[Tim Carrion]

We have all discussed the need for smaller FTs and the the need to attract more people, not dogs.
Should the AKC allow clubs a 3rd trial per year that is a 2 day event with 2 stakes O/H Amat and O/H Qual?

 

[Robert S. Libberton]

Along those lines I think only the third trial should be all O/H and that would fix everything.

 

[Steve Amrein]

I dont think you can have a trial without a open is that right? Can the club make all the stakes O/H? I bet that would cut the size of the stakes in 1/2

 

[john fallon]

No!
If there is to be only one AA stake on a given weekend, let it be an Open.
Now if you can get an OH/Open on the books ...........:lol: :lol: :lol:
john

 

[Howard N]

I'm not voting in this. I like the idea of a club being able to offer more than 2 trials a year if they choose. I don't see a reason, at the moment, to limit it to only 3 a year, better than only 2 though. If they have a trial it should have an open stake in it.

 

[Tim Carrion]

If they have a trial it should have an open stake in it.

Why on a national basis who benefits from an Open ? Clubs?
Club workers? Amateurs? Pros? who?
Where is your focus? What population do you want to encourage?


Tim

 

[Ted Shih]

Please note that the Rules do not require that an Open and an Amateur be held.

The Rules do not preclude the holding of an Open without an Amateur.
The Rules do not preclude the holding of an Amateur without an Open.

The Rules are silent on these issues.

Chapter 14, Section 11 reads as follows:

Section 11. At any field trial, there shall not be more than one of the following stakes: Open All-Age, Limited All-Age, Special All-Age, or Restricted All-Age Stake and no club shall hold more than two of such stakes in one calendar year.

In a two-day trial, when one of the above stakes is held, not more than two other stakes shall be held unless more than one stake is run at the same time under different Judges.

No more than one Amateur All-Age or Owner-Handler Amateur All-Age may be offered at any one field trial, and no club may hold more than two stakes for Amateur handlers in any calendar year.

However, the AKC has held that - as a matter of policy - an Open may be held without an Amateur, but an Amateur may not be held without an Open.

I also think that the individual clubs should have the option of holding a trial with

An Open and an Am
Only an Open
Only an Am

If Howard's club wants an Open and an AM, let them have that
If Fallon's club wants only an Open, let them have that
If Tim's club wants only an Amateur, let them have that

The choice, like the choice to run O/H stakes should remain with the individual clubs

Ted

 

[Chad Baker]

Trials

All of the people who are trying to get a FC placed in front of the dogs name benefit Tim. Maybe just maybe if the clubs are aloud to have 3 trials and the milage rule is lighten up we would have more people invovled in FT's and more even numbers that are controlable at the same time! Imagine new people invovled that could help out the worker situation. I disagree with the O/H idea. If you don't like competing against the pros run the AM, that's what it's setup for! Whether you agree or disagree the pro's bring a lot to the table in the FT stakes. I applaud anyone who is competitive weekend and weekout that has not had any pro advice. There is many people like myself who train like HE**, but have used the help of a pro to teach us as much about the sport as they have our dogs. I don't think we should try to handicap the pro from making a living by having alot of O/H stakes. I wish I could take a cut in pay to go train dogs from daylight to dark everyday in all types of weather. If you were to average the salaries of the top 30 pro's in the country I think you would be surprised, you sure as HE$$ wouldn't want quit your day job!
Just MY 2cents
CB

 

[B. A.]

I believe clubs should be allowed to run whatever stakes they want. If the club doesn't want to host an Open, that should not preclude them from offering an Amateur.

Clubs should be given more tools to do what makes sense for their situation. If that means no Open, so be it.

Better to have an Am/Qual trial than no trial at all IMO.

 

[john fallon]

It's a no brainer as far as I am concerned.
An Open placement gives the amateur handler twice the bang for his/her buck.
john

 

[Henry V]

We have all discussed the need for smaller FTs and the the need to attract more people, not dogs.
Should the AKC allow clubs a 3rd trial per year that is a 2 day event with 2 stakes O/H Amat and O/H Qual?

Sure, go ahead and get that change made. As a member club, I believe that my club would support this.
Does anyone out there think that many clubs will add another field trial to their annual calendar if this change is made. If my club added another event it would be another HT not a FT and I don't foresee either of these happening. I can see no way that this proposal will have much of an effect on the size of events. Let's stop nibbling around the edges of this large entry problem if we want to really make a change.

If clubs can't handle these huge events then they should have the option to set a limit on entries in their premium. They could clearly state that they will accept all entries and then go through some sort of process to drop dogs if the limit is exceeded. This could be random removal or systematic removal weighted toward those handlers that have the most dogs entered. Maybe once clubs could limit the size of their events (say 80 in the open and 50 in the Amt? ) more clubs in an area would be interested in hosting more events and conflicting events.

It is my understanding that several types of AKC events allow sponsors to limit entries. Why not FT's?

 

[DEDEYE]

O/H

What is O/H????? I am new obviously

 

[Jerry]

O/H means Owner/Handler. Which means I can't run YOUR dog.

Jerry

 

[Ted Shih]

If clubs can't handle these huge events then they should have the option to set a limit on entries in their premium. They could clearly state that they will accept all entries and then go through some sort of process to drop dogs if the limit is exceeded. This could be random removal or systematic removal weighted toward those handlers that have the most dogs entered.

