# Reducing entry #'s



## drbobsd (Feb 21, 2004)

This idea probably isn't new. How about $100 for AA stakes $90 for minor stakes. Adjust entry fees as needed to get to dog #'s you want over the years. Sounds cruel to me.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

drbobsd said:


> This idea probably isn't new. How about $100 for AA stakes $90 for minor stakes. Adjust entry fees as needed to get to dog #'s you want over the years. Sounds cruel to me.


IMHO, the economy is going to adjust entry numbers this year, bob. By how much is hard to say. If clubs break even, I think they'll be happy.

I know we will.

kg


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

drbobsd said:


> This idea probably isn't new. How about $100 for AA stakes $90 for minor stakes. Adjust entry fees as needed to get to dog #'s you want over the years. Sounds cruel to me.


You may very well reduce the number of entries? BUT, are these the entries you want to discourage?

Tim


----------



## drbobsd (Feb 21, 2004)

Both very good points. I was thinking media will soon talk us out of our economic problems starting Jan 20th, that special day.

I wonder which entries would be discouraged? Close but not so rich trainer or truck load of dogs?


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

drbobsd said:


> Both very good points. I was thinking media will soon talk us out of our economic problems starting Jan 20th special day.
> 
> I wonder which entries would be discouraged? Close but not so rich trainer or truck load of dogs?


It would not discourage the "truck load of dogs" because those are usually dogs on a Pro's truck. The Pro isn't the one paying the entry fee so would not likely be an issue for them. It would however, discourage the serious amatuers that aren't made of $$$$. Besides, we've all discussed many times before the amount of money it takes to make a FC.. Why make it worse?
If you want smaller entries, simply LIMIT entries and have more trials.
As is, retriever trial entry fees are higher than any other AKC dog sport.


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

The cost of putting a field event is much more expensive. The cost of birds, bird boys, lunches, ammo, equipment, ground fees, etc means that most clubs make little or no profit putting on a trial or test.


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

D'unno BirdnMouth.

I work with people who are not 'doggers'. But, they have no problem going to a casino and dropping a lot more than the cost of a field trial on a chance. Given the number of entries I read about, and the number of 'places', and the judges whims and idiosyracies, and on, and on...I'm not sure what the difference is...except the 'style' of gambling.

It also strikes me as ironic that FT folks are talking about limiting entries, while the HT folk are trying to figure out how to grow the number of entries. Hmmmm....just a thought.


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

Snicklefritz said:


> D'unno BirdnMouth.
> 
> I work with people who are not 'doggers'. But, they have no problem going to a casino and dropping a lot more than the cost of a field trial on a chance. Given the number of entries I read about, and the number of 'places', and the judges whims and idiosyracies, and on, and on...I'm not sure what the difference is...except the 'style' of gambling.
> 
> It also strikes me as ironic that FT folks are talking about limiting entries, while the HT folk are trying to figure out how to grow the number of entries. Hmmmm....just a thought.


Ah yes.. But are they doing this every single weekend? Or traveling around the country from Casino to Casino? Also with regular gambling you MIGHT get money back -possibly more than you paid. In othe words, there is that glimmer of hope of the gambling paying for the trip itself... In a field trial or hunt test, money spent, is money spent. You are lucky if you come home with a ribbon.. 
Anyway, yes there are loads of people doing other hobbies that are expensive and cost more (think horse shows).. But does that justify increasing the expense of a already expensive sport? 
Not everyone is a lawyer or an architect making $100 an hour.
As for limiting entries. You limit entries and hold MORE trials, and dogs have more chances to win, with possibly a more reasonable amount of competition.. And smaller trials cost less to run in lunches, ammo, birds etc.. So what's wrong with that?

That talk about Hunt Tests increasing entries and Field Trials limiting entries have everything to do with competition. In a Hunt Test, it doesn't matter if you have a 100 dogs in a test, your odds of passing is equal to that of the next guy. With a Field Trial, well, the more dogs there are, the more the chances are you aren't going to win.. And the more elaborate the trials are going to be to eliminate dogs as quickly as possible so the judges can get a winner in a reasonable amount of time.
So between the odds of actually winning and the costs to run, well don't want to hear complaints about not having a next generation of Field Trialers!
I've heard more than once, people who run Master or are training for Master, and have nicely bred dogs (out of FC stock), that run really well, say they would like to do trials, but don't have the money for it. ****, that could be the next National Amatuer Champion sitting at that Hunt Test that nobody will know about because their isn't the money to run him seriously.
It's one thing to have the price of entry high enough to take care of the club costs to run the trial, but another to make it higher "just to limit entries". If you need to limit entries, limit entries but don't make the blood and guts of our sport- the handlers and their dogs, pay for it.


----------



## Josh Conrad (Jul 3, 2005)

We raised our rates this year to $80 across the board. Personally, I wanted to tier the entries, but we decided same for all stake. It was necissary to do this to combat rising trial costs ( across the board ). I check EE nightly with only 4 days to close to see how many dogs are entered. we need around 200 entries to break even. Our club has not done anything to reduce entries, WANT the entries. We feel like we have the help and are organized enough to get through the weekend without any major issues (fingers crossed). Would love to have 220 entries and put some money in the bank...right now, we are a third of the way there.

Hoping that EE's new fee system will get people to their puters sooner rather then later.

josh


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

ACEBLDRS said:


> We raised our rates this year to $80 across the board. Personally, I wanted to tier the entries, but we decided same for all stake. It was necissary to do this to combat rising trial costs ( across the board ). I check EE nightly with only 4 days to close to see how many dogs are entered. we need around 200 entries to break even. Our club has not done anything to reduce entries, WANT the entries. We feel like we have the help and are organized enough to get through the weekend without any major issues (fingers crossed). Would love to have 220 entries and put some money in the bank...right now, we are a third of the way there.
> 
> Hoping that EE's new fee system will get people to their puters sooner rather then later.
> 
> josh


Hate to say it, but I expect your entries will decline EVEN more with the higher rates. I saw this happen personally with UKC shows. One of the clubs tends to have a FANTASTIC turnout in entries every year. They have pre-entries of $15 per dog. It is the largest SoCal Club.. Some of the other clubs who have $18 pre-entries were whining because turn out was lower than the other club. So they decided to make up for the numbers by raising the rates to $20 per show pre-entry. What happened was they had even SMALLER turn out and in fact, had to use last years ribbons and when they ran out of that printed off certificates because they couldn't afford to order ribbons for th e show. Reserve Best In Show didn't even get a trophy or a rosette but a plush dog toy. Moral of the story? The lower the cost, the more people will buy. Raise the rates too much and people stop playing altogether.
I'm not saying you can never raise rates but don't do it to make up for lack of entries, do it appropriate to the rise in other costs (such as price of birds going up).. Maybe your club ought to try a different date or time of year to hold the trial?
Mark my words, Entry Express new fee thingy will cause the people that were thinking of entering last minute to simply NOT enter.


----------



## DJSchuur (Dec 9, 2006)

Snicklefritz said:


> D'unno BirdnMouth.
> 
> 
> It also strikes me as ironic that FT folks are talking about limiting entries, while the HT folk are trying to figure out how to grow the number of entries. Hmmmm....just a thought.


i was under the impression when ht entries get above 60 the club has to split the field.seems to be quite a bit different from a 100 dog open test.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

BirdNMouth said:


> Mark my words, Entry Express new fee thingy will cause the people that were thinking of entering last minute to simply NOT enter.


EE's new fee thingy wont do squat. Those that are going to enter will enter just as they have always done. If they have a truck w/ 4 or more dogs (whatever the breakeven point is between the cost of EE and the cost of overnight service), then they might just overnight the entries rather than doing the online thing, but they will still enter. The major sticking point is going to be changing economic priorities based on the new economy. Hard to justify a $200 dog weekend when wondering if your job is safe and where the rent will be coming from next month. 

Josh's worry is trying to get a 200 dog entry. This is tough to do when their entry last year, was 180, and they don't have 90 entries online yet with 4 days to go. If they wanted a larger entry, then they should have dropped the Owner/handler restriction for the Am. Hopefully their judging slate will help them draw a few more, as they do have some good judges lined up. And they did move the trial north with hopes of pulling down some of the WA and OR folk. But with our drought and very low water conditions (we are less than half of our normal rainfall for this time of year and the major reservoirs are at 40% or less) training here has been dicey. 


T. Mac


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

T. Mac said:


> EE's new fee thingy wont do squat. Those that are going to enter will enter just as they have always done. If they have a truck w/ 4 or more dogs (whatever the breakeven point is between the cost of EE and the cost of overnight service), then they might just overnight the entries rather than doing the online thing, but they will still enter. The major sticking point is going to be changing economic priorities based on the new economy. Hard to justify a $200 dog weekend when wondering if your job is safe and where the rent will be coming from next month.
> 
> Josh's worry is trying to get a 200 dog entry. This is tough to do when their entry last year, was 180, and they don't have 90 entries online yet with 4 days to go. If they wanted a larger entry, then they should have dropped the Owner/handler restriction for the Am. Hopefully their judging slate will help them draw a few more, as they do have some good judges lined up. And they did move the trial north with hopes of pulling down some of the WA and OR folk. But with our drought and very low water conditions (we are less than half of our normal rainfall for this time of year and the major reservoirs are at 40% or less) training here has been dicey.
> 
> ...


On our circuit (Texas/OK), there are 3 factors that control entry numbers... date/confliction/restrictions... and in that order.

Pick a date when all the pros aren't here and you can lower your numbers. Conflict with another trial and you can lower your numbers. Put on a Restricted Open, O/H AM, and O/H Qual and you can lower your numbers.

Doing the opposite of the above will increase your numbers.

Entry fees will have very little impact either way. Depending on how significant you want to control it either way, start with those things and tweak accordingly.

SM


----------



## drbobsd (Feb 21, 2004)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> On our circuit (Texas/OK), there are 3 factors that control entry numbers... date/confliction/restrictions... and in that order.
> 
> Pick a date when all the pros aren't here and you can lower your numbers. Conflict with another trial and you can lower your numbers. Put on a Restricted Open, O/H AM, and O/H Qual and you can lower your numbers.
> 
> ...


That's what I needed to know. Thanks Shayne. You know your stuff.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Shayne is spot on the assessment of what affects trial size, a couple of other factors may include the trial site itself, and the host club...for those of you who want smaller size fields, be careful what you wish for, the current state of the economy may cause some attrition in the circuit and you will get the complete polar opposite of what you are hoping for....fewer trials to choose from and therefor larger fields


----------



## Kyle B (May 5, 2005)

Yeah, quite a few clubs have a break even point on entries. If they don't get enough overall entries, they will lose money on the trial and will have to make it up somehow (hunt test, raffles, selling cakes, whatever). That doesn't necessarily mean that everyone wants a 100+ Open, but a healthy sized open, decent Amateur and good sized minor stakes allow clubs to continue holding trials. 

Don't get confused if your club doesn't have the overhead that some clubs do (because this has been debated over and over again)....but clubs who have to shell out additional overhead for land and birdboys (when there are no other options) have a higher break even point that those who do not have those costs. 

If entries remain below the break even point and the club has done all it can to contain costs, one of the options is to raise the entry fees. This should lower the break even point and hopefully allow the club to continue holding trials. As it has been stated by others, raising entry fees does not usually keep anyone on the bench, although we have only seen $5-$10 increases so far. 

Will $100 entry fees keep people from running field trials? I don't know, but realistically when you look at how much this sport cost already, its a drop in the bucket for most Field Trialers.


