RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Should clubs have the right to limit the number of entries per handler?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,963 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The mechanics of a Ft or HT test can be effected by dog and handler availability. Extra by-dogs may be needed, additional flyers shot, additional bird boy hours,etc can effect the "flow" of a stake as well as the economics of the trial/test.
Please state why you would support or reject the idea of clubs opting to limit the number of dogs per handler.

Tim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,545 Posts
I voted yes. It isn't about actual help at the test/trial, it's a fairness issue. The absence of the ability for the clubs tho manage the size of the tests/trials we are seeing in the last few years means that we require the judges to manage the enrty size issue. They have only a few options and none of them are particularly attractive. As long as we expect the judges to manage the numbers issue, no one is going to like the outcome.
The usual result is a humdinger first series designed to reduce the field to managable size. A foot fault in the first series gets you dropped while the same fault in the last series would be good enough for a ribbon.
Some one's ox is going to get gored in the process of bringing this whole problem back to reality. I want it to be the guy that is sitting home wondering how his/her dog is doing this weekend to be the gore-eee. If you aren't able/willing to get you ass in the grass with the rest of us, real sorry about that, but something has to give.
I'm not anti-pro, they bring a lot to this game and a lot of my best friends are pros (wouldn't want my sister to marry one though). The problem is the absentee owner. At a very recent test in this area, of a total of 32 Master entries, one particular person had 18 entries. Another example cited in a related thread had a pro from Texas that had a thrid of the dogs in the Open.
This game is made possible by the efforts of a amazingly small group of dedicated folks that have put forth their best efforts for far too long. When the fun all runs out for those few, this whole thing collapses.

Train all the dogs you want, run THE DOGS that you OWN.

Just opinion

Bubba
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,234 Posts
I would want to know the specifics before I could vote -- limit the handler to how many dogs?

An event that limits all handlers to one dog might be interesting to watch, but I am not sure I would want the clubs to have that much power. :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,637 Posts
Bubba wrote:

Train all the dogs you want, run THE DOGS that you OWN.
I don't think that's realistic. It would also most likely just lead to co-ownerships as a way around a rule that says you can only run your own dogs.

On a personal level-I took a trip this Spring & an RTF er I'd never met was nice enough to let me run his dog in a hunt test. I'm going to be running a friend's dog in a couple weeks at a couple of tests. Your rule wouldn't allow me to do that. I know that what I've described isn't what you're trying to eliminate, but the fact is it would.

Where does it leave the pros? Out of a job? I prefer to train & run my own dog & always will, but I don't begrudge the pro whose livelihood depends upon showing up w/ a truck full of dogs. I've been juggled around in the running order to accomodate them & accept it as part of running tests.

As a one dog owner I'm happy (ok-I get bitchy sometimes if I get left in the field too long sometimes & I haven't run my dog yet :roll: ) to take my place in the field & I don't begrudge throwing for a pro who is running a truck full of dogs. Truthfully-given the opportunity I think I pick up a few things watching them run.

The problem is the absentee owner.
While I agree that it would be great to see owners of dogs run by pros helping us out in the field I don't know how realistic that is either. Some dogs are with a pro because of a time issue where the owners can't possibly get to tests.

I like running my dog, but I don't think it's fair to say that the game should exist only for folks like me.

M
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
limit entry

Bubba said:
...As long as we expect the judges to manage the numbers issue, no one is going to like the outcome.
The usual result is a humdinger first series designed to reduce the field to managable size. A foot fault in the first series gets you dropped while the same fault in the last series would be good enough for a ribbon...

The same error in the last series is not really equal to that in the first. First of all this dog has already successfully completed the first series without a fault. ANe then all the other series. Remember that judging is cumulative. And by golly if I make it to the last series , that ribbon (even if only a green) makes the ride home easier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
649 Posts
Bad poll

This is a bad poll - you really need to specifiy whether you are talking about limits in general terms, AKC field trials only, or all hunt test/trial venues everywhere.

The answers do not fit every situation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,282 Posts
As Chris stated, the various venues are handled differently. HRC, as an example, already has limits, and the host club can use those (not exceeding the numbers) or impose a different limit. HRC also limits each handler to no more than 8 DOGS TOTAL, which makes sense in that program.

Since there are no eliminations under normal testing, judges see all entries whether they have failed or not. All three levels are running simultaneously, and even the 8 dog limitation causes some slow-ups in the timing of the tests.

AKC hunt tests also limit their numbers in the Master level, by adding judges when the numbers in a Master exceed 60, although there is no regulation for a limited number of dogs handled by an individual.

So about the only way this subject has any concern is in the FT game. It's understandable local hosts are becoming overwhelmed by the numbers...the lack of help to handle these numbers...as well as the lack of grounds.

I recall when we had trails, it was a real pain to have a truckload of 16 dogs running different stakes, especially since we frequently had a long distance between them. This caused lots of travel time that frequently caused waiting around for handlers and dogs to show up.

It's also understandable from AKC's standpoint to not limit numbers, which can also be seen as limiting competition. So it's becoming a real "catch 22" which will be difficult to resolve.

For the reasons stated, I've stayed out of this discussion on other threads. I really don't have a dog in this hunt, and our remote area of the country seldom has such a problem, be it a trial or hunt test. I don't envy those that must wrestle with a solution to this growing aggravation.

UB
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top