# Large Trials - WOW



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I thought Red River was looking LARGE, but Snowbird looks WAY worse -

122 in the Limited Open

Red River is "only" 104 in the Limited Open

Palmetto is "only" 103 in the Limited Open

and as a side note the O/H Amatuer at Snowbird is also 103 

Holy Smokes!

Lainee, Flash and Bullet


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Add 4 more to Red River.....


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

I'll be the atmosphere at a trial like that is something else! I would like to see that! Bet it makes for a long weekend!


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

whats sad about those numbers are the decline of amateur handlers in those OPEN events...sure we need pro's and most on here have used them but when the pros come with half a dozen entries each it kind of skews the balance of the field IMHO..


----------



## Jason E. (Sep 9, 2004)

How many at Red River / What about the other Texas trial how many their ?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Alamo is in the 60s

I think Southern Lousiana is at 86 (75 on RTFEntry and 11 on EE)


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

FOM said:


> Alamo is in the 60s
> 
> I think Southern Lousiana is at 86 (75 on RTFEntry and 11 on EE)


SLRC closed at 75. Those numbers include the ee.net entries.
I mailed my entries to rftentry, hadn't mailed an entry in a while and was kind of fun not having to pay the service charge. Did the same for Port Arthur's trial. I just filled out a paper entry, ran off a bunch of copies and filled in the event number, stakes, stakes fee and signed.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> SLRC closed at 75. Those numbers include the ee.net entries.
> I mailed my entries to rftentry, hadn't done that in a while and was kind of fun not having to pay the service charge. Did the same for Port Arthur's trial. I just filled out a paper entry, ran off a bunch of copies and filled in the event number, stakes, stakes fee and signed.


Okay if you say so.....I didn't look to "hard" at the enteries 

I normally mail my enteries into EE - I have the entry form as a soft copy....filled in as much as possible....then add the fields I need to when I want to enter an event - it was nice though to enter the Amatuer at Red River via EE when I decided at the last minute to run the knucklehead....

FOM


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

301 total entries at Snowbird..............anybody know of a trial with more entries before this?

kg


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

FOM said:


> it was nice though to enter the Amatuer at Red River via EE when I decided at the last minute to run the knucklehead....
> 
> FOM


 

Just think how cool it will be when you win that 103 dog Am.;-)


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

K G said:


> 301 total entries at Snowbird..............anybody know of a trial with more entries before this?
> 
> kg


We ran a big one at the Spillway several years ago. It had about the same number in the Open, but, I think it was a little bit smaller trial overall.

John


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

John Gassner said:


> We ran a big one at the Spillway several years ago. It had about the same number in the Open, but, I think it was a little bit smaller trial overall.
> 
> John


If I rememeber correctly;

122 Open
78 Am
60-70 in the minor stakes.

That was the bloodiest Open I've ever witnessed!


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

DEDEYE said:


> Bet it makes for a long weekend!


Or a very short one!

So much for conflicting trials as the best solution to large entries..at least in this case.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Steve Shaver said:


> Just think how cool it will be when you win that 103 dog Am.;-)


Red River Am is "only" 64 - I think that is a "decent" number considering all things......especially the 103 Amatuer at Snowbird!

Lainee, Flash and Bullet


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

Red River does have alot of conflict - SLRC and Alamo on the same weekend.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Don't forget Alamo hasn't closed, and that Eckett is coming


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Gerard Rozas said:


> Red River does have alot of conflict - SLRC and Alamo on the same weekend.


I know, that's why I'm surprised to see the large numbers.....oh well....maybe I'll get there in time so I can handle Butthead in the Open? 

FOM


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

How many dogs does Eckett normally run? 

FOM


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

FOM said:


> I know, that's why I'm surprised to see the large numbers.....oh well....maybe I'll get there in time so I can handle Butthead in the Open?
> 
> FOM


Probably should get used to it. It's coming to a trial near you. Judging by the numbers we are seeing, CO trials are going to be something this summer.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Barry said:


> Probably should get used to it. It's coming to a trial near you. Judging by the numbers we are seeing, CO trials are going to be something this summer.


Yuppers - but I won't be running too many Opens, I do not have any vacation time <sigh> so it will be mostly Amatuers for me....

I'm taking the week of Red River off without pay - thank God for David, he spoils me.....

Lainee, Flash and Bullet


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

FOM said:


> Yuppers - but I won't be running too many Opens, I do not have any vacation time <sigh> so it will be mostly Amatuers for me....
> 
> I'm taking the week of Red River off without pay - thank God for David, he spoils me.....
> 
> Lainee, Flash and Bullet


I think if more of us were smart about it we would just run the amatuer anyhow. Let the pros have the open and what they have created.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Barry said:


> I think if more of us were smart about it we would just run the amatuer anyhow. Let the pros have the open and what they have created.


Yes and no - it sure does suck to pay that entry fee with the numbers so huge and then tack on the handler's fee - the odds are less then 1% for a placement.....but then again I'm addicted to this dang sport and so freaking competitive that I want to take the gamble and see if my mutt can be in that 3-4% that gets a ribbon  

There is no cure is there?? I'm doomed.....

FOM


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

FOM said:


> How many dogs does Eckett normally run?
> 
> FOM



If Piney Woods last fall was any indication, a _bunch_.........

kg


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

FOM said:


> There is no cure is there?? I'm doomed.....
> FOM


there is a cure, it's called a Limited Entry Open all-Age stake, proposed in consecutive years to the subcommittee on rules of the Retriever Advisory Committee. It has yet to even be put on the agenda for discussion. If you dislike the status quo empower yourselves and demand change, otherwise things will just continue to be business as usual.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

You know, Ed....you might want to consider a targeted snail mail campaign with the attendees at this weekend's trials as your recipients. You MIGHT be able to bring this issue to the forefront with the RAC if you strike while the iron is HOT and the elimination "luck trumps skill" tests are plentiful.

Just a thought.....

kg


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

K G said:


> You know, Ed....you might want to consider a targeted snail mail campaign with the attendees at this weekend's trials as your recipients. You MIGHT be able to bring this issue to the forefront with the RAC if you strike while the iron is HOT and the elimination "luck trumps skill" tests are plentiful.
> 
> Just a thought.....
> 
> kg


Since none on the SOR of the RAC see the elephant sitting in the living room it will take a ground swell of discontent to get their attention, I am out of ammunition and my pleas fall on deaf ears.

My personal solutions are
1. do not enter the Open (no problem now, maybe in a year or two)
2. judge only the Amateur and minor stakes
3. do not support clubs who choose profit as their primary motivation by resisting conflicting dates and restricted stakes to control entries
4. continue to lobby for a limited entry stake and the right of clubs to hold an Amateur and no Open at their field trials

Power To The People Regards......


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

EdA said:


> there is a cure, it's called a Limited Entry Open all-Age stake, proposed in consecutive years to the subcommittee on rules of the Retriever Advisory Committee. It has yet to even be put on the agenda for discussion. If you dislike the status quo empower yourselves and demand change, otherwise things will just continue to be business as usual.


Is that the same change that when word got out a few pros raised such a fus that they tabled the proposed change and it hasn't been heard of since.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

EdA said:


> Since none on the SOR of the RAC see the elephant sitting in the living room it will take a ground swell of discontent to get their attention, I am out of ammunition and my pleas fall on dead ears.
> 
> My personal solutions are
> 
> ...


That's my point. I think that two weeks from today, you stand to have a LOT more people agreeing with you IF they get the word about your proposal. If the RAC won't consider it directly, then by golly force them to notice it INDIRECTLY.

Power To The People _Indeed_ regards,

kg


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

EdA said:


> Since none on the SOR of the RAC see the elephant sitting in the living room it will take a ground swell of discontent to get their attention, I am out of ammunition and my pleas fall on dead ears.
> 
> My personal solutions are
> 1. do not enter the Open (no problem now, maybe in a year or two)
> ...


How about going back to the old way: Don't use EE, do the entries yourself and just send back a lot of checks. TO LATE SORRY


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

EdA said:


> Since none on the SOR of the RAC see the elephant sitting in the living room it will take a ground swell of discontent to get their attention, I am out of ammunition and my pleas fall on dead ears.
> 
> My personal solutions are
> 1. do not enter the Open (no problem now, maybe in a year or two)
> ...


Sign me up, Down with the non givers.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

It will be interesting to see what kind of numbers Cajun Riviera will draw for our first ever Spring trial. We have no conflicts the weekend of March 21st and there are still a lot of northern insurgent trainers in the area.

I know one thing for sure, if we have a problem getting folks to shoot flyers in two hour shifts for the Open and Am, the next Spring we will do an Open only and charge $100. entry fee!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Draft folks from the gallery, Franco. Use your persuasive sales skills........

kg


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

K G said:


> Draft folks from the gallery, Franco. Use your persuasive sales skills........
> 
> kg


I've tried that and some folks just turn their backs and walk in the opposite direction. I was happy to get the help we did shooting flyers but, those volunteers were overworked.

About two weeks before the trial I am going to post a bulletin at the 4 area Sporting Clay ranges offering $50., lunch and ammo. However, one just doesn't know who will show up even when folks confirm on the tele. Last November we had 4 shooters confirmed and none of them showed up. That is our biggest need.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I want to start shooting live fliers, but I'm not very good - sooooo the offer is out there - pair me up with someone who knows how to shoot and will be a good back up and I'm willing to bring my shotgun with me and learn......

FOM


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Then call the pros that are going to be in attendance and tell them that you'd like to enlist their help in getting some of their clients to shoot fliers at the different stakes. Perhaps their "assistant" could be of help as well.

kg


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Good idea I may just put some pressure on the Pros or just make an annoucement to the tune of, "we will hold up the running of dogs until we have volunteers for two hour shifts to shoot".
Lainee, glad to know you will be running our trial. I'll put you down for two hours of shooting! You will love the grounds as KG can tell you how nice they are. Ed too!


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

EdA said:


> Since none on the SOR of the RAC see the elephant sitting in the living room it will take a ground swell of discontent to get their attention, I am out of ammunition and my pleas fall on dead ears.
> 
> My personal solutions are
> 1. do not enter the Open (no problem now, maybe in a year or two)
> ...



I have posted before on another board, ED, you are the real deal and I hope to someday meet such a sensible man in person. I wish you judged HT's cause I would fly you up in a heartbeat just to pick your brain.

Lowly HT-er regards


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> Good idea I may just put some pressure on the Pros or just make an annoucement to the tune of, "we will hold up the running of dogs until we have volunteers for two hour shifts to shoot".
> Lainee, glad to know you will be running our trial. I'll put you down for two hours of shooting! You will love the grounds as KG can tell you how nice they are. Ed too!


Mr. Booty, 

I won't be at your trial or atleast I don't think I will  but if I ever am I'll shoot for ya - crap I'll sign up for a 2 hour blocks in the Open and Am - I have no where else to be.......

But I made the offer as in general, a lot of people read this board so if they want a shooter, who needs some practice and is willing to be embarassed a little with her shooting skills, then I'm up for the challenge! Just please put me with a good back up gunner! Oh yeah and one that can throw, I have a crappy throw - I'm better at planting blinds! :lol:

FOM


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

K G said:


> You know, Ed....you might want to consider a targeted snail mail campaign with the attendees at this weekend's trials as your recipients. You MIGHT be able to bring this issue to the forefront with the RAC if you strike while the iron is HOT and the elimination "luck trumps skill" tests are plentiful.
> 
> Just a thought.....
> 
> kg


I dont think lobbying a pro with 20 dogs entered will be a waste of .41 cents

On the other hand the poor local slobs that have 1 or 2 dogs that are putting on the trial my be preaching to the choir.

I also have said it before that restricted or limited generally only punishes the club members that put on the trial.

I also have stated that I will not judge anymore opens until things change.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Barry said:


> Is that the same change that when word got out a few pros raised such a fus that they tabled the proposed change and it hasn't been heard of since.


I don't know, some pros liked the idea, we are the only competitive animal sport that I know of that allows unlimited entries, in every other venue (dog, horse) handlers are restricted to a finite number of entries. As our rules now stand an individual handler could enter 30, 50, or 100 dogs. 

Here is a version of the proposal which allows the club to select it's target number so long as the entry 60 or more, the advantage to this stake is that ALL amateurs would be entered, the number of dogs an individual pro could run would be dependent on the number of pros present (which might also encourage them to equalize their entries over the trials on any given weekend)

When Ted and I proposed this rule 3 years ago we used 65 as the target number, some clubs wanted 80, so the rule as written was submitted the following year (2006) by Piney Woods Retriever Club. To date the SOR or the RAC has ignored this proposed stake or any discussion thereof.

