interesting HT rule...

K G · Jan 7, 2009

Flowageboy said:
it's not an issue for AKC ...you made it an issue in your post....

It just bugs me when people feel the need to correct someone (or me) for calling them rules, instead of sticking to the topic of discussion....it's just semantics.

Okay, Mr. Sensitive..

..here's why it's issue with the AKC....

RULES are voted on by the AKC delegate body. For example, let's say the SOR of the RAC comes up with a rule proposal that they send to all FT holding clubs for their vote (this was done just last year). FT holding clubs send their votes to the AKC for tabulation. If the majority of clubs vote yes on whatever rule was proposed, that rule then goes before the AKC delegate body to be voted on (don't know if they vote upon presentation of the rule; Jack (or any other AKC delegate), where are you?

). If the delegate body votes yes, it becomes a rule...a RULE.

A REGULATION is voted on by the AKC BOD, NOT the delegate body. A regulation, while not a rule in AKC's eyes, pretty much carries the weight of a rule with regard to the discipline in which it is used (there's your semantics...). However, the process is different for getting a regulation passed (MUCH simpler, IMHO) than that of getting a rule passed. A lot of regulations offer options (should, may) where rules don't (shall, must), although that is not exclusive.

A GUIDELINE does NOT need approval by the AKC BOD or the delegate body. Guidelines are drafted and implemented by the Performance Events department and do NOT carry the weight of a rule or a regulation, but usually do carry the weight of popular convention or strong suggestion. A guideline cannot be construed as a rule per se. They generally offer policy reinforcement, interpretation, or rule/regulation interpretation/clarification.

Popular convention is why regulations/guidelines are called rules. Fine. I long ago stopped worrying about people calling them "rules." It obviously didn't bother Russ when I replied to him; it shouldn't have "bugged" you....though I suppose there's no rule against it bugging you, Kevin....

Have a great day regards,

kg

john fallon · Jan 7, 2009

K G said:
I'm not the issue here, John....I get it, I understand it....I (and so should you) want everyone else to understand what you mean with your post....technically, that is....:wink:

kg

You make a good point, so let me add a little amplification.

..............this embargo not only includes the Judge but also holds for the members of the judges immediate family.

With a little more effort and some "******* "reasoning, a similar case could be made for the restrictions to also hold for the members of the prospective participants immediate family .

john

K G · Jan 7, 2009

john fallon said:
You make a good point, so let me add a little amplification.

..............this embargo not only includes the Judge but also holds for the members of the judges immediate family.

With a little more effort and some "******* "reasoning, a similar case could be made for the restrictions to also hold for the members of the prospective participants immediate family .

john

You should float that up to the RHTAC for consideration if you feel strongly about it.

kg

david gibson · Jan 7, 2009

the one i really dont get is "boarding". i can certainly understand training and handling, but boarding?

so you drop your dog off at a kennel and all they do is have their kennel help feed it and air it for a week while you bask in the sun on some resort isle and now they cant judge your dog for a year? technically you would be in violation, but i think i would definitely keep that one our own little secret....

john fallon · Jan 7, 2009

K G said:
You should float that up to the RHTAC for consideration if you feel strongly about it.

kg

If it were only that easy............
Not the passing of the Reg., that's the easy part--- but figurin' out that "*******" genealogy,........ that's the kicker

john

T. Mac · Jan 7, 2009

Kevin,

Just to illustrate the confusion, the actual book is called

Regulations &
Guidelines for

Hunting Tests

for Retrievers

However even the AKC sometimes refers to them as rules as evidenced by the listing on: http://www.akc.org/rules/index.cfm

...
Regulations for Record Keeping and Identification of Dogs
Retriever Field Trial Rules
Retriever Hunting Test Procedure Manual
Retriever Hunting Test Rules
Rules Applying to Dog Shows
Rules Applying to Registration and Discipline

ErinsEdge · Jan 7, 2009

For HT that are judged to the standard, as opposed to FT with championship points, I believe there is far more favoritism or breaks IMHO shown by judges that are buddies with participants than by "....A dog is not eligible to be entered in any Hunting Test (Junior, Senior or Master) at a licensed or member Hunting Test if a Judge of that Test or any member of
his family has owned, sold, held under lease, boarded,
trained or handled the dog within one year of the starting
date of the Hunting Test......

