# Should This Club Be Allowed Host An AKC Licensed Field Trial for Retrievers



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Chuck and Mel have been involved in AKC Licensed Field Trials for more than a decade. They have judged, marshalled, and served in every capacity at weekend trials including Field Trial Secretary. They own 3 titled dogs, one currently with Joe pro and Mel competes regularly in both the Open and the Amateur.

Chuck is employed in management by a well known National Corporation so during the past decade they have moved twice due to his promotions and hence were heavily involved with 2 different AKC Licensed Retriever Clubs in 2 different states.

Their most recent move was to a large metropolitan area where they had previously lived. They met some local retriever people and secured a rather large parcel of land very suitable for both training and holding field trials. The landowner is very gracious in allowing use of the property and Chuck and Mel have been very gracious in inviting others to train with them.

Their small training group formed a club and decided that they would like to host a field trial so they approached a regional retriever association about assisting them with securing a date for their first event. This was all done in due course and the event went off without a hitch specifically due the efforts of Mel and Chuck and their group and some volunteer assistance from the local area. Absent was significant assistance from the regional retriever association (except for assistance with the AKC).

Their Club decided that they really didn't need the regional retriever association but preferred Licensed Club status so that (among other things) they would have a club vote on proposed rule changes to the RAC.

They prepared a rather impressive application including the dog resumes of it's members and submitted the application to AKC. They were surprised when AKC rejected their application due to fact that their membership did not include 20 family units and that some members were also members of other area AKC Licensed Field Trial Clubs (not surprising since this is one of the larger metropolitan areas in the country). 

Not to be deterred they recruited more members especially ones not affiliated with other clubs and resubmitted their application. They were again surprised when AKC said that they would grant them provisional club status but that they must hold at least one Sanctioned event before they could hold a licensed one or they could again apply through the regional retriever association. Perplexed and somewhat discouraged they appealed having decided that if AKC finds their club unfit to host an AKC Licensed Field Trial they will just abandon the entire project.

In your opinion does this group appear qualified, should they be granted AKC Licensed Club status, and should they be allowed to host a Licensed Field Trial without hosting one or more Sanctioned events?


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

Gotta love buracrasy.


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

From the AKC website http://www.akc.org/rules/policymanual.cfm?page=3
(I added the underline below):




> *Accelerated New Club Sanctioned Match Programs (Adopted November 1991; amended March 1997 and November 2005)*
> *Performance clubs, which meet the usual AKC accreditation requirements and are comprised of a large percentage of members with extensive background (ten or more years) in the performance event the club was formed to serve, can have their match programs accelerated (March, 1997). Those clubs will also be able to hold a license performance event on a probationary basis (November, 2005) provided a letter is received from the directors of a license club in an adjacent area or a parent club agreeing to mentor the new club. The new club's members will be entirely responsible for all facets of the trial and an AKC field representative will observe the event, or if an AKC field representative is not in attendance, AKC will designate an official from the mentoring club to submit a report on the event. *


*Has the new club looked into the possiblity of a licensed trial on a probationary basis as underlined above? Has the VP of Performance Events been involved in the club's request?*


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Went through the same thing about 1 1/2 years ago. After jumping threw all the hoops for the AKC and having them walk us through the whole process. About a year long ordeal, applied for club status under the so called Accelerated program. Had a membership of 30 present field trial people with various amounts of time in the FT game anywhere from 2-25 years. We also had a club willing to mentor ours during our first trial. We were promptly refused club status from the AKC. There reasoning was that there was already to many clubs in the area. Go figure. 

I was under the impression that one of the reasons they started the Accelerated program was to help with the entry problem and to aid in conflicting trials. Now I hear that the AKC doesn't really like the idea of conflicting trials. Guess they really didn't care about problems of the clubs after all.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

If I followed the events correctly they want sanctioned status after hosting only one event and because they have a group of high dollar well heeled individuals with friends in high places and they already want to make changes to the RAC.....if I understand the narrative correctly it sounds to me that they have an alternate hidden agenda, but I am not quite sure what that agenda is...then again I might have completely misunderstood the whole situation...