Any club may, at its election, limit the total number of dogs which may be entered in any stake carrying championship points, provided that the total number of dogs which may be entered shall be not less than 60. Any limitation shall be in or included with the premium for the trial sponsored by such club. Any club limiting entries shall follow the procedures set forth below:

All handlers entering more than one dog shall provide an order of preference for dogs entered by that handler by numbering such handler’s entries in order beginning with the number one. The entry with the highest number shall be the first excluded if such exclusion is necessary. Subsequent exclusions, if necessary, shall be in descending order. 
If no order of preference is indicated, the Field Trial Committee shall determine which dogs are not allowed entry into the appropriate stake.
Entries showing more than one handler shall not be accepted. No substitution of handlers shall be permitted, except with the approval of the Field Trial Committee.
If the number of entries received in any stake is more than the maximum number selected by such club (the “Maximum Number”), entries shall be excluded until no more than the Maximum Number of entries are left, beginning with the handler having the largest number of entries and continuing with that handler and, to the extent necessary, the handlers having the next largest number of entries in descending order. The number of entries may, if necessary to provide equal treatment for handlers, be reduced to less than the Maximum Number.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

What are the # of pro run dogs vs. OH dogs and disconting those that are down with the pro and running dog off the pros truck


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Barry said:


> I think if more of us were smart about it we would just run the amatuer anyhow. Let the pros have the open and what they have created.


One of the problems with the rules as currently constructed is that if a club is going to hold an AA stake, it must hold an Open.

You can hold an Open without an Am
But, you cannot hold an Am without an Open


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

K G said:


> You know, Ed....you might want to consider a targeted snail mail campaign with the attendees at this weekend's trials as your recipients. You MIGHT be able to bring this issue to the forefront with the RAC if you strike while the iron is HOT and the elimination "luck trumps skill" tests are plentiful.
> 
> Just a thought.....
> 
> kg


Keith

At one point in time you were opposed to the proposal that Ed and I submitted to the RAC. 

Have you changed your mind?

Ted


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

K G said:


> 301 total entries at Snowbird..............anybody know of a trial with more entries before this?
> 
> kg


 
Snowbird is always BIG. IS Bo running your dogs in it Keith?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

The striking thing about the 103 dog Amateur at Snowbird is that 34 handlers are running a single dog while 24 are running 2 or more, some as many as 5, 34 dogs with single handlers, 69 dogs with multiple handlers.....WOW indeed :shock:


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Snowbird is always BIG. IS Bo running your dogs in it Keith?


Yes, he is. He's worked hard and earned the opportunity. If it was solely up to me, I'd have scratched them from the Open at the same time I did for the Amateur. My wife, however, thought differently!

Ted wrote:



> _Keith
> 
> At one point in time you were opposed to the proposal that Ed and I submitted to the RAC.
> 
> Have you changed your mind?_


Nope. I just won't actively comment against it. I still believe in the use of the Restricted stake.....but it is time to shake up the RAC and this is just the time of year to do it. I'm prepared to live with the outcome. Proceed forthwith.

kg


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I'm sick today so plenty of time to just hang out in RTF....my question would be if those three trials were restricted, what would their numbers be? Would it of made a difference - not just loosing 10 dogs or so, but getting the numbers down to a reasonable number?

Just curious....

FOM

And yes I know, it would take some time, but I could go figure the numbers out myself.....


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

If you could find Shayne, he ought to be able to generate the numbers pretty quickly

Ted


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

Here are some interesting numbers:
Red River - 23 Am run dogs out of 108 dogs in the Open
Alamo - 21 Am run dogs out of 62 dogs in the Open
Sheveport 29 Am run dogs out of 94 dogs in the Open
SLRC - 23 Am run dogs out of 73 dogs in the Open
Snowbird - 59 Am run dogs out of 122 dogs in the Open


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Shayne is on his way to Arkansas right now from Atlanta with the last of the Dog's Afield warehouse stock. He said he'll get that eligible Restricted dogs for Snowbird # in about 4 hours.

kg


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Shayne rocks!


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> One of the problems with the rules as currently constructed is that if a club is going to hold an AA stake, it must hold an Open.
> 
> You can hold an Open without an Am
> But, you cannot hold an Am without an Open


I was refering to a weekend trial with open,am,qual, derby. Just a option, avoid running the open. I won't even judge an open anymore. I don't believe in what's transpiring with all the numbers so why participate in it. I don't mind working or helping out but the time envolved and preasure put on a club with all the entries just is not worth it to me. 
Just my opinion.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

EdA said:


> The striking thing about the 103 dog Amateur at Snowbird is that 34 handlers are running a single dog while 24 are running 2 or more, some as many as 5, 34 dogs with single handlers, 69 dogs with multiple handlers.....WOW indeed :shock:


How many are co-owners? Another pet pieve. Most well intentioned amatures run only 2-3 dogs. 

Crap here I go again. Get out the soapbox I feel it coming on. 

Another reason for a surcharge. If you run over so many dogs per person there should be a surchage of $30 a dog to help pay for the help. 

Or charge $100 Open $50 for the Am $50 Q $50 derby. People with dogs on pro truck and are at the trial to run the majors would pay the same as if it was $75 & $75. If your not at the trial and your pro runs the open it cost you $100. Clubs would be able to recoup some of the cost of hiring help for the weekend, all the while keeping the cost of entries down to the amatures who do all the work and make things happen. Let the clients that don't show to help shoot, marshall, run lunches, rebird etc., pay a little more for the luxury of staying home. I'd rather have them at the trial to help.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

The Snowbird Open has 76 entries that are eligible to run a Restricted.

Problem solved....with the Open, anyway......;-)

kg


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Barry said:


> How many are co-owners? Another pet pieve.


None that I can see...check it out for yourself https://www.entryexpress.net/loggedin/viewentries.aspx?eid=2339


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Barry said:


> How many are co-owners? Another pet pieve. Most well intentioned amatures run only 2-3 dogs.
> 
> Crap here I go again. Get out the soapbox I feel it coming on.
> 
> ...


 
Why? We're already paying the additional entry fees. As an Amatuer, the pro may be running my dog in the open, while I marshall and run the amateur and the Q. If I'm not there, I'm still paying those entry fees, and the club is making the $$$..... this means I'm being penalized for having more dogs. 

If I'm staying home, it's not a luxury. It means I'm working. I'm not up to 5 dogs, but 3 + a future derby dog. 

Just sayin' that this is not the "fix" for large trials.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

K G said:


> The Snowbird Open has 76 entries that are eligible to run a Restricted.
> 
> Problem solved....with the Open, anyway......;-)
> 
> kg


The question remains .... 

How many of the Amateurs who help put on the trial would be barred from running their dogs in the Open by a Restricted?


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

I'm reasonably sure that with names like Mertens, Rasmussen, Lilenfeld, Brown, and Dubose, being eligible for a Restricted is not an issue. 

Even with your plan, Ted, there's no quarter given to club members. They might still be left on the outside looking in.

's all I'm saying......

kg


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

K G said:


> Even with your plan, Ted, there's no quarter given to club members.


with the Restricted Entry Open the only exclusions would be some pro run dogs, all the amateurs would be assured a spot (unless they were running 7 or 8 dogs)


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Unless the "risk" of not getting entered is equal, I can pretty much assure you no proposal like this will be adopted. It might be considered, which is better than where we are now, but changes would have to be made before it would be considered as an option.

When you get up to those numbers (60 +) and that level of competition, if a dog (regardless of who owns it) is not prepared to compete, no entry system that favors amateur-owned dogs is going to make them more competitive. 

kg


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

K G said:


> no entry system that favors amateur-owned dogs is going to make them more competitive. kg


geez, I thought they were virtually all "amateur owned dogs", otherwise we'd have no pros

I can't wait until Eckett, Rorem, or Farmer show up with 30 dogs, then 35, what threshold must we reach before we recognize that the act of running that many dogs skews the competitive balance beyond comprehension


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

I meant "amateur run."

Regardless, if the chance of not getting entered is not equal, I believe you are up against a wall. Resolve that, and you might just have a chance.

kg


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

K G said:


> I meant "amateur run."
> 
> Regardless, if the chance of not getting entered is not equal, I believe you are up against a wall. Resolve that, and you might just have a chance.
> 
> kg


the chance of entering is equal, an individual handler just can't run an unlimited number of dogs

we already have stakes (Restricted) where you are "restricted" from running certain dogs, what's so different, is it because we are discriminating against the pros vs discriminating against the amateurs

anyway, it's irrelevant because with the SOR of the RAC as currently comprised will NEVER consider a remedy and the pros will continue to run more and more dogs until someone recognizes how terribly destructive it is to the sport


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

The Restricted stake now discriminates against the _dog_. Who owns it or runs it is of no consequence.

kg


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

K G said:


> The Restricted stake now discriminates against the _dog_. Who owns it or runs it is of no consequence.kg


so let's see, first we had the Limited to control entry numbers, when that no longer worked we had the Special, when that no longer worked we have the Restricted, when that no longer works are we to have an Ultra Restricted where only dogs with All-Age wins are eligible, it should be obvious by now that restricting entry numbers by discriminating against dogs will NEVER SOLVE THE PROBLEM

and conflicting trials WILL NEVER SOLVE THE PROBLEM as fewer and fewer people do more and more work putting on trials


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Are you suggesting that lessening the Open entries by 47 dogs wouldn't have been a good thing for Snowbird? I can pretty much assure you they're wishing they'd have used it for this trial.

Optional solutions don't work if they aren't employed. The Restricted stake has been used sparingly at best since it's availability began about 15 years (or so) ago. Mid-Illinois is my personal favorite for successful use of the Restricted stake. Other clubs have used it to their benefit as well.

Ed, I've suggested you go for it again. You and I going back and forth will not further the issue. Good luck, and I mean it.

kg


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

The Rocky Mountain Retriever Club used the Restricted once. 

It did cut down on numbers.
It also cut down on the dogs our workers could run.

We have not used the Restricted since and are unlikely to do so in the future.

I still view the Restricted as an axe for cutting numbers and the limited entries per handler as a scapel. I prefer the scapel.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

To each their own.....

kg


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Well Eckett just entered the Open at Alamo, which is now up to 91 dogs.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Why not put a limit on the number of dogs that can run a trial…say 75 for the Open…if less than 75 enter no harm no foul but if the number exceeds 75 then only dogs that have a “registered address” is within 300 miles of the trial…at that point if you are still over 75 dogs go to the handlers that have more that four dog entered and tell them “cut to four…you pick’em”

You’re not discriminating between pro or amateur 

just an idea.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

What are y'all complaining about? If we all didn't love the abuse like huge entries, we wouldn't be playing the game!

I think I'll name my next dog, Le Marquis de Sade.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

A couple of years ago a trial that is held 12 minutes from my house and I was a board member maybe the VP had to have a limited. My AA dog did not qualify to run it. I was on the FT committee and was scheduled to work the trial. I had been looking at other trials with the same date. I also was running a derby dog and the derby was running on Fri. same as some other trials within travel distance. As in the past with work, financial, judging assignment's and I would be only going to get to run the trial weekends I normally run. As it worked out the trial I was looking to run had numbers in the 90s because of some last minute pro entries (11 P.M. the night of closing) I choose to just run the derby. 

I have talked to other club members and people at trials. The same people that put on trials and my take on it after what the have to say is these restrictive stakes suck. It does nothing to promote the sport. Bill Eckett will still be at the trial and maybe only run 15 or 20 dogs instead of a full truck as well as the other pros at the trial. Penalizing a guy like me does not fix the problem and it may actually make it worse. I have said I will no longer work, run or judge another open until this gets fixed. I also know that others are turning down judging assignment's and NOT working the trial. I see that clubs are not having trials. Why is this they still have competing dogs? 

Maybe if the people that put on the trials quit doing so the people that are causing the problem might actually do something to fix it.

I don't know if anyone listens to the Bob and Tom morning radio show. The have a bit called the Mr. obvious show. It starts of with the host saying welcome to the Mr obvious show and this is Mr. obvious. Lets take some calls hello caller this is Mr. obvious how can I help? Caller: Is this Mr. obvious?


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

K G said:


> Optional solutions don't work if they aren't employed. The Restricted stake has been used sparingly at best since it's availability began about 15 years (or so) ago. Mid-Illinois is my personal favorite for successful use of the Restricted stake. Other clubs have used it to their benefit as well.


