# New Retriever Organization is Launched!



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Posted upon request of Mr. Patrick Johndrow Chairman ("OkieDuck" here on RTF) of the new organization - 

Note: "Redstar" - here on RTF is also a board member of the new group

Announcing Officially: The National Field Retriever Association












Here's the link to the website: National Field Retriever Association NFRA

Take a look! Running rules, bylaws, Board members and bios...and more! Nice job on the website Mr. Payne!


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

COOL!!!

That is a picture of FC Pin Oak's Texas Rex, owned by Jim Alexander.


----------



## Peake (Jan 3, 2003)

"Congrats NFRA!!!"
Peake
________
Gs Series


----------



## Dave Combs (Feb 28, 2003)

Being relatively new to RTF, is there any further info out on the new organization yet? Been looking around a little bit, but haven't seen any - unless of course I don't know what I'm looking for or I'm just that ignorant.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

combsie said:


> Being relatively new to RTF, is there any further info out on the new organization yet? Been looking around a little bit, but haven't seen any - unless of course I don't know what I'm looking for or I'm just that ignorant.


Combsie,

I'm not sure what your question is. The organization was just officially announced above. I don't believe any other place on the net is going to give you much more information today, than what's written here. 

Please go to their website to get the information straight from the horse's mouth. I have a link above. The site is www.nfra.us . There is a wealth of information on that website - I'd venture to say you could tie up the next 3 hours or more reading all of the information there including complete bylaws and running rules.

We also have two board members that frequent this board and would be likely willing to address questions.


----------



## Dave Combs (Feb 28, 2003)

Chris,
Thanks for the reply. Okieduck sent me a PM refering me to the website, which for some reason did not come up for me.
Curious to know your thoughts on the new group?

combsie


----------



## Richard Cheatham (Feb 25, 2003)

Feel free to contact me at: [email protected]
With any questions requarding the NFRA.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Note all: Redstar above IS on the board of the NFRA - he's one of your primary go-to guys to learn more.

It's all good!

Chris


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

*Why?*

RedStar,

I can't find an answer to my question on your website -- "Why?"

Why a =new= organization?

What was your problem with the existing organizations?

Did you try to effect change in the existing organizations before starting another one? I know you are ex-NAHRA. But did you approach AKC and/or HRC?

In some ways I think it is easier to just start a new organization than to effect change in the original one. But the easy way is very rarely ever the more worthwhile way.

Thanks.

Kevin


----------



## Richard Cheatham (Feb 25, 2003)

Keith,

Bylaws have been written and approved by the Board of Directors. An electronic downloadable file similar to what we have provided for the Rules page was suppose to have been included on the website. Being to first day we have had the site up, I’m sure you’ll forgive a few bugs. We are working to get the bylaws posted as quickly as we can. Thanks for your patience.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

The webmaster is likely out training dogs right now. It appears to be a minor glitch - nothing intentional. 

Keith I HAVE electronic and hardcopies of the bylaws in hand. I can get you a set immediately, should you be interested. (Note, there may be a spelling error or two in them - this thing is hot off the press and spelling was not the primary concern. Content was.)

The bylaws do exist and were not intentionally left off the page.

Chris


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Keith it will be fixed ASAP. Sorry for the inconvenience we know it is rough but we are working through these issues.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Why?*



AmiableLabs said:


> RedStar,
> 
> I can't find an answer to my question on your website -- "Why?"
> 
> ...


Kevin, 

The above does not appear to be very amiable behavior! :wink: I guarantee you that your friendly dogs would like the new game!

I went to the homepage and found a statement that appears to do a decent job of answering "why". 

It is pasted here:

*"The National Field Retriever Association, Inc. ("NFRA") offers competitive field tests for retriever-breed dogs. NFRA is a new and forward-looking organization that has produced a premier judging system for evaluating the field skills of retriever-breed dogs. NFRA field tests merge the best aspects of contemporary hunt tests and field trials. The performance of dogs is evaluated by an innovative scoring system called "deductive-objective" and "deductive-subjective" scoring."* 

Like they told the lady who tried to lead a national boycott of the old TV program "Married with Children", if you don't like the show, change the channel! (If you don't like it, you don't have to run it!)

I have seen nothing in any aspect of the program that threatens the existing hunt test or trial games in any way. I don't see the need for antagonism among the retriever sport ranks. This new organization is bound to appeal to many, but also not appeal to a large group. 

That's what's great about our dog games. There are several sizes, shapes and flavors to suit many tastes. 


Chris


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

OUCH!

10% of the total entries means the amount is taken out before the bills are paid. That means some clubs (especially during start-up) are going to have to eat some of the bills to make up the difference. 

Lisa-writing that check would give me tenesmus


----------



## Doc E (Jan 3, 2003)

*Registry ? ?*

Will the titles appear on any registry (i.e.pedigree?)


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

Doc,

I think the answer to that is NO. Just like a NAHRA title. The rule book on line says the test will require an AKC or CKC registration to enter. AKC is VERY particular about the titles it allows on its pedigrees. Does seem like a conflict in testing goals - find a winner and judge to a standard.

BTW - All of you HRC guys, watch yourself when you fill out an AKC premium for a HT or a FT. If you include a HRC or a NAHRA title not recognized by the AKC, it could be judged as an incorrectly filled out premium and COULD invalidate any pass or place you recieve in the AKC event.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

*Hmmmm....*

I'm not trying to "down" a new venue. Anything that promotes the sport of dogs in general and retrievers in particular at least has the right motive at heart.

I'm just a tad bit curious on an adjective used to describe the titles awarded by the group.....

"coveted"

Coveted? I can't help but feel that the founders are being a TAD bit presumptuous in assuming before the first test has been run that the titles will be "wished for enviously."

But that's just me... :wink:


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

This will be very interesting. I wish you all the best of luck. The combo of tests you are developing will be intriguing to watch.

I'm very relieved to see the bios of the officers. I got worried that Richard Cheatham, the treasurer, was related to an old law firm I once got clobbered by...Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe. It was comforting to see he was never involved with them.