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

Only if the AKC wants Retriever Field Trials. That's a yes to the question, practially speaking. HPW


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

bonbonjovi said:


> if I understand the narrative correctly it sounds to me that they have an alternate hidden agenda, .


nope, nothing sinister, no hidden agendas, but they are getting weary of jumping through hoops


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

bonbonjovi said:


> If I followed the events correctly they want sanctioned status after hosting only one event and because they have a group of high dollar well heeled individuals with friends in high places and they already want to make changes to the RAC.....if I understand the narrative correctly it sounds to me that they have an alternate hidden agenda, but I am not quite sure what that agenda is...then again I might have completely misunderstood the whole situation...


I believe you have to be a Licensed club to have vote on the propossed rule changes by the RAC. All Licensed Clubs vote on these changes. All members of these clubs vote as one.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Barry said:


> Guess they really didn't care about problems of the clubs after all.


DING DING DING........ladies and gentlemen I think we have a winner....

BTW Barry, welcome back Cheyenne Retriever Club..


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Barry said:


> Now I hear that the AKC doesn't really like the idea of conflicting trials.


 
I haven't heard or read this, but it wouldn't surprise me if they think it will somehow reduce overall entries and revenue (through event and recording fees paid to AKC).


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

EdA said:


> DING DING DING........ladies and gentlemen I think we have a winner....
> 
> BTW Barry, welcome back Cheyenne Retriever Club..


Thank you. It's been a long drive to get to this point. The people in this area have worked hard to get to where we are now. Hopefully we will be able to pull it off. So far we have been approved for the Spring and we also have a Fall trial planned. Some want to also put on a hunt test so that's in the works. We have some good people here that are willing to role up their sleeves and that's pretty cool.


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

I was in the St. Louis Lab club and went through the process of doing shows, hunt tests and then field trials. 

I filled out the form for our first sanctioned trial and had to call them back to find out the status and I was told that I was missing something. How about calling me or emailing me with this info instead of leaving me waiting. I put my phone# and email on the form.

Instead of having clubs jump through hoops and go on a scavenger hunt for documents, they should be helping clubs. What are we paying them for again?????

The AKC reminds me of the Knights that say Neek (from Monty Python) and they want a shrubbery.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

EDA wrote:


> Perplexed and somewhat discouraged they appealed having decided that if AKC finds their club unfit to host an AKC Licensed Field Trial they will just abandon the entire project.


Boy,,, I sure hope they don't!! They've worked too hard and have come too far to bag it now.. 

So AKC's usual "CF" bureaucracy is a big surprise?? 

I'd quit trying to fight it with appeals and so forth. So the club didn't get _exactly_ what they wanted. Just have the stupid sanctioned and be done with it I say.

But that's me.... Been there done that. ;-)

Angie


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

-Host a trial through the regional association...

-Charge $150 for open entries

-Buy a boat

-Throw a boat bird in Skeeter's Slough for the first boat bird in Valley View history.

Best Fishes,

Ken


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Angie B said:


> EDA wrote:
> 
> 
> Boy,,, I sure hope they don't!! They've worked too hard and have come too far to bag it now..
> ...


Our sanctioned trial was over in one day with very limited entries - it was in the summer so it had to be. The AKC just wants to see if the group can pull it off and fill out all of the paperwork...it really was not a big deal...


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

SueLab said:


> . The AKC just wants to see if the group can pull it off and fill out all of the paperwork...it really was not a big deal...


they have already done that many times for licensed field trials...


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Yes...but not in the group that they are now forming...AKC really doesn't know if this new club can do it. They should be smart enough to limit entries and get what they need without alot of hassle...

If it is a matter of pride, they might as well give up (cause pride won't cut it with the AKC requirements)! Our club put on events with over 300 entries and 2 events for over 8 years but we still had to do it...


