the country like I do. Since I enter the results and add field trial points per dog all by hand on FindRetrievers, I actually have to sit and look at the entries everyday. My labor of love is becoming tedious and frustrating at best, yet it gives breeders the information they need to find worthy dogs to better the breed. Most likely this will cease year end, as it is best to move on and find more fun and financially rewarding things to do with my time!

For now at least the issue is being recognized and discussed.
 
#39 ·
The original purpose of the Amateur stake was to find the best dog that an Amateur could train.
I believe the original purpose of the Amateur stake was so that Amateur's could run their dogs on Sunday following the Open All-Age stake that was primarily run by professionals. I know there is more information on this if you search, but this article gives a fairly good historical reference. http://caninechronicle.com/current-articles/retriever-field-trials-the-early-days/
 
#46 · (Edited)
The Open All Age stake is the heart and soul of the AKC Retriever field trial event. How do I know this? It says so in the rule book.

For those who do not know, an Amateur can get an FC ,(and perhaps even have their dog become a DC), and an AFC on their dog and also qualify for both Nationals at Opens. This cannot be done at the Amateur stake........

When clubs first apply to the AKC for their permission to put on a licensed field trial, the AKC checks them out to see if they have the where with all* to pull it off. In some cases it is detirmined that they did not, and they are not granted said license.... It appears that over time some of the clubs that at one time did, now do not.

Perhaps some of these clubs, who by their own admission here on the RTF are a little short suited in that regard, should have to re-certify every so often.


john

* Read resources... Which includes but not limited to, grounds, expertise within the club, manpower independent of members other local clubs, finances, etc........
 
#51 · (Edited)
To my knowledge the last club to hold an Amat without an Open was the Maryland Ret.Club May 1968. It was a 2day trial with an Amat and a Qual. It showed a profit.
The theory that it would reduce competition by attracting lesser dogs and handlers was the reason given by the RAC to the AKC to no longer allow this type of trial. History has proven their theory wrong. Several of those handlers have gone on to: produce multiple FC/AFCs, win Nationals, judge Nationals,and be admitted to the RHOF(one even visits this site).

When points are to be won there will be dogs and handlers that want them.


Tim
 
#52 · (Edited)
As long as a new rule (club holding 2 trials a year can hold only an Amateur only stake with no Open stake every other year at the second trial) is optional, it would probably be OK. As an option, clubs could decide yes or no.

Was this new rule idea formally on the annual National Am meeting and was it discussed... ?
 
#54 · (Edited)
In this day in age with rising cost of everything, and dwindling active participation in everything, Give clubs as many options as they can to continue to hold events, with-in their resources, keep their active club members happy and perhaps make enough of a profit to keep the club going, so they can continue to put on events. If that means certain clubs prefer an Am. to an Open, an Open to an Am, a QAA or derby to either, a limited number of dogs per handler, a limited number of dogs period, etc. Give the clubs the option to give their members and bank-books what they need, to keep going and breed a healthier club. When a full event becomes too much work, with little return, clubs don't put on events, the sport dies. Figure the new proposed rule, puts in play 3 Open stakes in 2 years, for one event without an Open. A lot of clubs around here are lucky to put on one full Trial a year, if a carrot encourages them to put on more, your Not losing too much, might even be gaining a trial or two.
 
#55 ·
Thanks, Ed. What about the rule proposal to limit Amateur handlers to 3 dogs? Tammy Bell has referred to a 4+ Amateur handling problem apparently in the Eastern region. Can you or someone explain what is going on in Amateurs that is seen as a problem that would require a 3-dog limit (at a club's discretion)?

On the west coast, we have a few amateurs handling multiple dogs that they own. I recall 3 dogs maybe in one stake, but not 4 or more. These are real owners of the dogs, not someone listed as a co-owner just so they can run the dog. If somebody remembers there are 4+ dog owner-handlers out here running their dogs in the Open or Am, please correct me.

Helen
 
#56 ·
Not much to add to Post 19 on this thread, no discussion here since the meeting on Saturday, most not in favor of limiting amateurs to a specific number of entries.
 
#57 ·
Thanks, Ed, for your quick replies on the meeting topics.
 
#59 ·
On my circuit--basically NC, SC, VA, GA and TN--I can think of several with 4 or more dogs. I am not aware of any dubious co-owner arrangements. They may exist but I am not aware of them. The folks I know run their dogs in the Am and sometimes in the Open (sometimes the pro does that) but they are amateurs just like me, if differently endowed with time and financial resources. Doesn't bother me in the least. I play the way I can and enjoy it and I hope they do as well.

It is a heck of a commitment financially and time wise for these folks. If you figure they have this many AA dogs, you know they have several young dogs each as well that they are not sure will ultimately make it.
 
#62 · (Edited)
I haven't paid much attention to the RAC so have little knowledge. For what it is worth, I went to the official AKC website and poked around to find something. I may not have found everything, but I did find something.

The last info about the RAC on AKC's website is minutes from their 2010 meeting. Kate Simonds, Chair, plus members Bill Daley, John Goettl, and Nelson Sills.
There were 3 proposals the RAC made to clubs in 2009 that the clubs had to vote on. The 2009 ballot results on the 3 proposals list the amount of yes and no votes made by the clubs. All 3 proposals passed. (I think the highest ballot return was votes by 61 clubs.)

No formal proposals had been received by the RAC in 2010. The RAC then discussed several topics -- guess things not formally proposed, but topics they wanted to discuss, including the idea to have pros be allowed to judge trials. The RAC said they would look into it and several other ideas. End of 2010 meeting.

I do recall that at the Natl Am held in Klamath Falls, OR, that Bill Totten, president of the Professional Retrievers Training Assn (PRTA) brought up the topic of having pros judge trials (it was not on the agenda, as I recall). There wasn't much of a discussion at that meeting. Per the 2010 RAC minutes, there was no formal proposal in 2009 nor 2010. Since there is no report on 2011 and 2012, I don't know if this idea got anywhere with the RAC. Bill Totten spoke in favor of it at the Natl Am and that may be as far as it got.

I could find nothing reported on RAC activities in 2011 and 2012 on the AKC website. If not on the official AKC website, I don't know where this information could be found unless published in Retriever News at some time. We subscribe to the News; I don't recall RAC activities being reported there. The RAC obviously received a formal proposal in 2012 about prohibiting layout blinds... or they thought of this new rule themselves, put it on a ballot, and mailed the clubs a ballot.

Anybody out there have more info on the RAC and its activities since 2010? I am curious to understand how it operates since it is the official link to AKC effecting field trial rules and regulations.

Are the RAC members voted into office by clubs? Are there term limits? How many clubs are on their mailing list that are sent ballots to vote and how are the clubs selected to be on their mailing list? I could not find anything on the AKC website about the structure of the RAC.

Helen
 
#64 ·
Are the RAC members voted into office by clubs? Are there term limits? How many clubs are on their mailing list that are sent ballots to vote and how are the clubs selected to be on their mailing list? I could not find anything on the AKC website about the structure of the RAC.

Helen
In the past they were lifetime appointments. Appointed by Pete Simonds. There was no turnover, no term limits, nothing.

That is why the 8 year term limits and turnover that just occurred is so huge.
 
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