UB...still stunned to find out Jerry is a red-headed Don Knotts. That could mean we were bros in a previous life.


----------



## Cappy_TX (Jan 6, 2003)

Ummm ... Am I the only one to notice all of the BOD folks are swamp collie owners? Kinda reminds me of the current TV ad running with all the weiner dogs stampeding ... cracks me up no end. At least the new org had enough good judgement to use a yellar dawg in their logo.

Sorry for the ribbing guys ... sincerely wish you the best of luck.

:lol:


----------



## Richard Cheatham (Feb 25, 2003)

That was a mistake Chili was suppose to be the poster boy.


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

I have not completely read the rulebook, but if two live fliers are used, I do not think our club could break even based on the published maximum entry fees Our bird cost on our last hunt test/DQ was about $13.50 each. With 10% of the gross going to headquarters, I do not think their would be enough left over to fully cover other expenses not to mention the amortization and purchase of equipment.

Russ


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

I told Jim this morning that his dog was the posterboy for the new org. He thought that was cool.

Chili is only cool cuz he has character... and because you sometimes have to get in the truck to go get him on a long retired gun!!!

I think yall need a macho choco dawg on your website, that way people won't think you discriminate.

Shayne


----------



## Richard Cheatham (Feb 25, 2003)

*Re: Registry ? ?*



Doc E said:


> Will the titles appear on any registry (i.e.pedigree?)


Section 1: STAKES AND FIELD TITLES
Item No. 5
Dogs that earn an NFRA title shall receive from the NFRA a title certificate and a certified three-generation pedigree showing all titles and honors earned by each dog.


----------



## Richard Cheatham (Feb 25, 2003)

Russ said:


> I have not completely read the rulebook, but if two live fliers are used, I do not think our club could break even based on the published maximum entry fees Our bird cost on our last hunt test/DQ was about $13.50 each. With 10% of the gross going to headquarters, I do not think their would be enough left over to fully cover other expenses not to mention the amortization and purchase of equipment.
> 
> Russ


Russ,

Fliers are only encouraged, not mandatory. $13.50 each…ouch you are right! That would make it tough indeed.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Richard,

Did i read the infraction list correctly, in that a whistle counts as an infraction on the blind?

Shayne


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Registry ? ?*



RedStar said:


> Doc E said:
> 
> 
> > Will the titles appear on any registry (i.e.pedigree?)
> ...


To clarify: my understanding is that this pedigree will list all field titles for all organizations in North America and the UK for starters. CFC, AKC, UKC/HRC, NAHRA, that English stuff........

True Redstar/Okie? 

This is the way Joseph explained it to me.

Chris


----------



## Richard Cheatham (Feb 25, 2003)

*Re: Registry ? ?*



Chris said:


> To clarify: my understanding is that this pedigree will list all field titles for all organizations in North America and the UK for starters. CFC, AKC, UKC/HRC, NAHRA, that English stuff........
> 
> True Redstar/Okie?
> 
> ...


All titles will be listed.


----------



## Richard Cheatham (Feb 25, 2003)

Shayne said:


> Richard,
> 
> Did i read the infraction list correctly, in that a whistle counts as an infraction on the blind?
> 
> Shayne


Yes, that is correct.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

RedStar said:


> Shayne said:
> 
> 
> > Richard,
> ...


What about lines?

Shayne


----------



## Richard Cheatham (Feb 25, 2003)

Shayne said:


> What about lines?
> 
> Shayne


If I understand your question, good lines are rewarded with no deducted points.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

RedStar said:


> Shayne said:
> 
> 
> > What about lines?
> ...


On blinds... are you judging lines or counting whistles or both? If you've given a number value to each whistle, will you also assign a value to number of feet offline? Is being 10 yards offline a worse infraction that blowing a whistle to correct the line?

This is fun stuff. When's the first event? Where is the first club located? DFWHRA? Do i lose points for having a chocolate dog?

Shayne


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

The inaugural event is May 31 and June 1 in Stillwater, OK I believe. 

This cooincides with the Keystone Waterfowlers HRC event - I will be there, GLADLY supporting Rick and the new club in PA. Too bad you can't be in two places at the same time!

- Chris


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

*Re: Why?*



Chris Atkinson said:


> I went to the homepage and found a statement that appears to do a decent job of answering "why".
> 
> It is pasted here:
> 
> "The National Field Retriever Association, Inc. ("NFRA") offers competitive field tests for retriever-breed dogs. NFRA is a new and forward-looking organization that has produced a premier judging system for evaluating the field skills of retriever-breed dogs. NFRA field tests merge the best aspects of contemporary hunt tests and field trials. The performance of dogs is evaluated by an innovative scoring system called "deductive-objective" and "deductive-subjective" scoring."


My question "'Why' is 'Why a new organization?'" The only thing I see in that paragraph that might answer my question is an indirect accusation that the AKC and HRC are not "forward-looking" enough. But I doubt that was your intention.



> Like they told the lady who tried to lead a national boycott of the old TV program "Married with Children", if you don't like the show, change the channel! (If you don't like it, you don't have to run it!) I have seen nothing in any aspect of the program that threatens the existing hunt test or trial games in any way.


I disagree with your analogy, and I disagree with your conclusion. I believe anything that divides us is not constructive to the movement. There will continue to be people who will choose one organization over another, and become apologists for their own favorite (regardless of it being right or wrong). And that will serve to divide us. It will weaken the existing organizations. It will weaken the movement.

Kevin


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

*Re: Registry ? ?*



RedStar said:


> Doc E said:
> 
> 
> > Will the titles appear on any registry (i.e.pedigree?)
> ...


So the correct answer is "yes" and "no." You will receive a pedigree, but the title will not be recognized by any registry?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> The inaugural event is May 31 and June 1 in Stillwater, OK I believe. This cooincides with the Keystone Waterfowlers HRC event


This also conflicts with the Refuge Retriever Training Seminar and BBQ Get-Together, being taught by Evan Graham, and being held in Joliet, IL.