The restricted has NOT been good for Mid-Illinois. While it has reduced the entries from over 100 to just under 80, it has also eliminated ANY members from running it. Pretty tough to get members to take a vacation day, to work their ass off when they can't run their dog. :barf:

Clearly only having an Amateur would be a good option for the club. ;-) 

We are very close to NOT having ANY all-age stakes in the future. 

Does anyone think the current situation where a pro with 20+ dogs is NOT at a distinct advantage vs. the 1 dog amateur? Even if the Am had the best dog and handling skills? There is SOME luck involved even with the fairest tests. 

The Agility trials have limited entries and a random draw. They also allow the club to reserve so many spots for worker's dogs. Franco, I'll bet you could get some volunteers for live gunners then!!!!! 

There are lots of options for "fairly" allowing clubs to limit entries.


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Doug Main said:


> The restricted has NOT been good for Mid-Illinois. While it has reduced the entries from over 100 to just under 80, it has also eliminated ANY members from running it. Pretty tough to get members to take a vacation day, to work their ass off when they can't run their dog. :barf:
> 
> Clearly only having an Amateur would be a good option for the club. ;-)
> 
> ...


Why can't the workers run the dog? Why can't the clubs inform the members that the particular test will be open for entry on whatever day, and then they can enter early... Are the members waiting till the last minute and blaming everyone else? Our trials are so small, I couldn't imagine not being able to work AND run... I don't get it.... Fill me in.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

DEDEYE said:


> Why can't the workers run the dog? Why can't the clubs inform the members that the particular test will be open for entry on whatever day, and then they can enter early... Are the members waiting till the last minute and blaming everyone else? Our trials are so small, I couldn't imagine not being able to work AND run... I don't get it.... Fill me in.


Because they don't have a dog that has previously placed in an all-age stake as is required for a restricted.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

DEDEYE said:


> Why can't the workers run the dog? Why can't the clubs inform the members that the particular test will be open for entry on whatever day, and then they can enter early... Are the members waiting till the last minute and blaming everyone else? Our trials are so small, I couldn't imagine not being able to work AND run... I don't get it.... Fill me in.


To run restricted Dog must have AA points.

Entry date must be announced to world at large, and not select few

If members decide to put on trial, they have to live with the numbers under the current rules


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

JusticeDog said:


> Why? We're already paying the additional entry fees. As an Amatuer, the pro may be running my dog in the open, while I marshall and run the amateur and the Q. If I'm not there, I'm still paying those entry fees, and the club is making the $$$..... this means I'm being penalized for having more dogs.
> 
> If I'm staying home, it's not a luxury. It means I'm working. I'm not up to 5 dogs, but 3 + a future derby dog.
> 
> Just sayin' that this is not the "fix" for large trials.


All you have to do is the math. If you are running the am and your pro is running your dog in the open you are still paying $150. ($75open $75 amatuer) If your not there and your pro runs your dog in the open you pay $100 plus your handling fee. You are not being penilized,the problem arises is that we have to hire someone to throw birds for you, run birds, marshall, run lunches. We would rather you be there so we can get you to give us a hand. If you don't understand this concept I don't know an easier way to explain it to you.

And no these clubs are not making $$$ if they were we wouldn't have the money crunch that they are having.
A surcharge of running more than 3 dogs is not only fair because most, and I say most amatures don't run but maybe 2 dogs. 

Don't sit around and think you should be able to do what ever your pocket book will aford and not do any of the heavy lifting. It's simple, a lot of people in this game are getting tired of doing the lions share. There's a lot more to it than writing a check.


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

OK. Gotcha... That would most definitely suck! 

The thing that drives me crazy is when members tell me, "I just want to run my dog. I just want to be a handler." We all want that. It's the same thing on every thread that has anything to do with the amount of work involved to put on a trial. You see the same people doing everything, week in and week out. People get burnt out and mad. Also, people think the clubs are making all this money. I can assure you that they aren't. Its so expensive! Maybe the people who think this should go to board meeting....

Ok, so anyhow, the idea of having a restricted is to keep the numbers down? Is that right? I am going to have to go down there sometime and see this for myself. I am having a hard time imagining it.. 

-Small Town Alaskan Girl Regards......


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Mary,

A Restricted means a dog has placed in an AA stake - so say the Alska club held a Restricted, you and Darla would not get to run......knowing you, you would still show up and help, but for some (and I'll admit to being in this group) find it hard to give up a vacation day to work a trial you can't run and then be treated like a 2nd class citizen.....not worth it to me...

FOM


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

Interesting thread here. 

Is it 2005, 2006 or 2007? Oh, wait It's 2008. Seems like this discussion happens twice every year. Wait. It does happen twice a year. Eight pages so far this time. Ed, Ted, myself, and others propose a reasonable solution and nothing changes.

Oh wait, now I remember, the solution is more trials, conflicting trials, and the restricted stake. I see those options are working well in 2008. I will not waste my time searching for all the previous quotes on this topic that have advocated these solutions for at least two years. I also note that the number of trials in 2007 was down 9 from 2006 despite more PRTA trials and the average number of open dogs is up 14.5 from 1997.

Clubs need another solution and that solution is the ability to cap entries for THEIR events.

The FT community gets what they deserve for virtually ignoring this problem regards.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Personally I have struggled with the concept of "am I adding to the problem?" because I have got a dog with a Pro who runs him for a limited amount of trials......but on the other hand I seem to work almost every trial I attend in some form or fashion, so I don't necessarly feel bad about having 1 dog run by my Pro. I guess I don't feel guilty of being a "user" of this sport.....yet on the other hand I know quiet a few who rarely if at all do squat when at a trial, have multiple dogs with a Pro and run around and treat those of us working the trial like crap......those individuals are the problem - maybe we should force them to provide BB help? 

FOM


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> [
> If members decide to put on trial, they have to live with the numbers under the current rules


.

Would it not be great if Alamo and Red River just up and cancelled their trial for being too large and returned the entries fees. They could claim landowner restrictions, bird availability,etc.
That would send shock waves nationwide and the stimulus for changing the "current rules" would be created. The loss of tens of thousands of dollars in handling fees would wake up PRTA and the SOR/RAC.

Tim


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> To run restricted Dog must have AA points.
> 
> Entry date must be announced to world at large, and not select few
> 
> If members decide to put on trial, they have to live with the numbers under the current rules


Seems to me the only ones that get screwed by this special, limited, restricted are the club members that want to run their own trial but can't because they don't qualify, But they are still expected to help put on the trial that they can't compete in. And you can guess what I've got to say about that. I'm sure we have all been afected by that.

But I just don't see anytime soon the SOR getting of their fat ***** to do any thing to help the amatures out. They are good at figuring out how to let it go to hell but not fixing any of this.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> .
> 
> Would it not be great if Alamo and Red River just up and cancelled their trial for being too large and returned the entries fees. They could claim landowner restrictions, bird availability,etc.
> That would send shock waves nationwide and the stimulus for changing the "current rules" would be created. The loss of tens of thousands of dollars in handling fees would wake up PRTA and the SOR/RAC.
> ...


I suspect that if they wanted to not have a trial due to large numbers, they would simply say so, rather than hide behind a lie.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I have asked this before and never got a serious response. Since currenly the rules state that a club MUST have a open stake. Then if the club does not want to have one can they raise the price for the open entry so high that it will become unatractive to run and not have any entries. 

How about limiting the open to run only Sat and Sun. then after a while the open portion of the trial will become less fun that it allready is. Or maybe 1 day.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Tim Carrion said:


> .
> 
> Would it not be great if Alamo and Red River just up and cancelled their trial for being too large and returned the entries fees. They could claim landowner restrictions, bird availability,etc.
> That would send shock waves nationwide and the stimulus for changing the "current rules" would be created. The loss of tens of thousands of dollars in handling fees would wake up PRTA and the SOR/RAC.
> ...


Problem is some of these clubs want and like big entries. It alows them to spend a lot of money, hiring help, wine and dine judges and their friends, beat on their chest a little and say look what I did. What they do with that money is bewildering. 300 dogs at $70= $21000.00 That's not chump change!
With that size trial you could charge $40 entries and still make money!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Barry said:


> Problem is some of these clubs want and like big entries. It alows them to spend a lot of money, hiring help, wine and dine judges and their friends, beat on their chest a little and say look what I did. What they do with that money is bewildering. 300 dogs at $70= $21000.00 That's not chump change!
> With that size trial you could charge $40 entries and still make money!


I think that if a club wants to have a big trial and make money, it should be able to do so. After all, it is the club members who are doing most of the work. If they want to raise money for grounds, equipment, whatever - more power to them. And if people want to participate in a big trial, that is their decision

However, I think that clubs who do not want to have a big trial, but are faced with one, should have options other than the restricted, which as the Rocky Mountain Club and the Mid Illinois club have discovered, RESTRICTS club members from running their dogs.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Steve Amrein said:


> I have asked this before and never got a serious response. Since currenly the rules state that a club MUST have a open stake. Then if the club does not want to have one can they raise the price for the open entry so high that it will become unatractive to run and not have any entries.
> 
> How about limiting the open to run only Sat and Sun. then after a while the open portion of the trial will become less fun that it allready is. Or maybe 1 day.


You can charge anything you want to my knowledge for entries, they have to be the same for everyone. Not less for some than others.

Go back and look at post #53 I think that gives a good sumation.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> I think that if a club wants to have a big trial and make money, it should be able to do so. After all, it is the club members who are doing most of the work. If they want to raise money for grounds, equipment, whatever - more power to them. And if people want to participate in a big trial, that is their decision
> 
> However, I think that clubs who do not want to have a big trial, but are faced with one, should have options other than the restricted, which as the Rocky Mountain Club and the Mid Illinois club have discovered, RESTRICTS club members from running their dogs.


I completly agree. And this is my opion and my decision as a person that works. I think it's very important to remember who works and puts on the trials lets not put entries and money ahead of these people. They are the core and it has to be fun not work, that's why most of us do this.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Since it seems unlikely that the composition of the RAC will change anytime soon, if you really care about the issue of trial size (as opposed to simply venting steam on the internet), I suggest you pigeonhole your local representative. If I am not mistaken, the RAC members are:

Bill Daley
John Goettl
Bob Kennon
Nelson Sills
Pete Simonds

Ted


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

FOM said:


> Personally I have struggled with the concept of "am I adding to the problem?" because I have got a dog with a Pro who runs him for a limited amount of trials......but on the other hand I seem to work almost every trial I attend in some form or fashion, so I don't necessarly feel bad about having 1 dog run by my Pro. I guess I don't feel guilty of being a "user" of this sport.....yet on the other hand I know quiet a few who rarely if at all do squat when at a trial, have multiple dogs with a Pro and run around and treat those of us working the trial like crap......those individuals are the problem - maybe we should force them to provide BB help?
> 
> FOM


Yeah, I have been treated pretty hideous at the beginning by some people who were up here visiting. I was marshalling the Open. One person in particular is a big name... Anyhow, that doesn't happen to me anymore because everyone knows I will drop kick them into yesterday now...

I always just figured that the restricted was run not to cut numbers, but to have some sort of special match for those dogs. I am retarded. I don't think the members should be restricted from running their own dogs. That's pretty crazy to think about.

Whenever I get to come down there, I want to be a handler, but I certainly wouldn't refuse to help. Might be kind of interesting for me. Bet there are some politics going on "backstage"....


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> Since it seems unlikely that the composition of the RAC will change anytime soon, if you really care about the issue of trial size (as opposed to simply venting steam on the internet), I suggest you pigeonhole your local representative. If I am not mistaken, the RAC members are:
> 
> Bill Daley
> John Goettl
> ...


Are these positions every turned over? Are these nominated by who. In my sad little trial career I dont recall every voting anyone to this position. How bout some term limits. This problem of large trials is not new and did not happen overnight. My conversation at a FT means far less than some real recomendations like put forth by you and Ed so I feel like I am wasting my breath. Our sport needs a wholesale change in the way policy is made to include the mass membership.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Steve Amrein said:


> Are these positions every turned over? Are these nominated by who. In my sad little trial career I dont recall every voting anyone to this position. How bout some term limits. This problem of large trials is not new and did not happen overnight. My conversation at a FT means far less than some real recomendations like put forth by you and Ed so I feel like I am wasting my breath. Our sport needs a wholesale change in the way policy is made to include the mass membership.


