[AmiableLabs]

You'd have to have your head buried in the sand to not know that "bloodsports" are under attack by the animal rights whack-0s, and their politically correct sympathetics.

We are particularly vulnerable. The whack-0s could easily paint our activity as merely a "sport" or "game" and then accuse us of killing birds for "a game."

Joe S. wisely mentioned on another thread that the sporting retriever groups (AKC HTs & FTs, UKC/HRC, NAHRA, NFRA, etc.) need to get their act together pre-emptively, and put up a united front.

I can see that happening especially under the auspices of the USSA -- http://www.ussportsmen.org/ -- they have already been working to get sporting dog groups to unite.

I can see that happening all the groups uniting, EXCEPT for the AKC! The AKC does not want to admit other groups exist. And they already have their own legislative arm, which they use to battle breed specific legislation, as well as other issues facing dog fanciers.

But if push came to shove -- Would the AKC defend the use and killing of live birds by FTs and HTs?

Personally, I don't think so. The AKC membership is populated mostly by conformation clubs, made up of dog fanciers who are by and large "animal lovers." I can easily imagine the majority of whom would not mind seeing our use of live birds pass by the way side.

And this has me worried. That the AKC, the 900 lb. gorilla, might not be willing to work with other groups to defend us, and worse might not be willing to use its own forces defend us!

What say you?

 

[badbullgator]

I doubt that AKC woud defend the use of birds. One can only hope tha the others HRC/UKC, NAHRA.......would as they are more founded by hunters, for hunters.

 

[AmiableLabs]

I doubt that AKC woud defend the use of birds. One can only hope tha the others HRC/UKC, NAHRA.......would as they are more founded by hunters, for hunters.

I realize it is an impossibility at this point to do anything about it. But if the AKC is unwilling to defend us, then we have found ourselves aligned with the wrong registry.

 

[Bob Gutermuth]

Considering that Nelson Sills and Pete Simonds are well respected at AKC, and are dedicated to our sport, I think there would be considerable pressure brought to bear by them and by the F/T clubs that are member clubs to make AKC work to defend our games. This is one of the main reasons that ALL AKC F/T and H/T clubs need to become member clubs and get the vote. Yes the majority of the AKC clubs are fluffy dog groups BUT if they stop hunt tests and field trials, can shows, herding tests and earth dog trails be far behind?

 

[K G]

I can see that happening all the groups uniting, EXCEPT for the AKC!

Kevin, who do you think helped lead the charge against the screws being turned on the Pittman-Robertson act so that we could still use lands acquired by the taxes on hunting licenses for field events? The AKC! Now, if that's not leadership, what is????

I can assure you that the AKC has supported the continued use of game birds for performance events under their license. As long as clubs, judges, and participants follow the AKC's written edict of treating game birds humanely, the AKC will continue to support their use. If we don't, and they get put between the proverbial rock and a hard place, they might be forced to acquiesce to the AR folks....but as long as PETA, DDAL, and the like continue to focus on KFC and other mass-usage targets, our sports will not likely be on their hit list.

If we'll help the AKC help us, they will. If we don't, they won't. Pretty simple.

But if the AKC is unwilling to defend us, then we have found ourselves aligned with the wrong registry.

Sounds like you're conducting a "push" poll here, Kevin....is there a reason for that??? :?

Keith Griffith

 

[badbullgator]

Bob
You may be right in some respects, but we could well end up with HT/FT's using rubber ducks ala SRS!!
SRS gets a lot of TV time and if it works for them why would it not work in HT/FT (don't get me wrong, I don't want rubber ducks).

 

[K G]

BBG, that sort of thinking is exactly why we need to go out of our way to treat game birds humanely.......

The ***** in our armor will occur when the AR folks think we are starting to have dissent in our own ranks.

The AKC will defend those who follow the rules as written. Those that don't follow the rules will be left twisting in the wind.

I can guarantee you that! :wink: !

Keith G.

 

[KJB]

PETA's Ingrid Newkirk has made it abundantly clear that PETA is opposed to even owning dogs as companions. After medical testing is ended, and hunters are all banished, who do you think is next on their list???? Pet owners. I wonder if AKC would jettison "bloodsports" to save everything else... maybe, maybe not, but for sure, the hardcore AR groups are not friends of show dogs either. They just have the political savvy to keep quiet about their ultimate goal of complete freedom from human interference for all animals.