Just FYI.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

RedStar said:


> Shayne said:
> 
> 
> > Richard,
> ...


So a dog that takes a poor line and puts up an extended hunt, is preferable to a dog that takes a poor line and a nice, sharp, quick handle?


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Why?*



AmiableLabs said:


> I disagree with your analogy, and I disagree with your conclusion. I believe anything that divides us is not constructive to the movement. There will continue to be people who will choose one organization over another, and become apologists for their own favorite (regardless of it being right or wrong). And that will serve to divide us. It will weaken the existing organizations. It will weaken the movement.
> 
> Kevin


I know you feel that way. This is the beauty of the arrangement. We have choices!

Some obviously feel differently.

I'm glad that we have Ford, Chevy, and Dodge trucks. I'm glad that we have Benelli, Remington, Beretta, Winchester and Ruger sporting arms. I'm glad that we have Stanley, Carlson, RNT, and Fowl Language Game Calls.

What you call weakening, I see as healthy competition. What you see as a threat, I see as a potential to increase participation. Kevin, you asked me how I derived my numbers a while back with some apparent interest in a special interest group publication. My response was that the dog game crowd is a very, very narrow sector of the retriever owning public. It is a very narrow sector of the hunting public as well.

My belief is that the more active, organized folks we have out there pushing conservation retriever work, the more strength we have to oppose such groups as those looking to shut down commercial gamebird raising operations. Heck, the more people there would likely be to provide a potential market for your magazine! The NFRA is not going to make the retriever game market shrink - I just don't see it as being possible.

Will it make the existing organizations a bit more member conscious? Maybe. Will it make them try to focus more on market trends and event needs? Maybe. But I don't see any of those as a bad thing.

Let's say the total number of hunt test plus Field Trial people in the U.S. is 4,000. Do you honestly think that the inclusion of a new organization is going to drive that number down? I don't see it. 

Some will choose to try more than one organization. Some will go with their organization of preference.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Chris,

I once again must disagree with your analogy.

I am as capitalistic as the next guy! Competition between competing companies is a great thing.

But we are not supposed to be dealing with competing corporations here, where the outcome of competition leads to a better and stronger product.

We are supposed to be members of a movement for the betterment of the hunting retriever. A movement is stronger with agreement and compromise, not division.

Kevin


----------



## Richard Cheatham (Feb 25, 2003)

*Re: Registry ? ?*

So the correct answer is "yes" and "no." You will receive a pedigree, but the title will not be recognized by any registry?[/quote]

The answer is yes you will receive a three-generation pedigree with all the dogs titles included and no there is no registry. If the membership sees value in having their own registry the bylaws make it possible to do that too.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

*Re: Why?*

[I disagree with your analogy, and I disagree with your conclusion. I believe anything that divides us is not constructive to the movement. There will continue to be people who will choose one organization over another, and become apologists for their own favorite (regardless of it being right or wrong). And that will serve to divide us. It will weaken the existing organizations. It will weaken the movement.

Kevin[/quote]


I don’t think you are drawing the same conclusion that I am from this. If you find me running a Field Trial, HRC Test, Super Retriever Series test or and NFRA Test the only conclusion you should draw from that is I support the retrieving sport period. We chose the dates we did to not conflict with other test and trials that we knew about. If we waited for the perfect date there never would be any. I respect your opinion and hope you understand mine.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

This is going to be kind of rambling, and kind of musing, and kind of reminiscing on my part, for which I apologize up front. It also kind of ties in with the whole "definition of Champion" spinoff on another recent thread.

In my many travels with The Miserable Bitch, we have played many games in many venues, including overseas. Her descendants have excelled in the same, in countries all over the world. One thing I have learned is that there is more than one way to do a thing, and it is all good. Call me a liberal, but if you aren't breaking any laws, I reckon you can have fun any way you want.

In FCI (Federacion Cynologique Internacional-the organization that oversees dog events in Europe, Asia and South America), events are both scored against a standard AND placed 1-4. Works for them, why not for some ingenious, inventive, cuttung-edge Americans? In FCI events, there are standards. Standards for conformation, standards for obedience, standards for tracking, standards for field events. Each country oversees the rules and regs for their own country's events, but in order to qualify for titles under the FCI umbrella, basic criteria must be met. So events have minimum standards, and dogs are placed in "grading" categories as compared to that standard. Excellent, Very Good, Good, and so forth down the line. Then dogs are placed 1-4 as judged against EACH OTHER.

So, here's how it works. Dogs must at least meet the standard. To be considered for placements they must be at least good or better. To qualify for titles, they must be either very good or excellent, no exceptions. So it is possible for a dog to get a ribbon, yet not be good enough to title, based on adherance to the standard. This is because the dog is only "good" when compared to the standard, yet still better than its sorry competition. So, you get a ribbon, maybe even first place, but no progression toward a title. The reverse is also true. A dog may be graded excellent, yet if it is in excellent company, it may not even place. 

Here's the killer part. As in any other competition, there is only ONE winner, but the judge has the final say as to whether you are really good enough to get a title. Aside from grading and ribbons, they have certificates which are handed out. Depending on the game you are playing, you need a certain number of these certificates to get a title. Each certificate is truly a CERTIFICATE, it is a signed, sworn statement by the judge that this dog is considered quality enough to wear the title Champion. Pretty heady stuff. So, yes, you can have an excellent dog, AND win the whole shebang, but if at the end of the day the judge feels your dog wasn't excellent ENOUGH, he/she/they can withhold the certificate and that's that.

So, it is possible to "double judge", it happens all over the world, all the time, EXCEPT in the US, Canada, and the UK (probably Australia, too). I have gotten show Championships on dogs without defeating another Chesapeake. Good or bad? I don't know. I do know that those judges took their jobs seriously, and really scrutinized the dogs well. Some US exhibitors were in for a shock when their nationally-ranked, highly-touted BIS dogs walked away with only a "good" rating from judges who really judge by the standard, not just picking out the best of whatever happens to show up. This is a system with which all participants are comfortable, and achieving something really counts. Having a "first-excellent" in a field trial is worth shouting about. Yes, even coveted.

