RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Should the AKC allow a club to hold a O/H Amat and Qual?

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%

Competing trials

6993 Views 52 Replies 23 Participants Last post by  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?
1 - 5 of 53 Posts
Howard N said:
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?

Re: gg

Randy Bohn said:
An owner/handler open WOULD NOT benefit our dogs according to what the AKC stands for.....improving the breed...remember??? Without yesterdays professional trainers we wouldn't have the AWESOME animals of today!!
#1 if the AKC was really committed to "improving the breed" why have they not advocated increasing the HT standards?

They cann't have it both ways!

#2 There has been a AMAT/Qual FT. The quality of judges were 8 point judges across the board.. The Amat winner qualified for the NAFC and has since judged a National (Bob Willow).
Show me proof that this type of trial does not enhance dog performance.

I started this thread becauase I am probably one of the few that know the history of this problem.
The Maryland Ret.Club started holding FTs in 1949. We were one the first clubs to attempt 2 trials per year. In 1968 we held a 2nd trial with only an Amat and a Qual. It was a 2 day event.
Local pro's filed a complaint with the AKC and the AKC responded by establishing a "policy" that if any championship points are to awarded that an Open must occur.
The AKC to date is not willing or able to produce a dated policy in writting.
I have made several written request to the AKC to produce this document but they always say it can not be located.
If you would be wiling to challenge this policy. Let me know your fee.

Gerard Rozas said:
In Texas this spring, we could have as many as 4 new trials!

A couple of them chaired by Pros. So things are being to change.[/quote

That is great news. If the remainder of the PTRA would adapt this sense of responsibility that would help solve the problem
??? Did or will they exclude themselves from judge selection, Are they and/or their clients eligible to run this trial, will they make available their employees /workers(at the expense of the club of course)?

Congrats, Your area has done more then most!!!

1 - 5 of 53 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.