RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
726 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Our club is discussing this now.

These are my feelings as I believe we are going to regulate the rules to death for many reasons. Including the judges who do not truly underrstand dog work and are able to read what is happenning as opposed to this rule applies so I will apply it. Master National influence. AKC's failure to weed out bad judges, and more.

My comments regarding the proposed rules changes being discussed are in italics


Apprentice Judges:

1. Require apprentice judges to have same eligibility as other judges re: which dogs can be entered in the test being apprenticed.
2. Show apprentice judges on premium’s panel of judges.


Make Rules ‘Specific Rather Than Grey’:
Making rules specific takes a lot away from judging what you see and using good judgement.
It appears that we are becoming to over regulated. Get rid of the bad judges through AKC monitoring, and clubs making responsible for their decisions. Continue to regulate and we will not be judges but rule enforcers looking for a way to fail a dog.


1. Judges need to be consistent on scoring dogs related to ‘handling on marks’; one set of judges drops dogs w/one handle in one series while other judges allow handles in all three series and qualifies the dog.


Judges must understand when a dog has shown a mark. Just becuase you handle on a mark does not mean the dog did not show marking ability. Judge what you see.
Making a hard rule on this eliminates judging which is what a judge is supposed to do. If any rule is made it should read that handling on multiple marks or on marks in multiple series does not necessarily prevent a dog from attaining a qualifying score. Yes, probably a handle in each series should not get a qualifying score. But....
Again get rid of bad judges.



2. Require a triple in every master test series.

Why? There are many factors that dictate the test a pair of judges set up. A double can, at times, be more challenging than a triple. Depending on factors, such as terrain, delays, mark placement, blinds, poison birds, area available, etc.


3. Not allow a ‘walk up’ in the junior test.
YES

4. Require the same sequence for calls, shots & bird thrown in all tests when marks are thrown; i.e., duck call, shot, & present bird.

NO. What is the progression in training? JH dogs are not finished dogs and we should be encouraging them to continue. When appropriate at any level,the order of call, shot, and throw can be dictated by such things as wind, noise from a nearby road, background, and more.



5. Require same timing of #4 for all tests; some judges have lengthy delays while others go too fast; this is trickery.

Not necessarily. to give the dogs/handlers a fair chance due to the amount of sspread/angle between birds, wind/noise, background, cover, etc. a delay may be appropriate.
Too fast is not acceptable.



6. Implementation of #’s 1, 2, 4 & 5 will reduce ‘favoritism’ by judges based on the handler being a ‘pro’ or ‘amateur’.

Who came up with thais one? BS


7. Rule book should address ‘favoritism by judges’ and provide a basis for handlers to file a grievance.

How to prove. Judges should be judging on what they see.


Pro & Amateur Tests

1. Authorize clubs to conduct different tests for professional trainers and amateur handlers either in conjunction w/regularly scheduled hunting tests or separate tests.

As long as not mandatory. Better yet, No MH titled dogs can run in a MH test. Must run in a seperate stake.


2. Consider separate titles for each (pro or amateur) event.

3. Consider a national ‘pro’ and ‘amateur’ event.

Refund Entries for Change in Judges

1. Require clubs to refund entry fees if handler requests it due to last minute changes in judges.

Just like Dog shows.


Offer Clubs an Option of Limit Entries in Hunting Tests

1. Master tests,

Limit entries of MH titled dogs. Any non titled MH entry will always be allowed to compete.
Unless number of non titled MH entries exceeds the limit.


2. Senior tests, & NO

3. Junior tests NO

Switch

1. When a dog returns to an old fall area, establishes a hunt, it shall be considered a switch.

Only if the areas of the fall are not overlapping due to closeness or running through old falls on the way to a mark due to placement of mark that the line is that close to the fall that a dog may run through the old AOF. These are not Field trials that require perfect lines. Applies to 1 and 2 (below).
Judge what you see.


2. Not require that the dog must put its nose down, do a 360 circle and then leave before it’s called a switch.



Distances on Marks

1. Marks should not normally exceed 150 yds

Marks should not normally exceed 100 yds. If you can not set up marks to challenge dogs at 50 yards you have no business judging.
It is a rare occassion to see marks this far when hunting. This just opens this up for judges that do not understand mark placement
and think distance is the way to test. Want to run longer marks, Field Trials are an option.



2. Qualifying scores for overall average of not less than (8) in senior and master for the entire test & independent average of not less than (6) in categories related to Marking and Blinds

Qualifying Scores

1. Require qualifying scores for overall average of not less than 8 in senior & master for the entire test

2. Require independent average of not less than 6 in categories related to Marking and Blinds

Why? these tests are to a standard. Following the meaning of a standard, a good deal of the dogs should pass.
And it should be that a good deal of non titled dogs that pass. There is no reason to change the standard other than to
make it harder to qualify for the MN. The scoring is just fine as it is.


No Go on Blind Retrieves

Judge what you see. It is possible for confusion to take place!
Handler says dogs name rather than back - dog goes and stops.
Handler says back too softly.
Make a fair decision!






I have a few rules. These tests are to a standard and not about anything Master National.

Keep this for the amateurs that just want the AKC titles of JH, SH, and MH.
Keep them in the hands of those that just want a title(s) on their dogs.

No past or present member of the MN committee can be a member of the RHTAC.

Members of the RHTAC must have trained, not just run, a dog to a Master title.

Members must have done so with multiple dogs.

Members of the RHTAC must have actively trained under the guidance of a pro.

Members of the RHTAC must have attended less than 3 master Nationals.


Greg
Brandywine Labradors
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
Thanks for putting this stuff out there Greg.