I also don't see this as divisive, necessarily. Unlike when hunt tests first started (yes, I was around then), there is not the DELIBERATE (and it was VERY deliberate) attempt to build an "us vs them mentality" here. Here we see simply the offering of another testing venue, another "flavor" on the ice-cream truck. I have not seen any evidence of jabs at any other testing organization, not even that organization MOST responsible for "weakening the movement". This is simply another alternative. 

Lisa


----------



## Richard Cheatham (Feb 25, 2003)

So a dog that takes a poor line and puts up an extended hunt, is preferable to a dog that takes a poor line and a nice, sharp, quick handle?[/quote]

I honestly completely fail to understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion. A dog that takes a good initial line and handles crisply will obviously have fewer whistles and therefore a better score. Please read:

CHAPTER 8:	SCORING, QUALIFYING, PLACEMENTS AND TITLES 26
Section 1. Objective Scoring in the Junior Field Retriever Stake 26
Section 2.	Objective Scoring in Senior, Master and Open Stakes 27
Section 3.	Subjective Scoring in Each Stake 28


----------



## Peake (Jan 3, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> We are supposed to be members of a movement for the betterment of the hunting retriever. A movement is stronger with agreement and compromise, not division.
> Kevin


AL,
If the Dawgs pick'n up real birds who cares?
Peake
________
Milf Xxx


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

test.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> Chris Atkinson said:
> 
> 
> > The inaugural event is May 31 and June 1 in Stillwater, OK I believe. This cooincides with the Keystone Waterfowlers HRC event
> ...


Kevin,

I am reluctant to respond to this, but I will. This really will not go anywhere, most likely and will likely be an unproductive exchange. But, here goes.

You have listed the AKC as your standard game and registry/sanctioning body of choice - GREAT! You have also listed that you started in UKC/HRC and you apparently feel that that game is OK, at least acceptable, and therefore part of your "movement". Cool, many of us are into UKC/HRC.

I'm not sure what the definition is of "the movement". One could easily draw the conclusion, by your logic stated earlier, that if you've scheduled a website retriever get-together, with a seminar, that happens to conflict with one of your "Movement approved" sanctioning bodies (UKC/HRC) then you are diluting or hurting the movement. Unless "the movement" means that your seminar is more or equally important than/to a Sanctioned UKC/HRC event. 

It appears at this point that you are going to disagree with whatever the NFRA says unless it is:

* Don't run NFRA, run AKC or
* Don't run NFRA, or the KWHRC test, go to Kevin's "movement" website get-together and seminar with Evan. :wink: :wink: 

It looks like if the NFRA board says "white" you're going to say "black".... :?: 

There is no way that the NFRA will please everybody. The NFRA is not looking to kill any of the other games, as far as I can tell.


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2003)

I am very much a newcomer having just joined UKC and HRC and having a started dog with two passes. I am aware through this web site of the devisive problems of the different sponsoring organizations, and, it sounds like, the probable demise of NAHRA, for a good reason - failure to pay attention to the players that were paying the bills. The club I belong to runs both AKC and HRC events. It appears the new organization is well intentioned with some very knowledgeable dog people heading up the organization. Having followed this website as well as several of the others, it would appear that the FT and hunt test group make their choices as to what game they play, and some play both, but it almost appears that it is a zero sum game in terms of the number of actual players. If so, when you divide your players you divide the money, and either the price goes up or the quality of the product goes down. I wish you well, but I'm not sure the interests of the game wouldn't be better served by making the existing organizations and clubs stronger. Just the thoughts of someone in a very competitive business with a fixed number of players.
Jack


----------



## Ted Hilfiker (Jan 3, 2003)

Ok....but wait a sec whilst a throw on the flame suit....now I'm set.

Don't know squat about the organization. Until I get a chance to see one of their test/trials, I won't offer an opinion.

What I do know is that my participation in retriever training and games is *not* participation in a "movement". It is a passion, hobby, money-eater....call it what you will. For others, it is a hobby/profession/business.....still not a movement.

Some movements I would be/am involved in:

Education of people in dog/pet ownership, health, training and psychology whether it be an NAFC, the mutt down the street or Aunt Minnie's toy poodle.

One that provides full educational funding for every child under sixteen years old.

One insures no one in the world goes to bed hungry or needlessly ill.

We need to get a grip sometimes on what is important. I love my dawgs, love hunting, training and just goofin' around with 'em, but I will not try to justify this obssession by equating it with some kind of ethical superiority......there is just too much else that needs to be attended to in this world.....

Sorry for the rant....

Ted


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Hilfiker said:


> Ok....but wait a sec whilst a throw on the flame suit....now I'm set.
> 
> Don't know squat about the organization. Until I get a chance to see one of their test/trials, I won't offer an opinion.
> 
> ...


Ted,

I'd like to know who can find fault with that! I read no rant. I saw no need for flames, or for an extinguisher.

If you like running your dawgs, run your dawgs.

- Chris


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> One could easily draw the conclusion, by your logic stated earlier, that if you've scheduled a website retriever get-together, with a seminar, that happens to conflict with one of your "Movement approved" sanctioning bodies (UKC/HRC) then you are diluting or hurting the movement. Unless "the movement" means that your seminar is more or equally important than/to a Sanctioned UKC/HRC event.


Again, I must disagree.

Similar yet separate events in different regions of the country, under the same umbrella -- whether it be a movement, an organization, or even a corporation --are a sign of health, and not conducive to division.

Even the holding of HRC, AKC, and NFRA on the same weekend in the same region is a sign of strength of the hunt test movement. Where the division is unhealthy is on other levels, most obviously the lack of direct interaction between the clubs and one (idealy) administrating body.

Kevin


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Jack said:


> . . . .it would appear that the FT and hunt test group make their choices as to what game they play, and some play both, but it almost appears that it is a zero sum game in terms of the number of actual players. If so, when you divide your players you divide the money, and either the price goes up or the quality of the product goes down. I wish you well, but I'm not sure the interests of the game wouldn't be better served by making the existing organizations and clubs stronger.