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

Russ said:


> The cost of putting a field event is much more expensive. The cost of birds, bird boys, lunches, ammo, equipment, ground fees, etc means that most clubs make little or no profit putting on a trial or test.


Adding to that, in Vermont, it is State law that we carry worker's compensation insurance for the bird boys that we pay to work the three days of our Field Trial. 

Speaking for the Lake Champlain Retriever Club, our entry numbers have declined significantly over the past three years. Despite having some of the finest Trial grounds and scenery in the country, in 2007, for the first time, we lost money on our trial. In 2008, thanks to belt tightening and the hard work of our FT committee (great work, Jennifer!), we turned a small profit. 

Will an additional $1.50 per entry stop someone from attending our trial, KG? Who knows, maybe. And that's enough to worry me. It is critical to the survival of our club that, at the very least, we don't lose money on our trial. Birds have gone up *only* $1.50 per bird, Ammo has gone up *only* $1.00 per box, insurance has gone up *only* $150, cost of club membership has gone up *only* $5.00, and Entry Express (which is wonderful and which we won't stop using) has gone up *only* $1.50 per entry.

Mountain out of a molehill my arse regards,


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Goldenboy said:


> Speaking for the Lake Champlain Retriever Club, our entry numbers have declined significantly over the past three years. Despite having some of the finest Trial grounds and scenery in the country, in 2007, for the first time, we lost money on our trial. In 2008, thanks to belt tightening and the hard work of our FT committee (great work, Jennifer!), we turned a small profit.
> ,


No intent on stealing this thread, but just a tip of the hat to Jennifer and Mark. The 2008 trial was one of the most fun trials I've have ever judged. The scenery is great and the hospitality was even better! Nobody should pass up the chance to run or judge this trial. And Jennifers maple syrup is the best I've ever tasted. The only belt tightening I saw was my own. Had to go up a notch after you guys were done with me. Ok, back to our regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

Greg,

Thanks for the praise, it was an absolute pleasure having you and I hope that you come back and run your pup this year.

Oops, meant to PM that!

Regards,


----------



## Flats3 (Aug 22, 2008)

[QUOTE
"As is, retriever trial entry fees are higher than any other AKC dog sport."

Unfortunately this isn't quite accurate. My wife runs AKC tracking tests with our dogs and the Tracking Dog Excellent(TDX) test is normally $100 with the Variable Surface Tracking(VST) test costing as much as $125. Entries are limited to just a handful of dogs and consequently it can be very difficult to get in a test which are done by drawings.

BTW, when I looked at the costs for OAA trials in the Feb-April period there were numerous clubs charging $100 entry fees with a couple charging $105.

Hal


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

I think before you start TRYING to decrease nubers you MIGHT want to wait and see what the next year brings. I know the last couple of test (not trails) here, and it is our "season" have been lower than I can remeber them ever being. Why...I don't know but people are getting tighter with the dollar and I think are bieing more selective about what and where they run. I also know a lot of pros are having people pull their dogs off their trucks becasue of $$ issues....be careful what you wish for I guess is what I am saying. Having too many can be a pain, but it is hard to continue to hold more evnets when you lose money on one with low numbers...
Just saying


----------



## susanb (Aug 15, 2008)

I agree with badbullgator - he hit the nail on the head. I think there are very few people who are going to spend money as freely this year as they did last year. Everyone that I train with regularly is paying a bit more attention to the financial bottom line, and nobody in this group is on the low end of the financial spectrum. 

I think the formerly high entry numbers are probably going to take care of themselves this year.


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

susanb said:


> I think the formerly high entry numbers are probably going to take care of themselves this year.


It will be interesting to see whether Hunt Tests and Field Trials entries are affected in the same way or if one takes a bigger hit than the other.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Goldenboy said:


> Will an additional $1.50 per entry stop someone from attending our trial, KG? Who knows, maybe. And that's enough to worry me. It is critical to the survival of our club that, at the very least, we don't lose money on our trial. Birds have gone up *only* $1.50 per bird, Ammo has gone up *only* $1.00 per box, insurance has gone up *only* $150, cost of club membership has gone up *only* $5.00, and Entry Express (which is wonderful and which we won't stop using) has gone up *only* $1.50 per entry.
> 
> Mountain out of a molehill my arse regards,


Let me do the math for you, Mark, since you don't seem inclined to do so: Ammo @ $1/box x 100 boxes (5 cases) is $100 = .67 per dog @ 150 dogs (if you use more than that on 150 dogs with flyers and dead birds, someone is wasting money for you); insurance up $150 = $1 per dog on 150 dogs; cost of club membership is irrelevant to non-club members, but speaking as if I _were_ a club member...if $5/year is gonna give me something to whine about, I probably would be better off playing golf ($5 is about 10% of weekend greens fee + cart; I'd rather give that to the club...); EE has gone up -ZERO- if I enter two days before the close (will THAT many folks have the option of a different trial to go to on your weekend within driving distance? And why _would_ they? I can echo Greg Magee's comment since I've judged for your club before).

So... .67 + $1 + -0- + -0- = a _whopping_ $1.67 per dog amortized cost, based on 150 dogs. You get over 150 dogs, you MAKE a few coins per dog...what a concept! 

Molehill _indeed_ regards, ;-)

kg


----------



## Pheasanttomeetyou (Jan 31, 2004)

Snicklefritz said:


> D'unno BirdnMouth.
> 
> I work with people who are not 'doggers'. But, they have no problem going to a casino and dropping a lot more than the cost of a field trial on a chance. Given the number of entries I read about, and the number of 'places', and the judges whims and idiosyracies, and on, and on...I'm not sure what the difference is...except the 'style' of gambling.
> 
> It also strikes me as ironic that FT folks are talking about limiting entries, while the HT folk are trying to figure out how to grow the number of entries. Hmmmm....just a thought.


Actually, recent news, business reports claim that Los Vegas is loosing money this year 'cause people just don't have the discretionary income to gamble and aren't showing up to play.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

we'll see.....

North Texas Retriever Club 2009 Spring AKC Licensed Field Trial

Friday, April 17, 2009 - Sunday, April 19, 2009

Stake	Fee	Entries	

Restricted All-Age	$150.00	

Owner/Handler Amateur All-Age	$60.00 

Owner/Handler Qualifying	$60.00

Derby	$60.00


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

EdA said:


> we'll see.....
> 
> North Texas Retriever Club 2009 Spring AKC Licensed Field Trial
> 
> ...



Thought maybe you were kidding, but I see it is for real on EE.

Your club has certainly explored some creative options in the past. At least you can be sure that if the club has to put up with a large entry, it will be better compensated for its efforts. Conversely, you could have have half the entries with no net loss of income.

Will be interesting to see how this goes!

Jeff


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

jeff t. said:


> Thought maybe you were kidding
> Jeff


me, kidding...???,...........who could ever imagine THAT

nope, just our little group seeking the truth (or in this case the bottom line)

having utilized the other available options (to control entry size), we decided to give this one a try, we discussed other $$$ levels as well, some lower and some higher....


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

EdA said:


> we'll see.....
> 
> North Texas Retriever Club 2009 Spring AKC Licensed Field Trial
> 
> ...


Why not just have an Open with a $500 entry with …$400 of it would go into a jackpot and winner takes all. A little cast tends to separate the bullshitter from the players real fast…also tend to make the judges pay attention to their little drawings as well.


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

EdA said:


> we'll see.....
> 
> North Texas Retriever Club 2009 Spring AKC Licensed Field Trial
> 
> ...


Hell, with prices like that, I would drop Hunt Tests like a hot potato and do field trials!


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Why not just have an Open with a $500 entry with …$400 of it would go into a jackpot and winner takes all. A little cast tends to separate the bullshitter from the players real fast…also tend to make the judges pay attention to their little drawings as well.


Are you kidding? Some Yahoo hurting for money would invent a mechanical remote controlled dog to run the trial- hoping to get rich!


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

EdA said:


> we'll see.....
> 
> North Texas Retriever Club 2009 Spring AKC Licensed Field Trial
> 
> ...


So that averages out to $100 entry fee for an Amatuer :barf:

Looks like Shreveport-Bossier will end up being huge!

Lainee


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

FOM said:


> So that averages out to $100 entry fee for an Amatuer :barf:
> 
> Looks like Shreveport-Bossier will end up being huge!
> 
> Lainee


Jayhawk and Piney Woods (if they have trial) are also options


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

FOM said:


> So that averages out to $100 entry fee for an Amatuer :barf:
> 
> Looks like Shreveport-Bossier will end up being huge!
> 
> Lainee


My thoughts, too. A tough nut for the rank and file amateur trying to break a dog into the big time. 

But, if all other options have been explored...

KG, *only* another $50? 

Amortize that! 

(Glad that you enjoyed your time in Vermont, feel free to come back)


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> Jayhawk and Piney Woods (if they have trial) are also options


Do you offer a discount to workers???????? 

Bringin my clipboard and shotgun regards,

SM


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

EdA said:


> Jayhawk and Piney Woods (if they have trial) are also options


Yup, but I do believe my dog will be at Shreveport.....or not....

FOM


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Do you offer a discount to workers????????
> SM


we did discuss a rebate....

hey, if you've got an Open dog with a pro you spend 12K to 15K per year, what's an insignificant $50 bucks and the little people (like me) get to enjoy entry fees from yesteryear....


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> we did discuss a rebate....
> 
> hey, if you've got an Open dog with a pro you spend 12K to 15K per year, what's an insignificant $50 bucks and the little people (like me) get to enjoy entry fees from yesteryear....


My Open dog is still rehabbing... i'm hoping to be a position to be bitter about the extra $50 when the trial comes around.

SM


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

I figure we'll lose about $3 per entry on an $150 entry fee after paying the CC fees... so i hope you have a small open! HAHA

SM


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> My Open dog is still rehabbing... i'm hoping to be a position to be bitter about the extra $50 when the trial comes around.
> 
> SM


you could always submit an application for a REBATE

or you could just be bitter, or you could join Lainee in Shreveport (where there are casinos).....


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> so i hope you have a small open! HAHA
> SM


we also hope for a small Open (Restricted).....


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

EdA said:


> you could always submit an application for a REBATE
> 
> or you could just be bitter, or you could join Lainee in Shreveport (where there are casinos).....


I won't be there - I'm now debating about bringing Bullet home sooner....

FOM


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Goldenboy said:


> My thoughts, too. A tough nut for the rank and file amateur trying to break a dog into the big time.
> 
> But, if all other options have been explored...
> 
> ...


North Texas is doing that to limit entries. Along with a Restricted stake, I'm sure they'll get their wish. They might accidentally make some money....;-)

Nickels and dimes aren't the problem; tens and twenties _are_.....

Anybody playing this game knows that, if not going in then shortly thereafter...and some of us still keep playing. Right now I'm not one of them, but I plan to be in the not-too-distant future. I'm sure not much will have changed by then.

kg


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

The North Texas Retriever Club's entry fee structure is perfect in my opinion.

Here is how I see it...

There has been a group of dedicated individuals that have allowed for this trial to happen for a long time.

The club agrees to pay each member $50 per day to work the trial. Essentially making it a free open entry.

Those that have enough gumption to call and inquire about helping at this trial find out they can make $50 per day too. Essentially making it a free open entry for them as well.

Most pro's and their absentee owners will say..."Screw Aycock and his club" and won't pay the high entry fees and/or attend another trial.

In the end you have...

Amatuers who actually make that FT happen working and competing with their dogs. 

