# RAC Meeting - Rule changes? Proposed rules?



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

> There were two items that have previously been up for discussion and now have passed into law.
> 
> The first is the definition of Amateur Status.
> The second is the prohibition of Layout Blinds.
> ...


Anyone have the actual wording for these two new rules? When do they go into effect (or is it affect...)? 

And since it's no outlawed....anyone want to buy a couple layout blinds? <sigh>



> The committee is in the infancy stage of discussion on the following two rule changes:
> 
> 1. If a club holds 2 trials per year, then every other year, their 2nd trial of the year can have an Amateur
> Stake with minor stakes, but no Open.
> ...


Thoughts on these two new proposals?

I'm NOT a fan of #2 - think about it this way, I have two dogs, my husband has two dogs...one of us judge for the club, but the other will have to choose which dog not to run? That's a good way to keep us from judging in the future...just another question to add to my list when asked to judge...(if it becomes a rule and of course if we ever end up with more than a couple dogs a piece)...and we limit the Amateur who normally puts on the event and judges? I'm not in favor of limiting the Amateur....

FOM


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

FOM said:


> Anyone have the actual wording for these two new rules? When do they go into effect (or is it affect...)?
> 
> And since it's no outlawed....anyone want to buy a couple layout blinds? <sigh>
> 
> ...


Lainee : I sarcastically call proposal # 2 the Medford-Washburn rule...in a previous thread I brought up the fact that at one time Lanse actually had 4 AA dogs active in the circuit, but was told that he "never" entered all of them in the same stake..heck Clint had 4 dogs at one time less than 4 years ago...just not a fan of legislation that limits the size of a single person's entry..If one thinks that a rule is going to curtail certain people from owning,co owning,bringing or having a truck load of dogs they are delusional at best...Mr Medford has SIX dogs at the National Amateur, if you dont want him entered at your trial, there is another trial that will welcome him with open arms

the amateur owner makes this game possible , they are the lifeblood of the sport


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

I am not a fan of the second one either, but it is at the club's discretion and not a blanket rule, so it doesn't bother me as much. The first one sounds like fun except it would essentially be a D/Q. The pros will go run an open somewhere that weekend and how many Ams would pull their dogs off the truck to go run a different Am only?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I kinda thought this might get more attention....



> Doug, Lisa and Kate have worked this past year to overhaul how the committee is set-up. With the retirement of Nelson Sills, the opportunity arose to revise and adjust the committee. They will continue to have one member from each time zone, plus a chairman. They will initiate term limits of 8 years.


/Paul


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Paul,

I wanted to discuss "rules" (actual and proposed) I did not want to get into the political BS of how members are chosen, etc...it would be better as it's own thread...

Lainee


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

along with the departure of Nelson Sills, you have Bob Kennon Jr who has been on the RAC for 29 years and Bill Daley who has been there almost as long

the new qualifications eliminate 95% of the people in the game

1. at least 40+ judging points

2. at least 20 years in the sport

3. having titled a dog 

4. recently running a dog on the circuit

I can name the possible nominees on one hand


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I am not in favor of limiting the number of Opens a club has in a year, It will make it much more difficult for those trying to put DC's on Labs......

As for the rest of it, it is what it is. It is a matter of being able to show up at an AKC General Membership Mtg with some stature. You know, the kind carried by Auggie, Nelson, and Pete ....... and Bon, you and I both know there are but a hand full of people in the game( if that many) that have that kind of stature.

john


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

I get kinda pissed off at the mind set of if you can't train the dog to do something or can't beat someone, change the rules to make it, or them, illegal.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

BonMallari said:


> along with the departure of Nelson Sills, you have Bob Kennon Jr who has been on the RAC for 29 years and Bill Daley who has been there almost as long
> 
> the new qualifications eliminate 95% of the people in the game
> 
> ...


Fine....I'll play...these are the immediate questions that popped up in my head when I read the blog:

1) Judging points...is anyone actually keeping track of points past 8? And are we talking just Championship points?
2) Define "in the sport" - specifically FTs? What about the person who takes a few off in between dogs/family obligations? Who is keeping track of years in the sport? What makes up a year? 
3) Well if it was easy, everyone would have a FC/AFC...does title dog include one that the owner never put a hand over??
4) So running a dog once a year, does that count? Minor stakes? 

And yes I know they are in the process of trying to define the criteria, so maybe they will answer these questions in the process? But i do have to wonder if the qualifications eliminates too many "qualified" people?

And does the community have a say whether they want a specific person to be their representative??


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

FOM said:


> But i do have to wonder if the qualifications eliminates too many "qualified" people?


My take on it was that it was set up to eliminate many qualified people. Sort of like when you have an internal candidate for a job but HR makes you post it externally. Just make the criteria match only the candidate you have in mind...

I would hope that someone who has judged 40 times over 20 years running FTs would have at least had one dog good enough to title. Alas, when my time comes to take my place on the RAC in about 17 years, that may be the one thing that keeps me out


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Proposal 1: A step in the right direction, allowing the return to being able to have an Amatuer without an Open, but if fails to meet the real problem of clubs not having the resources(land.people ...) to hold 2 major stakes. A change that could help clubs would be the option to hold an Amatuer without an Open provided the club holds at least 1 Open in that calander year.

Proposal 2: Allowing clubs to limit dogs/handler would be more appropriate in the Open than the Amatuer where it is not uncommon for 1-2 handlers to have 30-40% of the entry. 


Tim


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

I like the idea of having the option to have an Am without an Open occasionally. The amateurs put on the trials. The limitation on amateur handler entries I'm not so sure about.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Thank goodness the RAC committee has the foresight to talk about the issue of limiting Amateur entries. 



BonMallari said:


> Lainee : I sarcastically call proposal # 2 the Medford-Washburn rule...in a previous thread I brought up the fact that at one time Lanse actually had 4 AA dogs active in the circuit, but was told that he "never" entered all of them in the same stake..heck Clint had 4 dogs at one time less than 4 years ago...just not a fan of legislation that limits the size of a single person's entry..If one thinks that a rule is going to curtail certain people from owning,co owning,bringing or having a truck load of dogs they are delusional at best...Mr Medford has SIX dogs at the National Amateur, if you dont want him entered at your trial, there is another trial that will welcome him with open arms.
> the amateur owner makes this game possible , they are the lifeblood of the sport


This is an issue that needs direction, as it it NOT simply a two person problem as BonMallari suggests.

A six dog handler in the Amateur has been the exception, not the rule. It has not been the lifeblood of the sport........do your research. With EE it is easy. 

This is a growing trend that needs to be addressed. Is this the direction we want it to go??



