[BenQuick]

There is a lot of talk about big FT entries and how to reduce them. Well the clubs already have the means to do so if they REALLY want to. Seems like a lot of talk and no action by most.

1. Have only O/H Ams and O/H Quals
2. Schedule your trial so it's not back to back with another event.
3. Split the O/Am and the D/Q.

 

[jeff t.]

1. Have only O/H Ams and O/H Quals

Not currently an option.
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=35256

 

[BenQuick]

Not currently an option.
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=35256

To my knowledge Open, O/H Am and O/H Q, Derby is allowed.

 

[jeff t.]

To my knowledge Open, O/H Am and O/H, Derby is allowed.

Correct...you did not say anything about having an Open

1. Have only O/H Ams and O/H Quals

 

[1tulip]

There is a lot of talk about big FT entries and how to reduce them. Well the clubs already have the means to do so if they REALLY want to. Seems like a lot of talk and no action by most.

1. Have only O/H Ams and O/H Quals
2. Schedule your trial so it's not back to back with another event.
3. Split the O/Am and the D/Q.

I've raised this issue here and been flamed. In AKC HT, there is an ceiling on entries. After 40 dogs, the club has to either close entries or open another series, bring in another cadre of judges and provide separate grounds etc. This is a reasonable approach that allows each dog to be fairly evaluated.

But in FT, where only 4 dogs are going to place, seems to me it should be even more important to have upper limits on entries. Big numbers mean the judges have to slash and burn to get the next series down to manageable numbers.

Thus, a dog who might have had a longer hunt on a land mark than other dogs gets dropped, but might actually smoke every other dog on the water marks, but we'll never know.

So why not provide an "Open A" and "Open B" etc. and give the dog who might not have been sterling but still "does the work", a second look in the next series? Would this violate some FT tradition or dogma? Does it dilute the quality of the points a dog is awarded?

Besides that, I wonder if the trend to exclusive Owner-Handler Opens isn't a concern to pro's.

Maybe some FT person can explain this to me without being condescending.

 

[Ted Shih]

The Rules would need to be changed in order to:

1) Limit the number of entries;
2) Have multiple sets of judges; and/or
3) Have an O/H Open

There have been efforts to address 1, but the RAC has not let them come out of committee for discussion
To my knowledge there is no political support for 2 or 3 either in the general public or with the RAC

 

[MikeBoley]

I've raised this issue here and been flamed. In AKC HT, there is an ceiling on entries. After 40 dogs, the club has to either close entries or open another series, bring in another cadre of judges and provide separate grounds etc. This is a reasonable approach that allows each dog to be fairly evaluated.

But in FT, where only 4 dogs are going to place, seems to me it should be even more important to have upper limits on entries. Big numbers mean the judges have to slash and burn to get the next series down to manageable numbers.

Thus, a dog who might have had a longer hunt on a land mark than other dogs gets dropped, but might actually smoke every other dog on the water marks, but we'll never know.

So why not provide an "Open A" and "Open B" etc. and give the dog who might not have been sterling but still "does the work", a second look in the next series? Would this violate some FT tradition or dogma? Does it dilute the quality of the points a dog is awarded?

Besides that, I wonder if the trend to exclusive Owner-Handler Opens isn't a concern to pro's.

Maybe some FT person can explain this to me without being condescending.

If you had Open A and Open B how would you award the championship points?

Owner/handler Open goes against what an open is, Open to all over 6 months.

 

[Mark Littlejohn]

Sorry 1tulip but...

I've raised this issue here and been flamed. In AKC HT, there is an ceiling on entries. After 40 dogs, the club has to either close entries or open another series, bring in another cadre of judges and provide separate grounds etc.

...you're wrong. A club may not close or cut-off entries in a AKC HT. There is only a requirement to split at a certain number depending on the stake. Its been a couple of years since I chaired a HT, but I don't think there is a stake where 40 is the mandatory split number anyway. I believe its 60 Master and 50 Senior. Its not mandatory to split Jrs, but at the committee's discretion.

Besides that, I wonder if the trend to exclusive Owner-Handler Opens isn't a concern to pro's.