 
The answer as far as I can tell is that no one knows

I suggest that for those of you who are serious about implementing change you have your club write letters to the RAC and that you have your members who run a number of trials talk to the RAC members

And that you have your delegate to the meetings of the National Clubs at the National Open and the National Am raise the issue at the meetings.

No one is going to effect any change by bitching on the internet.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I suggest that for those of you who are serious about implementing change you have your club write letters to the RAC and that you have your members who run a number of trials talk to the RAC members
> 
> And that you have your delegate to the meetings of the National Clubs at the National Open and the National Am raise the issue at the meetings.
> 
> No one is going to effect any change by bitching on the internet.




Well said, Ted.

kg


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

K G said:


> The Restricted stake has been used sparingly at best since it's availability began about 15 years (or so) ago. Mid-Illinois is my personal favorite for successful use of the Restricted stake. Other clubs have used it to their benefit as well.
> 
> Ed, I've suggested you go for it again. You and I going back and forth will not further the issue. Good luck, and I mean it.
> 
> kg


North Texas has been using the Restricted All-Age Stake for several years, at best it keeps our spring trial entry manageable even though it eliminates all of our young dogs, the rank and file who work the trial prefer that.

Additionally I have orchestrated multiple conflicts which generally help, however last Spring Piney Woods did not hold a trial consequently we had a 72 dog Restricted All-Age, 54 dogs were run by 5 pros. I do not find this an acceptable solution for our club as apparently there will be no Piney Woods this spring either so we are faced the the same or a larger entry. 

Our conflicting trial in Kansas had 64 entries in an Open All-Age with 41 dogs run by 3 pros.

Until there is a change in the composition of the SOR of the RAC my time would be wasted attempting to convince the SOR members that a serious problem exists and that workable solutions exist. 

Until such time we may as well acknowledge that Retriever Field Trials exist primarily for the economic benefit of professional retriever trainers and secondarily for the pleasure of the amateurs who supposedly govern the sport. That we, as amateurs, have little say about the conduct of our sport is patently obvious. Given that reality we may as well break down the barriers so the professional retriever triainers can judge as well. Perhaps if a few of them could experience the joys of judging 100+ dogs they might choose to become a part of the solution rather than a significant part of the problem.

The thing that puzzles me the most is why we are the only competitive dog sport which allows handlers the right to handle unlimited numbers.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> The answer as far as I can tell is that no one knows
> 
> I suggest that for those of you who are serious about implementing change you have your club write letters to the RAC and that you have your members who run a number of trials talk to the RAC members
> 
> ...


Sorry if my useless bitching is wasting your time, Ted.

I will say a lot of folks read and participate on the RTF and I think it does have a impact. If nothing else it brings ideas up that may go unnoticed. For example the likelihood of a alot of folks even finding Marvin's site are/were small. But many numbers of pages regarding his site I am sure is bringing his thoughts to many. The RAC will likely implement some changes with regards to new judges. I am not sure if Marvin's site warrants any credit but change has occurred. I also think for another example that EE would still be a very small project if not for the continued positive response EE gets from RTF. It may have got off the ground but it would have been additional work to get to the success it is now. Communication is a wonderful thing. Others have tried to institute change in the past that have not worked and I am not sure a ground swell of support from the RTF could not help in the future.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Steve

I happen to think that if you want to effect change, you need to get to the decision makers.

I doubt that they care much what is said here.

If they did, there would be no RFTN v. EE fight

If they did, there would be more action on the issue of trial size

I suggest you go to the decision makers

If you want to expend your energy here, have at

I just don't think it makes any difference

It's your time to waste, not mine

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I spoke to Mark Rosenblum today about the issue of trial size and he said that he welcomed discussion on the subject. So I re-submitted a letter that I wrote to the editor of the RFTN in April 2005, which for reasons unknown and unexplained was never published.

Editor, Retriever Field Trial News, Inc.
4379 S. Howell Avenue, Suite 17
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53207-5053
Re: Reducing Trial Size

Dear Retriever Field Trial News Editor:

I resubmit a letter that I initially submitted to you in April 2005. For reasons I do not understand, the letter was never published, despite the fact that in your April 2005 Editorial, the editor stated that it is "time to enact [changes]" to address the issue of trial size and my letter specifically addressed that issue. 


Because there are a number of trials this month in which Open numbers are close to or in excess of 100 dogs, I feel compelled to resubmit my letter. 


The _Standing Recommendations of the Retriever Advisory Committee _make it clear that the All Age Stakes were originally intended to have a maximum of about 65 dogs. Accordingly, paragraph 5 of the _Standing Recommendations _includes a variety of measures to be taken when the All Age Stakes have more than 65 starters. However, for many parts of the country, the days of the 65 dog Open have long since come and gone. For those parts of the country, an 80 dog Open is a delight and a 90-100 dog Open the norm.


It is apparent that the problem of large entries has not been addressed. 


The few options described in the RAC Subcommittee Report of April 2005 have proven to be ineffectual. A wide range of different options ought to be vigorously discussed and vetted. Unfortunately, this has not occurred. In 2004, Ed Aycock and I made a written proposal to the RAC well before the 2004 National Open meeting. Our proposal was never discussed at that meeting or at any subsequent meeting of the RAC. 


I write you in hopes that our proposal - and those of others equally interested in resolving the issue of overlarge trials - will receive full and fair discussion and thoughtful consideration, with the end result that clubs will be given a variety of tools with which to address trial size.


Ed and I proposed that the following method of limiting entries be made available as an option to clubs in dealing with large All Age Entries. 


*Designated Handler/Limited Entry Open *​ 

In the Designated Handler/Limited Entry Open (the "Stake"), entries shall be limited to 65 dogs - or a slightly higher number, if necessary, as described below.


In the Stake, each handler shall designate in numerical order those dogs which the handler wishes to enter in the Stake. Entries 1-5 shall be guaranteed admission into the Stake - whether or not total entries equal or exceed 65 dogs.


If, upon the close of entries, the Field Trial Secretary determines that less than 65 dogs are admitted in the Stake, those handlers who have designated more than 5 dogs for admission in the Stake shall be permitted to enter the dog the handler has previously designated as dog no. 6 into the Stake. If after all such dogs have be admitted into the Stake, the Field Trial Secretary determines that less than 65 dogs are still admitted in the Stake, those handlers who have designated more than 6 dogs for admission in the Stake shall be permitted to enter the dog the handler has previously designated as dog no. 7 into the Stake. This process shall continue until the Field Trial Secretary first determines that entries in the Stake are 65 dogs or more. 


Consider the following examples

The Field Trial Secretary determines upon the close of entries, that if all handlers are permitted to run the dogs that they have designated, including 5 dogs per handler for those handlers who have designated five or more dogs, that 75 dogs would be admitted in the Stake - then the Stake would proceed with 75 dogs, and handlers with more than 5 dogs designated would not be permitted to enter any further dogs in the Stake.

The same situation, only the FTS determines that total entries, when handlers are permitted to enter 5 dogs into the Stake, are 64. Because total entries are less than 65, each handler who has previously designated a sixth dog for potential admission into the stake shall be permitted to enter that sixth dog in the stake. This is true even if the admission of each sixth dog designated by handlers with more than five dogs would result in the Stake having 80 dogs entered. All handlers who had six dogs designated for entry in the Stake would be permitted to enter the dogs that the handlers had previously designated as 1-6 in the stake.


In the event that a dog is scratched for veterinary reasons, if applicable, the handler with multiple dogs may then substitute the next designated dog for inclusion in the Stake. For example, the FTS determines that all handlers with more than 5 dogs may enter up to 7 dogs. Handler X has designated 18 for potential inclusion in the Stake. Handler X’s entry number 6 has come in season. Handler X will be permitted to enter his previously identified dog no. 8 in the trial. However, he will not be permitted to enter dog no. 9 in place of the scratched dog.


In the event that a handler must scratch from a trial, the dogs designated by the scratched handler may be transferred to a substitute handler, provided that: (a) the substitute handler has not previously entered dogs in the Stake; or (b) with the transfer of the scratched dogs, the substitute handler does not have more than the maximum number of dogs permitted per handler. For example, the FTS determines that all handlers with more than 5 dogs may enter up to 8 dogs in the Stake. Handler S has 5 dogs entered in the Stake. Handler T has 2 dogs entered in the Stake. Handler U has 6 dogs entered in the Stake. Handler U scratches from the trial for a family emergency. Handler U may not transfer his 6 dogs to Handler S. However, Handler U may transfer his 6 dogs to Handler T. Alternatively, Handler U may transfer 3 dogs to Handler S and transfer the remaining 3 dogs to Handler T.


This is the basic format of the proposal. If a club wanted to ensure that entries were at a level of 65 dogs or less, it could announce that each handler would be guaranteed no certain number of dogs, but that if the total number of dogs in the stake were over 65, that the number of dogs per handler would be reduced until the total number of dogs was less than or equal to 65 dogs. If the club wanted to simplify the process it could also eliminate the provision for replacing scratched dogs.


In any event, Ed and I believe that our proposal would:



Reduce trial size to 65 dogs - the optimal number contemplated by the _Standing Recommendations of the Retriever Advisory Committee_; and
Provide clubs with an option for reducing trial size which would nevertheless grant equal access to all interested handlers
Obviously, Ed and I believe that our proposal would provide clubs with a reasonable and equitable means of reducing trial size. Of course, we recognize that some may disagree. 


However, we believe that at the very least the merits of our proposal - and those of others - who are attempting to meaningfully address the issue of trial size should be openly discussed and not summarily dismissed. Now is the time for open minds, not closed ones.


Sincerely yours,




Theodore Shih


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Ted,
All sounds well and good, BUT I don't really think that the SOR and the RAC comprehend what you have so eliquently laid out here. It needs to be short and to the point. I didn't understand most of it until I read it for the 48th time. 

I know some of the people on the SOR and I think they run in lock step with a greater power. They have never been receptive to change. They have a real problem with the few changes that they do make and the ones that are made are so menial that it makes you wonder why waste your time. Look how long people has been complaining about this issue. They have been hashing over this for to many years to do anything about it now and they are the ones that would be affected by it the most. Except for two people that I know don't most have their dogs on pro trucks.

We are stuck with the Good Old Boy mentality. Like I have said they need to be voted out and a new crew voted in. I don't know what it would take to get them to step down.

The only other suggestion I would make is that PRTA get envolved but they probably feel they do to much already with all the trials they put on, and the money they give to some clubs for grounds maintanence. After all it is the problem that they have created.

These discussions are good don't discount them. They have made a lot of people aware of what some of the problem are that we face, and may themselves offer some valuable solutions and insight. Discussion is good.


----------



## Matt G (Nov 4, 2004)

Here's a scenario to consider. Of course this raises a whole new set of issues regarding classification of "pro-trained" dogs and "who is really an amateur", but, it could solve some of the issues being discussed. To bring the sport to a point where the average amateur handler is once again in a position to consistently compete in AA stakes, why not get back to letting the pro's do the training and the am's doing the handling?

So let's look at the proposed Open. The Open would be restricted to dogs being handled by true "Amateur" handlers. The dogs can be pro-trained, amateur-trained, or a mixture of both. So this way we've taken the 18-20 dogs on every pro's truck and reduced the entries to the 3-4 clients that would actually be willing to come to the trial to run it. WAIT, you ask, this is essentially the same as the Amateur stake today.

But let's look at the proposed Am. The Am would be restricted to dogs being handled by true "Amateur" handlers, and the dogs can NOT be pro-trained or a mixture of both. Only true "amateur" trained dogs. WAIT you ask. How would this be policed? Simple. The same way that the "amateur" status of handlers is currently policed in today's trials. People know who's training for $$$ and who's not. Just like people know who trains their own dogs and who gets "help on the side". 

WAIT you say. People with pro-trained dogs would just send their dogs to trials with other "Amateurs". Simple fix. Owner/handler open? Is this really that far off?

So now people say "But what about the Pro's and how would they make a living by not winning trials and getting handling fees". I feel two points here. Sure, the big pros will lose out on $1300-$1500 in handler fees per trial, but this could easily be made up in additional training fees (remember, if they're not trialing then technically they could be training client dogs extra days). And if the "training" is truly the reflection of the performance of the dog, wouldn't this be evident by the continued winnings of the pro-trained dogs? Also, this proposal gets the AA stakes of the sport back to the fundamentals of "dogs" winning trials and not "handlers with the most cracks at the test" winning [and yes, this point could be debated until eternity so let's save it for another thread].