 

[AmiableLabs]

KG,

I was hoping you would chime in.

RE: AKC defending use of P-R lands

That is very far removed from defending the "killing of live birds for sport/games" (as the antis will frame it).


RE: this being a push poll

In your quote of me, you left out the part of my paragraph that removes the possibility this is a push poll. I said "...it is an impossibility to do anything about it." If it is an impossibility to do anything about it, it can't be a push poll.


RE: we need to treat the birds humanely

You are absolutely correct. But that doesn't stop the antis from using videos to misguide the ignorant. Sometimes you can do everything right, but in the eyes of the ignorant, it appears all wrong.

 

[K G]

That also doesn't stop the AR folks from using threads such as this one to use as ammunition for their own internal use....to fuel their fire that there is dissention in the ranks and that the "bloodsport" supporters don't believe that the world's largest purebred dog registry will defend our right to use live game in the testing of, and further improvement of, sporting breeds of dogs.

Don't forget to see the trees in the forest, Kevin........

I said "...it is an impossibility to do anything about it."

In your second post,you wrote that. This whole thing reeks of a push poll....."aligned with the wrong registry" indeed..... :roll:

Keith G.

 

[badbullgator]

Keith
I hope your right. I believe that a compromise, such as using rubber birds, is a victory for the AR people and a loss for those of us who enjoy our sport and understand the importance of a trained gun dog (be it retrievers or otherwise). It is a distinct possibility, in my opinion, that it is something that could happen. I am sure any group of ARA?s will come at you first with the simply stop the sport line, but would fall back to the compromise as a means to get a foot in the door to stop our sport all together.
The argument that fake birds can be used just a easily is going to be a hard one to beat with the NON-DOG community that have no feelings either way about hunting, and certainly with those that are not fond of hunting (much less those that are anti).
Just to stir the pot. What would be your argument for continuing to use live shot flyers instead of rubber ducks, given the success of SRS and other who use fake birds (or the ugly blue bumpers in England)? Also given the fact that a LOT of training is done using bumpers, how will we justify using live birds?
Again, I will never stop using live birds in my training and hope that is true of HT/FT?s as well.

 

[K G]

What would be your argument for continuing to use live shot flyers instead of rubber ducks, given the success of SRS and other who use fake birds (or the ugly blue bumpers in England)?

The "success" of the SRS is relative, at best. It's a made for TV event, BBG. No one in their right mind is going to blow up ducks on "live" TV (right, WRC???????????), unless it's a hunting show. As long as there are hunting shows and the Second Amendment, we've got something to fall back on in our defense. Until I can shoot a rubber bumper and sautee' it with some mushrooms and onions, I'll be defending our right to use live flyers at field events.

Can they hunt in England like we do here? I honestly don't know....but ask Aussie how she likes Australia's version of personal firearms freedom. When they start going after our use of ducks, guns aren't far behind.

I'd say we should support the AKC's efforts to defend our sport, rather than speculate about whether they would or not if pushed.

Jeez.......as if the world doesn't have enough problems already..... :x .....

Keith Griffith

 

[KJB]

Just to stir the pot. What would be your argument for continuing to use live shot flyers instead of rubber ducks, given the success of SRS and other who use fake birds (or the ugly blue bumpers in England)? Also given the fact that a LOT of training is done using bumpers, how will we justify using live birds?

That is an excellent question. I don't have a good answer for it. I should. Maybe it needs a new thread, cuz we should all have a ready answer for this question.

 

[Vickie Lamb]

In addition to what Keith has said, consider this:

The AKC has just committed to an expensive, extensive overhaul of their coonhound program and competitive venues.

This is not a registry worried about pacifying the foo-foo owners, I can assure you. AKC is concerned about keeping all dog owners rights intact, or they will gradually be eroded, step by step, and they know that.

 

[Vickie Lamb]

Just to stir the pot. What would be your argument for continuing to use live shot flyers instead of rubber ducks, given the success of SRS and other who use fake birds (or the ugly blue bumpers in England)? Also given the fact that a LOT of training is done using bumpers, how will we justify using live birds?

That is an excellent question. I don't have a good answer for it. I should. Maybe it needs a new thread, cuz we should all have a ready answer for this question.