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

There are lot of bad things you can say about AKC, but at least thier consistant. Our local dog club has been putting on NSTRA trials for 30 years. Membership of 90 families. 3 of those are members of a club 300 miles north of us. AKC first denied our club status because the club wasn't comprised of members not affiliated with another club, so we "removed" those members from the roster. Then AKC came back and denied our club status because they didn't like our name. (contained the "hunting") We created a new name "Green Valley Pointing Dog Club" to fullfill that requirement and re-applied. They then came back and didn't like our club by-laws, so we had update those, and re-apply. This whole process took just about a year. Then they required we do a sanctioned test even though we had showed and demonstrated the ability to put on FT each and every year for 25 years. They wouldn’t accept the NSTRA trial examples we provided. In fact they wanted us to remove affiliation from NSTRA all together. In the end we kept the NSTRA affiliation under the old club name, and the new name is under AKC. They tried to bitch about that but we told them to suck eggs, we had a unique name, unique by laws and the state of Oregon recognized both clubs. After 2.5 years we held our first licensed trial. The entries are half what we get with NSTRA and we barely break even on the trial. Hard to justify all the crap they put us through.

/Paul


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

SueLab said:


> Yes...but not in the group that they are now forming...AKC really doesn't know if this new club can do it. They should be smart enough to limit entries and get what they need without alot of hassle...
> ...


they hosted an AKC licensed field trial less than 1 year ago, they've done more than they would have to do with a sanctioned trial, it's not about pride, it's about principle, frustration, and the next hoop they will be required to jump through

In AKC's original rejection it was suggested that they just join an existing club in the area but the one they suggested holds it's field trial 90 miles (and in another state) from where they live, there are indeed 3 clubs whose event is closer to them than that. I guess if you live in Manhattan you have no concept of urban (suburban) sprawl......


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> In AKC's original rejection it was suggested that they just join an existing club in the area but the one they suggested holds it's field trial 90 miles (and in another state) from where they live, there are indeed 3 clubs whose event is closer to them than that. I guess if you live in Manhattan you have no concept of urban (suburban) sprawl......


That part blew my mind. Having followed Mel and Claire (or whatever names you used) AKC ordeal since the beginning, all i can say is they are MUCH MUCH more diligent and hard headed than i am - i would have given up months ago. Goodie for them and i hope this works out.

Red River got club status in no time, but S. OK met much of the same red tape with AKC.... S. OK found a different solution, and all will be well... but what changed between Red River and these other two new clubs?

SM


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

I'm not sure that it is about how qualified any group is (they probably are more qualified than many clubs wthat currently are holding events)...along with FT santioned club status comes the right to be a voting member with AKC...the hoops are to select and control those groups that can become sanctioned FT clubs and potentially a voting club (just my opinion).

The regional association eliminates the establishment of a club and all of hoops required for that...an easier solution that was hashed out with AKC to solve the need for more trials


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

About a 100 miles from us a new club started and they went thru all kinds of BS. These folks are not new to the game and were putting on or help put on trials already.

I thought the idea was to create new clubs loosen the milage restrictions and provide conflicting trials. 

Its prolly easier to get a gaming license


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

SueLab said:


> The regional association eliminates the establishment of a club and all of hoops required for that...an easier solution that was hashed out with AKC to solve the need for more trials


Not when the association has it's own agenda for clubs - relating to vendor selection - which is a big part of why Michelle and Carl sought AKC status and have decided that not having a trial is the lesser evil.

SM


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

This sounds like what the AKC put our Minnesota club through. Mike Liosis sits in New York City deciding on new clubs while Bill Speck's Performance Division sits in Raleigh. We talk to Speck explaining our problem that we need a trial date to help support our retriever grounds we get Speck's approval and the club that conflicts with the date. Mike Liosis in New York City says there isn't a need for another club you have too many members that belong to other clubs. Everybody belongs to the clubs for the newsletter. This has been ongoing since 1976 and the club was incorporated in 1954.

