[EdA]

This truly is a tempest in a teapot, righteous indignation about a bylaw amendment for the NRC that affects very few candidates? How many amateurs qualify for the NRC annually, how many of those are qualified for or have interest in being Chief Marshall?

 

[Kenneth Niles Bora]

.... how many of those are qualified for or have interest in being Chief Marshall?

How does someone qualify to be CM?
Or conversely why is the Drunkenpoacher unqualified as Daren stated?

 

[drunkenpoacher]

Adopting this rule written in the negative would increase the possibility that the CM would resign from the position should they qualify a dog.

I suspect it would increase the odds to the point of replacing a CM when their dog qualifies would be taken for granted.

Also, it is a national event, everyone in a critical position should be backed up times two.
If they can do it in Wisconsin...........................

This truly is a tempest in a teapot, righteous indignation about a bylaw amendment for the NRC that affects very few candidates? How many amateurs qualify for the NRC annually, how many of those are qualified for or have interest in being Chief Marshall?

I'm not the least bit angry about it.
Why try to fix non-existing problems with a poorly thought out rule that will only cause problems?

 

[Kenneth Niles Bora]

Why try to fix non-existing problems with a poorly thought out rule that will only cause problems?

Asks the feller who just had to view a child abuse video to fulfill judging promises!😉

 

[drunkenpoacher]

Asks the feller who just had to view a child abuse video to fulfill judging promises!😉

Good point

 

[bjoiner]

Why try to fix non-existing problems with a poorly thought out rule that will only cause problems?

Or provide a solution that has committed to be CM that can now be eligible to run their dog next year.

 

[drunkenpoacher]

Or provide a solution that has committed to be CM that can now be eligible to run their dog next year.

If you think it is a solution I'll respect your opinion.
I am yet to be convinced there is a problem needing to be solved.

 

[drunkenpoacher]

Or conversely why is the Drunkenpoacher unqualified as Daren stated?

Excessive flatulence?

 

[EdA]

If you think it is a solution I'll respect your opinion.
I am yet to be convinced there is a problem needing to be solved.

Who mentioned anger? “Tempest in a teapot" is an idiom describing a situation where a small, insignificant matter is blown out of proportion, causing excessive fuss or trouble. It's essentially a lot of commotion about an issue that doesn’t matter.”
With all due respect since you are not now nor have you been an officer of the National Retriever Club why do you care what the NRC officers deem important.?

 

[drunkenpoacher]

Who mentioned anger?

"righteous indignation"

With all due respect since you are not now nor have you been an officer of the National Retriever Club why do you care what the NRC officers deem important.?

I care about our sport and plan to be in it for the next couple decades, God willing.

Also, I am a member of a couple clubs. Both were asked by the NRC officers for a vote, so apparently they are not sure if it is important or not.

 

[Ted Shih]

I am torn about this. But overall, I am opposed to the proposed Rule Change

Test information is widely known if you know the right people

The conflict of interest concern voiced by Ed is the most compelling argument to me.

But, if we allow judges to judge

• Their pros
• Their training partners
• Dogs from their dams
• Dogs sired by their studs

Why are we focusing on this one conflict of interest?

I don't know about other judges, but when I judged our co-marshals, Pete Hayes and Mitch Patterson, stayed in their own tent and primarily executed our wishes. I don't ever recall asking their advice on test construction, test sequence, call backs etc.

Moreover, I am concerned about removing qualified people from the marshal pool

 

[bjoiner]

If you think it is a solution I'll respect your opinion.
I am yet to be convinced there is a problem needing to be solved.

I have volunteered to be co-chief marshal again for the 2025 National. If I have the opportunity to be CM in the future, and I have a dog qualified, I would love to have the option to defer. There is no way I feel like I could devote the time to be CM and run a dog. I doubt I would run a dog as co-chief marshal.

 

[EdA]

Also, I am a member of a couple clubs. Both were asked by the NRC officers for a vote, so apparently they are not sure if it is important or not.

I’m reasonably certain they are sure just trying to follow protocol by amending the bylaws, they could do it internally by executive order, a concept that seems popular these days.

 

[drunkenpoacher]

I’m reasonably certain they are sure just trying to follow protocol by amending the bylaws, they could do it internally by executive order, a concept that seems popular these days.

Possibly
Could also be they are opposed and just going through the motions as a response to some whining. I have heard of that happening in the recent past.

 

[Steve Shaver]

I really have no dog in this fight but to me to be "qualified or not to be qualified" that is the question.
First if my dog is qualified that is top priority. It is a stretch for my dog to be qualified even though she currently is but unfortunately I cannot go. For me to be qualified to be CM is an even further stretch.

 

[EdA]

Possibly
Could also be they are opposed and just going through the motions as a response to some whining. I have heard of that happening in the recent past.

It’s no longer of importance to me however when the CM was of my choosing and declared an interest in running his/her qualified dog I would offer the choice of one or the other but not both.

 

[Casey Adams]

The owner of the dog should be able to make their own choice on whether or not they feel they can do both or so choose to wait a year that would be a better rule. This should not be a mandate especially for someone volunteering their time to the sport. I would think it would be difficult/impossible to do both well, but if your dog is at the end of a career I would not want to lose out on one last national run and probably would remove myself from being marshal if this is the given choice.

With that being said if they elect to wait a year, then they should be required to run the dog themselves the following year and not be ran by a pro at a later national. Unless that dog requalifies the following year.

 

[drunkenpoacher]

I agree with your post, except for this statement. Why shouldn't a pro be allowed to run the dog at the NRC?

With that being said if they elect to wait a year, then they should be required to run the dog themselves the following year and not be ran by a pro at a later national.

 

[Casey Adams]

I agree with your post, except for this statement. Why shouldn't a pro be allowed to run the dog at the NRC?

If they defer a year to run their dog themselves then they should be required to run the dog. Otherwise why did the pro just not run the dog the previous year they were the marshal? If the dog requalifies the following year this is no longer required as the dog did the work both years. Keeps it clean and the intent of the rule to be used correctly.

 

[drunkenpoacher]

If they defer a year to run their dog themselves then they should be required to run the dog.

💡Ahh yes, that makes sense.
Having a pro run my dogs is not something I ever consider, so I didn't think it through.

I am not anti-pro handler and have no issue with others choosing to hire pros.