Clubs who are operating for profits get those high entries and make even more money with higher entry numbers.

I actually believe I proposed this structure on this site some time ago. 

I hope it works.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> The club agree's to pay each member $50 per day to work the trial. Essentially making it a free open entry.
> 
> Those that have enough gumption to call and inquire about helping at this trial find out they can make $50 per day too. Essentially making it a free open entry for them as well.
> 
> ...


Hard to argue with a club trying to provide its working members a reasonable sized trial to work at and compete in


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Most pro's and their absentee owners will say..."Screw Aycock and his club" and won't pay the high entry fees and/or attend another trial.



or just show up and run the trial...do you really think an extra 80 bucks + or - would keep people from coming?

I'm asking....just doesnt seem to be lot of extra money for the crowd your trying to keep from coming.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> or just show up and run the trial...do you really think an extra 80 bucks + or - would keep people from coming?
> 
> I'm asking....just doesnt seem to be lot of extra money for the crowd your trying to keep from coming.


I don't know.

My bet is the high open entry fee will offend many pro's and their amatuers which will cause them to go elsewhere.

Or, the "1 dog with a pro" amatuer can't afford it and will hold their dog back from letting the pro run that trial.

Which if it does that to enough "1 doggers", maybe the game will be forced in the direction I think the NTRC wants it. Competion, worked, and operated by amatuers involved with their dogs.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Hard to argue with a club trying to provide its working members a reasonable sized trial to work at and compete in



Problem is, I'm not sure a "rebate" is legal unless it's offered to everyone.

kg


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

K G said:


> Problem is, I'm not sure a "rebate" is legal unless it's offered to everyone.
> 
> kg


I've called Aycock many things, but not stupid.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

K G said:


> Problem is, I'm not sure a "rebate" is legal unless it's offered to everyone.
> 
> kg


Just because it's called a "rebate". As opposed to just plain paying for the help?


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

K G said:


> Problem is, I'm not sure a "rebate" is legal unless it's offered to everyone.
> 
> kg



dont call it a rebate...just pay the "workers" $50 per day...who is to define what "work" is or is not.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Is this really the best thing for the game? I understand a club wanting to do this to benefit its members, but look at the burden placed on other clubs. Is this really where the sport is headed?

/Paul


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Is this really the best thing for the game? I understand a club wanting to do this to benefit its members, but look at the burden placed on other clubs. Is this really where the sport is headed?
> 
> /Paul


I can see some negatives to it.

It may eliminate the FOM's or the Ken Guthrie's of the world. Those who used or use a pro with a modest budget.

It also eliminates dogs. Anytime you do such I think it goes against the spirit of the game.

But, what's worse?

A few working and dedicating many days and nights for some pro to take home the glory and money who's owner is miles away with little concern of the weekends events?

I think the NTRC may be leading the charge of amatuers taking back control of the game.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Ken Guthrie said:


> I think the NTRC may be leading the charge of amatuers taking back control of the game.


 
Possibly, but I can't see it passing AKC's sniff test. As a the open of a field trial is to determine the best dog running out of all comers (or qualified all comers) to try to limit or restrict entries based on a rebate or paid volunteer basis would seem to violate this spirit of the game. And the other, conflicting, clubs would also seem to have grievence as this action will surely impact their events. Seems like this is similar to the setting of numerical limits, early closes etc of many years ago that AKC has already frowned upon. 

T. Mac


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

T. Mac said:


> Possibly, but I can't see it passing AKC's sniff test.


I thought the same thing myself. But nothing in the rules, to my knowledge, eliminates the proposed entry fee structure.



> As a the open of a field trial is to determine the best dog running out of all comers (or qualified all comers) to try to limit or restrict entries based on a rebate or paid volunteer basis would seem to violate this spirit of the game.


I agree.

But I don't think the "spirit of the game" goes along with several 20+ dog pro trucks showing up at trials with their clients sitting at home viewing retriever forums hoping for good news.



> And the other, conflicting, clubs would also seem to have grievence as this action will surely impact their events.
> 
> T. Mac


Heck, who says the other clubs can't adopt the same entry fee structure and even the playing field out?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> A few working and dedicating many days and nights for some pro to take home the glory and money who's owner is miles away with little concern of the weekends events?


But you see there's the rub.....I do care about the weekend FTs and I would rather be there. I also know I've worked numerous trials in many states away and for clubs I am not a member of because club members are too important to be bothered.....between the Friday starts for the Amatuer stake and high entry fees I am begining to question my sanity and the desire to want to play FTs. Yeah I use a Pro, but I am far from an absentee owner......

Lainee, Flash and Bullet


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

And just because I am in a totally smart ass mood - my fee for marshalling has increased from a crappy subway sandwich to $50 a day for 8 hours of work with a 30 minute lunch break and 2 fifteen minute breaks.....and I still want the crappy smooshed subway sandwich, too!

FOM


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

FOM said:


> But you see there's the rub.....I do care about the weekend FTs and I would rather be there. I also know I've worked numerous trials in many states away and for clubs I am not a member of because club members are too important to be bothered.....between the Friday starts for the Amatuer stake and high entry fees I am begining to question my sanity and the desire to want to play FTs. Yeah I use a Pro, but I am far from an absentee owner......
> 
> Lainee, Flash and Bullet


Yes, you are a prime example of how the NTRC entry fee structure does hurt the "spirit of the game". 

But would you agree for every one like yourself, there are 5 examples of the contrary?

Which leads to the problems that have been discussed for so long.

It's a double edged sword. But in my opinion, the NTRC's proposed entry fee structure may very well benefit the FOM's in years coming. Keeping the "spirit of the game" among amatuers to work, compete, and finance the game.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I still like the idea of changing the Rule Book to permit clubs to put on an Amateur without putting on an Open


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Yes, you are a prime example of how the NTRC entry fee structure does hurt the "spirit of the game".
> 
> But would you agree for every one like yourself, there are 5 examples of the contrary?
> 
> ...


I do not think it will help bcause it will drive those of us who do not have a privilleged life style away to do other things.....

FOM


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I still like the idea of changing the Rule Book to permit clubs to put on an Amateur without putting on an Open


Now that would completely go along with the "spirit of the game" concept in my opinion.

Even better, a double-A. Kind of like a triple DQ.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

FOM said:


> I do not think it will help bcause it will drive those of us who do not have a privilleged life style away to do other things.....
> 
> FOM


In the short term maybe. But in the long term, if the majority of the clubs adopted the NTRC's entry fee structure, the amatuer would be promoted as the majority in the open stake vs. the minority. IMO of course.

Assuming once the objective is accomplished, the entry fees would retreat back to the norm prior to implementation of proposed structure.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> In the short term maybe. But in the long term, if the majority of the clubs adopted the NTRC's entry fee structure, *the amatuer would be promoted as the majority in the open stake vs. the minority*. IMO of course.
> 
> Assuming once the objective is accomplished, the entry fees would retreat back to the norm prior to implementation of proposed structure.


(Bold add by me) What do you mean by that? How is the fee structure going to do that? Seriously, explain that logic?

FOM


----------



## BBnumber1 (Apr 5, 2006)

If clubs start paying club members (or other contestants) for working the trial, I would be afraid of little "clique" type problems. 

Member A gets payed for bringing the ice for the coolers, Member B gets payed for filling the coolers, Member C runs lunches to the workers at the open, etc, to the point of someone getting payed for setting up a bird rack....

Whats considered "working?" Who determines which people get payed?


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

FOM said:


> (Bold add by me) What do you mean by that? How is the fee structure going to do that? Seriously, explain that logic?
> 
> FOM


Ok.....

These are all assumptions but I'll explain my thoughts.

As mentioned earlier, I assume the $150 entry fee would offend most pro's and their clients enough to steer clear of said trial.

Which would obviously lead to a much smaller and managable trial. 

Also, if the contestant of said trial had the opportunity to earn money back (let's say $75-$150) for working the trial, don't you think that would attract the amatuer like yourself and I?

So now you've got nothing but amatuers spending $150 on the front end to enter the trial knowing they will offset that cost by working the trial. 

Small entries, more workers, far less pro's, and a better possibility to enjoy the fruits of an amatuers labor.

To me, the above is a recipe for enjoying and preserving "the spirit of the game".

Then, once the trend has been set, the competing pro would surely be decreased dramatically. Again, allowing the amatuer handler to become the vast majority in an open stake.

When that happens, entry fee's can come back to the norm. But just for protection from the times that are now, keep the "pay back" concept to prevent invasion of the absentee owner again.

Make sense?


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

BBnumber1 said:


> If clubs start paying club members (or other contestants) for working the trial, I would be afraid of little "clique" type problems.
> 
> Member A gets payed for bringing the ice for the coolers, Member B gets payed for filling the coolers, Member C runs lunches to the workers at the open, etc, to the point of someone getting payed for setting up a bird rack....
> 
> Whats considered "working?" Who determines which people get payed?


Good point.

In this, you would have to trust the FT chairman or club members to be fair, honest, and expecting of all involved.

Isn't this game supposed to be a gentleman's game?

Surely there aren't FT folks out there that would do anything in poor judgement to jeopordize "the spirit of the game" would you think?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

FOM said:


> I do not think it will help bcause it will drive those of us who do not have a privilleged life style away to do other things.....
> 
> FOM


I agree. It takes it back to the days when only the rich can even play the game.

/Paul


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Okay here is the devil's advocate side:

High entry fees keep 1 dog Ams like me from attending the trial regardless of how much you pay me because I am insulted at the high fee and know nothing of the opportunity of being able to work the trial because I'm not in the "in crowd."

Then those who can afford the higher entry see it as an opportunity to enter the trial knowing that their odds are better now of winning.....maybe titling a dog or even getting the needed points to qualify for a National....

FOM


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Surely there aren't FT folks out there that would do anything in poor judgement to jeopordize "the spirit of the game" would you think?


Oh please......you got to be kidding, right? Maybe not the spirit of the game, but they sure would taken advantage of another persons willingness to work if they didn't have to.

My husband who was not into dogs, did not own a dog until last year has worked more trials then some FTers I've known since I started in the sport myself......there are more takers than givers in this sport.....it is a sad state of affairs....

FOM


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Oh well.....it is a moot point for me since my Pro was not planning on being at NT anyway....guess we shall see how this new fee schedule plays out - maybe it will cause the RAC or whomever to reconsider allowing clubs to limit enteries or handle them how they see fit.....this fee structure will definately make an impact.......just wonder how....good night.....

FOM


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

FOM said:


> Okay here is the devil's advocate side:
> 
> High entry fees keep 1 dog Ams like me from attending the trial regardless of how much you pay me because I am insulted at the high fee and know nothing of the opportunity of being able to work the trial because I'm not in the "in crowd."


Maybe. But you are in the "in" crowd Lannie. Because you stay tuned to what's going on with the game, your dog, and all involved. Your what's right about the game. Your the example of why pro's are important for the game.

But again, in my opinion, you and I are the minority. To be exact, just compare OH Amatuer entries to open entries.



> Then those who can afford the higher entry see it as an opportunity to enter the trial knowing that their odds are better now of winning.....maybe titling a dog or even getting the needed points to qualify for a National....
> 
> FOM


As a good friend tells me..."there is always someone who can out-money you"

Lannie, what you and your dog have accomplished is not the norm for those in shoes similar to yours. I view my experience as similar to yours. We are lucky to have descent dogs, a dedicated attitude, a drive to succeed, and a pro willing and able.

The average blue collar guy/gal has a slim chance of enjoying much success in this game as it's structured now.

