you must have an important call to take.

 

For once, you were right.

I was on the phone with Rorem, talking about the National.

 

Patrick

I have no idea what you are talking about.

But, here is what I do for the sport

- Judge 2x a year
- Find judges for the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club, West Nebraska Club, and in the past, Nebraska Dog and Hunt Club
- Do all of the paperwork for the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club (fill out AKC paperwork, pay bills, register events on Entry Express)
- Work at Rocky Mountain's two trials each year (you can ask Lainee or Vickie about how much I work at the trials)
- Sack birds at trials where I am visiting and run them out into the field
- Pay membership fees for the Missouri Valley Club and Nebraska Club - I think a $100 each - as a way of saying thanks for their putting on trials that I attend (even though I never train on their grounds)

If that is not enough for you, well I suggest you take aim at some others, because I guarantee that I do my fair share

 

- Work at Rocky Mountain's two trials each year (you can ask Lainee or Vickie about how much I work at the trials)

Ted you were a great help at the trial - I appreciated everything you did to make my first experience judging an AA stake a good one!

Edit - I should add, Ted was out in the rain hanging birds, marshalling and rebirding for us. He worked his tail off at the trial and he does at both of the trials his club holds.....just because a person does not work every trial they attend does not mean they do not do their share!

Especially the rain gear!

FOM

 

i take that as still side stepping. i am sure you'll judge your national

 

Patrick

What is the burr under your saddle?

I am not promoting a change in qualification standards. So why do I have any obligation to respond to your issues? Why not look at someone else - Mike, perhaps, who wants to extend the National by a day?

I am not side stepping anything.

What does judging a National have to do with anything on this thread?

Ted

 

Patrick

I don't see you listed as a judge on the AKC site.

Am I missing something?

Ted

 

well or not civil, you avoided the points made, and when on with your speech. you did string out the duties of Event Sec pretty good. key word was work

 

well or not civil, you avoided the points made, and when on with your speech. you did string out the duties of Event Sec pretty good. key word was work

I think Lainee can speak to whether I work at the Rocky Mountain Club Events or not

But, I notice that you are silent about what you do

And about whether you judge - since you don't consider that work

 

Just wondering
Why doesn't anyone stick up for blonds,,,they seem to be abused and humiliated the most. And what about those polocks, who's sticking up for them.
People are to sensitive.

I haven't detected any hate on this board at all. Just people getting agitated or defensive which can be natural when people are passionate about something.,,, Which reminds me ,,,I need to find a passion.,, It seems like everyone here could care less what color some is or what race or even what religion
except muslum just kidding. Take it easy, It was a joke.
No really its an attempt at light humor


Hell you cant say I dont like chocolate without being called a racist.

I don't believe Marvin was making a racist attack and I don't think Laura took it that way. Marvin came across rude,,,so whats new It doesn't make him a German hater or even a Laura hater. Both Marvin and Laura come across as top notch people in their postings.

I may even get reprooved for my atempt at light humor . Be kind though I have a very low IQ.

Pete

 

Ted, how about you take my Willie pup for a month or so and work a little magic with her and I will give you some elk meat. My dad did shoot a nice 320-ish 6 pt and I have a cow tag I should be getting taken care of in the next few weeks.

 

Tell you what Patrick,

Since you think so poorly of me

Talk to the folks at San Jose and tell them that you will take my place and judge the Open in January

Then I will only have to judge two trials next year

And you can complain to more people about how little I do

 

I don't do snakes

 

I want to add one more thing since it seems Ted is a target of opportunity - I've been in the FT game for almost 5 years now and Ted has been the ONLY person besides my Pro and Dave Rorem to take the time and mentor a newbie......and I'm not talking just gallery chat, either.

I am thankful that he is willing to help me be a better handler.......

FOM

Oppps I have to add Bill Schrader into the mix, too.

 

you still side stepped and you accepted a job do it. Don S is a very good guy.

My last assignment was 07 Sagehens Limited, i think pts 6 mjr 7 minor I have two differnt judges numbers one alphanumber and rreasigned number. I have been on board CSRC. Worked at MVCH before there was even a club house. I have judged with Barry and Marshalled his open SCR I believe cannot recall exactly maybe 06 lost hills. what else do you want . oh yeah i just a working stiff- uneducationed (can't spell) who elseare your going to drag into Mike P. I have run agaisnt him and underhim but do not know him personally. But he is a good dog person and civil.

 

Patrick

I have no idea what you are saying.

I think I will simply give up trying.

I am going to bed.

Ted

 

poorly of you . that is not accurate. i stated my observations only. no burr. just not big on bombs posted about rules and political motivation. i hope you do get to judge your national. reread , simply asked you to reflect posts. you have been too kind, and still side stepped the things you asked to be stated. back to the need a pt trials. i do not think poorly of you, and to quote my Fathers saying If you do not care for someone actions/person you have not had a chance to meet them. You cannot be in the same place at once. Judgement/ Understanding one or the other. Simple as that. I wish you the best of health and happiness. Forgot the chat note of your loss. Principle not personal

 

P.S. I've gotten some PM's about this thread and just got done reading it from start to finish. I gotta head to the office and already feel like I've been working!

Marvin, test out your smiley thing please. See how it works!!! :razz:

It's going to be a great day here in the flatlands. Hope all of you in RTF land have a great day too!