Thank you Jack.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Ted Hilfiker said:


> What I do know is that my participation in retriever training and games is *not* participation in a "movement". It is a passion, hobby, money-eater....call it what you will. For others, it is a hobby/profession/business.....still not a movement. . . .I love my dawgs, love hunting, training and just goofin' around with 'em, but I will not try to justify this obssession by equating it with some kind of ethical superiority....


First let me say that no one is talking about any sort of "ethical superiority." That is absurd.

Simply put, I have recently been researching the origins of hunt tests, and one of the stated purposes was to aid the development of hunting retrievers. It was a "movement."

Now I respect all of you who are in it just for the fun of it! That is fine! Nothing wrong with that!

But there are some of us who refuse to forget the original intentions of the game in the first place, and will enjoy the game just as much as you. If not more, because we know that we are contributing to some well and good purpose by our participation.

Kevin


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Chris,

Since you are lending yourself as an apologist for this new organization, let me ask you --

1) Is the hunt test community served better by one organization responsive to its membership, acting as dog registry and sanctioning body? Or is it better served by multiple organizations, some acting as registries, some as sanctioning bodies, but none of them working cooperatively or in concert with each other?

2) Follow up to above, is the hunt test community better served by adding new organizations, no matter how perfect or well-intended, to contribute to the above menagerie? Or are we better served by uniting the different organizations?

This is what my objecting is all about. It is a matter of principles. That is all. This is not an attack on the new organization, nor the people running it. Reading what has been posted on the site, it sounds better than both AKC and HRC. But I believe no matter how perfect or well-intentioned the organization, we need to be unfying, not dividing.

Kevin


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2003)

Kevin, the way I see it is that there are only 3 sanctioning bodies in the US, AKC UKC and NAHRA. One sanctioning body(AKC) runs dual event's HT and FT. So in essence e're talking about 4 seperate venue's to run your retriever in. So whats the harm in adding another? As long as the organization is well intentioned and does justice to the breeds it represents. And the tests that the organization runs are set up to fairly evaluate a retrievers ability to do its job. As far as I can see each organization is working toward the same or similar goals (execpt nahra of course). We can all agree NAHRA is going by the wayside so we're losing one and gaining another. I think this is a good thing. And in no way are we diluting the "movement" by adding one more sanctioning body to the mix. I'm all for it.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

"Chris,
Since you are lending yourself as an apologist for this new organization, let me ask you -- "

AmiableLabs


I think Chris is more of a support of retrievers and retriever organizations. There is no reason for an "apologist" for the NFRA other than a few glitches on the website we have nothing to apologize. Chris has been gracious to be one of the platforms we are using to inform people of the NFRA. As I stated before, the NFRA will not preclude me from running dogs in HRC, AKC or other organizations events. The NFRA is another means to testing retrievers it is not meant to be a replacement for any organization. If an individual decides not run HRC, AKC, NFRA or other organizations events that is their decision. Please PM with your telephone number and I will gladly call you and discuss any concerns you have with the NFRA organization and rules.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Okay, one last post, and then I will shut up :fadein: --

Which is better -- having to remember one set of rules and by-laws, or three?

Which is better -- three clubs earning $500 for their respective sanctioning bodies, or $1500 for one?

Which is better -- three sanctioning bodies and two dog registries not working in concert and cooperation for all hunt test participants, or one sanctioning body and dog registry acting responsively to its members?

Which is better -- coming together in unity in the names of principle and pragmatism, or dividing in the name of "choice?"

I have already said too much. I apologize. This is just a bug up my behind. 

I am done. 

No applause necessary -- :BIG: 

Kevin


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

OkieDuck said:


> Shayne
> 
> Yes, that is correct.
> So a dog that takes a poor line and puts up an extended hunt, is preferable to a dog that takes a poor line and a nice, sharp, quick handle?
> ...


Your quoting the wrong person. My question was _"On blinds... are you judging lines or counting whistles or both? If you've given a number value to each whistle, will you also assign a value to number of feet offline? Is being 10 yards offline a worse infraction that blowing a whistle to correct the line?"_ I'm not trying to figure out a way to cheat the test and i don't want to read the entire rule book. I want to ask questions, i want to become more educated on the new game and i might even want to run my dog. Answer my questions or don't, but don't mis-quote me.

To Quote another thread, just click the "Quote" button on the thread you wish to quote, don't click reply. Thanks for your time.

Shayne


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Ducking back in --



OkieDuck said:


> I think Chris is more of a support of retrievers and retriever organizations. There is no reason for an "apologist" for the NFRA other than a few glitches on the website we have nothing to apologize.


So there is no confusion, an _apologist_ is not someone who "apologizes," he is someone who "puts forth rational arguments in defense." 

I have nothing but admiration for Chris, and would never even think to criticize his devotion of, loyalty to, or support of working retrievers or their games.

-- Ducking back out.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> Okay, one last post, and then I will shut up :fadein: --
> 
> Which is better -- having to remember one set of rules and by-laws, or three?
> 
> ...


To many different people with different goals and different needs to have one organization. I can find something i personally don't like about every organization out there... AKC - Rulebook to vague, tests to inconsistent.. HRC - Finished test to easy, mis-use of Champion in a title... NAHRA - Leadership sucks... NFRA - To many marsh mops.

Just run what you like the best, or run them all, or don't run any, or start your own organization.

Shayne


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

OkieDuck said:


> AmiableLabs


Yes, that is correct.[/quote]
So a dog that takes a poor line and puts up an extended hunt, is preferable to a dog that takes a poor line and a nice, sharp, quick handle?[/quote]


Read the rules. You will not be able to cheat the test.[/quote]


----------



## Richard Cheatham (Feb 25, 2003)

Kevin Said: "Which is better -- having to remember one set of rules and by-laws, or three?

Which is better -- three clubs earning $500 for their respective sanctioning bodies, or $1500 for one?