As Angie said this is the Cluster F___ extroidanaire.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Not when the association has it's own agenda for clubs - relating to vendor selection - which is a big part of why Michelle and Carl sought AKC status and have decided that not having a trial is the lesser evil.
> 
> SM


I can't speak to that issue...but to form a club without going through the hoops (what are they all? incorporation, bylaws, establishing the need if there is another club near (no matter how bad or good), sanctioned events, insurance, etc...it is all in what a group is willing to go through to legitimize their organization...


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

SueLab said:


> I can't speak to that issue...but to form a club without going through the hoops (what are they all? incorporation, bylaws, establishing the need if there is another club near (no matter how bad or good), sanctioned events, insurance, etc...it is all in what a group is willing to go through to legitimize their organization...


They have gone above and beyond everything AKC has requested and have completed all the necessary steps in a very impressive manner. But AKC keeps coming back with some new reason why they can't be a club.

SM


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

Is it AKC or is it FT politics? Who shot John? HPW


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

EdA said:


> They prepared a rather impressive application including the dog resumes of it's members and submitted the application to AKC. They were surprised when AKC rejected their application due to fact that their membership did not include 20 family units and that some members were also members of other area AKC Licensed Field Trial Clubs (not surprising since this is one of the larger metropolitan areas in the country).
> 
> Not to be deterred they recruited more members especially ones not affiliated with other clubs and resubmitted their application. They were again surprised when AKC said that they would grant them provisional club status but that they must hold at least one Sanctioned event before they could hold a licensed one or they could again apply through the regional retriever association.
> 
> In your opinion does this group appear qualified, should they be granted AKC Licensed Club status, and should they be allowed to host a Licensed Field Trial without hosting one or more Sanctioned events?


When we applied to move our club to Baton Rouge, we too had to submit 20 names of club members who were not members of other area AKC Retriever Clubs. I knew that going in, so we did a membership drive to get the members enrolled and submitted all at the same time. Though we moved a club, we still had to jump through hoops. Mr. Speck helped us get it done. 

If all that stands in the way of hosting AKC Licensed Trials is hosting one Sanctioned Trial, then why not have a Santioned event? 

By the way our trail grounds, Lebeau Field Trial Grounds, Whiteville, La. is only 35 miles from Baton Rouge(grounds to BR airport), as the crow flies.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

HarryWilliams said:


> Is it AKC or is it FT politics?


yes...

SM


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> If all that stands in the way of hosting AKC Licensed Trials is hosting one Sanctioned Trial, then why not have a Santioned event?


They went one step further and hosted a LICENSED event under the regional association's banner... step 2 is supposed to be AKC approval.

SM


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> They went one step further and hosted a LICENSED event under the regional association's banner... step 2 is supposed to be AKC approval.
> 
> SM


I never did understand that Texas Assc thang and how it is able to circumvent AKC proceedure for setting up a Licensed club nor is there anything in AKC's By-laws about anyone but AKC in the driver's seat. . 

I'm not convinced it is FT politics as much as the AKC is saying that this is how we do things. Dealing with Mr Speck is one thing and getting approval from Mike Liosis in a whole 'nother story! I'm thinking the AKC wants it done by the book.

Hope y'all get it done!


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> I never did understand that Texas Assc thang and how it is able to circumvent AKC proceedure for setting up a Licensed club nor is there anything in AKC's By-laws about anyone but AKC in the driver's seat. .
> 
> I'm not convinced it is FT politics as much as the AKC is saying that this is how we do things. Dealing with Mr Speck is one thing and getting approval from Mike Liosis in a whole 'nother story! I'm thinking the AKC wants it done by the book.
> 
> Hope y'all get it done!


Liosis was instrumental in setting up the association. Aycock can give more detail and insight on that subject. Speck is retired and a LOT has changed since his departure, and not for the better.

SM


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Liosis was instrumental in setting up the association. Aycock can give more detail and insight on that subject. Speck is retired and a LOT has changed since his departure, and not for the better.
> 
> SM


Well, hang in there! 