We justify this because our dogs are bred to retrieve game to hand and deliver it in a condition fit for the table. Rubber and plastic do not let us know if our dogs possess that very necessary quality for which our dogs are used in the field.

 

[AmiableLabs]

That also doesn't stop the AR folks from using threads such as this one to use as ammunition for their own internal use....

First off, threads like these are discussed all the time, even on this forum, this is nothing new. Second, the sorry alternative is to NOT talk about it publicly. :!:

In your second post,you wrote that. This whole thing reeks of a push poll....."aligned with the wrong registry" indeed..... :roll:

What difference does it make if it was the first post or the one-hundredth! The point is that it is an impossibility to do anything about it, so by pure logic it can't be a push poll! What sense is there in pushing people to do something, when that something is impossible?! No sense at all. :roll: My gawd, give me some credit. :?

 

[KJB]

We justify this because our dogs are bred to retrieve game to hand and deliver it in a condition fit for the table. Rubber and plastic do not let us know if our dogs possess that very necessary quality for which our dogs are used in the field.

Vickie,
This answer works for you, and me, and our fellow hunters. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of justifying the use of live birds to someone like, well, my own mother. Even tho my stepdad and I hunt, she doesn't really "get" it. When I tried to explain why I killed a swan, I didn't do a very good job, even tho I think she wanted to be convinced that I'm not some bloodythirsty weirdo who kills big beautiful harmless birds. Granted, no answer will work with a committed anti-hunter. But I feel that as a hunter and biologist, I should have a well thought out, reasonable answer to a naive or moderate person. Am I making any sense here?
Tina

 

[Vickie Lamb]

Tina --

Hope you are well!

I do think it is as simple as that. If we stop using birds and instead use plastic and rubber 'replacements' and then award TITLES for accomplishments, without knowing if those dogs possess the necessary mouth to do the job for which they were bred to do...we could effectively breed efficient mouths right out of our beloved retriever breeds and render them useless to us for retrieving game.

 

[K G]

Okay, Kevin....let's get down to the brass tacks of what a "push" poll is....

There's a mayoral race in your town. Someone calls you on the phone and says, for instance, "Would you vote for someone for mayor who was an atheist?" You would say, "No, I wouldn't." The pollster would say, "Would it bother you to know that candidate X is doesn't go to church regularly?" It may or may not bother you, but it has planted the seed in your mind that candidate X might be an atheist. The poll pushes the thought that candidate X might be an atheist 'cause they don't go to church....doesn't really come out and say it, but insinuates it....

I can see that happening all the groups uniting, EXCEPT for the AKC! The AKC does not want to admit other groups exist. And they already have their own legislative arm, which they use to battle breed specific legislation, as well as other issues facing dog fanciers.

But if push came to shove -- Would the AKC defend the use and killing of live birds by FTs and HTs?

Personally, I don't think so. The AKC membership is populated mostly by conformation clubs, made up of dog fanciers who are by and large "animal lovers." I can easily imagine the majority of whom would not mind seeing our use of live birds pass by the way side.

And this has me worried. That the AKC, the 900 lb. gorilla, might not be willing to work with other groups to defend us, and worse might not be willing to use its own forces defend us!

The title of this thread and the wording of the poll are biased enough as it is. Now, if you're not "pushing" people to believe that the AKC will not defend our right to test dogs with live game, what are you doing??????????

Keith Griffith

 

[AmiableLabs]

Keith,

I am not going ot go around in circles with you on this. Your example of a push poll is correct. But what you apparently fail to see is that your example had a valid "end."

I understood your objection to be over my statement that supposing the AKC will not defend us, we have aligned ourselves with the wrong registry. The "push" then would to align ourselves with someone more friendly. But there is no validity to that push, because I state it is an impossibility.

Now you have apparently changed your argument to saying I was "push polling" people to get results that agree with my perspective. How did I do that? By offering my opinion in the post. Why would I do that, what do I have to gain? I am not sure what you have in mind. Maybe I am psychologically so insecure, I need the personal affirmation. :? In any case, I am honored that you think my opinion is so influential as to sway the good people on this forum. :wink: I happen to disagree.

But let me make a suggestion, and I mean this sincerely and not to be curt, why not write a new poll addressing this issue of the AKC defending bloodsports, but worded your way?

If my poll is invalid, I would welcome the opportunity to examine your results.