Which is better -- three sanctioning bodies and two dog registries not working in concert and cooperation for all hunt test participants, or one sanctioning body and dog registry acting responsively to its members?

Which is better -- coming together in unity in the names of principle and pragmatism, or dividing in the name of "choice?"



Okay Chairman Kevin, 

So you're a Commie. Just kidding, hope you'll give it a try some day. Think you'll like it.

Counter-revolutionary, Redstar


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

RedStar said:


> Counter-revolutionary


Is that the same thing as a being a Hippie? 

Shayne


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Shayne said:


> RedStar said:
> 
> 
> > Counter-revolutionary
> ...




Richard? you got to be kidding


----------



## Richard Cheatham (Feb 25, 2003)

Kevin Said: "Which is better -- having to remember one set of rules and by-laws, or three?

Which is better -- three clubs earning $500 for their respective sanctioning bodies, or $1500 for one?

Which is better -- three sanctioning bodies and two dog registries not working in concert and cooperation for all hunt test participants, or one sanctioning body and dog registry acting responsively to its members?

Which is better -- coming together in unity in the names of principle and pragmatism, or dividing in the name of "choice?"



Okay Chairman Kevin, 

So you're a Commie. Just kidding, hope you'll give it a try some day. Think you'll like it.

Counter-revolutionary, Redstar


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

The best of luck in starting your new organization. The more dog games, the better it will be for the dogs.

I hope you succeed

Joe M.


----------



## Iowa-Bob (Jan 23, 2003)

Pardon me while I ride the fence. I can see the merits of both sides of this debate and agree with points from both sides. I hope that there will always be people who are willing to take a risk and try something different and new, it keeps things from becoming stagnant. I wish the NFRA the best of luck, it sounds like they are trying to take the best from the other organizations. Having said that I also believe that there is only so much money, clubs and participants to go around and I don't think that there can be this many viable organizations. However this should in no way deter us from trying to build the better mouse trap. Put'em all out there and let the chips fall where they may. It will be very interesting to see who is left stading in a couple of years, maybe everyone.. maybe no one.

As Darwin says, "SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST".

:usa


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Titles, pedigrees, and choices.

These seem to be some sticking points. AKC only recognizes AKC titles on its pedigrees. AKC does not have intermediate FT titles. So individuals tag QAA dogs with *** or QAA, or AAQ or some such, on hand-typed documents, because AKC does not provide this information, even though these are AKC events. AKC also does not formally recognize those animals who have had multiple completions of a Master National event. Both of these pedigree omissions could be corrected by the FT or HT Advisory Committees. Those committees are made up of US, the retrieverites. The committee is not AKC telling us what to do, it is us telling AKC what we want. 

CKC only allows CKC titles on THEIR pedigrees. AKC titles will not show up on CKC pedigrees. Does this make the CKC FT & HT games less valuable to the enthusiast? In my mind, no. What is far more damaging to the percieved value of titles earned in Canada is that there are NO shot flyers allowed in retriever games, by law, nationwide. CKC does have a derby-level title (JFTR) and an all-age title (QFTR). These involve more than just getting a ribbon. For the JFTR, a dog must earn placements and five or more Junior (Derby) points, however a win is not mandatory. For the QFTR, a dog must have a win in Qualifying, plust a total of ten points in Qualifying, OR ribbons or placements in Open or Amateur stakes.

UKC/HRC claims to be working on recognizing any titles a dog has earned on that dog's pedigree. It remains to be seen, when I register Yankee with UKC, if this is so, as she holds both AKC and CKC titles. 

AKC, UKC and CKC all have reciprocal agreements with each other as far as registration is concerned. You can register a dog with all three of these organizations. Yet the titles will not transfer, even though the titles are listed on the registration slip when it is sent in as part of the documentation to cross-register. 

Championships. There are no less than ELEVEN different agility Championships available for any dog to earn. NONE of these requires a dog to defeat one single other dog to earn it. Yet I have had an agility person tell me with a straight face, that one of these agility Championships is harder to earn than an FC title! Perceptions, again. 

I don't see the AKC, CKC, or UKC games going away, or merging, any time soon. All three of these are supported by strong registries, where the bulk of these organizations' revenues come from. NAHRA has no registry to support its programs, neither does NFRA. Therefore, revenues come directly from those who participate in the activity. 

Aside from the money issue, there is the communication/support issue. AKC is a republic, meaning that representatives from member clubs vote on changes to rules and regulations. However, the Retriever Advisory Committee is where change initiates. In most cases, if the RAC recommends a change, the AKC delegate body will rubber-stamp it. It behooves anyone running in one of the AKC games to know who is on the advisory committee(s), what the issues are, and to let them know if you have any ideas for changes. This can be done directly, or through your AKC retriever club.

From what I have seen so far, UKC operates in a similar fashion. 

CKC is a direct-member organization. Anyone can join the CKC, and if they are a Canadian resident, they can propose rule changes and vote on those changes. CKC has a pretty nifty experiment going on right now, called "publish for comment". On their website, proposals are posted, and members may post what they like or dislike about the proposals. 

NAHRA has not published their by-laws, nor yet their rulebook (yet they claimed eight months ago that it was at the printer's). There seems to be little input from the membership, either directly or through their local club's representative.

NFRA was just born yesterday, and I look forward to looking over their by-laws.

I don't know that any of this will "dilute" anything. A lot depends on the region where you live. In Central NY, things are spread out, and there are not many folks participating in ANY of the retriever games. That makes any event hard to put on, because of lack of bodies, etc. Add to that the fact that there are only so many viable weekends to run tests in, and the summer calendar gets pretty full. Where a person chooses to spend their time/money really boils down to what game gives them the most personal satisfaction and/or helps them meet their own self-devised goals. In any event, at least in this neck of the woods, it seems to be the same crowd manning the tests, be they AKC or NAHRA (no HRC events here as of yet). So I doubt that there would be much conflict insofar as an AKC event on the same day as a UKC event, a NAHRA event and an NFRA event. Just wouldn't happen. 

It's all interesting, anyway!