Chris

 

If one looks at the original application from the National Field Trial Club, the event was to be different from a weekend trial. Originally they wanted all dogs to run all series. and then pick the winner after looking at 10 series without dropping any dogs. AKC rejected this proposal and said they must follow the rules and procedures and that there were mandatory eliminations under the rules. If you read James L. Free’s later writings, you will find that in his opinion they dropped dogs for other than mandatory eliminations. (James L. Free was one of the original judges.) Also note that the qualifications have been tweaked many times—at least 7 times they have changed the qualifications. It is interesting to note that originally they were to pick the 20 best dogs in the country. Their scheme formed a que of all dogs running field trials. First priority was a dog winning a first place and ranked according to the total number of points. Second priority were dogs receiving a second and ranked according to the total number of points. Third priority were dogs receiving a third and ranked according to the total number of points. (A fourth place was not awarded championship points until 1947.) If a dog declined to enter the trial the next in the list was invited. They also stated there must be at least 15 starters.
The original idea of a fixed number of dogs to run the trial was eventually eliminated. There were two stated reasons. First to get a dog qualified you had to campaign a dog nation wide to be sure you were in this fixed number. Many people thought this was unacceptable. The second reason was the dogs on the bubble did not know if they were going to be invited until the final field trial of the year. And then they had to wait to see if someone rejected the invitation to see if they were next in line—this was unacceptable. It was universally agreed that there should be a fixed number of points and when you arrived at that you knew you were invited to the “big dance.”

Jack

 

Barry

Thank you.

I am sitting on the fence on this issue. I can see both sides of the issue.

My old man Zowie, who is lying on my feet as I type, never got to run a National Open, hampered by injuries and my poor handling skills. Two years ago, he got the win, but did not have enough points to qualify. I wished he would have been able to run at a National. He was well suited for the National and it would have rounded out his career. So, I understand full well how hard it is to qualify and the consequences of increasing the restrictions.

On the other hand, I think that the National Experience is a unique one. I think a big part of that is the "two strikes and you are out" mentality at a National, as opposed to the "one strike and you are out" at a weekend trial. It is a huge investment of time and money to train for and run a National. It’s a big bummer when you drive to a weekend trial and you go out in the first series. It’s a HUGE bummer when you drive across the country, train for a week, and then go out in the first series.

Like I said, I can see the arguments for both sides. I don’t think either is right or wrong. It’s a difference in preference.

And I think it is useful to discuss what we prefer ... and why.

Ted

 

Time has and always will be the number one factor for the judges to deal with at a National. Splitting tests is inefficient time wise because it requires almost one hour to make a move at a National. While the conditions may change during a single day on a test they are more likely to change over night. When tests are split the luck factor comes into play more, this does not always mean good luck, sometimes it just means not having bad luck.

The larger the entry there are more split tests and the inclination by the judges to to drop dogs is increased.

These are issues the sport must address, I do not presume to have the answers but I do recognize the problem. The National Championship is a unique event and should remain so, it will be up to the officers of The National Retriever Club to maintain that uniqueness.

 

I find it interesting that the thread turned to the age old "what you have done for the sport" and "what do you give back" arguments instead of remaining focused on the topic of "should we change the qualifications." I see them as two distinctly different topics. I suppose people want to believe that in order to have a valid opinion on this topic they must have "given back" to the sport. While I believe it is important to give back to the sport and certainly help clubs put on events, I also view people as customers of the sport and the events. As a customer of the event, any person should have a the opportunity to share their opinion of the qualifications needed to attend the national.


/Paul

 

This thread has been very interesting and has at times derailed but it is a great topic and should be looked at. I personally think that the first change would be to add a day to give the judges more leeway would help. If that does not help then a toughing of the qualification requirements could be considered.

I have watched the Master National go through a process of trying to bring the numbers down and I am afraid that it has not had alot of success so far and will be interesting to see if there is further attempts to bring the numbers down.

From what I could tell they had alot of delays with weather and that obviously made them adjust what they wanted to do in the test setting. I have always liked seeing the big 5th or 6th series marking test that separates the field but this year was not able to happen.

Ted, I have watched you from your begginings in this sport and feel that you are a great contributor and competitor. You have always studied any problem you see and are not afraid to bring up the discussion to the problems in our game. I will never forget your survey you sent me in an effort to try and address the problem of the overly large trials we face out in the mountain circuit. Atleast you wanted to try and address the problem and help find solutions not just sit on the sidelines and complain. If people differ on the solution that is fine but you should not be condemned for bringing up a potential problem you see. If they do not like the subject matter then they do not have to join in the discussion.

regards,

LT

 

I'll bite since Ted and I are in the same region. In my opinion, we don't have to do anything to limit the quantity of FT entries due to the fact that the state and federal goverment are already limiting the number of people playing FT by putting restrictions (leash laws) in using public open lands. I had my pup w/ me for the last two weeks, I had spent most of my time going around Colorado Springs to find some good training grounds w/ little to no success. You have to know somebody w/ a sizeable land or have a good pro if you want to play and have some success in FTs. Thank God my pro is now back from the National and should start training again tomorrow. I could only speak for myself , but it's frustrating to play the game if you are training by yourself or even joining a local retriever club if the resources of training grounds are very limited. If I don't have a pro, I would have given up in playing this game until I could find some good training grounds or change the leash laws (to e-collar acceptable) for public open land.

Angelo