Tim Carrion said:


> Proposal 1: A step in the right direction, allowing the return to being able to have an Amatuer without an Open, but if fails to meet the real problem of clubs not having the resources(land.people ...) to hold 2 major stakes. A change that could help clubs would be the option to hold an Amatuer without an Open provided the club holds at least 1 Open in that calander year.
> 
> Proposal 2: Allowing clubs to limit dogs/handler would be more appropriate in the Open than the Amatuer where it is not uncommon for 1-2 handlers to have 30-40% of the entry.
> 
> ...


The Open is the OPEN....Open to all entries.

The question is how do you maintain the integrity of the Amateur stake while not discouraging the weekend warriors?



FOM said:


> Thoughts on these two new proposals?
> 
> I'm NOT a fan of #2 - think about it this way, I have two dogs, my husband has two dogs...one of us judge for the club, but the other will have to choose which dog not to run? That's a good way to keep us from judging in the future...just another question to add to my list when asked to judge...(if it becomes a rule and of course if we ever end up with more than a couple dogs a piece)...and we limit the Amateur who normally puts on the event and judges? I'm not in favor of limiting the Amateur....
> 
> FOM


Lainee, an exclusion for this particular circumstance would be sufficient and acceptable don't you think?

AGAIN, thank goodness the RAC is attempting a discussion on this very heated issue.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Tammy,

The problem is, who decides what the "exceptions" are? That could be come political - it's just like determining who a Pro is or is not...I still have not seen enough to convince me that it is a problem that needs a solution...I know on this circuit I do not see it as an issue...

Lainee


----------



## REBEL RIDGE FARMS (Nov 27, 2010)

Why are we limiting the amateur who works trials, has grounds for trials and is not getting any thing back for working trials.Why don't pros help out at trials? I know we host, chair, and organize 4 major trials, 2 hunt test, 1 hunt test with a dq and a double dq here at Rebel Ridge. The amateur is the one not getting paid to be at the trial .Why not limit the number a pro runs ?Hunt tests now have limited entries. Also clubs should be allowed to have what events the club want to host.Clubs are hurting for help and grounds.


----------



## Mcgnaw (Mar 4, 2008)

I don't want to get in on either side of either discussion (because I'm not totally sure how I feel about either proposal), but a question...... How much help at a trial can one expect from an amateur who is running four or more dogs in two or more stakes?


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

FOM said:


> Tammy,
> 
> The problem is, who decides what the "exceptions" are? That could be come political - it's just like determining who a Pro is or is not...I still have not seen enough to convince me that it is a problem that needs a solution...I know on this circuit I do not see it as an issue...
> 
> Lainee


Agreed that there will be those that push the 'exceptions' ruling also. 

With all due respect, Lainee, most of us aren't able to run our dogs when we judge anyway. You have the unique luxury of having a husband who can!

From what I am hearing, the weekend warriors who put on a few trials a year are getting more than a little weary of the large number of handlers running multiple dogs, pro or am. It is very stressful for field trial committees, judges, and workers (mostly all Amateurs) when there are 80-100 Opens and 80 dog Ams. 

The number of willing Amateur workers and judges are getting smaller each year, so making it optional for a club to limit dogs per handler is something which needs to be discussed. If it is not a problem in your region, then don't implement the option.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

REBEL RIDGE FARMS said:


> Why are we limiting the amateur who works trials, has grounds for trials and is not getting any thing back for working trials.Why don't pros help out at trials? I know we host, chair, and organize 4 major trials, 2 hunt test, 1 hunt test with a dq and a double dq here at Rebel Ridge. The amateur is the one not getting paid to be at the trial .Why not limit the number a pro runs ?Hunt tests now have limited entries. Also clubs should be allowed to have what events the club want to host.Clubs are hurting for help and grounds.


the problem is not with the amateur....the perceived problem is with a few individuals that dont seem to do much more than show up and run their dogs, or bring a representative or family member to work a trial..its a microcosm of what is going on in our country right now...one one extreme you have the blueblood wealthy Wall St. crowd, and on the other extreme the group that wants all things equal....and then you have the middle that actually does the majority of the work and makes the country/game work...basically class warfare retriever style


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

There is very little support from the people here about limiting amateur entries, most everyone agrees that would not be a healthy thing for our sport and that in most instances delays can be minimized by using common sense and not holding handlers at the open when they are needed at the amateur. I doubt if that proposal will ever make it to a vote. 

The change in the way that the Retriever Advisory Committee is formed and maintained is the single most dynamic thing that has happened in retriever field trials in my 40 year tenure and I applaud Doug Ljungren for his reformation efforts and plan.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

TBell said:


> Agreed that there will be those that push the 'exceptions' ruling also.
> 
> With all due respect, Lainee, most of us aren't able to run our dogs when we judge anyway. You have the unique luxury of having a husband who can!
> 
> ...


My club has to hire help because myself and my husband are the only truly active FTers in the club and trust me I'm ready to say "screw this crap" and not put on a trial, but every time I think of this I ask myself, if others didn't do the same I wouldn't have trials to run...anyway, you and I have talked about this before (we can chat is person in a couple weeks at CWRC, see you are entered) and for now we have to agree to disagree....


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

EdA said:


> The change in the way that the Retriever Advisory Committee is formed and maintained is the single most dynamic thing that has happened in retriever field trials in my 40 year tenure and I applaud Doug Ljungren for his reformation efforts and plan.


Wow. I am shocked to hear that--a very strong statement. Would you mind elaborating? 

As I am not a 'player', my knowledge of the politics and such at the upper echelon is limited. My take on it was that it was a snoozer: essentially changing the RAC from a few bigwigs who serve forever to another (or possibly even the same) bunch of bigwigs by way of the extreme requirements. Obviously I am wrong but I would love to understand a little more of your perspective, if you have the time.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

EdA said:


> The change in the way that the Retriever Advisory Committee is formed and maintained is the single most dynamic thing that has happened in retriever field trials in my 40 year tenure and I applaud Doug Ljungren for his reformation efforts and plan.