K G · Jan 7, 2009

Flowageboy said:
like I said...rule/regulation....same thing for the sake of forum discussion....if you want to become a AKC bigshot and use those terms there, knock yourself out....here it's just being pricky to make a point of pointing it out to everyone.
have a nice day yourself.

Kevin

I pointed it out to ONE person (with a ;-) and an <ahem> so as not to make a big deal out of it....so much for that....

), not everyone, and he didn't give a crap....and rightly so. YOU took umbrage to it, and decided to become pricky yourself.

T. Mac you are correct. Those pesky IT people who put those links on the AKC website don't know much about which end to feed, either....

Good thing they didn't have anything to do with the printing of the book or its contents.

kg

Gun_Dog2002 · Jan 7, 2009

K G said:
I'm not the issue here, John....I get it, I understand it....I (and so should you) want everyone else to understand what you mean with your post....technically, that is....:wink:

kg

I tried to get John to share his experience but so far he hasn't.

/Paul

david gibson · Jan 7, 2009

look dagnabit - i started a legitimert thrayed here about a legitimert rule in the AKC book nthere that could apply to me, and a cupla you fellers done gone and hijacked it and a gettin' in a tissy-fit over which'n of you is smarter'n thother.

now all ya'll stops it now or i'm a gonna ninjer you all! i was the bouncer in my trayler park in community college and i knows all the judy chops and ninjer chops and kungfoo chops, so now wachit, y'here?

i dont knows him but this john faloln feller seems like someone who needs a good ninjer'n, and the arturo feller as well.

Ron in Portland · Jan 7, 2009

surfgeoD300 said:
the one i really dont get is "boarding". i can certainly understand training and handling, but boarding?

so you drop your dog off at a kennel and all they do is have their kennel help feed it and air it for a week while you bask in the sun on some resort isle and now they cant judge your dog for a year? technically you would be in violation, but i think i would definitely keep that one our own little secret....

I agree that wouldn't affect performance, but if you had the choice of where to board your dog, maybe the judge who runs the kennel doesn't want to bounce you out of a test, afraid to lose your business, or lets you slide on a questionable performance, since you're a regular customer?

As long as everyone acts with integrity, it's a non-issue; but inserting dollars into the equation can sometimes blur the edges.

john fallon · Jan 7, 2009

surfgeoD300 said:
look dagnabit - i started a legitimert thrayed here about a legitimert rule in the AKC book nthere that could apply to me, and a cupla you fellers done gone and hijacked it and a gettin' in a tissy-fit over which'n of you is smarter'n thother.

now all ya'll stops it now or i'm a gonna ninjer you all! i was the bouncer in my trayler park in community college and i knows all the judy chops and ninjer chops and kungfoo chops, so now wachit, y'here?

i dont knows him but this john faloln feller seems like someone who needs a good ninjer'n, and the arturo feller as well.

AH. the bittersweet memories. "Back in the day" most who tried brought a lunch

Is a hissy-fit the same as a conniption

Nostalgia still makes my nose bleed regards

john

david gibson · Jan 7, 2009

john fallon said:
AH. the bittersweet memories. "Back in the day" most who tried brought a lunch

Is a hissy-fit the same as a conniption

Nostalgia still makes my nose bleed regards

john

ok look out fellers - looks like this a falloner feller is a wanner-be ninjer, he's a gettin' in a conniption fit recollectin' when he thinks he was a mea-un as a young-n. and if'n "nostalger still makes your nose-ableed" then it sounds to me that you let too many other fellers abloody it up fer ya!

Thomas D · Jan 8, 2009

So, just to add another twist:

Owner has 4 dogs and dog 4 is trained by professional trainer. Can owner can run dogs 1,2,and 3 under that pro?

Lady Duck Hunter · Jan 8, 2009

By what it says in the book, yes.

david gibson · Jan 8, 2009

Thomas D said:
So, just to add another twist:

Owner has 4 dogs and dog 4 is trained by professional trainer. Can owner can run dogs 1,2,and 3 under that pro?

why not? only 4 was trained under that pro/judge

thats a definite yes. the rule applies to the ndog, not owner. agree?

interesting HT rule...

K G

john fallon

K G

david gibson

john fallon

T. Mac

ErinsEdge

K G

Gun_Dog2002

david gibson

Ron in Portland

john fallon

david gibson

Thomas D

Lady Duck Hunter

david gibson

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities