RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Would your club add a third FT event if allowed by AKC?

  • Yes, very likely

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No, not very likely

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 0 0.0%
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,998 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The "competing trial" topic asked for a yes/no answer to the question:
Should the AKC allow a club to hold a O/H Amat and Qual?
In order for this to have any possible effect and reduce entry numbers, there would have to be enough clubs out there to add a third trial. I just don't see this happening based on my experiences but my experiences are limited and its very possible that I am reading the situation wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,356 Posts
There is another option that would be just as effective.

Existing FT clubs can "mentor" HT clubs or help create new FT clubs that, with the proper membership, would be "fast-tracked" to approval for an event without having to hold a Sanctioned trial.

IMHO, that is where our event growth will come from. I know of two events already being developed to be added to next year's schedule that will come from this.

kg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,968 Posts
Yes.
I would volunter to chair and hold another event provided I was able to choose the dates and stakes to be held,
Tim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
932 Posts
Tim, that's exactly what we talked about regarding your club sponsoring a NFRA event.
A chance to hold a 3rd trial, though no points, but offering the membership a chance to compete.
How's that thought being entertained by the way? Hopefully you guys still have some interest in the NFRA program.................. :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,998 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
KG wrote
There is another option that would be just as effective.

Existing FT clubs can "mentor" HT clubs or help create new FT clubs that, with the proper membership, would be "fast-tracked" to approval for an event without having to hold a Sanctioned trial.
I agree, but do not think this is realistic. Based on records from AKC (as of March, 05). There are 106 clubs that host both FTs and HTs. There are 94 clubs that only host HTs and there are 41 clubs that only host FT's (excluding the national clubs). Clearly, if the current HT only clubs could host an FT that would add 94 more FT events each year, but is this at all practical? (Note that 10 of these HT only clubs are LRC clubs and then the is the Poodle Club, I seems particularly unlikely that any of these are going to add a trial.)

How many HT only clubs have decided to also host an FT in the past 10 years?

There are several HT only clubs in my region. Based on what I know of those clubs, there is absolutely no interest in holding an FT too. They do not own their grounds and have their hands full with two HT's each year. If they have members that get interested in FTs, those members join one of the FT clubs in the region and run in the established, traditional events.

Even if half of the HT clubs add a FT that is an extra 47 FT's per year. Will that have much of an impact on entry numbers? On average, that's less than one extra trial per state and there are no guarantees that those events would conflict with an existing event. It sounds great, but just does not seem practical to me on a scale large enough to have an impact on entry numbers.

Let's just get this question answered first, then we can see how many events could be added through other ways. You can start the poll to see how many HT only clubs are likely to host FT's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,885 Posts
absolutely NOT.......4 days/trial minimum sacrifice of time, 2 trials per year is enough

and our exceptionally hospitable land owner might not be thrilled by an additional event
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
918 Posts
Maybe, if we could hold an Open/Derby in order to compete with a same weekend trial and we thought it might break up some of the pro's, that would be Inviting to Everyone!!!!, Including Amateurs.

As for land, we don't have a problem with that, loads of places to train and trial. People on the other hand are a different story. Like most clubs, we are made up of HT and FT members. We currently hold one FT, one full HT and a qual-derby. In 2006 we will be holding 2 full hunt tests, one full trial and an Open-Derby. While our Open Derby will not be competing against anything 'really' close, it is during the time that surrounding states have circuits that keeps those pro's in their own area, so we are expecting a smaller Open.

Kris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,356 Posts
Clearly, if the current HT only clubs could host an FT that would add 94 more FT events each year, but is this at all practical?
It's more practical than expecting the AKC to allow clubs to limit the number of dogs a handler can handle.

How many HT only clubs have decided to also host an FT in the past 10 years?
I have no idea, but I'm fairly sure that 99% of new FT holding clubs had to hold a sanctioned event before holding a licensed one, which serves as a deterrent on the front end to HT clubs adding FTs.

Even if half of the HT clubs add a FT that is an extra 47 FT's per year. Will that have much of an impact on entry numbers? On average, that's less than one extra trial per state and there are no guarantees that those events would conflict with an existing event. It sounds great, but just does not seem practical to me on a scale large enough to have an impact on entry numbers.
Let's not paint the problem to be larger than it truly is.

Florida and Texas/Louisiana in the spring, Colorado and Wisconsin/Minnesota in the summer are where the huge entries occur primarily. Adding (or manipulating dates of current events) trials in these areas, even if it were two or three a season would help in a big way.

