Along those lines I think only the third trial should be all O/H and that would fix everything.
Competing trials
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?
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
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.
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.
The points should be the same I am not suggenting restricting the Pro's from entering, just demanding they own the dogs they enter.rbr said: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.
I disagree with this and the quality of the stakes should not be affected as a pro trained dog could be ran by his owner, AM or Pro in the Open. In our Circuit, it would be a tough sell to say Gary Unger, Marvin Blount, Ken Neil, Mac or Lynn Dubose, are at any deficit in the open with any of their dogs reguardless of who trained it.eli said: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.
We hire BB for our trials from a Local FFA group, it works well and I would suggest your clubs looking into it also.eli said: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?
The local club members lose when this option is elected.eli said: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.
I am not suggesting this change to enticing new blood to the major stakes, however I have no doubt that would happen, will it stop you from entering an event if 10-15 new handlers are in the O/H events, I would still be competing against the best regional dogs we have in the circuit and let me tell you they are awesome.eli said: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.
I see this issue as a wonderful debate and interesting, I dont feel the Pro's would be at any diadvantage not being able to put their strings in competition, they could enter provided they own the dog, hence its open to every handler who owns their dog.
I see the real problem is selfish Amateur's who want another weekend that "Their" pro's can trial their dog. I feel if you want numbers restrictions for a 3rd trial you should tailor the event for the club's members and regional members, not for a Pro's truck bringing dogs from all over the country. That should cause some hate and discontent.
I dont feel that having owners handle their dogs reduces the quality of anything in the Open or Am, the handler/dogs will eliminate themselves being judged against the field, the only difference will be you wont see michigan/ minnesota etc.. dogs run in our local NC circuit.
I dont believe this is everyone's solution, I think it should be my club's solution, and as the FTS for the last 3 years I thinkI would like to see our club members benefit for putting on a 3rd trial in a year. I don't think the Pro's would really mind as our local/regional/national pro's Alan P and Hugh Arthur have a 30+ trial season without the 3rd weekend. I think we should be looking at ways to encourage our local (4 state regional) dogs in competition.
I see the real problem is selfish Amateur's who want another weekend that "Their" pro's can trial their dog. I feel if you want numbers restrictions for a 3rd trial you should tailor the event for the club's members and regional members, not for a Pro's truck bringing dogs from all over the country. That should cause some hate and discontent.
I dont feel that having owners handle their dogs reduces the quality of anything in the Open or Am, the handler/dogs will eliminate themselves being judged against the field, the only difference will be you wont see michigan/ minnesota etc.. dogs run in our local NC circuit.
I dont believe this is everyone's solution, I think it should be my club's solution, and as the FTS for the last 3 years I thinkI would like to see our club members benefit for putting on a 3rd trial in a year. I don't think the Pro's would really mind as our local/regional/national pro's Alan P and Hugh Arthur have a 30+ trial season without the 3rd weekend. I think we should be looking at ways to encourage our local (4 state regional) dogs in competition.
Randy I really fail to see how the extra non O/H dogs would seriously affect the breed as a whole, I dont see the degradation in the titles only better numbers for the clubs and judges. The trials of yesteryear in no way had the quanity of animals nor the severity of tests, I often hear that 20 years ago the type of tests that were used in the open would be a qual test now. I cannot attest to that but I surely think that if handlers did not want to run in this format(O/H), their lack of entries would tell clubs that this in not an option. All I ask is that the clubs have this as an option for a third trial.
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.
RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF
A forum community dedicated to retriever owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about breeding, training, health, behavior, housing, adopting, care, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
drunkenpoacher
169 Replies
roseberry
79 Replies
road kill
57 Replies
Recommended Communities
