That is only part of it, and you know it.Then what is your argument? You stated that some want this trial so they have no one to run against so that their dogs can become titled then breed like rabbits. Sounds like a competition argument to me.
Less competition, on my circuit much less competition, reference my previous post. And if your intent was to quote from a Robert F. Kennedy speech at least give the author credit😉Ed, some here ask why, some here ask why not. In your opinion what are the obvious reasons?
EXACTLY, a competition argument. Plain and simple.That is only part of it, and you know it.
A group of people want to have an Open when nobody will come so their carefully chosen judges will set up the tests they have been practicing for weeks or months and award placements to their dogs giving them titles they could not otherwise achieve.
Then they brag about their great dogs and hope to profit off "FC/AFC x FC/AFC" litters.
Ok I understand that. With that being said then, if we are talking solely about a competition argument, then with all due respect to these clubs, don't we have to bring up the FT's in Alaska?Less competition, on my circuit much less competition, reference my previous post
Because their weekends have been what they have been for sometime.why don't Alaska clubs have trials during the nationals?
I'll give you the answer. Alaska clubs hold trials in Alaska because they are in Alaska. Alaska clubs don't hold trials during the nationals because members hope to go to the nationals, they respect the sport and they want anyone and everyone to be able to enter their events. The last thing they want is to reduce the entry numbers.Because their weekends have been what they have been for sometime.
Why don't you & your club give up your weekends and let this other club have them. Then you guys could move to alternative weekends that work for you. Seems like a simple solution.
Lighten up Paul. Nobody’s offended including you."I did enter the Special Olympics. I can call it that, you cannot."
Can you not see that this is in extremely poor taste? By reiterating it you are offering a window into your true character, which is, sadly, lacking.
And no, I don't believe your reason for entering the event, nor do I believe you would not have used points you might have earned.
I would not have made that post if I didn't feel it was offensive and in poor taste.Lighten up Paul. Nobody’s offendedincluding you.
I support your right to believe whatever you want.
Just curious, how do you think specialty points should be counted?
Alright then, I offer my sincerest apology, I was thoughtless, cruel and failed to consider that my comments might trigger you and possibly others, but probably just you.I would not have made that post if I didn't feel it was offensive and in poor taste.
Just the way they are now. There's no need to re-invent the wheel. - Paul
You should have entered Paul, next year you will have to qualify for the NARC to run all age that weekend.Now that the entries for the trial in question have closed, it appears to me that the competition in the Open will not be as lackluster as you predicted. -Paul
When I got into the sport a dog that was QAA was a very valuable insurance policy for the 12 QAA dog requirement."Since when did the RAC concern itself with equality in entry size or level of competition in awarding points?"
A long time ago? Maybe Dr Ed or Marvin know the answer.