At the RAC meeting last month, Pete Simonds quoted the number of stakes with over 85 starters. I'm sure that data will be in the upcoming National coverage in RFTN, but it was fewer than I expected it to be...so few, in fact, that the RAC (that's represented clubs, not simply the subcommittee on rules) chose to support mandatory stake revision if entries reach a certain level on a historical basis.

You can start the poll to see how many HT only clubs are likely to host FT's.
Rather than start a poll, which in this environment is anything but scientific (even though just under half, 11 of 23 at this point) have said either MAYBE or YES... :wink: ), I think I'll concentrate my efforts toward helping a nearby HT-only club either hold a FT event, or help enough of their interested members to start another retriever club that will hold licensed FTs.

We've been jawing on this board for nearly two years about this problem. There is ZERO momentum for pushing the AKC to allow clubs to limit numbers in any other way than those already established. It's time for folks to start seeing past their own personal issues with this topic and move on toward helping the sport support its own weight. Actions speak louder than words.

Keith Griffith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,968 Posts
IMHO the problem lies in how to make FTs attractive to these HT clubs and the people who create these 70+ Master entries.
The HT program was/is the result of these people not wanting to be involved in FTs as they currently exist.
If we want to get them involved we need to able to offer a venue where they can compete and enjoy the weekend.
The O/H Amat and O/HQual that would be 2 days, just like their HT, could be that attraction.
Would the FT pros get mad? You bet. I got grief from several when in 2004 I held an Open,Amat and O/HQual with no Derby. They were complaining that this seriously effected their income since they could only run 1 stake.
If you think competing trials are a good idea then you have to find peple to hold them. The AKC retriever world has these people but it needs to "sweeten the pot" to bring them into FTs.

Tim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,398 Posts
KG said:
There is another option that would be just as effective.

Existing FT clubs can "mentor" HT clubs or help create new FT clubs that, with the proper membership, would be "fast-tracked" to approval for an event without having to hold a Sanctioned trial.

IMHO, that is where our event growth will come from. I know of two events already being developed to be added to next year's schedule that will come from this.

kg
Keith, if it was possible to do it over a weekend, I would be willing to push it within our club. It could open us up to a broader member base but I doubt if we could handle anything requiring 4 days. Help and property would be the holdup. Am/Qual or Am/ Derby would probably sell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,234 Posts
Midwest and American Am. each put on two, which means we already put on four a year.

Nope.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,356 Posts
Kevin, you guys do yeoman's work as it is.

If 10% of the remaining FT clubs doubled their efforts like you guys do, this topic as a complaint would hardly be worth the time to post on.

Bravo to you all..... :D

kg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,301 Posts
The increse in the number of trials would especially make sense for the national (breed) clubs. As is, the ACC, GRCA and LRC usually reserve one of their two alloted trials as their specialty event.

With the way the curcuits are setup now, the club is almost forced to locate their "all breed" trial to a particular state or region. I know that there has been serious discussion in the ACC regarding being allowed to host another "all breed" trial in other parts of the nation, but the overweighing concern is that if we did alternate the trial across a couple regions, we would not be assured of a trial date in any of the regions under the current 2 year rule. Hence if the national breed clubs were allowed an additonal trial(s) each year, there would probably be several more trials in each region.

T.Mac
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,968 Posts
In addition to the breed clubs what about PRTA stepping up to plate?
PRTA for example could form regional affilates and hold 2 trails per year in each time zone.

Tim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,356 Posts
Two great ideas, with breed clubs and PRTA!

This the kind of creative thinking that will help to eventually solve this issue! BRAVO!!! HUZZAH~!!!!!! :D !

kg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Since most of the members in the St. Louis area are both members of Mississippi Valley and River King along with throwing in Golden Retriever/Lab club and lastly Lincoln trail most members here do 8 trials a year and I don't think any area in the country does more than right here along with the national every 4 years. :roll: :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,889 Posts
Randy you forgot about the fun trials, WC-WCX for a couple of breeds and throw in a specialty every once in a while. Serious talk about adding a HT FT combo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17 Posts
Steve are we having a fun trial this year? You know we could probably do more if we could get that Gassner guy to do something other than drive around like a wild man :lol: :lol: .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
573 Posts
One solution that a certain club is thinking about:

Hold a Open/Am only on the normal weekend of their trial.
Hold a single day D/Q on the following weekend. This would still offer the same number of stakes that a normal trial would to the FT community, but the total effort would be much less (at least they feel it would).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
409 Posts
Breed Club Field Trials

I am curious to know what the Curly-Coated Retriever Club of America would get out of running a field trial? There are, maybe 5 Curlies capable of running in a Qualifying Stake in all of US, none advanced enough in training to run in an Open. :(

Maybe, the CCRCA could rent out it's permitted allotments to some of the clubs for split of the profits :lol:
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top