No kidding, that is huge step forward!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

They had better be a big wig they have some big shoes to fill.......... BTW to have any credibility at the AKC MEMBER Mtg I would like to suggest that this person be additionally required to be a* long time member of a member club*

When EF Hutton speaks regards
john


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

john fallon said:


> They had better be a big wig they have some big shoes to fill.......... BTW to have any credibility at the AKC MEMBER Mtg I would like to suggest that this person be additionally required to be a* long time member of a member club*
> 
> When EF Hutton speaks regards
> john


E. F. Hutton has been insignificant to non existent since a check kiting and fraud scandal in the mid 1980s. New blood and ideas from currently active people with length of term limits is a monumental change for the better for the Retriever Advisory Committee.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

FOM said:


> Tammy,
> 
> The problem is, who decides what the "exceptions" are? That could be come political - it's just like determining who a Pro is or is not...I still have not seen enough to convince me that it is a problem that needs a solution...I know on this circuit I do not see it as an issue...
> 
> Lainee


Somehow, I do not see you as being able to recognize the problem if it slapped you alongside the head - you are not a skeptic . It is there, abused by a few, but could be easily taken care of if the qualifications of those anointed as cream of the ruling class were properly vetted. 



TBell said:


> From what I am hearing, the weekend warriors who put on a few trials a year are getting more than a little weary of the large number of handlers running multiple dogs, pro or am. It is very stressful for field trial committees, judges, and workers (mostly all Amateurs) when there are 80-100 Opens and 80 dog Ams.
> 
> The number of willing Amateur workers and judges are getting smaller each year, so making it optional for a club to limit dogs per handler is something which needs to be discussed. If it is not a problem in your region, then don't implement the option.


Having worked both, from small to large entries, I would not be as willing today to don my workers clothes or have our boys throw birds for what I perceive today as an unappreciative group of contestants. 



BonMallari said:


> the problem is not with the amateur....the perceived problem is with a few individuals that dont seem to do much more than show up and run their dogs, or bring a representative or family member to work a trial..its a microcosm of what is going on in our country right now...one one extreme you have the blueblood wealthy Wall St. crowd, and on the other extreme the group that wants all things equal....and then you have the middle that actually does the majority of the work and makes the country/game work...basically class warfare retriever style


This really hasn't changed - what has changed is the large numbers allowing a worker in the field to get really unhappy. One of the local clubs used to have a large number of volunteers who only hunted to put on their trial. As they were not appreciated, they slowly found other things to do that weekend .



EdA said:


> There is very little support from the people here about limiting amateur entries, most everyone agrees that would not be a healthy thing for our sport and that in most instances delays can be minimized by using common sense and not holding handlers at the open when they are needed at the amateur. I doubt if that proposal will ever make it to a vote.
> 
> The change in the way that the Retriever Advisory Committee is formed and maintained is the single most dynamic thing that has happened in retriever field trials in my 40 year tenure and I applaud Doug Ljungren for his reformation efforts and plan.


I might diagree with you on this premise - the folks at this trial are part of the ruling class - they enjoy their status & do not want it disturbed. I believe it should be a club option. This is not the NFL .

As for Doug Ljundgren, he was a customer of our boarding kennel in the 80's. Had 3 dogs, GWP all girls - one or two of them were National Champions, they were really nice dogs.


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

Boy Marv, you sure are full of piss and vinegar tonight, aren't you?



Marvin S said:


> Somehow, I do not see you as being able to recognize the problem if it slapped you alongside the head - you are not a skeptic . It is there, abused by a few, but could be easily taken care of if the qualifications of those anointed as cream of the ruling class were properly vetted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> E. F. Hutton has been insignificant to non existent since a check kiting and fraud scandal in the mid 1980s. New blood and ideas from currently active people with length of term limits is a monumental change for the better for the Retriever Advisory Committee.



8 years is not even enough time at the AKC to learn the people you need to know to get things done first name......

As I said earlier what is needed at the RAC is stature, and sorry to say "New blood" even if they are a member of a member club has just not been around long enough to have any at the AKC. 



Good luck to you and Holland

john


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

john fallon said:


> 8 years is not even enough time at the AKC to learn the people you need to know to get things done first name......
> 
> As I said earlier what is needed at the RAC is stature, and sorry to say "New blood" even if they are a member of a member club has just not been around long enough to have any at the AKC.
> 
> ...


Thank you, he and I are enjoying the progression and hope it lasts for 5 more series. I'll not debate the RAC here because it might demean the accomishments of some current and past members. Stature with the conformation people is meaningless as evidenced by some not so recent decisions by the BOD, and we do still have some clout due to a new appointee to the RAC who knows the right people.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

FOM said:


> Fine....I'll play...these are the immediate questions that popped up in my head when I read the blog:
> 
> 1) Judging points...is anyone actually keeping track of points past 8? And are we talking just Championship points?
> 2) Define "in the sport" - specifically FTs? What about the person who takes a few off in between dogs/family obligations? Who is keeping track of years in the sport? What makes up a year?
> ...


1. The AKC keeps track of judging points. While it doesn't "tally" over 8 AA points, the trials are there for you to count yourself. 
2. Since the RAC addresses FTs, it would be years in field trials. You can keep track in EE to a certain date in the past. Paper entries are another matter. 
3. Since they are looking for experience, I would think you would need to be handling your dog.
4. To me it would be AA stakes. 

They are trying to get peeps with the most experience... I am sure politics has nothing to do with it.


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

Howard N said:


> I get kinda pissed off at the mind set of if you can't train the dog to do something or can't beat someone, change the rules to make it, or them, illegal.


Its happening in more than just FT. Howard you just cant fix stupid


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

BonMallari said:


> along with the departure of Nelson Sills, you have Bob Kennon Jr who has been on the RAC for 29 years and Bill Daley who has been there almost as long
> 
> the new qualifications eliminate 95% of the people in the game
> 
> ...


Chris Hatch qualifies #2, #3, #4. He probably also has 40 judging points, if they count minor stakes as well as major stakes. I don't know how many trials Chris has judged.


----------



## Kyle B (May 5, 2005)

helencalif said:


> Chris Hatch qualifies #2, #3, #4. He probably also has 40 judging points, if they count minor stakes as well as major stakes. I don't know how many trials Chris has judged.


Shayne probably qualifies also. Let's start a campaign.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> Somehow, I do not see you as being able to recognize the problem if it slapped you alongside the head - you are not a skeptic . It is there, abused by a few, but could be easily taken care of if the qualifications of those anointed as cream of the ruling class were properly vetted.


Marvin,

Really? I'm not as stupid as YOU may think...I do realize there are takers in this sport that abuse the rules, there are handlers out there who co-own more dogs than I'll own in a life time, I know there are handlers out there who never lift a finger to put on trial...yet I don't see how a few bad apples should be allowed to hose over the majority of those in the sport who do work their rear ends off...it's attitudes like yours that make me even wonder why I bother, you are pretty good at keeping the newer blood down....all hail Marvin, all knowing, all perfect, I'm so unworthy to have an opinion cause I'm not as wonderful and perfect as him....go pound sand and you can keep you over opinionated condescending attitude to yourself when it comes to your opinion of me and what I do or do not know, what I do or do not give back to the sport...