So according to this theory, we have effectively reduced entry size, simply by eliminating the entries from clients who simply "own" dogs and check on their placements on Monday morning. Would this be a huge impact? Probably not. But it would definitely put the trials at a more manageable size. Also, we've reduced the number of dogs any one person at the trial is running, making for plenty of people to assist with working the trial (after all, most people there are Am's under this scenario). Hell, since the pro's wouldn't be running in the AA stakes, they could be out there supporting the clubs (what a novel concept)?

Now that the water's chummed, let the frenzy begin.....


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Matt G said:


> Here's a scenario to consider. Of course this raises a whole new set of issues regarding classification of "pro-trained" dogs and "who is really an amateur", but, it could solve some of the issues being discussed. To bring the sport to a point where the average amateur handler is once again in a position to consistently compete in AA stakes, why not get back to letting the pro's do the training and the am's doing the handling?
> 
> So let's look at the proposed Open. The Open would be restricted to dogs being handled by true "Amateur" handlers. The dogs can be pro-trained, amateur-trained, or a mixture of both. So this way we've taken the 18-20 dogs on every pro's truck and reduced the entries to the 3-4 clients that would actually be willing to come to the trial to run it. WAIT, you ask, this is essentially the same as the Amateur stake today.
> 
> ...


 1 Well for starters the open is just that open to anyone and everyone. No one in good standing with the AKC can be refused entry.

2 There are a lot of amatures that have dogs trained by pros and I have no problem with that, most have to work to support their families and support their habit.That's the way life is, remember this is a hobby like model airplanes and the sort.

3 I really don't have a problem with Bob running his training partners dog because Fred had to work that weekend. He is supporting his family. There is already in place the owner handler amature but co- owners are screwing that all up. People will always try to sercumvent a rule if they can gain an advantage.

More Pros should have paid more attention to their mentor and the man who revolutionized this sport for us all to enjoy. How many trials did Rex Carr run?


----------



## Matt G (Nov 4, 2004)

Barry said:


> 1 Well for starters the open is just that open to anyone and everyone. No one in good standing with the AKC can be refused entry.
> 
> 2 There are a lot of amateurs that have dogs trained by pros and I have no problem with that, most have to work to support their families and support their habit.That's the way life is, remember this is a hobby like model airplanes and the sort.
> 
> ...


1. I see your point Barry, but my proposal would change that ideal so the Open is just that...open to every DOG (pro and amateur trained) and not every handler.

2. Again, I see your point. Pros provide a way for people to work and support their families (although I'll say that keeping a dog with a pro can often jeopardize feeding one's family  ). And remembering that this is, as you say, a HOBBY, why are the people who enjoy it (just as amateurs flying airplanes) competing against people who are making a living off of it?

3. I'm not seeing your point here. So a few of the entries will be co-owners and be run by amateurs with a few of their buddies dogs. I'll take my chances with those in a smaller venue than against a pro with 18 bullets. Wouldn't you?


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Matt G said:


> 1. I see your point Barry, but my proposal would change that ideal so the Open is just that...open to every DOG (pro and amateur trained) and not every handler.
> 
> 2. Again, I see your point. Pros provide a way for people to work and support their families (although I'll say that keeping a dog with a pro can often jeopardize feeding one's family  ). And remembering that this is, as you say, a HOBBY, why are the people who enjoy it (just as amateurs flying airplanes) competing against people who are making a living off of it?
> 
> 3. I'm not seeing your point here. So a few of the entries will be co-owners and be run by amateurs with a few of their buddies dogs. I'll take my chances with those in a smaller venue than against a pro with 18 bullets. Wouldn't you?


I really don't mind running against the pros in fact it's fun and most are good people. I just don't want to run against ALL of them in the same weekend,
and I should also add that I don't want to judge them ALL in the same weekend, or want to put on a trial for all of them in the same weekend.


----------



## Matt G (Nov 4, 2004)

Barry said:


> I really don't mind running against the pros in fact it's fun and most are good people. I just don't want to run against ALL of them in the same weekend.


And the majority of the field trial community (along with myself) probably maintains the exact sentiment. However, your last statement will continue to caveat statements such as your first until the actions of many are carried out on proposals such as the ones discussed in this thread.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Ted,
Your proposal using 65 as a base number is a good start. It seems to help regulate entries/ handler but leaves open the total number of entries the club must accept. A possible abuse of your proposed system is the pro-team/staff. For example, an initial limit of 5 dogs/ handler would allow a Farmer/Denicus or Baird/Cicero a guarantee of 10 dogs off their respective trucks. 

Clubs still need the ability to cap the total entry. For example a definite cap with mutiple entries with the same handler only being accepted by lottery to reach the cap.

Tim


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

could this be the beginning of the end.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

kip said:


> could this be the beginning of the end.


This is Bill Murray in Groundhog Day except instead of the timeframe of a day it is a year. 

It dejavu all over again with Ed and Ted exactly right on target again.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Does anyone not agree with this other than those that belong to PRTA


----------



## lablover (Dec 17, 2003)

Unless I've missed it, I haven't seen anyone comment on the pressure a very large entry puts on the judges.
Look at Snowbird with 103 Open entries, I think. They will not finish the first series on Friday. Those that are carried to the second series will have to step on all marks in the first series, and probably have no more that 3 whistles on the second series blinds. There will be a 50% cut if not more on those 2 series. With a smaller entry, some of those dog may have made it to the third or fiurth series.
The judges will have to cut the field ASAP to get the event finished on Sunday... even those dogs that did good, but not excellent. I don't really think they like being in that position. AT least the handlers know this going in.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> For example, an initial limit of 5 dogs/ handler would allow a Farmer/Denicus or Baird/Cicero a guarantee of 10 dogs off their respective trucks.


yeah and their owners could run them too, what better way to restore the competitive balance, who wouldn't prefer to run against Farmer's assistant and his owners, ultimately the target number is reached by removing the overage one dog and one handler at a time or when the target number is reached everyone who has more dogs to enter gets to enter one more

you can't use a lottery to remove dogs as that is too easy to abuse, the dogs are removed systematically the person entering having chosen a priority list so that those lowest on the list are removed first

My personal preference is to allow the club to choose the cap or target number so long as it exceeds 60 dogs. Professional handlers submit their entries number 1 through whatever with 1 being the highest priority. Each handler in sequence enters a dog, then another dog, and another until the target number is reached, then the remaining handlers can enter one more dog. Obviously at a normal sized trial anyone entering one to three dogs would be entered, the only handlers affected are the pros with large groups of dogs, but since they have the option of prioritizing their own entries they will have a pretty good idea of which dogs will run at any trial using the proposed Limited Entry Open all-Age Stake.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

lablover said:


> Unless I've missed it, I haven't seen anyone comment on the pressure a very large entry puts on the judges.
> Look at Snowbird with 103 Open entries, I think. They will not finish the first series on Friday. Those that are carried to the second series will have to step on all marks in the first series, and probably have no more that 3 whistles on the second series blinds. There will be a 50% cut if not more on those 2 series. With a smaller entry, some of those dog may have made it to the third or fiurth series.
> The judges will have to cut the field ASAP to get the event finished on Sunday... even those dogs that did good, but not excellent. I don't really think they like being in that position. AT least the handlers know this going in.


That's *122* entries in the Open.....103 in Am, but with the same circumstances you mentioned....

The good thing (in a warped sort of way....) is that if they DO have to carry over to Monday, most all of the Open participants are wintering in that area. Carrying over IS an option....not the _best_ one, but surely not the worst one.

Just throwing that out there regards, ;-)

kg


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Having been in one of these discussions a year ago I have a greater appreciation for each clubs circumstances. IMO - the one size fits all approach to this issue does not take into account each clubs desires &/or unique issues. The machinery should be put into place to allow the following options:

1) Continue as the clubs presently operate

2) Do the Ed A - Ted S thing - which I disagree with but it should be an option

3) Allow clubs that have the resources to operate as HT clubs do - holding more than 1 of a given stake on a single weekend. Participants would be limited to running only 1 of a given stake. 

4) Allow clubs to hold an Amateur Only trial as long as the next trial held by the club was an Open Only. If the visiting pro's are so anxious to have a trial they can put on a conflicting PRTA trial. 

5) Give consideration to limiting the number of trials a dog can enter in a given year &/or limit participation to a geographical area, allowing x number of trials out of area.

Under no circumstances should there be restrictions that do not allow a club to operate the business model that best suits them or discriminates against the members that bear the burden. & that's why I believe all the above should be presented to the SOR-RAC as the proposal to deal with large entries.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Henry V said:


> This is Bill Murray in Groundhog Day except instead of the timeframe of a day it is a year.
> 
> It dejavu all over again with Ed and Ted exactly right on target again.


I love that movie.

What I don't get is way anyone would continue to beat their head into the wall of such huge #'s only to go home without even getting past the first series. 
I enjoy compitition, but this seems more like some horrible act of self abuse that would make a good Dr.Phil episode.
I can't be fun to work so hard only to face a certain blood bath in the first because the big #'s and the only people that are truly benifiting are being paid to be there.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Here are the proposals that I submitted - in writing - to the RAC in 2004 (Yes, it has been that long)


*Require *that clubs hold a *Limited* stake whenever Open entries in the previous year are more than 65. (At the present time, use of a limited stake is optional.
*Require *that clubs hold a *Special *stake whenever Limited entries in the previous year are more than 65. (Again, at the present time, use of a special stake is optional.)
*Require *that clubs hold a *Restricted *stake whenever Special entries in the previous year are more than 65. (Again, at the present time, use of a restricted stake is optional.)
Introduction of a new stake - call it for discussion purposes a *Special Restricted *stake (for dogs that have earned an All Age point in the previous calendar year) whenever Restricted entries in the previous year are more than 65.
First come, first served. Entries accepted on first come, first served basis until 65 dogs entered in Open. If an envelope contains the 65 entry, any additional entries in that envelope will also be entered. Subsequent entries will be rejected.
Random entry. All Open entries thrown in a container. 65 entries selected from container at random. 
Limit the number of Open and Amateur stakes a dog can run. For example, say that the limit is set at 15 Opens and 15 Ams. After a dog has run 15 Opens, it is precluded from running any more Opens. Similarly, after a dog has run 15 Ams, it is precluded from running any more Ams.
Announce that the club will accept 65 entries in a Special (which I view to be the most restrictive existing limitation on trials) without reservation. However, if entries in the Special are more than 65, the club will accept only 5 entries per handler. In the event that having a 5 entry per handler limitation does not result in more than 65 entries, the club will permit 6 entries per handler. This progression continues until entries equal or exceed 65. As a practical matter, this would mean that the Special would probably be between 65-75 dogs.
Permit FT clubs to hold an Amateur stake without requiring that they also hold an Open stake;
Place a limit on the number of dogs any handler may run in the Open;
Create an Owner/Handler Open stake.


----------



## pafromga (Jul 16, 2006)

Don't we just need more trials???


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Golddogs said:


> What I don't get is way anyone would continue to beat their head into the wall of such huge #'s only to go home without even getting past the first series.
> I enjoy compitition, but this seems more like some horrible act of self abuse that would make a good Dr.Phil episode.
> I can't be fun to work so hard only to face a certain blood bath in the first because the big #'s and the only people that are truly benifiting are being paid to be there.


You run the trial because
- it is in your backyard, and there are a limited number of trials close to home (Amateur)
- if you don't it only makes it easier for your competitor to win (mostly Pro)
- there are only so many trials to either title or qualify your dog (Amateur/Pro)
- it's how you earn a living (Pro)


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

pafromga said:


> Don't we just need more trials???


Who is going to put them on?
Where are you going to put them on?


----------



## pafromga (Jul 16, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> Here are the proposals that I submitted - in writing - to the RAC in 2004 (Yes, it has been that long)
> 
> 
> *Require *that clubs hold a *Limited* stake whenever Open entries in the previous year are more than 65. (At the present time, use of a limited stake is optional.
> ...


But------------you will be telling alot of dogs to stay at home.
We train our dogs 5 or 6 days a week or we pay alot of money to have our dogs trained. We are going to want those competing and not sitting in the kennel.


----------



## pafromga (Jul 16, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> Who is going to put them on?
> Where are you going to put them on?


maybe we should be trying to start up new clubs.

i just joined a new start up FT club in North Carolina and am working in the derby.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

If you don't want big trials, someone has to stay at home on a given weekend


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

pafromga said:


> Don't we just need more trials???


That's what the SOR has been telling us, but it isn't happening, and where it's happening (Texas) the entries are larger than ever. It's logical, more trials = more chances for pros to run their dogs with minimal travel. To have enough more trials to matter would require an unprecedented influx of new grounds, new participants willing to hold trials, and new judges to judge all the new trials.