Oh, I hope none of the Texas clubs conflict with our full trial March 20-22 as we need the money. All AA stake judges are from out of state!

Entries were finalized today on EE.net which means you can enter NOW, hope to see y'all in Whiteville!

FDR
Secretary/Treasurer/FTS/Chief Bottle Washer
Cajun Riviera


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

My impression was that a regional association served the purpose of giving folks an easier path to holding a trial without having to form a club. I never interpreted it to mean that group of folks would get a fast track to club formation.

The fast track to club formation is described in the policy manual I referenced earlier in this thread. It still isn't clear to me, has the club in question considered the mentoring program and probationary licensed trial approach?

My sense is that AKC is all about the process.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

An outsider reads this and sees a group of folks who don't want to deal with the established AKC hierarchy (the regional association) trying to form a club simply to circumvent it. 

Not surprising that the AKC keeps pushing them back to the established association. 

Whether the groups is qualified to run an event or not appears irrelevant to the untainted mind.


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> *Not when the association has it's own agenda for clubs - relating to vendor selection* - which is a big part of why Michelle and Carl sought AKC status and have decided that not having a trial is the lesser evil.
> 
> SM


Shayne, 

Is the "pre-selection" of vendors still a condition of holding a trial through the association? 

fp


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

My recommendation....

Simply don't piss on the mayor's boots.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Besides Chuck and Mel what other members have any FT experience to speak of. 
Could be the AKC sees a depth problem as it relates to members FT experience other than Chuck and Mel's

john


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

If they don't want to do the sanctioned,,, then don't. Don't have another field trial club or field trial. 

Big Deal.....

Angie


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Besides Chuck and Mel what other members have any FT experience to speak of.


quite a bit more than many (most?) clubs


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Besides Chuck and Mel what other members have any FT experience to speak of.


quite a bit more than many (most?) clubs



Angie B said:


> If they don't want to do the sanctioned,,, then don't. Don't have another field trial club or field trial.
> Angie


my sense is they won't, you're right no big deal, certainly many fewer headaches for them


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> My recommendation....
> 
> Simply don't piss on the mayor's boots.


Mayor's are elected.

Just sayin',

SM


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Mayor's are elected.
> 
> Just sayin',
> 
> SM



And President's don't retire.

Just sayin',


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Well, the Mayor, President or Your Holyness...however y'all want to refer to him as, participates on RTF. I doubt that he's sweating a new club over an issue so small as to which entry service they must use. Seems like a decent guy to me. Has to be something else. Where can one read about the powers vested into this FT association in Texas and their arrangement with the AKC?


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

EdA said:


> In your opinion does this group appear qualified, should they be granted AKC Licensed Club status, and should they be allowed to host a Licensed Field Trial without hosting one or more Sanctioned events?


Yes, they appear qualified. Yes, they should be granted Licensed status after they host a Sanctioned. Hosting a Sanactioned is going in through the front door. I can't find anything on the AKC website in regards to regional associations. So, forget the regional whatever and do it the old fashioned way. Good luck.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I am on limited battery, have not read all the comments however YES the RRC does deserve to be considered FULLY licensed by the AKC, bunch of dorks!!!! 

FOM


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> Yes, they appear qualified. Yes, they should be granted Licensed status after they host a Sanctioned. Hosting a Sanactioned is going in through the front door. I can't find anything on the AKC website in regards to regional associations. So, forget the regional whatever and do it the old fashioned way. Good luck.


But,,, But,,,, whaaaaaa! :shock: Why do *We *have to do it *That* way???

"Mother"...... 

(personally I think the whole "tude" thing is stupid)

Have the sanctioned or find something better to do with everyone's time....

Angie


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> I doubt that he's sweating a new club over an issue so small as to which entry service they must use.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA thats funny.

small issue regards,

SM


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA thats funny.
> 
> small issue regards,
> 
> SM


It's only an issue if you keep letting it be one...