Lainee Munhollon

And FYI, many, many times I've just let your little back handed and rude comments in reference to me go....just figured you had nothing better to do than to make your self feel superior and you really weren't worth the brain damage, but ya know, I'm sick of it...you are nothing but an internet bully...get over your self importance, you are just as insignificant in this sport as I am, but at least I don't go around telling people they are with the hopes of making myself seem important.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Kyle B said:


> Shayne probably qualifies also. Let's start a campaign.


FREE SHAYNE!!!  hahahahahahaha


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

FOM said:


> I do realize there are takers in this sport that abuse the rules, there are handlers out there who co-own more dogs than I'll own in a life time, I know there are handlers out there who never lift a finger to put on trial...yet I don't see how a few bad apples should be allowed to hose over the majority of those in the sport who do work their rear ends off..


Agreed. Don't let those folks get in your head and affect your love of the dogs and games.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

FOM said:


> Marvin,
> 
> Really? I'm not as stupid as YOU may think...I do realize there are takers in this sport that abuse the rules, there are handlers out there who co-own more dogs than I'll own in a life time, I know there are handlers out there who never lift a finger to put on trial...yet I don't see how a few bad apples should be allowed to hose over the majority of those in the sport who do work their rear ends off...it's attitudes like yours that make me even wonder why I bother, you are pretty good at keeping the newer blood down....all hail Marvin, all knowing, all perfect, I'm so unworthy to have an opinion cause I'm not as wonderful and perfect as him....go pound sand and you can keep you over opinionated condescending attitude to yourself when it comes to your opinion of me and what I do or do not know, what I do or do not give back to the sport...
> 
> ...


In keeping with your sig line theme of pig, "Never wrestle with a pig in the mud. The pig just loves it and you get all muddy."

/Paul


----------



## BBnumber1 (Apr 5, 2006)

TBell said:


> Agreed that there will be those that push the 'exceptions' ruling also.
> 
> With all due respect, Lainee, most of us aren't able to run our dogs when we judge anyway. You have the unique luxury of having a husband who can!


Not as unique as you may think. There are at least 6 couples on our circuit that handle dogs, and in most cases both of them judge as well. I know of a bunch more that are not on our circuit also.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Yes, the sport does have many husband/wife teams too it seems. Personally I would never let me husband run my dog though! 

The sport is constantly changing sometimes for the better and sometimes not. These are simply issues that can be discussed sometimes civilly and sometimes NOT! 

The original purpose of the Amateur stake was to find the best dog that an Amateur could train. Times have changed much like America, but there are still Amateurs out there training their one special dog and beating the pants off of everyone including multidog handlers both pro and am! Cudos to them, as it makes it mean that much more!!

I was simple bringing to light that many 4+ dog handler teams seem to be happening more frequently and whether it is a good direction for the Amateur stake to go. It is happening mostly in the Eastern regions, but be assured it will soon be coming to a region near you.

I now realize that many of you simply aren't aware of it because you don't sit and view entries at every field trial in the country like I do. Since I enter the results and add field trial points per dog all by hand on FindRetrievers, I actually have to sit and look at the entries everyday. My labor of love is becoming tedious and frustrating at best, yet it gives breeders the information they need to find worthy dogs to better the breed. Most likely this will cease year end, as it is best to move on and find more fun and financially rewarding things to do with my time!

For now at least the issue is being recognized and discussed.


----------



## Kyle B (May 5, 2005)

TBell said:


> The original purpose of the Amateur stake was to find the best dog that an Amateur could train.


I believe the original purpose of the Amateur stake was so that Amateur's could run their dogs on Sunday following the Open All-Age stake that was primarily run by professionals. I know there is more information on this if you search, but this article gives a fairly good historical reference. http://caninechronicle.com/current-articles/retriever-field-trials-the-early-days/


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

TBell said:


> I was simple bringing to light that many 4+ dog handler teams seem to be happening more frequently and whether it is a good direction for the Amateur stake to go. It is happening mostly in the Eastern regions, but be assured it will soon be coming to a region near you.


Tammy,
Please clarify and explain. I don't know what you mean by 4+ dog handler teams. Being on the west coast, I don't know what is happening in the Eastern regions.

Helen


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Tim Carrion said:


> Proposal 1: A step in the right direction, allowing the return to being able to have an Amatuer without an Open, but if fails to meet the real problem of clubs not having the resources(land.people ...) to hold 2 major stakes. A change that could help clubs would be the option to hold an Amatuer without an Open provided the club holds at least 1 Open in that calander year.Tim


I am the treasurer for 2 clubs. The Open stake is always larger than the Amateur stake because of the pros. Pros also have dogs entered in the minor stakes (Qualifying and Derby) which they handle. If a club did not have an Open, it would lower the amount of entries in the minor stakes as the pros would not come to the trial with their dogs. 

I will have to go back through my financial statements for trials, but it seems to me that if the clubs did not have an Open stake, they would lose money on that trial. Clubs have to make profits on their events or they will cease to exist. They could probably survive losing money on one trial every other year, tho.

Are there any other club treasurers on RTF ? Have you put a pencil to this? What do you think about this new proposal the Committee is discussing? 

Helen


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

helencalif said:


> I am the treasurer for 2 clubs. The Open stake is always larger than the Amateur stake because of the pros. Pros also have dogs entered in the minor stakes (Qualifying and Derby) which they handle. If a club did not have an Open, if would lower the amount of entries in the minor stakes as as the pros would not come to the trial with their dogs.
> 
> I will have to go back through my financial statements for trials, but it seems to me that if the clubs did not have an Open stake, they would lose money on that trial. Clubs have to make profits on their events or they will cease to exist.
> 
> ...


I think if a club can make ends meet by not having an Open, then good for them, let them have that option...I know we decided to not have a Derby this year for logistical reasons (extremely small club, with limited grounds) and we tossed around the numbers and cutting the Open was NOT an option, we need the Pros to help round out the numbers. I hated cutting the Derby because normally by the time our trial rolls around there is a whole new crop of young dogs ready to break out, but it's life...


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

helencalif said:


> Are there any other club treasurers on RTF ? Have you put a pencil to this? What do you think about this new proposal the Committee is discussing?


I am not my club's treasurer but have put a pencil to this. What I worry about is that if there is not an open, the pros will go to the trial with an open and the majority of the dogs that would have been in the Am will also be lost. The majority of dogs in a typical Am around here are run by their owners while the pro runs them in the open. Would these Ams get their dog off the pro's truck for that weekend and run them in an Am or just run where the pro is running? I suspect more will do the latter.