The solution (if anyone wants one) will not be so simple and painless.

What we need is new thinking and a new approach.

Problem solution begins with the recognition that a problem exists.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

pafromga said:


> But------------you will be telling alot of dogs to stay at home.
> We train our dogs 5 or 6 days a week or we pay alot of money to have our dogs trained. We are going to want those competing and not sitting in the kennel.


This is a classic if it is serious. Are you saying that just because you send your dog to a trainer and spend lots of money my club is obligated to hold a field trial for you? Please, never forget that you won't have any events to run if a bunch of volunteers do not give up their own time to work their freakin tails off. Clubs make $10 -$25 per entry at a FT. Hunt tests and other dog events are a much easier way for clubs to make money.

This issue is about letting clubs have the discretion to fairly cap *their event *entries at a reasonable number if they so choose so that they can run a quality event for all involved.

Search on "limited entry" and you will see this has all been discussed at even more length before.


----------



## Barb/x2crr (Oct 18, 2005)

I judged an 115 dog Open, it is no picnic. Especially if they don't have the help. Everyone seems miserable. The workers are over worked, the judges feel pressured to cut dogs because of time and the contests are complaining because they spent alot of money to go home early. Specials and Restricted trials also increase the size of the Qualifying. If you club has to hold Specials and Restricted several years in a row, it penalizes the young dog from becoming eligiable to run. 

Personally, I like the Idea of limiting the number of entries a handler could run, say 5 or what ever amount the club decided, most pros have more than that. If they can not run thier whole truck at a peticuliar trial most would choose not to come because it doesn't pay for them. Which cuts down the numbers. If the pro did come knowing he only could handle some of his dogs, an amatuer could run thier own dog if so stated on entry. They perhaps could pay their pro a transportation fee and still make it worth while for the pro. This way the amatuer isn't penalized by not having their dog entered. 

By only holding Amatuers, the dogs are still penalized by not getting thier FC points and qualiflying for those Specials.


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

If Am only events are held, what do you think the number of entries will be when there is no Open stake offered? For example, in a typical trial with 55 - 65 Am entries, what would those number be if there were no Open stake at the same trial? 

Will the measures proposed to limit trial size limit growth of our sport and actually be detrimental to the sport in the long run? Restrictive measures limit competition, and the high degree of competition is what makes the FC and AFC titles so desireable. I still like the idea of conflicting trials close enough to each other to be effective. However, I do recognize the need to be creative in finding a solution to the problem when conflicting trials are not working. Limiting the number of trials a dog can run in a calendar year seems to have merit without causing unintended consequences. I just think that we need to be very careful that our remedies don't become our downfall.

Frank


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

> Will the measures proposed to limit trial size limit growth of our sport


For those of us who do not depend on this sport for our livelihood, why is it important to have growth in our sport?

It seems to me that we currently have more than enough participants and could stand to have a few less.

Jeff


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

How would using flights work? Its done for the hunt tests.Yes its two more judges,and more help.....but it gets done all the time.And yes ,you might get the hanging judges in one flight,and the kinder judges in the other,but they are not stressed to make kookie cuts to manage the numbers.And yes,you would have two sets of placements,and nana nana bo boo I won with the harder judges......that occurs too....so what.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Jay Dufour said:


> How would using flights work? Its done for the hunt tests.Yes its two more judges,and more help.....but it gets done all the time.And yes ,you might get the hanging judges in one flight,and the kinder judges in the other,but they are not stressed to make kookie cuts to manage the numbers.And yes,you would have two sets of placements,and nana nana bo boo I won with the harder judges......that occurs too....so what.


I think it is somewhat different for FT than HT in that in the former, you are seeking a winner and placements, and in the latter, you are seeking passes against a standard


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Bayou Magic said:


> If Am only events are held, what do you think the number of entries will be when there is no Open stake offered? For example, in a typical trial with 55 - 65 Am entries, what would those number be if there were no Open stake at the same trial?
> 
> Will the measures proposed to limit trial size limit growth of our sport and actually be detrimental to the sport in the long run? Restrictive measures limit competition, and the high degree of competition is what makes the FC and AFC titles so desireable. I still like the idea of conflicting trials close enough to each other to be effective. However, I do recognize the need to be creative in finding a solution to the problem when conflicting trials are not working. Limiting the number of trials a dog can run in a calendar year seems to have merit without causing unintended consequences. I just think that we need to be very careful that our remedies don't become our downfall.
> 
> Frank


Frank

Before the RAC embarked on its so-called efforts to address trial size, the Rule Book used to REQUIRE the use of a limited if an Open was 65 dogs or more. That reflected a belief that judging more than 65 dogs created a problem.

However, a year or two ago, the RAC recommended a Rule Change that allowed clubs that had trials of over 65 dogs to have the OPTION of having a Limited, Special, or Restricted. That Rule Change passed. But, then the AKC would not allow a club to have an Open if its previous Open had 65 or more starters. 

Explain that.

If you look at trials across the country, you will find that the 100 dog Opens occur

- In California, Florida/Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas in the Winter
- In Colorado, Montana, Dakotas/Minnesota in the Summer

In Texas, at least the proposed solution of conflicting trials is not working.

The Points are these:
- Restricted trials work in reducing numbers, but penalize club workers
- The Limited Entries per handler is not Mandatory, if your club wants a big trial, it can have one
- The Limited Entries per handler would likely only be considered by a relatively small number of clubs across the country

So, why not allow a handful of clubs choose to have a Limited Entries per handler event?

Ted


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Maybe I am missing something or just not thatsmart but I can think of only one thing thats good about a trial around a hundred dogs and thats money.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Ted, I agree with you that having "flights" would be different in a FT than in a HT since you have to pick a winner.

I do think that Jay still brings a valid option. If expressed in the premium in advance, why not allow for "flights" at a FT. The judges would have to be announced in advance. Explain that if the entries did not total X amount for both flights or trials that the stake would be combined and that the first pair of judges would be used.

To me this would be the ultimate use of "conflicting trials"!


John


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

EdA said:


> The solution (if anyone wants one) will not be so simple and painless.
> 
> What we need is new thinking and a new approach.


I agree that no solution is painless. 



Bayou Magic said:


> If Am only events are held, what do you think the number of entries will be when there is no Open stake offered? For example, in a typical trial with 55 - 65 Am entries, what would those number be if there were no Open stake at the same trial?


Maybe the 4 or 5 pros that usually run the open that weekend would buck up to put on their own Open only event. ;-)

Or provide help to the club that they want to run to encourage an open or restricted or whatever.



Ted Shih said:


> I think it is somewhat different for FT than HT in that in the former, you are seeking a winner and placements, and in the latter, you are seeking passes against a standard


There are a lot of clubs that don't have the resources for 2 master stakes. Many are not memeber of the Master national for that very reason. Additionally, there is a huge difference in the amount of grounds required to hold 2 All-age stakes vs. 2 master tests. You can hold 2 master tests in the amount of land required for 1 all-age stake. ;-)


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

jeff t. said:


> For those of us who do not depend on this sport for our livelihood, why is it important to have growth in our sport?
> 
> It seems to me that we currently have more than enough participants and could stand to have a few less.
> 
> Jeff


Wow! That's a crappy thing to say. I just got into this sport. I have been doing it for 3 years along with my friend. There is one other FT newbie up here (Anchorage) and he is being mentored by Roy McFall. So three new people within the same amount of years, that's not alot of growth. I don't know about you guys down there, but the average FT peson here is retirement age, of which there are around 15 people who actively train, trial and participate in the running of trials. My friend and I are the youngest at 30+ and me at 45years. When those guys move, quite the sport, or cross the bridge, then we won't have the sport up here.

I dream of one day being good enough to spend the money and run one of your trials. I dream of being able to play and stay in. I am thankful that someone took the time to bring me into the sport that you don't think needs to grow.....


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

John Gassner said:


> Ted, I agree with you that having "flights" would be different in a FT than in a HT since you have to pick a winner.
> 
> I do think that Jay still brings a valid option. If expressed in the premium in advance, why not allow for "flights" at a FT. The judges would have to be announced in advance. Explain that if the entries did not total X amount for both flights or trials that the stake would be combined and that the first pair of judges would be used.
> 
> ...



Spot on. In essence you are having 2 FT's running at the same time on the same grounds. 

Prolly to simple of an idea.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

WHAT IF in a 100+ dog trial - the 2 judges said to each other "let's set this trial up so we give all the dogs the same consideration that they would get in a 65 dog trial" & did the tests & callbacks accordingly. Would that be FAIR? Would that also mean there would be the possibility of rather than a Monday trial - a TUESDAY trial? Would there be workers & grounds available to conduct the finale? Is that what needs to happen to get the attention of the SOR?


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

ftrjuj said:


> WHAT IF in a 100+ dog trial - the 2 judges said to each other "let's set this trial up so we give all the dogs the same consideration that they would get in a 65 dog trial" & did the tests & callbacks accordingly. Would that be FAIR? Would that also mean there would be the possibility of rather than a Monday trial - a TUESDAY trial? Would there be workers & grounds available to conduct the finale? Is that what needs to happen to get the attention of the SOR?


I have said before that without seeing ALL the dogs for 4 series you may really have picked the best dog to win.

As far as holding a trial for five days may allow the judges more time but likely because of conditions ALL dogs will still not get a fair shot. Fair in the FT game is a relative term.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> you can't use a lottery to remove dogs as that is too easy to abuse, the dogs are removed systematically the person entering having chosen a priority list so that those lowest on the list are removed first


Not sure I understand how a lottery could be abused. This is the system that agility went to when trial sizes became outrageous. Now, more trials have appeared and it's not so hard to enter your dog anymore. 

I do see an abuse of a pro prioritizing a dog. Does that mean I have to kiss my pro's behind more than someone else to get him to run my dogs? How does a pro remain impartial and pick the dogs to run? Or, how do I as a amatuer explain to poor Gavel that I'm running Honor this weekend and not him? What's a good mom to do?


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

I have a question to all who put the blame on PRTA.
Whose dogs are with Pro X, Pro Y and Pro Z that are members of PRTA?
Do Pros X,Y,Z call "You" and ask to train "your dog" or run it at this trial?? As owners of these dogs "You"still own the checkbook. IF you don't think that your dog is ready or the entry is going to be too big than tell your Pro. that you don't want your dog entered.
For Example: Your dog is all-aged qual. but has never finished an Open.Would I enter him @ Snowbird and run against NAFC,NFC,FC-AFC? NO WAY. 
The reason that Snowbird is soooooooooo big is pretty obvious. If the trial was held say in May or last part of April do you think that the entries would still be that large??? 
As far as members running their dogs at their own club's trials...........If your dog is qualified than run it. If it's not, either train it to be competitive at that level or run it where appropriate.
As far as splitting these big Opens like HT , that's more grounds , more help,more $, lots of more more more.Good idea but?????????????
Lots of question put out there for ya.
Probably stirring the pot for others?
Sue


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I think the key is to offer clubs THAT WANT THEM to have options

If a club wants to have big trials - and some clearly do - why not let them do so?

If a club can support two Opens, then why not allow it to do so?
If a club only wants to hold an Am, why not allow it to do so?
If a club wants to have a limited entry per handler trial, why not allow it to do so?

We are not talking about either/or, we are talking about options.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

ginger69 said:


> The reason that Snowbird is soooooooooo big is pretty obvious. If the trial was held say in May or last part of April do you think that the entries would still be that large???


Does it really matter why the trials are so big?

Why not allow clubs that WANT A SMALLER TRIAL a mechanism for doing so?



ginger69 said:


> As far as members running their dogs at their own club's trials...........If your dog is qualified than run it. If it's not, either train it to be competitive at that level or run it where appropriate.


And what do you do when the workers revolt because they don't want to put on a trial that they cannot run?

And what do you make of the rule that REQUIRES clubs to put on an Open, if they put on an Amateur ... eliminating their ability to put on a trial simply for their members?


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

JusticeDog said:


> Not sure I understand how a lottery could be abused. This is the system that agility went to when trial sizes became outrageous. Now, more trials have appeared and it's not so hard to enter your dog anymore.


That's because you weren't running trials when the running order was selected by a "draw" before the Dow and you weren't one of the 1st dogs to run in the first 6 trials you ran becaus nobody knew who you were. ;-)

Using the Dow for the 1st dog to run was a result of abused draws in the past. So, I understand Ed's point.