Problem is, the blue collar guy is the one responsible for putting on these events each weekend.

At want point do they throw their hands up and give?

From what I can tell, $150 open entry is showing some folks have their hands at their shoulders almost high enough to see.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

FOM said:


> Oh please......you got to be kidding, right? Maybe not the spirit of the game, but they sure would taken advantage of another persons willingness to work if they didn't have to.
> 
> My husband who was not into dogs, did not own a dog until last year has worked more trials then some FTers I've known since I started in the sport myself......there are more takers than givers in this sport.....it is a sad state of affairs....
> 
> FOM


Yes FOM, I was kidding. You should know me better than that.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Yes FOM, I was kidding. You should know me better than that.


I think we're all on to you Ken....


/Paul


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I think we're all on to you Ken....
> 
> 
> /Paul


New Year's Resolution regards,


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

And lets not forget that AKC is now getting some pretty good coin based on how many dogs are entered. 

T. Mac


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

T. Mac said:


> And lets not forget that AKC is now getting some pretty good coin based on how many dogs are entered.
> 
> T. Mac


The AKC makes a very small percentage of their income from field trials. The breed ring is their bread and butter.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

FOM said:


> I do not think it will help bcause it will drive those of us who do not have a privilleged life style away to do other things.....
> 
> FOM


AMEN!!!!

What needs to be driven away from the retriever games are the non-hunting section of the game. If you dont hunt ...go run agility, fly ball, dog show but leave the retriever retrieving games to the people who know what a "day in the field" actually looks like.

Figure that one out and you will have taken back control of the game.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> AMEN!!!!
> 
> What needs to be driven away from the retriever games are the non-hunting section of the game. If you dont hunt ...go run agility, fly ball, dog show but leave the retriever retrieving games to the people who know what a "day in the field" actually looks like.
> 
> Figure that one out and you will have taken back control of the game.


Please read my signature.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Please read my signature.




Good one...I see it now.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

FOM said:


> guess we shall see how this new fee schedule plays out - maybe it will cause the RAC or whomever to reconsider allowing clubs to limit enteries or handle them how they see fit
> FOM


Until the Rules Committee and RAC/AKC allow clubs to manage their own mechanics clubs will be forced to jump through various "loopholes" to controll their entry. Be it dropping stake, O/H stakes, dates etc. This economic one is just the latest attempt. We can only hopes it works!

Tim


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> Just because it's called a "rebate". As opposed to just plain paying for the help?





Patrick Johndrow said:


> dont call it a rebate...just pay the "workers" $50 per day...who is to define what "work" is or is not.


Po TAY to, Po TAH to...then *all* the entrants become "workers."



Ken Guthrie said:


> I thought the same thing myself. But nothing in the rules, to my knowledge, eliminates the proposed entry fee structure.


Funny thing about "knowledge"....in this case, it takes very little to acquire it. From the AKC FT Rules, Chapter 7, section 10:

SECTION 10. Any field trial-giving club which accepts
an entry fee other than that published in its premium list
or entry form, or in any way discriminates between
entrants, shall be disciplined. *No club or member of any
club* shall give or offer to give any owner or handler *any*
special inducements, *such as reduced entry fees*,
allowances for board or transportation or other incentive of
value for a certain number of entries or shall give or offer
to give in consideration of entering a certain number of
dogs, any prizes or prize money, except the officially advertised
prizes or prize money, which prize money shall be for
a stated sum or a portion of the entry fees. *Any club found
guilty of violating this rule shall be barred from holding
licensed or sanctioned trials, and if a member of The
American Kennel Club, may be expelled from membership
therein*. *All persons found guilty of paying or receiving
any monies, special inducements or allowances in violation
of the foregoing shall be disciplined, even to the
extent of being deprived of all privileges of The American
Kennel Club for a stated time or indefinitely*.

Guess that pretty much covers it regards, ;-)

kg


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

> Funny thing about "knowledge"....in this case, it takes very little to acquire it. From the AKC FT Rules, Chapter 7, section 10:
> 
> SECTION 10. Any field trial-giving club which accepts
> an entry fee other than that published in its premium list
> ...


I think as long as it is tied to the work preformed and NOT the entries there should be no problem with this section. IMO 

Most clubs provide the workers with lunches. Many clubs have long had a "workers" party for the "workers" most of which are also handler and owners of the dogs entered. I have *NEVER* heard of a problem with these "special inducements".;-)


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> I think as long as it is tied to the work preformed and NOT the entries there should be no problem with this section. IMO


Any club willing to go on that assumption is welcome to do so and reap the fruits or pain associated with same.



> Most clubs provide the workers with lunches. Many clubs have long had a "workers" party for the "workers" most of which are also handler and owners of the dogs entered. I have *NEVER* heard of a problem with these "special inducements".;-)


Yeah....that's _close_ to the same thing being discussed here....

In a parallel universe regards,;-)

kg


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

A smooshed subway sandwich, which is usually eaten while trying to rebird or forgotten in the ATV until it is beyond recognition because one is too busy is not much of a "special inducement" 

Just Saying.....

FOM


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

FOM said:


> A smooshed subway sandwich, which is usually eaten while trying to rebird or forgotten in the ATV until it is beyond recognition because one is too busy is not much of a "special inducement"
> 
> Just Saying.....
> 
> FOM


Very true!


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

It was discussed at one of our board meetings but was just shy of passing. But the general idea was to raise the cost of the open and lower the OH AM a equal amount. 

I am glad to see a club with the stones to do it.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

I enjoy how these things develop a life of their own, a tongue in cheek comment to Shayne about applying for a rebate becomes an official attmept to circumvent the rules. Field Trial rules clearly state that entry inducements are not legal and as a law abiding club we have no intention of violating the rules.

It is our contention that much of our resources are consumed by the Open Stake and that very little assistance is available to us for that stake. That this situation exists can be addressed as different entry fees for different stakes thereby reflecting the amount of resources and effort that we must have available for that stake.

That we consider the other stakes important is reflected by the entry fees for those stakes so as to lessen the financial burtden of those contestants (largely Amateurs). 

I am a bit surprised at the negatives coming from people, most or all of whom, do not run our trial. I was particularly taken aback at the idea that our entry fee structure would "make someone angry".

This is but another attempt by our club to continue to hold a high quality event. If it proves to be unpopular we will not be disuaded, if it proves to negatively affect the quality of our field trial we will re-evaluate the fee structure.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Well stated, Ed.

kg


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

K G said:


> Po TAY to, Po TAH to...then *all* the entrants become "workers."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



KG,

I knew of the rule you posted above.

But if done correctly, we are talking about 2 different things.

As an contestant of the said open, you pay $150 for entry per dog.

As a worker, they would like to pay you $50 per day.

What? You can't come on Friday? Well since you are doing the hardest job on Sat. and Sun. 
We'll pay you $75 per day.

To my knowledge, AKC nor the National Clubs get involved what the club choses to pay it's workers.

Again, you can call Aycock a lot of things, but you can't call him ignorant.

I'm sure there was a little more thought to this than using a selective "rebate" system.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Steve Amrein said:


> It was discussed at one of our board meetings but was just shy of passing. But the general idea was to raise the cost of the open and lower the OH AM a equal amount.
> 
> I am glad to see a club with the stones to do it.


That's a little different.....or at least that's how I see it. Let's say a club's fees for the year were goint to be Open $80 and Am $80......(just making number's up mind you). So this year they do what your club suggests and the fees will now be $100 and $60.....so for the 1 dog Am who runs their own dog in the Open their costs stay the same.....but the way NT is, that still averages out to $105 for each stake....the Am is still taking it in the wallet......

I understand making the Open higher since a Pro runs so many dogs and trying to offset costs because of the lack of volunteer help vs. paid help, but there is only so much a volunteer can handle.....the fee structure at NT is past my "break even" point so to speak.....

It will definately be interesting to see how their fee structure plays in the over all scheme of things.....

FOM


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> KG,
> 
> I knew of the rule you posted above.
> 
> ...


Massage the numbers anyway you like to make the concept work for you, Ken. 

I called Aycock nothing. "Ignorant" is that last thing that I have a right to call anyone, as much as _some_ folk's statements would lead to the use of that moniker correctly.

It appears that a LOT of thought went into it, which doesn't surprise ME in the least considering the players involved. NTRC is one of the more proactive clubs in the country, IMHO, and has used the Restricted to help manage their entries fully knowing that it would negatively impact club members. Now, with their use of a $150 Open fee, they're willing to go (again) where no club has gone before in an attempt to manage their entries. It'll be interesting to see what effect it has on their trial as well as those competing weekend trials.

Kudos to them for their guts.

kg


----------



## Snicklefritz (Oct 17, 2007)

I haven't read this whole thread becasue I'm an HT guy. But, I can't help but sense a bit of irony here. The FT folks are trying find a way to handle the large number of entries, and the HT folks are trying hard to increase entries.

No criticism implied: no answers offered.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

K G said:


> Massage the numbers anyway you like to make the concept work for you, Ken.
> 
> I called Aycock nothing. "Ignorant" is that last thing that I have a right to call anyone, as much as _some_ folk's statements would lead to the use of that moniker correctly.
> 
> ...



Ok, I'm crawling back in my hole now.

Obviously I'm not doing a good job of leaving the turkey roost alone.

Really, I was trying to be civil too.

I guess reputation never leaves a person regards,


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

Tulsa Retriever Club fall field trial 08- Restricted AA- 92 entreis- $85.00 OH Amatuer AA- 70 entries ----$80.00

I will raise the entry fee on the Restricted AA this spring the $85.00 had no impact on #'s at all. I will keep the other stake entry fee reasonable for the amateurs in the region. 

The Tulsa Retriever Club sponsored an all expense paid 2 day pheasant hunt to the members who worked 3 days at club events this year. Call it pay if you want, I call it a reward and a club event. 

This sport is over run with parasites. There are many ways to skin cats.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

ALL members who worked all three days got that hunt? WOW! Sounds like a _great_ way to recruit some additional members to the cause, Paul. Well done!

kg


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Snicklefritz said:


> .... the HT folks are trying hard to increase entries.


Not a universal truth! 

Just as FTs need to play games to circumvent the dictates of the AKC, HT clubs do the same.
Clubs choose to not join the Master National Club & start the Master on Friday to keep the numbers low to avoid spits due to limited resources. 
Just as Ed spoke resources are resources.

Tim


----------



## Mark (Jun 13, 2003)

rebate schmebate. dollars for work call it what you want.
The rule book says that you shouldn't do it, but many of you are blatantly advocating using loopholes to get around effectively charging different entry fees to different classes.

The rule book is a very good stab at governing how the game is administered and run, but without specifically outlining it, along with the rule book, and equally important as the rule book is "the spirit of the rule book". I am not sure that enough people understand or believe it even exists.

How detailed do you want the wording of the rule book to be. There are too many examples of why shall and should are included, and are good words to allow for the exceptional circumstances that are encountered on a weekly basis. If people abide by the spirit of the rule book there really is not problem.

The argument of the shamateur which has been discussed a million times here comes under this. It is easy to circumvent or live in the grey area. Nobody likes it when people circumvent or live in the grey area, and most here jump up and down when the few choose not abide by the spirit of the rules. So lets not promote it here.

It is after all an "OPEN Stake" where everyone is striving to win against the best of the best that choose to show up. Discouraging the best of the best to show up goes against the spirit of the sport. Actively attempting to manage the entry with rebates schmebates dollars for work is committing a crime against the sport.