Care to explain how an "Open" in any sport can be exclusive?
Can you direct me to a "O/H Open" trial? There must be at least one somewhere if its becoming a trend.

I think you're confusing "flamed" with "corrected". Check your facts before posting.

ml

 

[1tulip]

OK... I'm wrong around the margins. I'm not wrong about the ceiling on the number of HT dogs that are run in a particular stake. Returning to the OP... it asks if people are "tired of big FT entries." The question presumes that there are some people who find large entries at a given stake problematic. Obviously, the HT people anticipated a similar issue and put a ceiling on entries at any one stake. That's the point I was trying to make.

What is it people find objectionable about large entries? Is it that sizable numbers of dogs have to be dropped after the first series? I could see where that would be a problem for judging dogs that might have "done the work" but not with the best precision. Such a dog could maybe run a fine second series, while the dogs that looked super on land might blow up on the water series.

All I'm saying is that setting an upper entry limit on the stake is a more straightforward way of dealing with problems caused by high numbers while at the same time not shutting out pro's and the owners that rely on them.

If you had Open A and Open B and so forth, with each run by a separate set of judges, why could you not award 1st thru 4th in each? They are separate Opens, each judged by accredited judges.

Above, Ted mentioned that this exact type of fix has been suggested but it has not gotten out of committee. This indicates to me that, indeed, the large numbers are a problem, and probably for reasons that include those I mentioned above, and there are political issues that are obstructing change.

I was just wondering if someone could expand upon why FT's can't take a page from the way HT's addressed the similar sort of problem... without being condescending... which is maybe too much to expect. I don't know.

 

[Ironwood]

Does the AKC rule book address the issue of proximity of differnet clubs putting on their respective trials on the same weekend?

I know that there are three clubs in north west Washington. In the spring time they get entry numbers in the upper sixties. Their trials follow one another, one weekend to the next.

If the concern was numbers as some writers suggest then trials being held on the same weekend in a comfortable travelling distances from one another might split the number of competitors.

The folks running these trials may rightfully argue that the cost of birds and the delivery charge of live flyers would be a major consideration.

The issue of available grounds may preclude such an idea.

The number of workers at the trial available to do the chores at a trial may be reduced as some trialers belong to multiple clubs.
I won't raise the question of enough judges as that has not really be an issue on this board, maybe not enough "good" judges.

 

[Losthwy]

What is it people find objectionable about large entries?
...This indicates to me that, indeed, the large numbers are a problem, and probably for reasons that include those I mentioned above, and there are political issues that are obstructing change.

The bigger the trial the more work for the clubs and the less enjoyable for the participates. That work is being done by a ever shrinking number of people. And many of those people are tired of doing it. This year our club put on two Field Trials plus a D/Q. Next year we will be doing one.

 

[rmilner]

The American Gundog Club has figured out how to keep them small. They limit the cometitors to 12 dogs for a one-day trial or 24 for a two-day trial. Entry fee is usally around $75. All retrieves are of shot flyers. No more than 2 dogs can be run by one handler.
There are 6 trials scheduled for this fall. Here is more info:

www.americangundogclub.com

and the fall trial schedule is here:

http://retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=58344

 

[Angie B]

Let the pro's put on the trials and let the amateurs have fun again. It would be in their best interest. Both for the pro's and the amateurs.

FWIW.....

Angie

 

[Barry]

Let the pro's put on the trials and let the amateurs have fun again. It would be in their best interest. Both for the pro's and the amateurs.

FWIW.....

Angie

Now there's a novel concept!!! Work to preserve your livelyhood.

They can pay for help during the week for training but can't pay for or bring help to work at a trial. They don't mind having someone else put on a trial so they can earn a living off the sweat and toil of some poor guy that does this sport for fun. I don't get it. But I'm beginning to.

Can you really blame someone for not wanting to go out and throw birds for three or four pro's when they have 50 dogs between them. In most training groups you can't run more that 2 dogs per person.

Don't get me wrong here some do help most don't and give the others a bad rap.