JusticeDog said:


> I do see an abuse of a pro prioritizing a dog. Does that mean I have to kiss my pro's behind more than someone else to get him to run my dogs? How does a pro remain impartial and pick the dogs to run? Or, how do I as a amatuer explain to poor Gavel that I'm running Honor this weekend and not him? What's a good mom to do?


I think Ed's thinking is that is between you and your pro. I think that is one of the major problems with Ed & Ted's proposal.

I do think the Agility model is an alternative for limiting trial size. Maybe a more palatable alternative.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Just throwing this out there - at a trial/test in Germany they did a round robin kind of scoring for the dogs - the dogs were split up and told to go to the various stakes and when they were done to go to the other - each judge kept a score for each dog and at the end of the day the scores were added up and a winner/placements figured out - all dogs got to run all day and even you had one judge that was "tougher" than some other judge it all washed out in the end......I thought it was a neat idea - I think in the case of a "tie" those dogs with a group of judges were asked to run another series......

FOM


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

Betcha you could recruit more help with two sets of placements.Just thinking out of the box....Yes,space is the biggest concern....but we have that in the spillway.


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> Frank
> 
> Before the RAC embarked on its so-called efforts to address trial size, the Rule Book used to REQUIRE the use of a limited if an Open was 65 dogs or more. That reflected a belief that judging more than 65 dogs created a problem.
> 
> ...


Ted,

I fully understand the process you are proposing would be optional to the clubs, and you and others certainly have my gratitude for attempting to address the problem. My concern is that the process would become a tool to limit competition in the Open and have a negative impact on the Am. As you and others have stated, it will certainly limit participation of some club members with dogs that would not be qualified to run the limited, special, or restricted Opens. 

Some questions that come to mind are:

1. Would restrictions as proposed simply shift dogs from being handled by pros to being handled by the owners instead? All pro handled dogs? Of course not, but my guess is a significant number would be run by the Am owners instead of the pros. The end result may not be as much of a decrease in Open numbers as anticipated.

2. How would you manage the pro teams that have 2 very capable handlers that operate under a single business? Would that single business be allowed 10 dogs vs the 5 as intended?

3. What would be the effect on the Am stakes? If more Ams attend the trial to run their dog in the open, wouldn't they logically enter the dog in the Am also, likely increasing Am entry numbers?

4. Some have proposed allowing clubs to hold Am only events. Wouldn't that greatly swell the number of Am entries to the point that the Am events have entries as large as some of the Opens?

5. What would be the result of limiting the number of Opens a dog can run in one calendar year to say, 12-14? If implemented, how would this be monitored and enforced? 

I don’t have the answers to these questions. They are put forward for discussion. We need to be extremely careful and understand the consequences of proposed rule changes before they are accepted. Once passed, they might be just as difficult to modify or rescind if necessary.

Frank


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Bayou Magic said:


> 1. Would restrictions as proposed simply shift dogs from being handled by pros to being handled by the owners instead? All pro handled dogs? Of course not, but my guess is a significant number would be run by the Am owners instead of the pros. The end result may not be as much of a decrease in Open numbers as anticipated.
> 
> 2. How would you manage the pro teams that have 2 very capable handlers that operate under a single business? Would that single business be allowed 10 dogs vs the 5 as intended?
> 
> ...


Frank, the entry problems exist in the OPEN not the Amateur, there will not be some huge unexpected influx of Amateurs, that number is more or less finite.

Why would a big time pro split his string with his/her assistant, doesn't he/she stand a better chance of success of winning if he/she ran them all, and if the did so what, the goal of this proposed stake is to make the entry size manageable, how the participants choose to allocate themselves is their decision.

And last but not least THIS PROPOSED STAKE IS TO BE OPTIONAL FOR THOSE CLUB WHO CHOOSE TO CONTROL THE SIZE OF THEIR ENTRY. Why is this such a difficult concept, none of the other restrictive stakes are requirements they are OPTIONS for clubs who choose to utilize them.

I know how to keep the entry size down at our trial but in doing so we penalize the very people who are responsible for supporting and maintaining the sport.


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

Frank,
Most of the Am owners of the dogs that really swell the numbers are still up north with snow up to their waist. So I don't think there would be a huge increase in Am numbers.

Texas has two problems to deal with - great winter weather and cheap (compared to other parts of the country) land that is well suited to training of retrievers. It is no accident that many Pros winter here. That will not change, nor do I think it should. That is the rub - Open MEANS no limits to entry.

PS - I suggested long ago that we campaign to change the rules that require an Open be run at a liensed event that awards AA points. Instead require liensed clubs to hold at least one Open a year. If they want to do that in the fall - thats ok. If they want to hold only a Am in the Spring - that is great too. Pros that come down more to campaign than to train will simply go somewhere else, or maybe host trials themselves.


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

Bayou Magic said:


> *I fully understand the process you are proposing would be optional to the clubs*, and you and others certainly have my gratitude for attempting to address the problem.


Ed,

Trust me. I get the OPTIONAL part of your proposal. 

I'm not saying that a pro would split his truck - just the opposite. I'm saying that by using an employee (assistant trainer) as a second handler, some pros would possibly be able to enter twice the number of dogs intended.

fp


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> I think the key is to offer clubs THAT WANT THEM to have options
> 
> If a club wants to have big trials - and some clearly do - why not let them do so?
> 
> ...


Ted, I have read most, if not all, of what you have written in this thread. I agree completely with what you and Ed stated. I commend the both of you for what you have done thus far and I hope you will continue the fight.
I believe this quote states the overall point of view the best!!!!

OPTIONS, OPTIONS, OPTIONS!!!!!!!!!

Giving clubs OPTIONS instead of pigeon-holing them.

Please continue the fight, you both have considerable amount of weight in this sport. Please use it!!!!


----------



## Lab-Kid (Aug 26, 2005)

Ed:

First of all, I support your proposal completely. I think it is the most effective and considered proposal I've seen and, as such, won't vote for any other proposal put forward to address trial sizes until your proposal is put to a vote.

However, I don't think this statement is entirely correct:



EdA said:


> Frank, the entry problems exist in the OPEN not the Amateur,


While the large opens are a problem, the 80-90 dog am's that only have two days to finish are an even bigger problem. I think we need to address that too.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Bayou Magic said:


> a second handler, some pros would possibly be able to enter twice the number of dogs intended.fp


I personally don't care how many dogs Pro A or Pro B run so long as I/we, as a club, have the option to control our own destiny. The proposed Limited Entry Stake is just that, how those numbers shake out is not the issue, the number of pros that enter a given trial will influence how many of their dogs they can run, potentially if a trial has one pro with a big string (15-18) and a couple with moderate strings (6 to 8) they would probably all fit under the cap.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Lab-Kid said:


> the 80-90 dog am's that only have two days to finish are an even bigger problem. I think we need to address that too.


a problem but a different kind of problem
1. generally the handlers are not as good
2. generally the dogs are not as good or at least not as proficient as they are with their professional handlers
3. on one runs so many dogs that they learn how to "run the test"
4. the tests do not have to be as demanding because of 1,2, & 3 above.
5. Friday starts are always an option
6. if the open entry numbers are controlled the amateur entries will mirror that
IMHO......and I'd much rather bust my rear for fellow amateurs......


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> That's because you weren't running trials when the running order was selected by a "draw" before the Dow and you weren't one of the 1st dogs to run in the first 6 trials you ran becaus nobody knew who you were. ;-)
> 
> Using the Dow for the 1st dog to run was a result of abused draws in the past. So, I understand Ed's point.


Ok, thanks DOug. Now I understand. I was thinking of the agility model.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> 1. generally the handlers are not as good


 
Glad you said generally, as I'm thinking of Jim and Judy Powers, the Dubose's, etc. etc. in this circuit. Then in Texas, there's that Judy Aycock


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

ginger69 said:


> I have a question to all who put the blame on PRTA......
> Sue


I could not let this pass without a response.

Let's be clear. No one here is saying anything against the PRTA or professional trainers. The PRTA has stepped up to offer trials to help and that's great, but it does not solve the problem.

This is about giving clubs the option to limit their entries. It is based on doing something that is good for clubs which are the backbone of dog events (i.e., no clubs = no events). It will affect pros and the dogs run by them but it is not an "anti-pro" proposal.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

EdA said:


> The solution (if anyone wants one) will not be so simple and painless.
> 
> What we need is new thinking and a new approach.
> 
> Problem solution begins with the recognition that a problem exists.


Hey, Ed...

When you and Theo get done whipping the RAC into submission, can I get you guys to help me with 2 or 3 of the following (your choice, of course):

1. Nuclear Nonproliferation

2. Social Security Reform

3. World Peace

4. Counter-Terrorism

5. A Term Paper on Emergency Management

Seeking Helpful Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

ginger69 said:


> As far as members running their dogs at their own club's trials...........If your dog is qualified than run it. If it's not, either train it to be competitive at that level or run it where appropriate.


Qualified for a limited or a special is one thing; qualified for a Restricted is something else entirely. Mitch Patterson told me when he ran Desi for the last time at our trial, that it may be the last time he has a dog qualified to run our trial!!! 

My young dog Jammed 4 of the last 10 Amateurs she ran over the last 2 years. Yet she wasn't lucky enough to place and qualify her for a restricted. Unfortunately, I judged 4 trials last year (3 trials in 4 weeks when I should have been running her instead). She hasn't run 20 all-age stakes in her life!!! Most all of the dogs that ran in the RESTRICTED ran more than 30 all-age stakes LAST YEAR!!!! The playing field ain't level!!!

For the Open to not finish the 1st series on Friday puts a sever strain on the club's resources. We tried to limit entries with the only option we have, a restricted. Still, the last two years neither Restricted stake finished on Friday. We had 76 entries in our *RESTRICTED* last year. NO CLUB MEMBERS could enter a dog. We aren't a very big club, only a handfull of amateurs that do almost all their own training. Several members have had multiple titled dogs.

Having no trial, or no all-age stakes is rapidly becoming an attractive alternative.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Could not let post # 155 slip by without comment. Please remember I am from the peanut gallary and know little about anything.

Most club members are workers at the events, I am completely in agreement with #155 that a continous line of restricted stakes where I am not qualified to entered would sour my desire to work constantly. I enjoy the give back but all please remember most club members that host these events want to compete and run thier dogs also.

At the same time I recognize the resources neccessary however please do not lose sight of keeping your upcommings seeds for the future.
Dave Kress

As Poyeye says "I am what I am"


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> Hey, Ed...
> 
> When you and Theo get done whipping the RAC into submission, can I get you guys to help me with 2 or 3 of the following (your choice, of course):
> 
> ...


ya forgot

6. Health care reform........


----------



## DSemple (Feb 16, 2008)

_I think a good solution would be to limit entries by net worth or income level!_

It would keep idiots like myself and maybe 1/3 of the participants, who through no fault of their own may have stumbled upon a good dog, from mortgaging thier childrens education or their own retirement. 

....Don Semple


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Bayou Magic said:


> Some questions that come to mind are:
> 
> 1. Would restrictions as proposed simply shift dogs from being handled by pros to being handled by the owners instead? All pro handled dogs? Of course not, but my guess is a significant number would be run by the Am owners instead of the pros. The end result may not be as much of a decrease in Open numbers as anticipated.
> 
> ...


1) It is possible that more dogs would be amateur run in the Open. However, if you study the composition of big trials (90+ dogs) you will find that they are typically the result of several (2-4) big dog trucks either wintering or summering away from their home turf ... and that most of the owners are not in a position to run their dogs. 

So, we would have to see, but I suspect numbers would decrease.

2) The proposal that Ed and I have proposed would not restrict the number of handlers that a pro truck could use to get its dogs run. Note however, that if the club chose a hard cut off (say 65 dogs) it is possible that no handler could run more than 5-6 dogs

3) See number 1 above. Big trials are typically the result of multiple big dog trucks whose amateurs do not attend the trials

4) I think that if the AKC allows clubs to only hold an Open, qual, or derby, there is no reason not to allow a club to only hold an Amateur. As for swelling of Amateur entries see 1 and 2 above. It is rare that you have the Snowbird effect (equal numbers of dogs in Open and Am) because by and large, the pro trucks have several dogs whose owners cannot run either the Open or the Am.

5) I think limiting the number of trials could be monitored relatively easy - assuming that either RFTN or EE was placed in charge of the task. If you receive the Feb/Mar edition of RFTN they give you information on the number of trials a dog has run, placed, jammed, etc. 

The problem with limiting the number of trials a dog could run is that it requires UNIVERSAL buy in. I don't think that would ever happen.