Mark


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Actually- a LOT of us worker bees are of the opinion that the true "crimes against the sport" are the actions of those that consider their entry fees to be adequate contribution to the greater good. Maybe by increasing that "burden" we can level out the load a little.

Black and blue area regards

Bubba



Bubba


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

EdA said:


> I enjoy how these things develop a life of their own, a tongue in cheek comment to Shayne about applying for a rebate becomes an official attmept to circumvent the rules. Field Trial rules clearly state that entry inducements are not legal and as a law abiding club we have no intention of violating the rules.
> 
> It is our contention that much of our resources are consumed by the Open Stake and that very little assistance is available to us for that stake. That this situation exists can be addressed as different entry fees for different stakes thereby reflecting the amount of resources and effort that we must have available for that stake.
> 
> ...


I'm guessing it isn't necessarily about limiting entries. 
Last year's restricted stake at the North TX Spring Trial had 64 entries.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

jeff t. said:


> I'm guessing it isn't necessarily about limiting entries. .


correct, it has nothing to do with limiting the entry, we have accomplished that with the Restricted All-Age Stake (which is the best of the best), it is about resources and revenue sources needed to hold a quality event.

The Open dogs will come, the pros will come, to the owners of dogs on pro trucks it is a relatively insiginificant amount of money, to the club it is revenue without all of the problems associated with holding a 100 dog Open Stake.

To the few Amateurs with Open dogs it may be inequitable, however 100 dog Opens by their nature are inequitable and weighted to the handlers with the most dogs entered.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> correct, it has nothing to do with limiting the entry, we have accomplished that with the Restricted All-Age Stake (which is the best of the best), it is about resources and revenue sources needed to hold a quality event.
> 
> The Open dogs will come, the pros will come, to the owners of dogs on pro trucks it is a relatively insiginificant amount of money, to the club it is revenue without all of the problems associated with holding a 100 dog Open Stake.
> 
> To the few Amateurs with Open dogs it may be inequitable, however 100 dog Opens by their nature are inequitable and weighted to the handlers with the most dogs entered.


Too bad that the Limited Entry Per Handler proposal never got considered by the RAC.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Too bad that the Limited Entry Per Handler proposal never got considered by the RAC.


But we can still keep hoping that change is coming.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Too bad that the Limited Entry Per Handler proposal never got considered by the RAC.


And it took 101 posts for it to come up on this thread...I'm somewhat surprised by _that_....

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> And it took 101 posts for it to come up on this thread...I'm somewhat surprised by _that_....
> 
> kg


Yep, me too....

/Paul


----------



## Lynn Moore (May 30, 2005)

Our $80 across the board entry fees did _not_ limit entries, but our owner-handler and (AKC mandated) limited may have a little. Still feel strongly that the owner should get the points for the Amateur, so it's moot. Seeing 20 Derby entries with a day to go makes me think Shayne's new price policy nor the high price of the entry really matter that much to people........and we still haven't entered yet . If folks want to do their hobby and get points or be on the list, a few dollars aren't going to change that.
Someone on the other thread about prices said we should change our date to _increase _entries. Not really worried about that. Love our club's date, December 30th.
LM


----------



## lanse brown (Apr 22, 2004)

Personally I prefer The Acadiana Retriever Club's honorable Lee Jolley from the Chocolate City's solution-- that Today on the illusterious National Holiday his club has requested a financial bailout with TARP funds. No wonder we Montana boys can't afford this sport-the Kingfish boys are too sharp for us.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

FOM said:


> I do not think it will help bcause it will drive those of us who do not have a privilleged life style away to do other things.....
> 
> FOM



Trust me Lainee if you have your dog(s) with a pro and you're running trials from three states away, you HAVE a privialged lifestyle...

Not to say you don't nor haven't worked for that disposable income. I wouldn't take that from anyone and I'm not calling you a primadonna... 

But hell yea gimme a trial where I can work and enter the open with my dog for free...

It might make a difference in whether or not some folks are even able to play at all...

I for one, as a guy who works fora living wiht a capable dog that I train myself would certainly love to be able to invest some sweat equity into running more trials than I could afford on my disposable income budget.

I have no idea how many like me are out there relative to the converse.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> if you have your dog(s) with a pro and you're running trials from three states away, you HAVE a privialged lifestyle...


I don't think so. Some of us work our butts off to have a dog in training. When I had a family to support I didn't trial because I didn't know what disposable income was.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> I don't think so. Some of us work our butts off to have a dog in training. When I had a family to support I didn't trial because I didn't know what disposable income was.


Ditto.

kg


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> Trust me Lainee if you have your dog(s) with a pro and you're running trials from three states away, you HAVE a privialged lifestyle...



I promise Lainee works hard for everything she has and is one irrepressible ball of fire. I would not want to ever get in-between her and one of her goals. She and her husband David have to be one of the most with it goal oriented couple I have ever met.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I wished I was privilleged, but I am not. I do have a good job and make good money, but a key difference is I do not have real kids hence I have slightly more income to play with than some, it also helps my husband is also working a similiar paying job as myself. That being said, I save year round so my dog can be trained 5-6 months out of the year, if I didn't there is no way I could afford professional help. I also flex hours so I can run Opens when my dog is home, limited vacation time.....on the occassion I do run a trial in TX it is usually in conjunction with other events in my life (business, have family in Dallas, etc.) 

Just setting the record straight.....if I am privilleged then I don't see it that way.....work hard, yes, privilleged no....

FOM


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

It is a shame that the unwillingness of the SOR/RAC/AKC to allow clubs to control their entries in effort to put on a quality trial and support their members has resulted in a discussion of "the privileged"(class warfare).

Tim


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> It is a shame that the unwillingness of the SOR/RAC/AKC to allow clubs to control their entries in effort to put on a quality trial and support their members has resulted in a discussion of "the privileged"(class warfare).
> 
> Tim


Tim, you haven't SEEN class warfare until you see how folks will act to try to manipulate their way into a trial if clubs are allowed to _manually_ control their entries...

Don't place the blame on the SOR/RAC/AKC; there are methods in place to control entries. North Texas is now going to push the envelope with $150 Restricted entries in the spring. No one should expect ANY other methods of entry control to be considered until the options available are proven untenable.

The use of the word "privileged" above was unfortunate, but one person's perception of another's efforts shouldn't be used to define the sport or lambast its leadership.

kg


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

K G said:


> North Texas is now going to push the envelope with $150 Restricted entries in the spring. kg


I am continuously fascinated by people in the sport who stubbornly resist change, one of our conflicting club's trials is so worried that everyone will abandon our trial over a few bucks and switch to theirs thereby making their entry too large that they are considering canceling their already setup trial......


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Realistically, Ed, how many entries do you expect to have in your Restricted at $150 a pop?

'Cause I'm here to tell you....if it works and your numbers are respectable, you will have created a new paradigm for retriever field trial stake entry fees.

JMHO, as always.....;-)

kg


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

K G said:


> Realistically, Ed, how many entries do you expect to have in your Restricted at $150 a pop?
> 
> 'Cause I'm here to tell you....if it works and your numbers are respectable, you will have created a new paradigm for retriever field trial stake entry fees.
> 
> ...


I say the over/under is 28 for the open.

Amatuer 46.


----------



## Chad Baker (Feb 5, 2003)

Why not make it a regular open at 200 per dog?
CB


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

K G said:


> Realistically, Ed, how many entries do you expect to have in your Restricted at $150 a pop?


WE have no specific entry expectations, but WE think the pros and most of their clients are unconcerned about entry fees on one weekend.

WE have conflicting trials in TX, KS, and LA

WE expect 40-60 in the Restricted depending on how intimidated people are about something different (our entry fee structure)

WE expect the same or increased numbers in the other stakes (mostly amateurs and people new to field trials) which is (and should be) every club's goal

If we have miscalculated things WE can correct them at our next field trial in October 2009


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Chad Baker said:


> Why not make it a regular open at 200 per dog?
> CB


an interesting concept too (and one we discussed), hopefully some other club will try it, if not and if our concept proves less than successful WE might try it as well


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

You have got a set the size of TEXAS Ed Aycock! What is your break even
on the Open? This should be an interesting test of supply and demand.


Best Regards


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

EdA said:


> WE have no specific entry expectations, but WE think the pros and most of their clients are unconcerned about entry fees on one weekend.
> 
> WE have conflicting trials in TX, KS, and LA
> 
> ...


Can WE assume this is the "WE" you are referring to?

Doug Grimes Co-Chairman 
Joe Piland Co-Chairman 
John Haverstock 
Robby Bickley 
Pete Marcellus 
Judy Aycock 
Ed Aycock 
Ron Geels

This was taken from EE. I'm not sure if the NTRC has a member list other than the above.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

How many club members can actually run a restricted and at 150 bucks/ entry at their local club. And the average club member has other responsibilities to throw that money at.
Eventually they will say ,,,not only don't I have a dog that is qualified to run but I can't afford it either,,,so find somebody else to help work this weekend. But at 150 $ an entry you can hire rock stars to throw for you.

Pete


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

EdA said:


> WE have no specific entry expectations, but WE think the pros and most of their clients are unconcerned about entry fees on one weekend.
> 
> WE have conflicting trials in TX, KS, and LA
> 
> ...



Ed,

Is it your opinion that it might be good for the sport for all clubs to have a fee structure similar to the one you are trying.

If so, can you elaborate on what you hope it might achieve?


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

jeff t. said:


> Ed,
> 
> Is it your opinion that it might be good for the sport for all clubs to have a fee structure similar to the one you are trying.
> 
> If so, can you elaborate on what you hope it might achieve?


Jeff,

Ed wrote:


> WE expect the same or increased numbers in the other stakes (mostly amateurs and people new to field trials) which is (and should be) every club's goal


Personally, as an Amateur of relatively limited means with an All-Age dog who is looking to compete against the best in both All-Age stakes, I disagree that this approach will achieve those results. 

I guess, and there is no disrespect intended, in order to truly look out for the "little guy", you need to be a little guy. Or, at least, remember what it felt like to be the little guy.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

If any club who raises it's entry fee by almost 100% thinks entries won't change that much...............

They are kidding themself.

Those that have pro's, ask your pro what they think about this. See what they say. 

I'd love to hear their reaction and if they would participate in this trial regardless of the $150 entry.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

I would vote with my wallet--my dog would not run at all, or I would take it to another trial myself if my pro insisted on running an Open with a $150 entry fee!

Given that professionals make a considerable chunk of change from handling/trial fees--anywhere from $65 to $100 per dog. They are going to listen to the economics of owners who don't want to spend that much on a single entry. 

Field trials were never meant to be money-makers. They should strive to reach the break-even place with a little cushion for experiencing a "lean" trial at some point. 

If the members of any particular club are too tired, too disgusted, or just plain don't want to put the trial on any longer, perhaps its time to work for an expanded membership to share the load, or simply not have trials any longer. There is not a good feeling going to a trial where the club simply doesn't want to do it any longer. They are miserable and it shows, which makes it miserable for everyone else.

No club could be in worse shape than our Midwest club. We have about 6-8 working members and pay for all our bird throwers. We provide free lunches to workers and professionals (to facilitate running the trial since they are usually every other dog in the Open, and still need to get to the Qualifying and Derby stakes. We always have a money-loser in the spring, and do a little better in the fall. In addition, the same 6-8 workers do both trials for the American Amateur trial each year. 

Truly I think field trials should adopt a "No Whiners" policy!