Lisa


----------



## dwy (Feb 12, 2003)

:lol: 

When this is all done, could someone post a new thread and tell us what you learned about the new dog organization....................

I aint readin all those postssssss :wink: 


Mike


----------



## Anthony Heath (Jan 3, 2003)

Amiable,



> Which is better -- three clubs earning $500 for their respective sanctioning bodies, or $1500 for one?
> 
> Which is better -- three sanctioning bodies and two dog registries not working in concert and cooperation for all hunt test participants, or one sanctioning body and dog registry acting responsively to its members?
> 
> Which is better -- coming together in unity in the names of principle and pragmatism, or dividing in the name of "choice?"




I will preface this with the info that I don't run HTs at this time, just FTs, but.......I ask you that if the above had occurred a few years ago and the one that prevailed had been NAHRA what kind of mess would the HT game be in right now?

Anthony


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

dwy said:


> :lol:
> 
> When this is all done, could someone post a new thread and tell us what you learned about the new dog organization....................
> 
> ...



If you have quetions just PM me and I will be glad to respond.


----------



## Mark Copeland (Mar 5, 2003)

NFRA - To many marsh mops.  

Wow! Finally we have a program that doesn't allow 17 whistle refusals to get the same ribbon as one with no-whistle refusals.

RC, you?re on to something here. It's the perfect venue to gap the serious dogs that can't compete day-in day-out with the pro-trained amateur run trial dogs. At least I hope that's what this is. 

A hunt test with a winner. I like it!

Good luck and I'll be there for the inaugural.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Mark,

Email me and let me know how the new venture is going. [email protected]

Shayne


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Lisa Van Loo said: 



> AKC also does not formally recognize those animals who have had multiple completions of a Master National event. Both of these pedigree omissions could be corrected by the FT or HT Advisory Committees. Those committees are made up of US, the retrieverites. The committee is not AKC telling us what to do, it is us telling AKC what we want.


Yes and no.

The AKC does not recognize the Master National Retriever title because the Master National Retriever Club is a licensed club just like the Central New York RC or the Atlanta RC...nothing more, nothing less. The MNR title is not likely to be recognized by the AKC in our lifetime due to the large variances in the testing, evaluation, and qualifications for acquiring the title. 

As for pedigree omissions, neither the RAC nor the RHTAC has _anything_ to do with the types of titles awarded. They could certainly propose those, or any other, kinds of changes (as you pointed out) but the final word would come from the AKC Delegate Body, which is made up of about 10% field clubs and 90% conformation clubs, or the Board of Directors, of which NONE of the 12 are from a field (HT or FT) background.

Yup...we can tell 'em what we want...but if we don't lobby the BOD or the Delegate Body for the votes, we won't get _anything_ changed.



> In most cases, if the RAC recommends a change, the AKC delegate body will rubber-stamp it. It behooves anyone running in one of the AKC games to know who is on the advisory committee(s), what the issues are, and to let them know if you have any ideas for changes. This can be done directly, or through your AKC retriever club.


As Quick Draw McGraw used to say, "Hol' on there BabbaLooey!"

Any recommendation made by the RAC or the RHTAC has to be approved by the Performance Events Dept of the AKC before it is recommended to the BOD or the Delegate Body. Since field trials are run under AKC rules, the delegate body must approve any changes...and those changes better be buttoned up and tighter than a tick on a dog before they're submitted. HTs are run under Regulations and Guidelines, so the Board of Directors can approve those changes without a delegate body vote. 

Changes in either discipline can be proposed by individuals or clubs, but they *MUST* be sponsored by _at least two licensed clubs _before the RAC or the RHTAC will entertain them. After their merit is determined, they will be denied or proposed to the licensed clubs for discussion, and then a vote, or changes if discussion proves them necessary, and THEN a vote. In short, there are a _lot_ of folks who put their hands on each and every change that is made to rules or regs/guidelines in either discipline before they ever make their way to New York for a vote.

Keith Griffith


----------



## boomer 453 (Jan 4, 2003)

More organisations=more events=a better chance running a reasonable amount of dogs instead of a 2 day assembly line.

More power to you guys 

It's a game and the more opportunities there are means the more people that will get the chance to play.


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

*Looks like fun!*

 A little competition never hurt anyone.Were all training with field trial basics....so now theres a game thats hybrid.I hope it takes off.I would like to know if HRC is goint to foil it by not allowing a club to go both ways,because of the competition.We shall see.


----------



## RickF (Jan 3, 2003)

Jay

What makes you think HRC would foil it? 

Do ANY national org.'s foil an attempt to affiliate with more than one national ret. club?

Are you aware that there is nothing in the HRC guidelines for a new affiliate club limiting it to just one national club affiliation? There are printed guidelines if your club is an affiliate with more than one nat'l ret. org. 



Curious,

Rick Fanella


----------



## Andr? Fendlason (Jan 3, 2003)

*Thumbs up!*

Spent a good while reading the rules and bylaws. Can't say they have it perfect but they darn sure have a plan that looks very workable.

I have to give it a thumbs up for now and will plan on being at the first event.

Andr


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

Andre,

Like you, I spent some time perusing the R/Rs. Just curious as to your take on their 'switch' rule. I agree with a dog switching the AOF being eliminated, but how can a dog switching birds not be. From a hunters standpoint, which is the most egregious error? 

Admittedly this program is not set up for hunters, I question that it's really set for hunting dogs. With rules for penalizing popping, but not whining...again, tell me which of those two faults is more problematic for a hunting dog?

It's frequently quite telling just what the founders of an organization view as their personal weaknesses, by the way they structure their rules and regs. A perfect example would be HRC's lax rules for blind running. S'pose that was written so the founders could weakly get through that portion of their tests?

Another would be AKC's claim to be a hunt test, but ignore the importance hunters place on the value of gun involvement. If it's AKC's desire to rid its program of real hunters, just keep forcing those handlers to carry that toy wooden gun. What a farce.