....

It is my understanding that several types of AKC events allow sponsors to limit entries. Why not FT's?

The Piney Woods Club tried to limit entries per handler. The AKC rejected this attempt.

I believe that there were two primary reasons behind this

1) Strong bias in favor of the pro (as evidenced by the policy which requires an Open be held if an Amateur is held and not the converse)

2) Fear of litigation by pros if such limitations were approved absent a specific rule change authorizing them

I believe that there is unlikely to be such a rule change because the problem of large trials is not sufficiently wide spread at the moment as to generate the necessary political support for such a change

Ted

 

[Lisa Van Loo]

John, help me out!

You feel that O/H Quals are watered down, yet are all for O/H Opens? or has your opinion on O/H Qual changed?

Lisa

 

[meleagris]

O/H means Owner/Handler. Which means I can't run YOUR dog.

Jerry

Jerry, Jerry, Jerry......you can run his dog you just gotta send him a dollar and have him put you on as co-owner. Then everything's fair :roll:

John
________
EXPERT INSURANCE

 

[Robert S. Libberton]

My last pitch for O/H events:

It does not currently affect the existing circuit, each club offering 2 trials with an open, am, qual, derby. could be eligable for a 3rd O/H trial. If that club did not want to do that format it should be up to them to have their 3rd trial in any format they want I am saying the third trial should have the option of being an all O/H event.

The third event should really be an effort to limit entries and I feel the best way to do this is require owners to run their own dogs, does it hurt the pro's, not in my opinion, they can run the dogs they own. Does it hurt the AM's nope, I deem it as a win/win. It would be a great way to get more people in the sport as entries would be lower, the quality would still be the same in each level just LOWER numbers.

If in doubt of this look at Cape Fear's numbers this winter, their Special is 70 dogs, Am is 65 and Derby is 17 for a total of 152 dogs entered. If they ran a qual I am sure it would be around 30 and their numbers would be 182. This for a club trying to reduce entries.

IF it was all O/H is would be 49 in the Special, 65 in AM, and 13 in the derby for a total of 127 add a qual of 20 dogs and you would have 147. This would great numbers for a trial. and a nice payback for the clubs putting on 2 trials, its kind of like a reward for the club member/ regional handlers.

 

[rbr]

My last pitch for O/H events:

It does not currently affect the existing circuit, each club offering 2 trials with an open, am, qual, derby. could be eligable for a 3rd O/H trial. If that club did not want to do that format it should be up to them to have their 3rd trial in any format they want I am saying the third trial should have the option of being an all O/H event.

The third event should really be an effort to limit entries and I feel the best way to do this is require owners to run their own dogs, does it hurt the pro's, not in my opinion, they can run the gogs they own. Does it hurt the AM's nope, I deem it as a win/win. It would be a great way to get more people in the sport as entries would be lower, the quality would still be the same in each level just LOWER numbers.

If in doubt of this look at Cape Fear's numbers this winter, their Special is 70 dogs, Am is 65 and Derby is 17 for a total of 152 dogs entered. If they ran a qual I am sure it would be around 30 and their numbers would be 182. This for a club trying to reduce entries.

IF it was all O/H is would be 49 in the Special, 65 in AM, and 13 in the derby for a total of 127 add a qual of 20 dogs and you would have 147. This would great numbers for a trial. and a nice payback for the clubs putting on 2 trials, its kind of like a reward for the club member/ regional handlers.

OK, what kind of points are earned, AFC or FC? Can FC points earned
absent pro competition really fairly be given? IMO no.
O/H Am points would be fine.

Just 2c

Bert

 

[eli reichman]

Be careful what you wish for . . . creating OH for an OPEN?

1) Honestly now ~ AS A GENERAL RULE, Amateur trained dogs, run by Amateurs are not as high caliber as a Pro trained dog. So, an amateur gets a win at an OH Open ~ sure he/she would feel GREAT, but what's the downside? An eventual FC that doesn't fully measure up to national caliber competition. Then you throw in the ultimate "breeding frenzy" that happens with a new FC and you begin to dilute the quality of pups for the next generation of field trials.

2) Adequate field help @ field trials. Most of the clubs here in the midwest circuit have a very difficult time finding enough help to run their trials run with smooth mechanics. As a judge I can say ~ it makes time management easy when you have good help, so your tests can go off without too many interuptions, etc. The folks I know around here are tired and ready for some good R+R after 2 trials in a year ~ and you all want to add a 3rd? What, have you all lost your collective minds?

3) If you really want to limit your numbers - do what RMRC did this fall and throw a Restricted Open . . . it made judging very easy ~ Ted, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe our actual competing number was 57 dogs.

4) The OPEN and the AMATEUR stakes are not the place to attract "new blood" or "hook someone" into the game. This has generally been reserved for the Derby ~ which is why it starts on a Saturday (generally) and most often gives the young competitor a chance to play for at least 3-4 series . . . green ribbons are encouraged in the Derby so folks who are just beginning, want to come back for more.

So be careful what you wish for . . . it just might bite you in the end.

 

[Lisa Van Loo]

I think if clubs were to be allowed to hold a third trial, regardless of format, it would reduce entry numbers.

There would numerically be more trials to choose from on any given weekend. This would split up the entries, with some going to Trial A, and some to Trial B.

No need for O/H ANYTHING, unless the club just wanted to.

Lisa