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

ErinsEdge said:


> I don't think so. Some of us work our butts off to have a dog in training. When I had a family to support I didn't trial because I didn't know what disposable income was.


read the next line of the post please.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Truly I think field trials should adopt a "No Whiners" policy!


....who's whining ??? seemingly only those who object to our proposed entry fee structure....




Goldenboy said:


> I guess, and there is no disrespect intended, in order to truly look out for the "little guy", you need to be a little guy. Or, at least, remember what it felt like to be the little guy.


our entire FTC is composed of "little guys", only 1 legitimate very competitive all-age dog from the entire FTC, the remainder have Derby and Qualifying dogs of not much more than modest accomplishments 


THIS IS AN EXPERIMENT!!! it is not the end of the field trial world as we know it, if we lose our behinds all of the nay sayers can applaud our collective failure......;-)

must be all that cold nasty weather around the country, geeezzzz......lighten up folks, it's just an F'n hobby....


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I have asked this before and dont think I ever got much response. Say that your club wants to only have a AM, Q and Derby and knowing that result of not having 2 or more pros at you event you would be short 3000.00 in entry fees and that means you prolly wont be flying in your puppy stake judges. How high would the open fees be to not have it. Does the open have a minimum number of entries like the derby ?

I do want to state that I am not anti pro as all 3 of my dogs I have paid to have training done and 1 of the 3 I have had pros handle the dog in the open.

I will also stae that under the current rules I do not like the way clubs are mandated to run the open stake with or without restrictions. I will continue to not run, judge or work at one even for my own club.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> I would vote with my wallet--my dog would not run at all, or I would take it to another trial myself if my pro insisted on running an Open with a $150 entry fee!


So my over/under of 28 in the open and 46 in the amatuer should be right on target.

Who's placing bets?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

So if I'm keeping up so far this structure has only accomplished getting another club who no doubt has a conflicting trial on purpose to help keep number down to cancel their trial? 

/Paul


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

FOM said:


> I wished I was privilleged, but I am not. I do have a good job and make good money, but a key difference is I do not have real kids hence I have slightly more income to play with than some, it also helps my husband is also working a similiar paying job as myself. That being said, I save year round so my dog can be trained 5-6 months out of the year, if I didn't there is no way I could afford professional help. I also flex hours so I can run Opens when my dog is home, limited vacation time.....on the occassion I do run a trial in TX it is usually in conjunction with other events in my life (business, have family in Dallas, etc.)
> 
> Just setting the record straight.....if I am privilleged then I don't see it that way.....work hard, yes, privilleged no....
> 
> FOM


We have a different view of privilage Lainee.

If you have your health, time and flexibility to do what you do, you are privilaged, regardless of how hard you worked to get there.

I'm privilaged too. My family lives well and we work hard for it, just like you, and most people who get to where we have gotten to.

I feel very privilaged and incredibly lucky to be able to live my lifestyle every day, when I look around at some of the issues people have to deal with, such as failing health or worse yet children with failing health.

Working hard to earn what we earn doesn't take away the fact that we are all incredibly lucky and privilaged. Working hard to earn what we earn is a GIVEN, the rest is a gift, hence what I view as a privilage.

I don't subscribe to the view that because I work hard for my money I'm not privilaged, because quite honestly, when you compare me to the vast majority of other people, I certainly am. 

I don't bother to look at those born with a silver spoon because honestly, they are so far and few between relative to those with real life problems, that they are insignificant in my mind.

Everyone I know who has a large degree of financial success WORKED for it, and worked damn hard, like you and probably most everyone else on this thread. 

And I don't take that away from anyone.

Which is why I like the NTRC scheme... If you want to play and aren't willing to WORK for it, then you pay a premium, otherwise, roll up your sleeves and let's get some birds in the air people. 

I would think you and others who worked hard to get where they are would see the value as well.

It's like painting the house to me. If I can justify paying someone to do it because of other work I did to earn that money, then I don't have to do it myself and I earned my free time that weekend. 

Just my view of working for a living, that's all. 

Wasn't calling you a primadonna at all. Sorry if you took me that way.


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

As a competitor if i had a choice of running a 40 dog restricted for and entry fee of $150.00 or an 80 dog open for $80.00 Im going were the odds of winning are twice as good.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> And I still appreciate a cost effective opportunity to run my dog and would be very willing to work for that opportunity at a trial.
> 
> Just my view, that's all.
> 
> Wasn't calling you a primadonna at all. Sorry if you took me that way.


 
I too appreciate being cost effective.....but if going to a trial and working just to get a discount is the only reason to go, then I have to wonder.....what about those clubs that can't afford to pay everyone who pitches in? And the reality of it is more people sit around and complain than pitch in.....putting on a trial and working at one is expensive....no fun going out in the first yet working the entire trial.....

I guess we view "privilleged" a little different - it is like I tell my "bad sister" who likes to throw the fact I am better off then her in my face....."Don't hate me because I am well off. It didn't happen over night and no one gave it to me on a silver plater." She too had the same opprotunities as me.....

And I took no offense to your comments - just having a conversation.....trust me if you calling me a "primadonna" is probably one of the nicest things I've been called  :lol: But do you seriously think you would ever see a primadonna wringing the neck of a duck or handling slimey nastey wet pheasants? 

It's all good.....

FOM


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

I still believe its merely a blatent attempt to keep professionals from running the trial. It has nothing to do with economics as in dollars, but does have much to do with economics as in number of entries!

Incentives to club members designed to reward them with an entry fee rebate--thinly disguised as "payment" is skating the edge nearly identical to professionals who co-own dogs so they can run the amateur or any other scheme that someone eventually comes up with to skirt the letter of the rule and ignore the spirit of the rule. 

We pay birdboys to work, but are their other conflicts if we pay handlers/contestants/club members who supposedly only train their own dogs to throw birds for other people's dogs at a trial. Who among us doesn't take the opportunity to "train" a bit if the dog has a problem? Are "we" then taking money for training when a handler decides to train his dog on the test because he has failed and simply wants to get "something" for his $150.00 entry fee?

Guthrie is right...what's the over/under?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I don't think NT is paying participants to work the trial......just clarifying.....I think that was brought up as a smart @$$ comment by another RTFer.....I also believe Dr. Ed stated this in a previous post, too....

FOM


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Tulsa Slim said:


> As a competitor if i had a choice of running a 40 dog restricted for and entry fee of $150.00 or an 80 dog open for $80.00 Im going were the odds of winning are twice as good.


Bingo! 

Plus, instead of having to give up three days, this will probably be a two day event and having that extra day is worth way more than the additional $75. 

Careful there NTRC, y'all may be accused of Amateurs trying to take their sport back!;-)


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

EdA said:


> I am continuously fascinated by people in the sport who stubbornly resist change, one of our conflicting club's trials is so worried that everyone will abandon our trial over a few bucks and switch to theirs thereby making their entry too large that they are considering canceling their already setup trial......


They must be saying that they can't do it.

I think NTRC has the right idea. Maybe not $150 but you have to start somewhere. The only problem is that they should be lowering the entries for the AM and the minors to accommodate the Amatures that support the game by working and helping to put on the trials. If not it looks more like a money grab and not very justifiable. I vaguely remembering someone on another site mentioning the same proposal and got lambasted for it. 

For all who think it's about the money I don't think so. In the words of the SOR it's about using the tools already in place. No one has ever had the gonads to use the rules in this manor. If the SOR won't do anything about entries this is a way of going with the rules to maybe help the problem that some seem to have.

IMO It's about one stake overwhelming the trial, and devoting all club resources to that stake. In an attempt to keep the overall cost down this is a way to help pay for all that help.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

FOM said:


> I don't think NT is paying participants to work the trial......just clarifying.....I think that was brought up as a smart @$$ comment by another RTFer.....I also believe Dr. Ed stated this in a previous post, too....
> 
> FOM


that's correct Lainee, thanks for chiming in, there is and never was any discussion or thought of paying anyone other than the usual birdboys we employ


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> So if I'm keeping up so far this structure has only accomplished getting another club who no doubt has a conflicting trial on purpose to help keep number down to cancel their trial?
> 
> /Paul


seems to have also accomplished generating a lively discussion peppered with a few veiled nasty comments directed at yours truly.......

Taking One For The Team Regards


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

EdA said:


> seems to have also accomplished generating a lively discussion peppered with a few veiled nasty comments directed at yours truly.......
> 
> Taking One For The Team Regards


I hope you did not take offense to my comments. It is an interesting fee structure, it will be interesting to see the outcome - my gut says this may open the door for the limited enteries proposal which has been overlooked.....

FOM


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

EdA said:


> seems to have also accomplished generating a lively discussion peppered with a few veiled nasty comments directed at yours truly.......
> 
> Taking One For The Team Regards


Well, I think it will be an interesting test of human behavior. Maybe Dennis can post huge threads on human behavior. 

I've heard people say that "its time for the am's to take back control." What people forget is every dog a pro runs is owned by an "am." The pro's are going to discuss this with those clients and make a decision to run your trial based on majority vote of those "am's." Some will tell the pro to go for it because they think it will be a small entry, others will tell the pro not to go because its a lot of money for a high risk. I think hammering on you over it is unwarrented, at least the club has the balls to try something that has not been tried before. Everyone bitches about trial size, but none of them are willing to experiment with solutions. 

Besides, I've found being popular is not all its cracked up to be.....


/Paul


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

If the thoughts of the "pure" mind mean anything to anyone it seems like simple business P&L logic being employed from here.

Businesses with thin margins have to run at very high volumes to make a profit. A FT has a limited amount of capacity to process entries while maintaining a good quality standard; therefore, one has to find the balance between processing capacity and margin dollars per entry. 

In any business that is at or approaching it's processing capacity, one has to decide where to gain the margin dollars required to stay profitable in the face of rising costs. That, or pack it in and go home.

It sure seems like this scheme attepmts to gain those margin dollars by increasing costs to the customers who can best afford it.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

FOM said:


> I hope you did not take offense to my comments. FOM


Certainly not, yours were based on your personal preference and choice, I understand your points and I have some concerns that we may unduly over burden Amateurs who run their dog in the Open.

Assuming that to be true would $120 Open and $60 Amateur be more palatable to people?

Many have made good points both pro and con, some just made negative ones which add little to the discussion and are counter productive to the discussion.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I've heard people say that "its time for the am's to take back control." What people forget is every dog a pro runs is owned by an "am."


I have no knowledge of other circuits but on ours I would estimate that a significant number of owners are non or only occassional participants.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

EdA said:


> I have no knowledge of other circuits but on ours I would estimate that a significant number of owners are non or only occassional participants.


Well, I would bet that is true accross the country. I didn't mean to confuse participating with pay the bills. 

/Paul


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

EdA said:


> I have no knowledge of other circuits but on ours I would estimate that a significant number of owners are non or only occassional participants.


I hate to quote myself but to clarify further those non participating owners receive a bill from the professional trainer and they pay it, I suspect they pay little attention to entry fee section of the statement, the increased amount is modest compared to their total expenditure and would only be significant (to some owners) if our proposed entry fee policy was adopted by many clubs.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> Certainly not, yours were based on your personal preference and choice, I understand your points and I have some concerns that we may unduly over burden Amateurs who run their dog in the Open.
> 
> Assuming that to be true would $120 Open and $60 Amateur be more palatable to people?


Speaking as someone who has in the past and may in the future run the NT trial as a handler in both the Open and the Am, I would certainly prefer a $120/60 or $130/50 split to a $150/60 split

Ted


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Speaking as someone who has in the past and may in the future run the NT trial as a handler in both the Open and the Am, I would certainly prefer a $120/60 or $130/50 split to a $150/60 split
> 
> Ted


Thanks for your response!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> Thanks for your response!