To some it is,,, to the smart one's it's not and they keep on keeping on doing what they do best......;-)

Angie


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Angie B said:


> It's only an issue if you keep letting it be one...
> 
> To some it is,,, to the smart one's it's not and they keep on keeping on doing what they do best......;-)
> 
> Angie


Angie,

We live in a new era...

"When the going gets tough, start bitching"


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Angie B said:


> It's only an issue if you keep letting it be one...
> 
> To some it is,,, to the smart one's it's not and they keep on keeping on doing what they do best......;-)
> 
> Angie


It only matters if it's an issue to the (new) clubs trying to add trials to our circuit. Its a small issue, until it costs us trials. Then it's a big issue.

Who are the smart ones in your scenario, i can't figure it out - so its obviously not me.

SM


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Angie,
> 
> We live in a new era...
> 
> "When the going gets tough, start bitching"


Oh no! Who let the Liberals in?

Ownership has it's rewards, regards,


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> Not to be deterred *they recruited more members especially ones not affiliated with other clubs* and resubmitted their application.


 
So it boils down to Chuck and Mel and some _experienced_ FT people that just happened* not* to have a previous affiliation with with another club(s) could not get AKC approval.................... wait a minute something there seems to be mutually exclusive... oh I see it now, they weren't experiences at all (?)they were just a bunch of newbies .

After re-reading the entire thread I think that it's a procedural matter and see no reason it should not be adhered to.

john


----------



## jcmesquite (Jul 4, 2005)

As said before both Chuck and Mel have been presidents of retriever clubs before. Both have judged a number of field trials. And other members have been presidents of field trial clubs and done there share of judging. The club held a trial last spring and had no problems . And they have there own equipment , as well as some great trial grounds . And all the reports from handlers and the Judges commented [ how smooth the trial went]


----------



## jcmesquite (Jul 4, 2005)

The clubtrial last spring had to be helt under the South Central Club Banner.


----------



## jcmesquite (Jul 4, 2005)

The clubtrial last spring had to be held under the South Central Club Banner.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

jcmesquite said:


> As said before both Chuck and Mel have been presidents of retriever clubs before. Both have judged a number of field trials. And other members have been presidents of field trial clubs and done there share of judging. The club held a trial last spring and had no problems . And they have there own equipment , as well as some great trial grounds . And all the reports from handlers and the Judges commented [ how smooth the trial went]


Soooo??? Do a sanctioned if you want a trial? A easy one day deal. 

AKC is kosher with your paperwork and everything else...

If you don't want to do a sanctioned that's fine,,, 

You've done so much to get where you are. Why would you let something so small keep you from having what you really want?? That is if you really want it? 

AKC throws you a curve and you want to take your frisbee and go home... 

Fine.... Like I said,,, don't have a trial or club... Chances are 5 years from now no one will give 2 shakes anyway...

Angie


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

The club has already done a licensed trial, the principles are all long time trialers who have been doing it for years. The AKC is just being a butt... I mean are being obstructionists for no reason I can see.

800 lb gorilla regards,


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Chuck and Mel's club has been approved for a Spring 2009 date after filing an appeal. The conditions are that they not use an electronic entry service for their first trial and that they be "mentored" by a local established club.

It was reported that Performance Events was extremely helpful in negotiations with the AKC office in NY.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Good for Chuck and Mel. Do they have dates yet?

Can they post their premium in the events forum? So they don't have to mail them out?

Lainee, Flash and Bullet


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

FOM said:


> Good for Chuck and Mel. Do they have dates yet?
> 
> Can they post their premium in the events forum? So they don't have to mail them out?
> 
> Lainee, Flash and Bullet


Look for the first weekend in April.... conflicting with Cimarron. Bluebonnet has picked up Metro's date for this spring and will be putting on a trial in Anderson that conflicts with Rose Country.

SM


----------



## Tom Watson (Nov 29, 2005)

"Chuck and Mel's club has been approved for a Spring 2009 date after filing an appeal. The conditions are that they not use an electronic entry service for their first trial and that they be "mentored" by a local established club."