----------



## lbbuckler (Jun 7, 2008)

It seems to me the two proposals are an attempt for some clubs to reduce competition versus help a club with limited resources.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

FOM said:


> Marvin,
> 
> Really? I'm not as stupid as YOU may think...I do realize there are takers in this sport that abuse the rules, there are handlers out there who co-own more dogs than I'll own in a life time, I know there are handlers out there who never lift a finger to put on trial...yet I don't see how a few bad apples should be allowed to hose over the majority of those in the sport who do work their rear ends off...it's attitudes like yours that make me even wonder why I bother, you are pretty good at keeping the newer blood down....all hail Marvin, all knowing, all perfect, I'm so unworthy to have an opinion cause I'm not as wonderful and perfect as him....go pound sand and you can keep you over opinionated condescending attitude to yourself when it comes to your opinion of me and what I do or do not know, what I do or do not give back to the sport...
> 
> ...


Lainee - a little sensitive today??? Look up the meaning of skeptic! I didn't question your intelligence but by the tone of your posts you are a person who desires to be "in with the group". 

In this sport you are marked by the folks you choose for friends, Forever .


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

The Open All Age stake is the heart and soul of the AKC Retriever field trial event. How do I know this? It says so in the rule book.

For those who do not know, an Amateur can get an FC ,(and perhaps even have their dog become a DC), and an AFC on their dog and also qualify for both Nationals at Opens. This cannot be done at the Amateur stake........

When clubs first apply to the AKC for their permission to put on a licensed field trial, the AKC checks them out to see if they have the where with all* to pull it off. In some cases it is detirmined that they did not, and they are not granted said license.... It appears that over time some of the clubs that at one time did, now do not.

Perhaps some of these clubs, who by their own admission here on the RTF are a little short suited in that regard, should have to re-certify every so often. 


john

* Read resources... Which includes but not limited to, grounds, expertise within the club, manpower independent of members other local clubs, finances, etc........


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

JusticeDog said:


> 1. *The AKC keeps track of judging points. While it doesn't "tally" over 8 AA points, the trials are there for you to count yourself. *
> 2. Since the RAC addresses FTs, it would be years in field trials. You can keep track in EE to a certain date in the past. Paper entries are another matter.
> 3. Since they are looking for experience, I would think you would need to be handling your dog.
> 4. To me it would be AA stakes.
> ...


To a certain extent. Their database only goes back to 1998. Anything you judged before that is a mystery unless you kept a record of it (which I didn't).


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

huntinman said:


> To a certain extent. Their database only goes back to 1998. Anything you judged before that is a mystery unless you kept a record of it (which I didn't).


so here is a serious question..Clint judged two Open's in the prehistoric days(early 70's) when dinosaurs inhabited the earth and we think they are recorded in the Retriever Performance Books...Do those two points add to his total since he is not yet an 8 point judge..I think he has 4 in the modern era, and will judge this fall at the Red River trial in December


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

huntinman said:


> To a certain extent. Their database only goes back to 1998. Anything you judged before that is a mystery unless you kept a record of it (which I didn't).



I have every FT News from the days it was published by WAFTC as I was able to procure Bob Wolfe's collection. I am sure there are other collections of the same time frame but very few. Bob had offered it to the RHOF who showed little interest. I can tell you how many times you have judged during the time frame 1965-2009 & what stakes. I also have 2 partials both starting in 64 that cover the 95-09 time frames. If you want that info I'll send it to you.

When doing the database I recognized things that would have been useful had I started doing them in the beginning. Just listing dog ownership & where those were procured tells a story into itself. Additionally the serial co-owners & the dog salesman say lots about someone's ability to truly call themselves an amateur. Were I to do it over I would also list the top 4 dogs in every assignment someone judged. That would tell a story unto itself. 

While doing the database I got a number of e-mails about certain issues which in itself was a sort of a proof for what I was seeing. On occasion I will still hear from someone wanting to return to the sport about their past records, most are amazed at what I am able to provide. As Tammy says, these things are a time consumer & in the scheme of things sometimes take a back seat to higher priorities. 

I'm heavily involved with our city government as an activist. They made the mistake of tackling me on an issue I was very familiar with & the rest is on the record. I have also ran twice & am running this fall for city council. While I have come just a hair's breadth away from victory so far that has alluded me. But my criticism has forced them to occupy new positions & do some things for the good of the community. It's a lot of fun to know the history of these little towns, much of which can be gleaned from various local sources. As some have found on this forum, I am not a typical politician!!!


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

helencalif said:


> Chris Hatch qualifies #2, #3, #4. He probably also has 40 judging points, if they count minor stakes as well as major stakes. I don't know how many trials Chris has judged.


I just looked up Chris' judging record on the AKC website's Judges Directory. Since Dec 28, 2002, Chris has judged 39 field trial stakes -- major and minor. Since Feb 2004, Don Graves has judged 33 stakes (major and minor). His next judging assignment is the Tacoma Ret Club trial the weekend of Aug. 9-11. 

These guys are too busy training, trialing, and judging. Don is retired, but Chris is still a working man (insurance agent with his own insurance business). They are also active in local clubs (president, board of directors, field trial chairmen). They don't have time to get involved in an RAC. Just ask their wives...

Helen


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

To my knowledge the last club to hold an Amat without an Open was the Maryland Ret.Club May 1968. It was a 2day trial with an Amat and a Qual. It showed a profit. 
The theory that it would reduce competition by attracting lesser dogs and handlers was the reason given by the RAC to the AKC to no longer allow this type of trial. History has proven their theory wrong. Several of those handlers have gone on to: produce multiple FC/AFCs, win Nationals, judge Nationals,and be admitted to the RHOF(one even visits this site). 

When points are to be won there will be dogs and handlers that want them.


Tim


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

As long as a new rule (club holding 2 trials a year can hold only an Amateur only stake with no Open stake every other year at the second trial) is optional, it would probably be OK. As an option, clubs could decide yes or no. 

Was this new rule idea formally on the annual National Am meeting and was it discussed... ?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

It was discussed as a possible proposed rule change


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

In this day in age with rising cost of everything, and dwindling active participation in everything, Give clubs as many options as they can to continue to hold events, with-in their resources, keep their active club members happy and perhaps make enough of a profit to keep the club going, so they can continue to put on events. If that means certain clubs prefer an Am. to an Open, an Open to an Am, a QAA or derby to either, a limited number of dogs per handler, a limited number of dogs period, etc. Give the clubs the option to give their members and bank-books what they need, to keep going and breed a healthier club. When a full event becomes too much work, with little return, clubs don't put on events, the sport dies. Figure the new proposed rule, puts in play 3 Open stakes in 2 years, for one event without an Open. A lot of clubs around here are lucky to put on one full Trial a year, if a carrot encourages them to put on more, your Not losing too much, might even be gaining a trial or two.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Thanks, Ed. What about the rule proposal to limit Amateur handlers to 3 dogs? Tammy Bell has referred to a 4+ Amateur handling problem apparently in the Eastern region. Can you or someone explain what is going on in Amateurs that is seen as a problem that would require a 3-dog limit (at a club's discretion)? 