Hey

While you are soliciting input ...

How about 120/40? It would certainly encourage Amateurs to run

- the Amateur; and
- the Open

Ted


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> Hey
> 
> While you are soliciting input ...
> 
> ...


How about a discount for entering both the Open and the Amatuer in the same trial? Sort of like how dogs shows will have first entry of one dog $27 and additional entry of same dog is $18.


----------



## Laird's Retrievers (Apr 20, 2007)

This has been a very interesting discussion. 

First, I think there are more amateurs, ones who contribute to the sport, that use a pro than folks give credit. For example, my wife and I have two dogs on a pro-truck, we both work fulltime and just had our first child in Oct., our goal is to run our own dogs and BE competitive. We can not train daily at this point in our lives, thus we use a Pro. Last year, I think I ran almost every trial that my Pro was running, I handled both our dogs, the only trials that I did not was when I could not attend or was judging the Amateur. I want to handle the dogs. I spend a huge amount of time training with my Pro, trying to learn, so that when I can retire (now a moot point) I can train and run our dogs full time.

This fee schedule will hurt amateurs like me; I would not attend that trial if I was in that area. Ask my Pro, I nit-pick his bill monthly- I barely can afford two dogs and have been thinking of selling one but my wife argues that it keeps me sane and I am lucky enough to own two nice dogs. People argue that most amateurs that use a Pro are only in it for the ribbons, to me it is all about the process, but I can not be totally 100% in the process now because I work, so I use a Pro and train with him every chance I get and learn from him often. I want to run the dogs in trials, thus penalizing me, does not help keep our sport alive for the long term.

It has been said, and they are 100% wrong, that I single handedly brought the Jacksonville Retriever Club back to life (many other contributed to this success, Kathie H, Buck M., Joe W and many mentors Judy Rasmuson, Roger Magnusson just to name a few). I have given that club a huge amount of my life, blood, sweat and tears- I wanted that club to survive and hold events- we now are a young club- and most are youngerish and many have dogs with a Pro- but I can attest they come and almost kill themselves working at our events. I know a fee structure like the one proposed would hurt them, $120:40 might work because in reality to the amateur who runs their own dog it would be 80:80.

This sport is very costly for a young person, we need to try and do something to help facilitate young folks in the Field Trial game as we are the future.

I do believe the RAC should look at new proposals and hopefully this might get the ball rolling.

Cheers

Chris


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Sorry I was on a plane.....quick reply as we are unloading, but yes the 120/60 would be better, that averages out a little better. More thoughts later....

FOM


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

Laird's Retrievers said:


> This has been a very interesting discussion.
> 
> First, I think there are more amateurs, ones who contribute to the sport, that use a pro than folks give credit. For example, my wife and I have two dogs on a pro-truck, we both work fulltime and just had our first child in Oct., our goal is to run our own dogs and BE competitive. We can not train daily at this point in our lives, thus we use a Pro. Last year, I think I ran almost every trial that my Pro was running, I handled both our dogs, the only trials that I did not was when I could not attend or was judging the Amateur. I want to handle the dogs. I spend a huge amount of time training with my Pro, trying to learn, so that when I can retire (now a moot point) I can train and run our dogs full time.
> 
> ...


Thanks Chris! you summed up what I tried to point out much earlier in the thread.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

BirdNMouth said:


> How about a discount for entering both the Open and the Amatuer in the same trial?.


I like that idea, I wonder how complicated it would be to implement?


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

EdA said:


> I like that idea, I wonder how complicated it would be to implement?


It is commonplace in AKC obedience and other companion events, so it can't be that hard.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Great discussion, the only thing that I haven't heard is how come these clubs lose money? 150 dogs X $70 = $10500. What are these clubs spending their money on? Is nobody watching the purse, while everyone has there hand in it? I don't get it.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> I like that idea, I wonder *how complicated it* would be to implement?


Don't know. You might want to glance at Chapter8 Section 10. How complicates is it to get the rules changed ???

Get the barrister to find you a loophole regards
john


----------



## Laird's Retrievers (Apr 20, 2007)

Barry said:


> Great discussion, the only thing that I haven't heard is how come these clubs lose money? 150 dogs X $70 = $10500. What are these clubs spending their money on? Is nobody watching the purse, while everyone has there hand in it? I don't get it.



Barry-

I am happy to provide you with our clubs financial statement. Generally we loss money in the fall, we have to fly in at least one judge, pay our bird help, feed our judges etc etc.

We have reduced costs by not taking our judges out to dinner, and many club members don't turn in receipts for certain items, they just suck it up. We do feed our bird help and gunners, but that keeps them coming back. Our fall trial had 112 entries minus scratches. thus we loss money.

Chris


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Don't know. You might want to glance at Chapter8 Section 10. How complicates is it to get the rules changed ???


My interpretation of Section 10 is that all contestants must be treated equally, that it is illegal to offer something to one not offered to everyone, in the case of 1st and 2nd entry fees that would be something available to everyone (Amateurs), but it is certainly something which would need official clarification.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Our break even is 90 dogs at $70. each. That was with a two stakes format, Open and Am. Now, we are going to four stakes so, I don't know what the actual breakeven number will be. I have a feeling that if clubs are loosing money it is because of the minor stakes. 

We pay to fly in out-of-town judges for the majors, unless they would rather drive. This Spring we are flying them in from California and Florida. We take all judges out for a 5 star dinner, pay the bird throwers $80. per day, provide lunches for all workers and all the misc stuff like insurance, ammo, birds, equipment etc. 

We are hoping no one in Texas conflicts with us this Spring, because if the minor stakes don't pull thier own financial weight...well;-)


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Laird's Retrievers said:


> Barry-
> 
> I am happy to provide you with our clubs financial statement. Generally we loss money in the fall, we have to fly in at least one judge, pay our bird help, feed our judges etc etc.
> 
> ...


150 dogs is the supposed break even point. I think I know a little about these clubs and their expenses. I also know that they have a way of spending other peoples money without any problem. The facts don't change. Birds, hired help, lunches, shells, motel rooms and judges eats don't run up to $10500. Unless your paying $100 a night for judges plus $100 day to feed them. The big judges party before the trial. etc. 

You end up with nothing when you overspend. Pull in the purse strings.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Mr Booty said:


> Our break even is 90 dogs at $70. each. That was with a two stakes format, Open and Am. Now, we are going to four stakes so, I don't know what the actual breakeven number will be. I have a feeling that if clubs are loosing money it is because of the minor stakes.
> 
> We pay to fly in out-of-town judges for the majors, unless they would rather drive. This Spring we are flying them in from California and Florida. We take all judges out for a 5 star dinner, pay the bird throwers $80. per day, provide lunches for all workers and all the misc stuff like insurance, ammo, birds, equipment etc.
> 
> We are hoping no one in Texas conflicts with us this Spring, because if the minor stakes don't pull thier own financial weight...well;-)


Booty, you are the man. I have discussed this before with you. I'm like you, gotta watch what you spend. Some people just don't get it.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> I still believe its merely a blatent attempt to keep professionals from running the trial. It has nothing to do with economics as in dollars, but does have much to do with economics as in number of entries!



Bingo

It is what it is which sometimes ain't a bad thing.

By the way, did crawfish season start?


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

"By the way, did crawfish season start?"
It is here but we need some warm weather so they can get bigger.
Spring rain would also help us out a bit with quality and quantity.

Suckin Da Heads Regards


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

$120/$40 sounds good to me. Thats an $80 per stake avg for amateurs running both the open and the am. Or charge $150/$60 and pay everyone that works $50 per day. That works out to be the same if you help out at the trial, but you'll have a helluva lot more help. Better order some fresh checks!

Either way, it takes heat off me for the service fee thing, so you go with your bad self Dr Ed!!!!

You could not offer a discount for multi-stake entry, since that discriminates against pros who are not eligible to enter the Amateur. The rulebook is pretty clear about that. 

HOWEVER, apparently you CAN charge pros/agents an extra $3.50 per entry to mail in their entries... which the rulebook should also prevent from happening. So maybe you _could _get AKC approval.

Depends on who you know regards,

SM


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Interestingly enough, the AKC does NOT have North Texas posted on the event calendar, nor can you pull up the trial information on the search-for-event feature. Perhaps this is just a ploy to either test the waters in advance, or one to get everyone riled up. Okay, Ed, I was gullible!


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

R Little said:


> "By the way, did crawfish season start?"
> It is here but we need some warm weather so they can get bigger.
> Spring rain would also help us out a bit with quality and quantity.
> 
> Suckin Da Heads Regards


Any crawfish this spring will be more expensive than USDA Prime Beef! One of the local restauranteurs told me last week that with the saltwater intrusion from Hurricane Gustav, they aren't serving any fresh boiled dads. Maybe the crawfish farmers/industry can get a Federal Bailout for a couple of billion.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

How much effect is that going to have on overall entries? I suspect plenty.

If I ever drive that far for a trial, I know it will be to have an excuse to eat mudbugs!


----------



## Brent Keever (Jun 14, 2008)

I dont think it will affect the rice field crawfish maybe some of the people closer to the coast. I dont think it will affect the basin bugs around Henderson but who knows.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> How much effect is that going to have on overall entries? I suspect plenty.
> 
> If I ever drive that far for a trial, I know it will be to have an excuse to eat mudbugs!


No excuses needed to dine on this delicacy. People go ape for the tasty little bugs but, I dump all the little crustations for gulf shrimp, 25 to a pound! ;-) Cajun Riviera would love a 160 dog - 4 stakes trial!

Brent, the local restaurants mostly get thier crawfish from the farmers in Vermillion Parish. I'm not sure exactly how much of the Atchafalaya crop goes to restaurants. I'm hearing that they are going for $4-$5 a pound live.

RLittle, I hope the fishing is getting better cause, I'm ready for some grilled Specs or Reds!


----------



## Brent Keever (Jun 14, 2008)

I have a buddy that crawfishes in Ridge Duson area I will have to call him to see what he is getting for his crawfish. We have not had any yet this year so I am not sure. There is a resturant about a half mile from me where they are ok. I go there because it is close.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Well I see that this thread turned into a dry bologna sandwich.It seems that the North Texas RC along with Shayne was testing the waters on this new form of entry pricing. Apparently NTRC and EE pulled down the entries they had posted. We were all taken in by this, I feel so violated.

Gotcha regards.


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

Don't worry Barry, you coud be like Moosegooser and enjoy being "Violated".


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Barry said:


> Well I see that this thread turned into a dry bologna sandwich.It seems that the North Texas RC along with Shayne was testing the waters on this new form of entry pricing. Apparently NTRC and EE pulled down the entries they had posted. We were all taken in by this, I feel so violated.
> 
> Gotcha regards.


Hey... why you throwin me under the bus??? The clubs post their own stake information and can manipulate it until the event is finalized and open for entry! Based on my conversations with the great Dr Ed, if its not $150/$60... you can expect something similar.

SM


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Maybe they are going to the 50,000.00 amount.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Hey... why you throwin me under the bus??? The clubs post their own stake information and can manipulate it until the event is finalized and open for entry! Based on my conversations with the great Dr Ed, if its not $150/$60... you can expect something similar.
> 
> SM


It's all in fun. I love ya man. 

Why did NTRC change the event info. It makes it look as though they were polling this site to see what way the wind was blowing.