Am I missing something here (which is not that unusual)? Why prohibit use of an electronic entry service????????


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Tom Watson said:


> "Chuck and Mel's club has been approved for a Spring 2009 date after filing an appeal. The conditions are that they not use an electronic entry service for their first trial and that they be "mentored" by a local established club."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


For only the first trial would guess to be sure they are organized enough to do the event from start to finish. By skipping the sanctioned event, they may just be looking to see that the club crosse all the t's and dot's the i's.
Just a guess.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Tom Watson said:


> Am I missing something here (which is not that unusual)? Why prohibit use of an electronic entry service????????


good question



Golddogs said:


> For only the first trial would guess to be sure they are organized enough to do the event from start to finish. By skipping the sanctioned event, they may just be looking to see that the club crosse all the t's and dot's the i's.
> Just a guess.


good answer


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Look for the first weekend in April.... conflicting with Cimarron. Bluebonnet has picked up Metro's date for this spring and will be putting on a trial in Anderson that conflicts with Rose Country.
> 
> SM


thanks for the update on the schedule....


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Tom Watson said:


> Why prohibit use of an electronic entry service????????


Having been the trial secretary at an AKC event- agility trial, the AKC would probably state that their purpose would be so that they knew the club understood the flow of the paperwork..... one could argue that if a club changes event secretaries for anything, a new person would not necessarily understand the flow of the procedure....... but, why stand on ceremony. They got what they wanted, and after this trial, they can use Entry Express, RFT Entry, or whatever.

Congrats to Chuck and Mel.


----------



## Tom Watson (Nov 29, 2005)

Not alowing an electronic entry system seems kind of like inviting someone to enter a cooking contest and then telling them they have to grow their own wheat and mill their own flour to make their pie crust. Flour is commercially available. JMHO.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Tom Watson said:


> Not alowing an electronic entry system seems kind of like inviting someone to enter a cooking contest and then telling them they have to grow their own wheat and mill their own flour to make their pie crust. Flour is commercially available. JMHO.


True. But think of this way.... the AKC couldn't do a complete roll-over and let them have the trial without holding a sanctioned event without some hoop to jump through...... just a little compromise was in order.  But, the big objective was met, and that's what counts.


----------



## Tom Watson (Nov 29, 2005)

I guess so, they ARE having a field trial and a club.


Fiefdoms, power plays, and jumping through hoops regards.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Tom Watson said:


> "Chuck and Mel's club has been approved for a Spring 2009 date after filing an appeal. The conditions are that they not use an electronic entry service for their first trial and that they be "mentored" by a local established club."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Shoot,,, 

A sanctioned would have been much easier which is what AKC told them to do in the first place..... But no,no,no... Can't do that. One day and 15 dogs is all that it would have taken.

Being the secretary for even one conventionally managed trial is a total PIA..... Been there done that...

They had a better deal the first time around.....

Whatever??

Angie


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

JusticeDog said:


> They got what they wanted, and after this trial, they can use Entry Express, RFT Entry, or whatever.


They did and persistence and appealing to common sense does have it's effect

they will use an electronic entry service in the future and I'd bet it would be Entry Express and not the competition


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

EdA said:


> They did and persistence and appealing to common sense does have it's effect
> 
> they will use an electronic entry service in the future and I'd bet it would be Entry Express and not the competition


Had it's effect how? You got a worse deal after the appeal??? 

Thank you,,,, I've learned from the/their/your example....

Angie


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Yiiiiiiiiiiippppppppppppppiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeee

I'm gonna pop a top on a Pepsi for Chuck and Mel.


----------



## Art Geddes (Aug 30, 2003)

Aw Ken, 

Use Aqua Fina, better for your health. 

Art


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Yiiiiiiiiiiippppppppppppppiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeee
> 
> I'm gonna pop a top on a Pepsi for Chuck and Mel.


Whooo Hoooo,,,,,

Stand back....

BTW,,, how does one's face look in spite of their nose?

Angie


----------