On the west coast, we have a few amateurs handling multiple dogs that they own. I recall 3 dogs maybe in one stake, but not 4 or more. These are real owners of the dogs, not someone listed as a co-owner just so they can run the dog. If somebody remembers there are 4+ dog owner-handlers out here running their dogs in the Open or Am, please correct me. 

Helen


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

helencalif said:


> Thanks, Ed. What about the rule proposal to limit Amateur handlers to 3 dogs? Tammy Bell has referred to a 4+ Amateur handling problem apparently in the Eastern region. Can you or someone explain what is going on in Amateurs that is seen as a problem that would require a 3-dog limit (at a club's discretion)?
> 
> On the west coast, we have a few amateurs handling multiple dogs that they own. I recall 3 dogs maybe in one stake, but not 4 or more. These are real owners of the dogs, not someone listed as a co-owner just so they can run the dog. If somebody remembers there are 4+ dog owner-handlers out here running their dogs in the Open or Am, please correct me.
> 
> Helen


Not much to add to Post 19 on this thread, no discussion here since the meeting on Saturday, most not in favor of limiting amateurs to a specific number of entries.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Thanks, Ed, for your quick replies on the meeting topics.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

helencalif said:


> On the west coast, we have a few amateurs handling multiple dogs that they own. I recall 3 dogs maybe in one stake, but not 4 or more. These are real owners of the dogs, not someone listed as a co-owner just so they can run the dog. If somebody remembers there are 4+ dog owner-handlers out here running their dogs in the Open or Am, please correct me.
> 
> Helen


I know different Ams. who "co-owe" many dogs, which stay on entirely on pro trucks, and run under particular amateurs at every trial, who's runs are paid for by the other owners, but are always on Pro Trucks. In some areas it's becoming a very widely used trend for Pros to have their Amateurs. I don't like the idea of limiting a true Amateur who does run their own personal dogs, but I don't like cheating the Amateur stakes trends either. Limiting Ams. to a particular number of dogs would perhaps curtail the "co-owner" trend. So the question would be how many dogs can a person truly own, how many dogs is a single Amateur going to back financially if they are paying to run their own dogs ? Most individuals, I know 2-3, a very committed couple (maybe 2 a piece). 4 dogs is a lot of financial backing, if your running AM and perhaps Open stakes, not very many Amateurs, even couples backing over 4 personal dogs, at every trial.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

On my circuit--basically NC, SC, VA, GA and TN--I can think of several with 4 or more dogs. I am not aware of any dubious co-owner arrangements. They may exist but I am not aware of them. The folks I know run their dogs in the Am and sometimes in the Open (sometimes the pro does that) but they are amateurs just like me, if differently endowed with time and financial resources. Doesn't bother me in the least. I play the way I can and enjoy it and I hope they do as well.

It is a heck of a commitment financially and time wise for these folks. If you figure they have this many AA dogs, you know they have several young dogs each as well that they are not sure will ultimately make it.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

helencalif said:


> Thanks, Ed. What about the rule proposal to limit Amateur handlers to 3 dogs? Tammy Bell has referred to a 4+ Amateur handling problem apparently in the Eastern region. Can you or someone explain what is going on in Amateurs that is seen as a problem that would require a 3-dog limit (at a club's discretion)?
> 
> On the west coast, we have a few amateurs handling multiple dogs that they own. I recall 3 dogs maybe in one stake, but not 4 or more. These are real owners of the dogs, not someone listed as a co-owner just so they can run the dog. If somebody remembers there are 4+ dog owner-handlers out here running their dogs in the Open or Am, please correct me.
> 
> Helen


Helen

OK, here's a problem. Suppose, a handler has 5 dogs entered in the open, 5 in the am, and 1 or 2 in the Qual or Derby whichever is Starting on Sat. The handler has pretty good dogs as nobody would be complaining if they didn't and they wouldn't be entering if they weren't. In big trials, when you run is much more important than how good your dog is. Generally, marks become easier as more dogs run. With the draw the handler will almost always have a dog in the 1st 10 of the Am Marks. The handler can't be at 3 places at once. Even if they are really trying to cooperate, it is really tough not to be perceived as working the system. Obviously Some are pretty good at working the system so that they are running most of their good dogs at the best times.  

Now instead of 1 or 2 handlers in that situation imagine having 4 or 5. The draw becomes pretty much meaningless. Trial logistics have become a total nightmare!


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Doug Main said:


> Helen
> 
> OK, here's a problem. Suppose, a handler has 5 dogs entered in the open, 5 in the am, and 1 or 2 in the Qual or Derby whichever is Starting on Sat. The handler has pretty good dogs as nobody would be complaining if they didn't and they wouldn't be entering if they weren't. In big trials, when you run is much more important than how good your dog is. Generally, marks become easier as more dogs run. With the draw the handler will almost always have a dog in the 1st 10 of the Am Marks. The handler can't be at 3 places at once. Even if they are really trying to cooperate, it is really tough not to be perceived as working the system. Obviously Some are pretty good at working the system so that they are running most of their good dogs at the best times.
> 
> Now instead of 1 or 2 handlers in that situation imagine having 4 or 5. The draw becomes pretty much meaningless. Trial logistics have become a total nightmare!


Yes, Doug, this is exactly what I am talking about. Logistic nightmare for everyone.

It is really more of a 'multistake' handler problem than a 'multidog' handler problem. You can run 30 dogs in one stake and never alter the running order or delay the field trial, but if you have 30 entries in 2-3 stakes, then the running order has no meaning and there will be delays.

Field trial committees in the past have gone out of their way to accommodate the occasional handler delay, however, with more and more multi dog, multistake handlers there are more delays and more inconveniences for the rest of the contestants and delays for workers.

For example, if you have 2 'mm' (multidog multistake) contestants with 4 dogs each back to the final series of the Open on Sunday, then they usually have to run the land blind or water blind in the Amateur stake on Saturday evening in order to arrive on time for the last series in the Open. This means the remaining Amateur contestants are forced to run out of order and under conditions different than what would have been with the original running order.