 

[rmilner]

Actually, professionals were legislated out of field trial management, by the AKC rules in the mid 40's. Professional trainers were barred from judging and the amateur stake was created. I think that was the start of separating the professionals and their corporate body of knowledge from the field trial. It would appear that whoever was writing the rules did not want extensive involvement of professionals in the management of field trials.

 

[1tulip]

Putting on a trial is a huge amount of work, and our club is of modest size and it does both a HT and FT each year and the HT this past year had Master A, B. and C.

Not trying to be a contrarian here. Seems to me most folks would prefer smaller numbers of dogs in the stakes they run. But the sport does rely on pros.

The biggest pros in our area work their buns off at our events plus run their trucks full of dogs and I doubt we could have a trial without them.

The ideal solution would be one where everyone gets a fair shot and has fun doing it. The Club members putting on an event will never NOT work like maniacs during the test/trial. Nothing changes that. The expenses of splitting the highest level stakes (Master/Open) is greater, but not significantly, and you can adjust your entry fees upwards if necessary. I'd pay a little bit more to run against 50 dogs vs 75.

 

[Ted Shih]

Does the AKC rule book address the issue of proximity of differnet clubs putting on their respective trials on the same weekend?

I know that there are three clubs in north west Washington. In the spring time they get entry numbers in the upper sixties. Their trials follow one another, one weekend to the next.

If the concern was numbers as some writers suggest then trials being held on the same weekend in a comfortable travelling distances from one another might split the number of competitors.

The folks running these trials may rightfully argue that the cost of birds and the delivery charge of live flyers would be a major consideration.

The issue of available grounds may preclude such an idea.

The number of workers at the trial available to do the chores at a trial may be reduced as some trialers belong to multiple clubs.
I won't raise the question of enough judges as that has not really be an issue on this board, maybe not enough "good" judges.

Ironwood

1) I don't think 60 dog Opens are the issue. 90+ dog Opens are
2) When you split trials in a concentrated area

a) Grounds are an issue
b) Judges are an issue
c) Help is an issue

 

[Angie B]

Now there's a novel concept!!! Work to preserve your livelyhood.

They can pay for help during the week for training but can't pay for or bring help to work at a trial. They don't mind having someone else put on a trial so they can earn a living off the sweat and toil of some poor guy that does this sport for fun. I don't get it. But I'm beginning to.

Can you really blame someone for not wanting to go out and throw birds for three or four pro's when they have 50 dogs between them. In most training groups you can't run more that 2 dogs per person.

Don't get me wrong here some do help most don't and give the others a bad rap.

If the pro's were chairing and running the trials wouldn't all those issues be their problem!!! Since they are the problem. Amatuers can go back to running their dogs and having fun again instead of busting their hump for the few.

I think it's an interesting concept.

Angie

 

[Aaron Homburg]

IMHO when talking of an A and a B hunt test and talking about splitting an open is apples and oranges. In one you are competing against the standard the other against the field. How would you split an Open field, I know I would like to be the one in charge of that!!!! But that would be a huge headache for the Entry company or the FT committee.........imagine that.....all titled dogs in open A with the hottest dogs running.......and open B has the ft committee folks dogs and all the pro's dogs that this is their first year of running the open. Not only that but folks already travel more distance to run under judge A vs. B......you would have folks say "I'll run your trial if I can run under A but do not want to run under B!" Huge Open's and Am's are a lot of work for everyone involved.....don't have the magic theory on how they can be helped, you limit a pro you limit his ability to make a living, although you might have more Am's running their dogs in opens.

No Answer's regards,

Aaron

 

[BenQuick]

But the sport does rely on pros.The biggest pros in our area work their buns off at our events plus run their trucks full of dogs and I doubt we could have a trial without them.

I have to disagree. The Sport and pros rely on the Amateurs. The situation might be different where you are but I have yet to see one single time a pro has brought any help. 3/4 of the dogs are off pros trucks and 0 help from them is the norm. The few Amatuers do all the work bustings their butts over three days for the professionals. If all the pros starting selling insurance tomorrow the game would go on. If all the Amatuers said to hell with this tomorrow the game would grind to a halt.