Politically correct regards


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Barry said:


> It's all in fun. I love ya man.
> 
> Why did NTRC change the event info. It makes it look as though they were polling this site to see what way the wind was blowing.
> 
> Politically correct regards


Now does everyone realize why I asked about crawfish?

Make sense now? regards,


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Now does everyone realize why I asked about crawfish?
> 
> Make sense now regards,


Nope. What does crawfish have to do with Dr. Ed?

/paul


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Nope. What does crawfish have to do with Dr. Ed?
> 
> /paul


I need to give you more credit.

Hahahahahaha.......

where are those smilies on the side of my screen? Seriously?


----------



## Kyle B (May 5, 2005)

Barry said:


> Great discussion, the only thing that I haven't heard is how come these clubs lose money? 150 dogs X $70 = $10500. What are these clubs spending their money on? Is nobody watching the purse, while everyone has there hand in it? I don't get it.


Obviously you don't get it, but your "hand's in purses" is a pretty ridiculous comment to someone like Chris, who runs a tight ship. I've judged the Jacksonville trial and run it a couple of times and they do all they can to hold down expenses and still put on a first class trial.

Feel free to come and figure out how to optimize our trials in the south. Apparently we have greater expenses than you do, because I know Atlanta's break even point is higher the 150 dogs.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Kyle B said:


> Obviously you don't get it, but your "hand's in purses" is a pretty ridiculous comment to someone like Chris, who runs a tight ship. I've judged the Jacksonville trial and run it a couple of times and they do all they can to hold down expenses and still put on a first class trial.
> 
> Feel free to come and figure out how to optimize our trials in the south. Apparently we have greater expenses than you do, because I know Atlanta's break even point is higher the 150 dogs.


No, I do get it. At a 150 dog trial,take the price of birds at $10 X 250= $2500 where is the other $8000 gone? 

The term hands in the purse was not to imply that someone was ripping off the club. It was meant that one person needs to do the buying, and to get the best prices possible. It also means that at the dinners everyone pays for themselves, except for the judges. If the entries are small then that means you make lunches as opposed to having Subway make them. Have a tail gate as opposed to letting the judges run up the bill at the local Grill. You can feed all the workers and judges for $100. Put the judges up at club members houses instead of the motels. Don't pay for help, let the contestants work or hire half the help. Bring dead birds out of the freezer to start, don't shoot five birds to start each stake. Lot's of ways to cut cost. I don't believe that expenses are all that different in different areas. It's all about how much you and your buddies are willing to do to get to that break even point. I'm sorry but I don't believe that a club except under certain circumstances should lose money. 

Maybe Mr. Booty should be putting on a seminar.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Barry said:


> Maybe Mr. Booty should be putting on a seminar.


_Any_ club can make money on a $6300 gross on two AA stakes. It's when you try to serve as many comers as possible (add minor stakes) that things get a little dicey.

Barry, you described the "Perfect Storm" within which to make money at a field trial. There are only a handful of clubs in the country that can get ALL of those items to come together during a weekend field trial. I personally don't know of ONE that could do it the way you described.

The _perfect_ world in this sport went away a LONG time ago regards,

kg


----------



## Kyle B (May 5, 2005)

Barry said:


> No, I do get it. At a 150 dog trial,take the price of birds at $10 X 250= $2500 where is the other $8000 gone?
> 
> The term hands in the purse was not to imply that someone was ripping off the club. It was meant that one person needs to do the buying, and to get the best prices possible. It also means that at the dinners everyone pays for themselves, except for the judges. If the entries are small then that means you make lunches as opposed to having Subway make them. Have a tail gate as opposed to letting the judges run up the bill at the local Grill. You can feed all the workers and judges for $100. Put the judges up at club members houses instead of the motels. Don't pay for help, let the contestants work or hire half the help. Bring dead birds out of the freezer to start, don't shoot five birds to start each stake. Lot's of ways to cut cost. I don't believe that expenses are all that different in different areas. It's all about how much you and your buddies are willing to do to get to that break even point. I'm sorry but I don't believe that a club except under certain circumstances should lose money.
> 
> Maybe Mr. Booty should be putting on a seminar.


You are the one who said you didn't get it and I was merely agreeing with you. 

I'm glad you have it all figured out, but you aren't talking to idiots on this board. Most of us are doing exactly what you are detailing out, but the costs are still up there. Birds, birdboys and land are huge costs in our club and that's before you spring to bring any judges in from out of the area. 

I'm sure Frank could put on a seminar.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Is the NTRC even having a trial now?

I see limited info. on EE.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

K G said:


> _Any_ club can make money on a $6300 gross on two AA stakes. It's when you try to serve as many comers as possible (add minor stakes) that things get a little dicey.
> 
> kg


We added the two minor stakes for our March 09 trial. I'm very leary about adding the minor stakes because of the lack of ROI on the investment. However, the club members want to have the minor stakes so, we'll give it a try. If they don't carry their weight financially, then we'll have to address that and see if it is worth continuing. We are a new club and we are trying to build our checking account and continue to purchase the equipment we need like more popper guns, equipment trailer etc. If consumers buy into the national recession BS, the minor stakes will be hit hardest the most with lack of entries.


----------



## Laird's Retrievers (Apr 20, 2007)

Ok for the Jacksonville club. Only a couple members actually live around the grounds. Most judges stay at a hotel. One club member hosts the judes dinner at her home on Thursday and the landowner hosts on Friday and we have a tailgate on Saturday. Now we could stop the tailgate, but isnt that one of the perks for playing this game, its not all about the ribbons.

Bird boys cost me about $1500-2000 per event. Tried to cut that cost and the trial didn't fair to well. 

Judges hotel costs usually around 900 per event

Judges gifts 300

Judges expenses to bring in qualified judges, anywhere from 500-1800 depending on how many we fly in.

Now have only 112 total dogs hmmm we lost money. 

The only club that can do what you suggest is Snowbird


Cheers and I would love to see you work as much as some of us do at a trial


Chris


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Is the NTRC even having a trial now?


I thought you were quitting FTs, so why do you care?????????????????


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

EdA said:


> I thought you were quitting FTs, so why do you care?????????????????



Not quiting, just taking a short pause for the right cause.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

EdA said:


> I thought you were quitting FTs, so why do you care?????????????????


Ken,,,, Ed's gotta point there,,, you do have to admit..... ;-)

You're just a "heckler" now....

You're good at it.....

Angie


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Angie B said:


> Ken,,,, Ed's gotta point there,,, you do have to admit..... ;-)
> 
> You're just a "heckler" now....
> 
> ...



Heckler?

I've been on my best behavior. 

I'm just living the Obama dream.........

Hoping for Change regards,


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Heckler?
> 
> I've been on my best behavior.
> 
> ...


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha!!

Chuckle, chuckle.....;-)

Angie


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Not quiting, just taking a short pause for the right cause.


you're waffling now, are you considering a political career.......


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

EdA said:


> you're waffling now, are you considering a political career.......



Waffling?

I'm done until I raise my son and any child that may come in the near future. We might get a pup in a few years. If he likes it we may play a game or two.

You gonna miss me aren't you?


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

EdA said:


> I thought you were quitting FTs, so why do you care?????????????????


Because it’s America Ed...We have a President that has never had a job so I figure Ken can continue to bust on the field trialers.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Because it’s America Ed...We have a President that has never had a job so I figure Ken can continue to bust on the field trialers.


Bust?

Come on now.

That was a thing of the past.

I have yet to bust, waffle, or heckle since the New Year.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> .
> You gonna miss me aren't you?


in person, yeah, you are a likable guy in person

on the internet.....well.... uhhh........can I waffle a bit........

but you'll probably continue to hang around on the internet and make a nuisance of ourself, a much younger and somewhat less annoying version of Fallon..............


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

It will be interesting to see how this comes off at the NTRC FT. Keep us posted.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Losthwy said:


> It will be interesting to see how this comes off at the NTRC FT. Keep us posted.



I can tell you exactly what's gonna happen now, but since Ed thinks I'm a mini-Fallon, I'll let it transpire on it's own.

Seriously, where are my smilies on the right hand side of my page? Someone help me.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

EdA said:


> I thought you were quitting FTs, so why do you care?????????????????



Now that there is gonna leave a mark...

Crown all around now...


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

EdA said:


> in person, yeah, you are a likable guy in person
> 
> on the internet.....well.... uhhh........can I waffle a bit........
> 
> but you'll probably continue to hang around on the internet and make a nuisance of ourself, a much younger and somewhat less annoying version of Fallon..............


 
Reminds me of the song by Dan Hick and His Hot Licks

"How Can I Miss You If You Won't Go Away ?"


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Ken Guthrie said:


> where are those smilies on the side of my screen? Seriously?


Talk to the moderator - I'm sure you'll need them at one time or another.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> in person, yeah, you are a likable guy in person
> 
> on the internet.....well.... uhhh........can I waffle a bit........
> 
> but you'll probably continue to hang around on the internet and make a nuisance of ourself, a much younger and somewhat less annoying version of Fallon..............


Annoying ? 

You should see when I really try.

For your edification I might just kick it up a notch ;-)
john


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

EdA said:


> in person, yeah, you are a likable guy in person
> 
> on the internet.....well.... uhhh........can I waffle a bit........
> 
> but you'll probably continue to hang around on the internet and make a nuisance of ourself, a much younger and somewhat less annoying version of Fallon..............


As president of the fan club I can tell ya, he's toned it down since he's crawled back to RTF. Guess the close call ending of his site, ending of his short FT participation and loss of Bruce to pick on has helped shaped new behaviors. Perhaps less adversive training and more cookies to build up this new behavior would be good for him. Somebody reach out and pet him and tell him he's a good boy....I would but, I'm banned....

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Annoying ?
> 
> You should see when I really try.
> 
> ...


John, deep down we all know your a very nice person. This is all an act, a role you take on. We all love you and darn it, thank you.

/Paul


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> As president of the fan club I can tell ya, he's toned it down since he's crawled back to RTF. Guess the close call ending of his site, ending of his short FT participation and loss of Bruce to pick on has helped shaped new behaviors. Perhaps less adversive training and more cookies to build up this new behavior would be good for him. Somebody reach out and pet him and tell him he's a good boy....I would but, I'm banned....
> 
> /Paul


In my later life, I would have given you all you could handle.

But like a retired gunner with no shade throwing for dog #104, I will simply rise knowing what comes next is nothing more than what's happened 103 times already.

I found the smilies regards,

;-)


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> In my later life, I would have given you all you could handle.
> 
> But like a retired gunner with no shade throwing for dog #104, I will simply rise knowing what comes next is nothing more than what's happened 103 times already.
> 
> ...


 
You're on your way to a Victoria Stillwell existance...no pressure, all positive life with people. 

I think you meant in your earlier life, but we get the idea..... Hows it feel to reformed? Have you gone through the shakes, sweats and nausea stage yet?

/Paul


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> You're on your way to a Victoria Stillwell existance...no pressure, all positive life with people.
> 
> I think you meant in your earlier life, but we get the idea..... Hows it feel to reformed? Have you gone through the shakes, sweats and nausea stage yet?
> 
> /Paul


Here is another "t" for you on the life part.

Actually, amazingly we've seen no side affects yet. 

Although it doesn't really surprise me, I've never been one to get all wound up over much. Just try to do what I need to do, however I can do that.


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

jeff t. said:


> Reminds me of the song by Dan Hick and His Hot Licks
> 
> "How Can I Miss You If You Won't Go Away ?"


LOL!!!! Very fitting!


----------