The option a field trial committee does have under the current rule structure, impose the 15 minute rule. This would eliminate those who 'work the system' and make the draw much more meaningful.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

I haven't paid much attention to the RAC so have little knowledge. For what it is worth, I went to the official AKC website and poked around to find something. I may not have found everything, but I did find something.

The last info about the RAC on AKC's website is minutes from their 2010 meeting. Kate Simonds, Chair, plus members Bill Daley, John Goettl, and Nelson Sills.
There were 3 proposals the RAC made to clubs in 2009 that the clubs had to vote on. The 2009 ballot results on the 3 proposals list the amount of yes and no votes made by the clubs. All 3 proposals passed. (I think the highest ballot return was votes by 61 clubs.) 

No formal proposals had been received by the RAC in 2010. The RAC then discussed several topics -- guess things not formally proposed, but topics they wanted to discuss, including the idea to have pros be allowed to judge trials. The RAC said they would look into it and several other ideas. End of 2010 meeting. 

I do recall that at the Natl Am held in Klamath Falls, OR, that Bill Totten, president of the Professional Retrievers Training Assn (PRTA) brought up the topic of having pros judge trials (it was not on the agenda, as I recall). There wasn't much of a discussion at that meeting. Per the 2010 RAC minutes, there was no formal proposal in 2009 nor 2010. Since there is no report on 2011 and 2012, I don't know if this idea got anywhere with the RAC. Bill Totten spoke in favor of it at the Natl Am and that may be as far as it got.

I could find nothing reported on RAC activities in 2011 and 2012 on the AKC website. If not on the official AKC website, I don't know where this information could be found unless published in Retriever News at some time. We subscribe to the News; I don't recall RAC activities being reported there. The RAC obviously received a formal proposal in 2012 about prohibiting layout blinds... or they thought of this new rule themselves, put it on a ballot, and mailed the clubs a ballot.

Anybody out there have more info on the RAC and its activities since 2010? I am curious to understand how it operates since it is the official link to AKC effecting field trial rules and regulations.

Are the RAC members voted into office by clubs? Are there term limits? How many clubs are on their mailing list that are sent ballots to vote and how are the clubs selected to be on their mailing list? I could not find anything on the AKC website about the structure of the RAC. 

Helen


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

http://www.theretrievernews.com/RNews/Documents/RAC2012.pdf

and repeated in the lower part of this page


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

helencalif said:


> Are the RAC members voted into office by clubs? Are there term limits? How many clubs are on their mailing list that are sent ballots to vote and how are the clubs selected to be on their mailing list? I could not find anything on the AKC website about the structure of the RAC.
> 
> Helen


In the past they were lifetime appointments. Appointed by Pete Simonds. There was no turnover, no term limits, nothing.

That is why the 8 year term limits and turnover that just occurred is so huge.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

jeff t. said:


> http://www.theretrievernews.com/RNews/Documents/RAC2012.pdf


Thanks for the link to the June 2012 issue of Retriever News. I probably read this when the issue arrive, but forgot that this had been published. Hope everyone else used your link to read about the rule proposals made last year about what an amateur is and prohibiting layout blinds.


----------



## txrancher (Aug 19, 2004)

Doug Main said:


> In the past they were lifetime appointments. Appointed by Pete Simonds. There was no turnover, no term limits, nothing.
> 
> That is why the 8 year term limits and turnover that just occurred is so huge.


Are the term limits staggered or will all be replaced at one time? Information sure is slow getting out, typical transparency.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

txrancher said:


> Are the term limits staggered or will all be replaced at one time? Information sure is slow getting out, typical transparency.


If you read the recap of the RAC meeting on Sat. before the National it says who has already been replaced,


> At 2:04 pm the RAC meeting was called to order by John Russell.
> Kate Simonds asked John Russell to stand in for her.
> 
> John introduced the members of the board, they were: John Goettl from the Mountain Time Zone, Ray Vreeland from the Eastern Time Zone, John Russell from the Central Time Zone, Doug Ljundgren is Vice President from AKC, Lisa Carrol who is the Manager for Performance Events, and Jerry Mann who is the Field Director of Sporting Events.
> ...


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Thanks, Bon. I missed this. I have been going by the posts here on RTF. I guess lifetime term has meant lifetime. One post said Pete Simonds selected the members. Kate Simonds has been on the committee for awhile (don't know how long) and is now Chairman. I thought she has been chairman as I recall her representing the RAC at the Natl Am in Klamath Falls. Was Pete Simonds her husband?

Western representative Bill Daley retiring... I wonder who on the west coast will be selected (I assume selected, not elected). I am trying to think of people who have all the 4-criterias. There are probably some. Any ideas on who would qualify? 

Helen


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

helencalif said:


> Western representative Bill Daley retiring... I wonder who on the west coast will be selected (I assume selected, not elected). I am trying to think of people who have all the 4-criterias. There are probably some. Any ideas on who would qualify?
> 
> Helen


Are there really that few out west?

There are dozens that would meet the criteria in the Midwest.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

helencalif said:


> Thanks, Bon. I missed this. I have been going by the posts here on RTF. I guess lifetime term has meant lifetime. One post said Pete Simonds selected the members. Kate Simonds has been on the committee for awhile (don't know how long) and is now Chairman. I thought she has been chairman as I recall her representing the RAC at the Natl Am in Klamath Falls. Was Pete Simonds her husband?
> 
> Western representative Bill Daley retiring... I wonder who on the west coast will be selected (I assume selected, not elected). I am trying to think of people who have all the 4-criterias. There are probably some.* Any ideas on who would qualify*?
> 
> Helen


my guess and I hope I am right

Linda Erwin....would have guessed Arnie but since he is the 2014 NARC President that all but eliminated him

a younger Jack Vollstedt would have made a great choice too


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

The AKC judging directory only goes back to 1998. I went to see how many Linda Erwin has judged. Since 1998, Linda has judged 22 stakes. (1 or 2 a year). I don't know how much judging she did prior to 1998. She may not qualify under the 40+ judging points criteria. She certainly qualifies for the rest. 

Other than Arnie or Linda Erwin, I am scratching my head trying to come up with others.

PS - Robin Gulvin has judged 41 (major and minor) stakes since 1998.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

helencalif said:


> The AKC judging directory only goes back to 1998. I went to see how many Linda Erwin has judged. Since 1998, Linda has judged 22 stakes. (1 or 2 a year). I don't know how much judging she did prior to 1998. She may not qualify under the 40+ judging points criteria. She certainly qualifies for the rest.
> 
> Other than Arnie or Linda Erwin, I am scratching my head trying to come up with others.