I was going to post that I wish the AKC would put the updated rule book on the internet, since it was 3 months after the rules went into effect, but I see they must have just put them up this week (because it was not up there as of Tuesday).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
726 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
From what I understand, what I posted here are under consideration for submission.
I have not checked the AKC site to see if the rules that went into effect this year are posted yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,012 Posts
From what I understand, what I posted here are under consideration for submission.
What club or clubs or people are considering these new rules/regulations for submission?
What is your source for this info?

I belong to two clubs who belong to the Master National Retriever Club. Neither club has received a single bit of correspondence from anyone about suggested new rules/regulations.

Because one of the clubs had a hunt test earlier this month, the club received copies of the new AKC Rules/Regulations booklet (cover is sort of a lime green camo) from AKC.

Helen Graves
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,442 Posts
What club or clubs or people are considering these new rules/regulations for submission?
What is your source for this info?

I belong to two clubs who belong to the Master National Retriever Club. Neither club has received a single bit of correspondence from anyone about suggested new rules/regulations.

Because one of the clubs had a hunt test earlier this month, the club received copies of the new AKC Rules/Regulations booklet (cover is sort of a lime green camo) from AKC.

Helen Graves
I do believe that is the case for our club, too - I wanted to say the same thing about voting for the MN judges, but wanted to confirm with our club first, I don't recall ever getting a ballot let alone knowing who has been nominated?!

I wonder why we bother paying National dues to any of the National level clubs, we don't get a vote in matters and the information on issues trickles down only once in a blue moon...

We have not heard about any proposed rule changes either...nothing like living in the dark ages when it comes to things like this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,141 Posts
These are not proposed rule changes. They are comments/suggestions sent in by people in the HT world for the RHTAC to consider. However, they could turn into proposed rule changes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,837 Posts
This isn't anything new really.
There has been a few that lack common sense when it comes to judging for yrs.
Those need more rules because of it.
If you have common sense then you don't need everything broken down and explained to death.
Same old same old.
So much more it sems in Hunt tests than in Trials though.
Someone is always trying to make it more complicated than it needs to be.
More rules at each level, more passes,more tests, more distance,more titles,no call,no gun,...............it's endless.
Sue
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
719 Posts
One rule change they are not considering and it seems to get brushed under the table is, Limiting Entries. This does impact AKC revenue so its not in their best interest to address. Some of the recent rule changes puts more admisistraive burden on the Clubs while the AKC is cutting staff. Hmmm seems like Congress passing laws but no funds to implement it. Guess that is the definition of Bureaucracy.

Rules that benfit clubs get tossed aside and in return you get more mandates from the AKC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,141 Posts
One rule change they are not considering and it seems to get brushed under the table is, Limiting Entries. This does impact AKC revenue so its not in their best interest to address. Some of the recent rule changes puts more admisistraive burden on the Clubs while the AKC is cutting staff. Hmmm seems like Congress passing laws but no funds to implement it. Guess that is the definition of Bureaucracy.

Rules that benfit clubs get tossed aside and in return you get more mandates from the AKC.
How do you know that rule change won't be considered?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,908 Posts
Ive been told I haven't been asked to judge this year because I posted my opinions regarding the MN influencing weekend hunt tests.

No comment!

See you all in the holding blind as none of you will be judging either
Regards

/Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
726 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
This was forwarded to a person in our club with the following message.

I received it with the following as part of the message.....

"I received this from a person in XX (state) that has been in contact with nnnnn (a person on RHTAC)."

Our club is discussing the need for our input on these matters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
719 Posts
How do you know that rule change won't be considered?
I am referring to the ones that have already gone into effect. Not about the ones under consideration or that have been suggested.

Guess it will become a self judged sport or the clubs will have to begin paying a professional judges like the rest of AKC events. Most performance field judges do this as a volunteer, or a way to pay back to the sport let alone the pure enjoyment of watching retrievers in the field. The more difficult or the less freedom to judge just forces out good judges. Over the years I've seen many good judges leave the sport and its sad. Good news is there is always UKC HRC!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,411 Posts
Ive been told I haven't been asked to judge this year because I posted my opinions regarding the MN influencing weekend hunt tests.

No comment!

See you all in the holding blind as none of you will be judging either
Regards

/Paul
sorry to hear you've been ostracized. the loss is theirs.

i suspect i'm not too popular either.-Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,207 Posts
I have always been a proponent of limiting entries. They used to let us, but haven't for many years. As far as I know, retriever HT are the ONLY venue that is not allowed to limit entries (FT can limit entries by offering limited stakes in the Am/Open). Upland dogs trials certainly can, as well as breed shows, obedience, agility, tracking, rally, lure coursing, etc. When I asked the AKC why those venues could limit entries, they stated that they had "space and time limitations". I think most HT clubs have both space and time limitations too. We have only so many grounds and when using private property or even state/federal property, you have to abide by their rules. Where we run our tests, that means you can't start before 8am and must stop at 6pm. By not allowing clubs to limit entries, you are forcing many clubs to go to 3 day tests, which put a huge burder on the club workers and makes it very difficult for amateur handlers as many can't get those Fridays off. The real reason is because with the MN, AKC can make a ton of money off the MH stake entries. This is certainly not in the best interest of the clubs, the dogs or the handlers, but will not change as long as the MN insanity persists.

Dawn
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
277 Posts
sorry to hear you've been ostracized. the loss is theirs.

i suspect i'm not too popular either.-Paul
Paul
I find that hard to believe. Having judged with you I know first hand your a very fair judge. you challenge the dogs to show case their skills; and your test set ups always get the answers you need to pass a dog at any level!
Warren Price
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top