[Ted Shih]

Here are some recent FT numbers

Sioux Valley 129 dogs in Open
Mid Illinois 105 dogs in Open
Centennial 105 dogs in Open
Rocky Mtn. 102 dogs in Open

If the size of these trials is of concern to you, I suggest you write to the Retriever Advisory Committee as they are soliciting advice about what to do about trial size.

 

[Franco]

Good to know. I'll drop them a note.

LESS IS MORE

Of all the suggestions that I've read, I like conflicting trials.

 

[K G]

Ditto on conflicting trial size....and increased use of the Restricted All-Age Open Stake.

Keith Griffith

 

[Franco]

I just hope it is a realistic solution. Many clubs get hooked on those huge entry fee dollars coming in. Hard to walk from all that dough and run fewer trials! If the RAC doesn't take action, the numbers will go down on their own as people become disgusted with huge entries. However, that solution could have a long-term damaging effect to the sport. Much better to be proactive and control a touchy situation.

I would like to see the RAC change ONE line of the rules. Change the limit for competiting trials from 250 mile radius to 150 mile radius. In some areas like down here, we may not have to loose many trials due to conflicts. Our huge numbers happen from late February through March. To fix our area, only conflicting trials would be in that window.

 

[K G]

If two clubs within the 350 mile radius wish to conflict, they can appeal to the Performance Events dept. and have an excellent chance of getting a waver.

I could be wrong, but I think the 250 mile radius is for hunting tests. The 350 mile radius for FTs is what allowed Lone Star to hold their upcoming trial on 10/1-3 rather than Ouachita.

Keith G.

 

[AmiableLabs]

Just tossing out an idea for feedback --

What about allowing a club that reaches some ridiculously high number of entries, say 120, to split their trial into two flights awarding first through fourth (and championship points) for both flights?

Granted, not all clubs will have the manpower or grounds, but what about at least offering the option to those who do?

-- Just an idea.

 

[Canman]

And there are alot of clubs out there that do NOT want conflicting trials due to lost revenue. I have experienced that locally.

 

[Ted Shih]

And there are clubs (for example the Colorado circuit) that do not want conflicting trials because

(a) it halves the number of trials people can run within 3 hours of home

(b) the same people work the same trials

 

[Franco]

What about allowing a club that reaches some ridiculously high number of entries, say 120, to split their trial into two flights awarding first through fourth (and championship points) for both flights?

-- Just an idea.

It would call for a big rule change since lisenced AKC clubs can only have two Opens and two Amateurs per year. I think the distance of 350 miles should be looked at.

 

[Gerard Rozas]

I think they should make it more like 50 miles.

Actually a really tough problem to solve.

I am glad that it has finally gotten the attention of the powers that be.
Colorado and Texas have been struggling with this for years.

 

[South Bay]

And there are alot of clubs out there that do NOT want conflicting trials due to lost revenue. I have experienced that locally.

James,

I like most field trialers want to run smaller Amateurs and Opens but the loss of revenue would prove Fatal to many clubs, mine included. We don't have local grounds and have to run in another State, Motel costs for workers (guns & members who don't run dogs) are huge. If we allowed a conflicting trial we would be BROKE in no time as we are hard pressed to break even with the current entries.

My club was asked by yours to run a conflicting trial but to agree to that would bring an end to our existance and leave you with the large entries.

Gerard

 

[South Bay]

Ditto on conflicting trial size....and increased use of the Restricted All-Age Open Stake.

Keith Griffith

Keith,

Has any club in the country run a restricted stake yet?

I'd like to see it used but think that when club members realize it would exclude their own dogs they back away.

Gerard

 

[Gerard Rozas]

I agree with Ted on the use of a restricted stake:

All it would include is a handful of Am handled dogs.

But - until several restricted have been run - that is going to be the solution that is offered.

We need to run a few 100+ dog restricted and then Ted can say:
"I told you so."

I think this thread needs to be moved to the main page

 

[K G]

Gerard T. and R., to my knowledge no club has run a restricted stake yet so that it's impact on Open entries can be judged....yet no one is willing to since all it would do is keep members from running their dogs. Sort of a "having the cake and eating it too" scenario...

Do I think club members should be able to run their dogs? Yes. Are we looking for a practical and fair way to run fewer dogs? Yes. If that's the case, then the restrictions should be on the dogs, not the handlers. If a club member's dog has placed in an all-age stake, then cowboy up. If not, sorry. It's about the numbers running, not the people running them....and I think the naysayers about the Restricted Open's true impact on entries would be surprised at how many dogs it would affect.

Besides, those amateurs still have 80 dog Ams to run, regardless of what happens to the Open... :roll: The only thing that's gonna change that is conflicting trials.

Keith Griffith

 

[Gerard Rozas]

I think we all agree that something has got to change.

Lets take Teds situation - 5 or so trials in Colorado.

There are about 6 people (or couples) that work these trials.

Ted, Ken and Ester, The Boises, etc.
Matter of fact - they each are FT seceratry for one trial.
But they all work each trial.
How could they conflict?

James Parker worked out a conflicting Schedule for Texas in the Spring one time. Every club had great pairing that would of reduced numbers - expect for Lone Star - and he had us conflicting with Amarillo which would not of done us any good at all. I mean - Amarillo is 12 hours from us.