Don't you think someone who has judged 20 or 30 all age stakes is knowledgeable enough? Why do you think it needed to be 40? They had to set it somewhere... But they chose a pretty high number for a reason.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Bill,
If the criteria had been, "judged 20 all age stakes in the past 15 years", I think that would have been a reasonable criteria. It means that the person would have 'recent' judging experience and would have to have judged more than 1 all age stake per year every year. 

If their point system is counting only all age stakes to get to 40+, it is going to be darn tough finding a person who has done that. Linda Erwin has judged 22 stakes in 15 years -- that's counting judging minor and major stakes. 

Setting the judging criteria so high, they must have a person in mind who they want to represent the Western Region on the RAC. It will be interesting to see who is appointed.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

huntinman said:


> Don't you think someone who has judged 20 or 30 all age stakes is knowledgeable enough? Why do you think it needed to be 40? They had to set it somewhere... But they chose a pretty high number for a reason.


Probably chose it so Lanse doesnt qualify ....LMAO


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

helencalif said:


> The AKC judging directory only goes back to 1998. I went to see how many Linda Erwin has judged. Since 1998, Linda has judged 22 stakes. (1 or 2 a year). I don't know how much judging she did prior to 1998. She may not qualify under the 40+ judging points criteria. She certainly qualifies for the rest.
> 
> Other than Arnie or Linda Erwin, I am scratching my head trying to come up with others.
> 
> PS - Robin Gulvin has judged 41 (major and minor) stakes since 1998.


Yes but Linda has been judging trials since the mid 70's (she is probably gonna hate me for revealing that stat)..She currently serves on the BOD for the Retriever News, and is well respected and not controversial pick


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

BonMallari said:


> Yes but Linda has been judging trials since the mid 70's (she is probably gonna hate me for revealing that stat)..She currently serves on the BOD for the Retriever News, and is well respected and not controversial pick


"well respected and not controversial"... you are right about that! 

Helen


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

helencalif said:


> The AKC judging directory only goes back to 1998. I went to see how many Linda Erwin has judged. Since 1998, Linda has judged 22 stakes. (1 or 2 a year). I don't know how much judging she did prior to 1998. She may not qualify under the 40+ judging points criteria. She certainly qualifies for the rest.
> 
> Other than Arnie or Linda Erwin, I am scratching my head trying to come up with others.
> 
> PS - Robin Gulvin has judged 41 (major and minor) stakes since 1998.


Arnie and Linda have been running dogs as long as I have, they have both judge many more than the requirement. From the Pacific time zone Glenda Brown, Paul Foster, Sally Foster, Gary Zellner, Mel Milton, Pete Goodale, Gary Ahlgren come to mind


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> Arnie and Linda have been running dogs as long as I have, they have both judge many more than the requirement. From the Pacific time zone Glenda Brown, Paul Foster, Sally Foster, Gary Zellner, Mel Milton, Pete Goodale, Gary Ahlgren come to mind


Bill Kolstad would qualify for sure and possibly Lorna Kolstad.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Russ said:


> Bill Kolstad would qualify for sure and possibly Lorna Kolstad.


They would also be a great choice.....How about Pat Nicholls ? anyone who has been entrusted to be a National judge as he was certainly has the qualifications to be on the RAC


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Wendy Pennington comes close, has the 40 judging points and the 20+years in sport and is still running dogs, but has never titled a dog.


----------



## JKOttman (Feb 3, 2004)

TBell said:


> I was simple bringing to light that many 4+ dog handler teams seem to be happening more frequently and whether it is a good direction for the Amateur stake to go. It is happening mostly in the Eastern regions, but be assured it will soon be coming to a region near you.


In the Northeast/Midatlantic we have a few amateurs with multiple dogs, but it's the same folks it has always been. We're more likely to hold a stake to wait for a pro or a sandbagger than an amateur with multiple dogs in multiple stakes.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

As I understand it, but I could be wrong......The AKC is a club made up of MEMBER clubs, each of which is represented at its meetings by a delegate, for which there an arduous approval process by the AKC.

Within the structure of the AKC there are numerous committee posts some more important than others, comprised of the member/delegates, most with long standing membership appointments ... The RFTAC is one such committee . 

With this in mind, I see no usefulness in even considering a person for RFTAC who is not already a member of a MEMBER club, and is one that if not already its delegate, one who the existing club delegate would be willing to step aside for.

Do the 40 point judges suggested in this thread meet this criteria?


john


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

john fallon said:


> As I understand it, but I could be wrong......The AKC is a club made up of MEMBER clubs, each of which is represented at its meetings by a delegate, for which there an arduous approval process by the AKC.
> Within the structure of the AKC there are numerous committee posts most with long standing membership appointments ... The RFTAC is one such committee .
> 
> With this in mind, I see no usefulness in even considering a person for RFTAC who is not already a member of a MEMBER club, and is one that if not already its delagate, one who the existing club deligat would be willing to step asside for.
> ...


to answer your question that would be a Yes to those that I mentioned....BUT the other side of the coin would be that members of the RAC who are not affiliated with a specific club would actually be non biased and could not be accused of showing a bias toward a particular club..


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

john fallon said:


> As I understand it, but I could be wrong......The AKC is a club made up of MEMBER clubs, each of which is represented at its meetings by a delegate, for which there an arduous approval process by the AKC.Within the structure of the AKC there are numerous committee posts some more important than others, comprised of the member/delegates, most with long standing membership appointments ... The RFTAC is one such committee .
> 
> With this in mind, I see no usefulness in even considering a person for RFTAC who is not already a member of a MEMBER club, and is one that if not already its delegate, one who the existing club delegate would be willing to step aside for.
> 
> ...


John,

Glenda Brown, Sally Foster, and Lorna Kolstad are members of an AKC member club. Wendy Pennington is also a member of the same club, but if she has not titled a dog, then would not qualify to be an RAC member representing the western region. 
Helen


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

BonMallari said:


> to answer your question that would be a Yes to those that I mentioned....BUT the other side of the coin would be that members of the RAC who are not affiliated with a specific club would actually be non biased and could not be accused of showing a bias toward a particular club..



Correct me if I am wrong Bon ... Your answer in the affirmative means that you represent that those 40 point judges you have mentioned are already delegates to the AKC representing a member club


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Here is a link that allows the user to search for AKC "member" clubs and to identify the delegate from that club


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

helencalif said:


> John,
> 
> Glenda Brown, Sally Foster, and Lorna Kolstad are members of an AKC member club. Wendy Pennington is also a member of the same club, but if she has not titled a dog, then would not qualify to be an RAC member representing the western region.
> Helen



Good.....We are now getting closer to being able to consider them . What club (s) ?

john


----------