My views about this new NFRA retriever testing program are just that...one persons glance at the R/R and forming an opinion. In the long run, it means squat. The proof in the pudding will be participation, and longevity.
For that, I wish them well.

UB


----------



## Andr? Fendlason (Jan 3, 2003)

*Switch?*

Uncle Bill

There are numerous thing in the rules which need adjustment if you ask me and I have not given great consideration to any one of the problems.

What I have done is come to the conclusion that they have a heack of a good start at defining an entirely new program.

Can only guess that with the bylaws as they are written now that the member clubs will have the chance to implement changes. Well, almost. They will be able to contribute through defined guidelines and the BOD will have the final say so.

My main concern is in the actual judging. I suspect there could be a bit of overload involved. Will have to see how it goes to know for sure.

To answer your question... A switch should be a serious deduction. Bird switch or area switch. With exception when the switch is the result of a good nose picking up scent from another fall area while still in the correct fall area.

Andr


----------



## cpayne (Feb 22, 2003)

*switching*

Dear Sir (Uncle Bill), Thank you for the informative comments on switching. Please note that switching on birds indeed can receive a serious penalty under the judge's subjective scoring system. Although not an immediate disqualification, the judge's can deduct upto 25 percent of the available points for the particular test in which the switch on birds occured. Please refer to Chapter 2, Section15.D and Chapter 8, Section 3 of the Rules and Regulations for NFRA Field Tests regarding the use of judge's subjective scoring.


----------



## Jeff (Jan 8, 2003)

I checked out the new organizations website and liked about everything I read; however, I really dislike the upland part of the senior and master. I simply don't train my dogs to work in the upland fields. I run hunt tests, and I'm getting started, somewhat, in field trials and with that I only hunt ducks and geese with my dogs. At this point I would only run the junior and open with my dogs. I believe, for retrievers, the upland and trailing tests should be optional. JMHAO. Jeff


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

I'm curious as to how many folks have ever had a dog fail the "upland or trailing" tests.

Jerry


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

In every test i've ran, i've been more puckered over the trail than anything else. ALMOST failed an intermediate test with a 200+ yard trail. Got a re-run and he eventually found the bird. 

The quartering should be a given 10, but i've seen many a dog lose it on the sit-to-flush. The trail should be a given too... but there is something very scary about having ZERO control over the situation.

Shayne


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Wow! I really thought this would run off the board after I removed it as a "sticky". 

I personally am thrilled that the trail and upland are part of the program! This is one key piece of the NAHRA original that I love(d). 

Chris


----------



## Richard Cheatham (Feb 25, 2003)

Jeff said:


> I checked out the new organizations website and liked about everything I read; however, I really dislike the upland part of the senior and master. I simply don't train my dogs to work in the upland fields... At this point I would only run the junior and open with my dogs. I believe, for retrievers, the upland and trailing tests should be optional. JMHAO. Jeff


Jeff,

Keep in mind that one of the purposes of this program is to create and test the ultimate hunting retriever. In many parts of the country retrievers are used for upland (pheasant, grouse and even quail) hunting. I have shot many more pheasants over retrievers than pointing dogs or even spaniels. If we make the claim to provide hunters with the breeding stock they need to preserve the hunting instincts of retriever, how can we eliminate the upland testing portion of field tests? 

Isn?t this at least the pretence of all testing venues? Field trials produce the ultimate in marking retrievers but isn?t that really taking one aspect of a total retriever to an extreme. ?Marking is of primary importance? but there is so much more these dogs can do! If you just want a dog to pick up your ducks, then fine, that?s a worthy goal, but I think you?ve stopped short.

I?m going to go out and a limb a little here, I feel that training for upland work actually can benefit a dog in running field trails. I know thems is fight?n words, but think about it a little. If you train a dog to be steady to the flush of a wild bird at twenty to thirty yards from you and also to be steady to gun at the same distance, what are the chances of the same dog breaking during a trial sitting at heel?

As for trailing, this is not really on upland exclusive skill, but is an extremely valuable skill for the water fowler too. How many times in a duck blind have you encountered a true blind retrieve? By that I mean, you in the duck blind, birds stoop to the dekes, you shoot one that falls somewhere and only you see it fall, it happens, but this seems to happen to me more often than that. 

The birds fly in, we knock down two, they?re belly up in the dekes, but as they pull out someone takes a desperation shot and clips one that sails out past the tulles and falls somewhere beyond. You know the general area put there?s no way you could handle your dog to the exact spot of the fall. You didn?t see it fall, but only heard crash into the flooded timber somewhere beyond your sight. So you send ole Tar to the general area and release him to hunt up (trail) the cripple, who has probably swam are crawled beyond where he landed by the time Tar gets to the fall area anyway. Make up your own scenario with a running pheasant.

If trained on trailing correctly the dog knows the command to trail and can defiantly discern the difference from trailing, marking or running a blind. He won?t know the difference instinctively, but properly trained he will. Think about the advantage that would give you when you have to run off the back side of an inverted flyer in an all-aged trial. The dog understands he?s running a mark and knows he?s to ignore the sent from the flyer station.

I know this is field trail heresy, but I have lived both world and have more than once been thankful for the ?upland? training I did.


----------



## Polock (Jan 6, 2003)

Failed many a dawgs because they couldn't work a feild in an upland hunt.
Mostly due to handler's trying to have complete control of the dawg and not letting it do it's job. Hard to find birds when the dawgs at heel.

Polock... remember that the Stroyan dawgs always performed quite admirally in the upland test...must be the Iowa in them.......here's to Keith's dawgs :drinking:


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

HAHAHAHAHA... i just got a mental image of Keith running dogs in waste high CRP grass... wearin one of his skirts. OUCH!!! That stuff will rip blue jeans apart, i'd hate to see what they do to panyhose. HAHAHAHAHA

Who luvs ya Keith?  

Shayne


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

It seems to me that the Carlsberg Sporrin would be smarting a bit in that scenario!


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Ok thats it! Post the pic Chris... blur out the part where you can see Keith's "wedding tackle" though, that's just nasty.

Shayne


----------

