[canuckkiller]

"A Ticket to Ride"

Folks, take a careful look at the history, intent of how/why this began, and the trend as to the
nominations of persons and dogs to the Retriever Hall of Fame at the Bird Dog Foundation,
Grand Junction, TE.

Factor in the support and criticism over these many years; relate and compare the original
intent to results. Weigh the self serving agendas vs. blatant omissions. What emerges is a
continual flawed policy/program that now reflects a mandate that further distances it from
what was originally intended. Simply stated, a departure from a grass roots participation that
ostensibly would garner an unbiased vote from the retriever community and select the best
of the best as inductees.

Today, Bing Grunewald, August Belmont, John Olin, A. A. Jones, Oscar Brewer, et al and others
would vehemently object front and center to the latest attempt (vendetta?) to control nominations
by only registered licensed AKC judges under a ploy of reduction of paper work and whatever.

It is my opinion that the retriever community should rise up and defeat this egregious change of
events.

William D. Connor

 

[Jan Helgoth]

??? I'm not following your train of thought....

Why is the requirement of only allowing registered licensed AKC judges a bad thing? That is certainly an indication of someone who chooses to give back to the sport. Anyone who is not willing to give back to the sport by giving up their time and energy once in a while to make the sport challenging, interesting and fair to their fellow contestants does not deserve to be in the Hall of Fame or vote in it. I do not think that those who only throw cash at the sport with their entry fees (yet never helps out in any other way to facilitate the event) should be involved at all. (This is just MHO)

Is it that you do not like the fact that this would eliminate the PRO's?

 

[huntinman]

As an 8 point judge myself, I had the exact same thought Mr. Connor did. There are many people in the game with experience, who help in many ways other than judging. They should have a say if they want it as well.

I take the HOF with a grain of salt anyway. There are so many great dog people who have been snubbed over the years, it's hard to take it serious. JMHO

 

[mjh345]

As an 8 point judge myself, I had the exact same thought Mr. Connor did. There are many people in the game with experience, who help in many ways other than judging. They should have a say if they want it as well.

I take the HOF with a grain of salt anyway. There are so many great dog people who have been snubbed over the years, it's hard to take it serious. JMHO

^^^^^^My thoughts exactly^^^^^

 

[Stylesl]

Two items---
1. Professional trainers---can nominate! PRTA can help them with that-so have your pro contact PRTA.
2. The lack of recognition for dogs/people you think should be in the RFTHOF. Folks, I am not a "polly-anna" but if this years nomination process change has generated conversation/dialogue, etc. I think that is a good thing. From reading posts on this topic the past weeks, I have a page of names of people/dogs who have not been inducted into the RFTHOF. I don't know a lot about some of them right now, but I plan on knowing more before I submit my nominations. Maybe my choices won't make it this year but who knows about the future?

 

[swliszka]

Some of us have been having private conversations on this topic because so many who visit here have no historical FT knowledge or hands-on perspective. One solution is to have our own INFORMAL "old-timer" committee with William Connor as chair.and he could gather some knowledgeable folks and sponsor some names of dogs and people , yearly, which we, those w/FT judging credentials (by current regs) could focus on voting into the HOF. Anybody for Pete Rose or Shoeless Joe??

 

[BonMallari]

Some of us have been having private conversations on this topic because so many who visit here have no historical FT knowledge or hands-on perspective. One solution is to have our own INFORMAL "old-timer" committee with William Connor as chair.and he could gather some knowledgeable folks and sponsor some names of dogs and people , yearly, which we, those w/FT judging credentials (by current regs) could focus on voting into the HOF. Anybody for Pete Rose or Shoeless Joe??

The mere fact that WD Connor himself has NOT been nominated is a travesty on its own. I looked at the criteria and Bill certainly meets the majority of the criteria, a 200 point dog, a National OPEN champion, a National Am judge, served on numerous committee, titled both a golden and a lab, plus over 100 judging assignments (major and minor), I know I am biased but until guys like him are in , is it really a true representation of our history and legacy of the sport

 

[canuckkiller]

Bon, kind words. But, the issues in this Post are ** preserving the traditional grass roots nominating process from
any and all in the retriever field trial community; ** counter the claim the process is a "popularity contest";
** on an unbiased basis skim off an acceptable number of top vote getters regionally & nationally; ** conduct an
'arm's length electoral vote by tenured, qualified members that may well include licensed AKC Field Trial Judges,
Professional trainers as well as prime movers from area clubs that "make it happen"; ** an electoral/induction vote
installing number of Persons (2), Dogs (2), Old Timers (1), Professionals (1).

This process - much of which has been in effect - is what this Post subscribes to, not the exclusionary policy of
limiting nomination & election to only licensed AKC retriever field trial judges.

W. D. Connor

 

[BonMallari]

Just because I'm not eligible to nominate and probably vote too, doesn't mean I'm not going to lobby those friends of mine that are still alive to vote or not as the case may be. The RHOF can change the process all they want, doesn't mean I have to agree with it or like it