It is easier to propose options for each club to implement.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

The wintering grounds are not the only one that get the fall out of larger trials. We also have the local pros and the one that time with their return home trip to stop at our spring trials.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

To answer or try to Doug's response to his dog and trials. While you "volunteered to judge " trials is your business.Your dog could have been trialed.?? Or put with a Pro.? That's a given. So the Pro-run dogs run 20-25 trials a year? So?? it's what we all pay them the big $$$ to do right??We also feel happier knowing they have the experience,training grounds and the time we don't because we have other jobs or family commitments.
The thread started because of "Snowbird's Trial". We know why that's big. Why are the other trials soooooooo big?? 
What about Amateur/handler Opens?? Then club members can run their own dogs and be able to work at the club's event?? In the case of Mid-ILL., have the Amat./Handler Open no Amat.,and a Derby?? Than Doug you could run your big dog in the Open and your baby dog in the Derby.
Also what about hiring a group to help throw,etc... Other clubs have done that.
Just some ideas and observations.
Sue


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

ginger69 said:


> To answer or try to Doug's response to his dog and trials. While you "volunteered to judge " trials is your business.Your dog could have been trialed.?? Or put with a Pro.? That's a given. So the Pro-run dogs run 20-25 trials a year? So?? it's what we all pay them the big $$$ to do right??We also feel happier knowing they have the experience,training grounds and the time we don't because we have other jobs or family commitments.
> The thread started because of "Snowbird's Trial". We know why that's big.
> 
> Why are the other trials soooooooo big??
> ...


Sue

I am not sure what you are saying here.

First, the reason that the trials in Texas and Florida are large, is that there are a large number of pro trucks wintering in those areas. That is a fact.

Second, the people that are putting on the trials in Texas and Florida, by and large, are locals. That is also a fact.

Third, some of those people object to have to put on such large trials.
Moreover, some of those people - for example, the North Texas club - do not have their dogs run off a pro truck.

Why exactly do you object to those people having some mechanism by which they can limit entries at the trials that they put on?

As for your suggestion about having an Amateur Handler Open, there is no such beast, and creation of one would require a rule change.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

ginger69 said:


> Also what about hiring a group to help throw,etc... Other clubs have done that.
> Just some ideas and observations.
> Sue


I serve as an officer for a club that has put on a 100+ dog Open, the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club. We hire help to throw birds.


However, it is the club members that are in the field at 7 am, setting up so that the Open can start at 8 am.


And it is the club members that are in the field at 8 pm, tearing down the test, bagging birds, etc., so that the Open can start at 8 am or 7 am the next day.


You can hire help, but the club members are still the ones putting in the long days.

We didn't like the hours, so we held a Restricted. That resulted in club members not being able to run their dogs.

So we moved our date away from other trials in our circuit. That did the trick. However, that is not a practical option for the Texas clubs.

That's why I think that they - and other similarly situated clubs - should be given some options for managing trial size beyond what is currently available

Ted


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

In a world of instantaneous communication, I find it odd that we still have the same rules that were in place 40 years agofor entries. 

Here's a solution for large Opens and Amateurs, very easy to do with on-line entries.

Lets say it's our trial, the Cimarron Retriever Club. We determine that we want a resonable trial. So, we put our limit in each stake as follows: 60 in the Open, 45 in the Am, and no limits in the Qual and Derby. 

We put our closing date 24 days out from the trial. Our Online Premium states our MAXIMUM entries for each stake

At the FIRST closing date, 24 days out from the trial, if the numbers are over 60 in the Open OR 45 in the Amateur, we go to the next closing date, a week later. Pro's or Amateurs can re-evalute their entries and reduce them to get within the maximum allowed.

At the SECOND closing date, 17 days out from the trial, numbers must be below the limts in the Open or Am or we go to the next closing date, a week later. Again, entries may be deleted to get within the limits.

The THIRD and FINAL closing date, is 10 days out from the trial. At 9:00pm on that date, if the numbers still exceed the limits on the Open or Amateur, handlers have one final three hour period to pull their dogs to reach the levels needed. At Midnight on the final date, if the numbers are not reached, ALL entries are rejected and the Open and Amateur are CANCELLED. The Qual and Derby could still run if the clubs declare that intention in the premium.

NOW Pro's AND Amateurs have the burden to drop dogs they know can't compete just to get handlers fees or some "experience". If they don't, they don't have anyplace to go run dogs.

Pro's would have to know in advance who they planned on entering and which dogs they would drop if forced. They could inform their clients of such, or split trucks to go to several trials if necessary. 

Amateurs could drop dogs the same way to get the numbers down. The onus would obviously be on folks who run three to four dogs. (Yes, I could be talking about me!)

This could cost some clubs an airline ticket or two for judges that won't be coming, but the loss would be well worth it. It would only take one or two times for everybody to get together and make this sport enjoyable again with reasonable trial sizes.

For this to work, EE would have to come up with a way to cancel entries anytime before the close. Perhaps this could be accomplished in just one closing day, but I think the several closing days gives folks a better chance to figure out where they need to go based on trial size. It really doesn't matter, as long as folks know the trial will be cancelled if they don't get together as handlers and regulate themselves.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

How much do entry restrictions on stakes other than the Open affect entries?

Fer instance if a club has a Special or Restricted and an O/H Am and and an O/H Qual does this tend to reduce the total numbers a worthwile amount?

What about the above scenario AND not having a Derby, so that the pros only have one stake to run?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> How much do entry restrictions on stakes other than the Open affect entries?
> 
> Fer instance if a club has a Special or Restricted and an O/H Am and and an O/H Qual does this tend to reduce the total numbers a worthwile amount?
> 
> What about the above scenario AND not having a Derby, so that the pros only have one stake to run?


Bob

First, a Restricted will reduce numbers. Period. However, it will in all likelihood have a negative impact on club members who want to run their dogs.

Second, the O/H Q has some impact on pro entries. However, Eckett, Farmer, and Rorem to mention a few - do not have many Q dogs. When you implement the O/H Q you tend to squeeze the little dog truck pro, not the big dog truck pro.

Third, if you take out the Derby, you take out the entry level stake for many newcomers.

Ted


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Tim West said:


> In a world of instantaneous communication, I find it odd that we still have the same rules that were in place 40 years agofor entries.
> 
> Here's a solution for large Opens and Amateurs, very easy to do with on-line entries.
> 
> ...


We currently offer something very similar for HRC events, which have an entry cutoff amount. The club admin puts in the entry limits when they setup the stakes/tests. The slots are filled via online and mailed entries, scratches free up slots, etc... it's a pretty intelligent system.

SM


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

Are you confirming my intelligence, Shayne?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Tim West said:


> This could cost some clubs an airline ticket or two for judges that won't be coming, but the loss would be well worth it. It would only take one or two times for everybody to get together and make this sport enjoyable again with reasonable trial sizes.
> 
> For this to work, EE would have to come up with a way to cancel entries anytime before the close. Perhaps this could be accomplished in just one closing day, but I think the several closing days gives folks a better chance to figure out where they need to go based on trial size. It really doesn't matter, as long as folks know the trial will be cancelled if they don't get together as handlers and regulate themselves.


Sounds to me like a fancy game of chicken with the club, pros, and amateurs all waiting for someone to blink

I am not optimistic about the outcome, but if a club wants to try it, why not?


----------



## BirdHntr (Apr 30, 2005)

Tim West has a possible soluton but as Ted said you would probably end up playing a game of chicken to make the numbers for the trial to take place or not.
Would it not be possible to have a restriction on the number of Dogs each handler can enter/handle at a trial, which should in itself end up restricting the size of the trial. A birddog club I belong to had to do this to allow more individuals to participate in our trials.

Carl


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Problem with this particular game of chicken is that the club is risking a whole LOT- birds, judges, on and on and on and stand to be the ultimate looser regardless of the outcome. Bet your bippy that if they stand their ground and cancel the trial, they get dog cussed forever. If they fold they get dog cussed forever. Hmmmm starts sounding like a no winner for the club.

I don't get involved in the field trials, but the hunt test clubs are facing the same difficulties. Both of the clubs that I belong to are facing the same dilemma. We are able -BARELY- to support a 2 way split. When the day comes (and I predict that it WILL in 2010) that we have to split 3 ways we have NO choice but to cancel the event.

Letter on the way to the AKC from the Salem club regards

Bubba


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

BirdHntr said:


> Would it not be possible to have a restriction on the number of Dogs each handler can enter/handle at a trial, which should in itself end up restricting the size of the trial. A birddog club I belong to had to do this to allow more individuals to participate in our trials.
> 
> Carl


That's pretty much the essence of the proposal at hand. It is up to AKC to approve any proposal put forth by the RAC, provided the RAC does so.

kg


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Bubba said:


> Letter on the way to the AKC from the Salem club regards
> 
> Bubba


Send it to the members of the RAC, Steve....NOT the AKC. The AKC won't care until they get a proposal from the RAC.

kg


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Ted,
I was being a sarcarstic poop when I rambled on about the large trials at certain times of the yr. (Moving the trial dates Like your club did)may help solve Snowbird's problem??Although the reason the club is called "Snowbird" is for a reason.The winter trials are what they are and like wise for the summer trials in Mn. 
So the rules need to be changed with regards to Open/Amat. Handler event. So??
As far the the club members setting up and tearing down............that happens regardless if you have a 100 dog Open or a 60 dog Open right?? I was trying to help by suggesting that the club's hire birdboys,have a lunch wagon(from a local rest.)etc.... 
The club's involved will always have the same people do the same as they also do .It's the same with every sport. You have your core workers who do everything.
I personally think its a real tragedy when you have a 1 shot deal in a very large Open. On a side note, Does Dave R.still have the policy that once one of his dogs qualifies was the National Open (and he /she isn't in the running for High Pt. Open dog)that he doesn't run them again in the Open so that his other client's dog aren't competeing against not only other dogs but his truck as well?
Just curious?
Sue


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

When we had the 100 dog Open, club members left the field at 8pm

When we had the 60 dog Restrictred, club members left the field at 6 pm

Those two hours make a big difference

As for the same people putting on trials, yes that is the truth. However, the measures we are discussing are intended to protect those people who do the work in putting on trials.

Ted


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Tim West said:


> In a world of instantaneous communication, I find it odd that we still have the same rules that were in place 40 years agofor entries.
> 
> Here's a solution for large Opens and Amateurs, very easy to do with on-line entries.
> 
> ...


I like the idea of closing the entries 90 days before the trial and only have them online for 48 hrs. Just don't forget and tell the club members.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Doesn't the HRC limit the number of dogs a Pro can have in a given stake? It works for the HRC, why wouldn't it work of the AKC? Or is it politically incorrect?

FOM


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

I think its 8 per handler,pro or not.Flight cuts off at 28 or 30.AKC HT splits at 60.Dont know if there is a handler limit.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

K G said:


> Send it to the members of the RAC, Steve....NOT the AKC. The AKC won't care until they get a proposal from the RAC.
> 
> kg


Hey Keith, did the RAC get the proposal first about clubs having the option for what type of restricted stake they wanted? If the RAC was not the ones to propose it, why then does the AKC not allow trials if the club does not restrict entries when they had large numbers the previous year? 

I'm not following the flow of logic!


John


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

John,

As was written earlier, the AKC has decided to start enforcing the mandatory Open upgrade when entries reach 65 for the corresponding trial that reached 65 the year prior. Not sure when the AKC stopped enforcing it before, but that's pretty much a moot point now.

Anyone who wants to go ahead and write the AKC personally, feel free. Be my guest. Take your best shot. Knock yourself out. 

Seriously.....and John, I'm not sure you can use "logic" and "AKC" in the same sentence.....but knowing that "logic," if folks have not pursued the Restricted stake to bring their Open entry numbers down, all other appeals/proposals are likely to fall on deaf ears. Club members not being able to run their dogs won't come into the equation.

Just sayin'.

kg


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

Ted, I'm crazy enough to give this some serious consideration if Shayne can build the system for it and it passes AKC approval. I think it will work, because the pros HAVE to make it work or not enter. If that happens, we have solved the problem of big entries for sure.


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> When we had the 100 dog Open, club members left the field at 8pm
> 
> When we had the 60 dog Restrictred, club members left the field at 6 pm
> 
> ...


I would like to know how it is possible to be done at 8:00pm with 100 dogs, much less 6:00pm with 60 dogs. Amazing. I have seen Howard run as the last handler after 10:00pm with a 30+ dog Open. How do you guys do that? What time management do you guys have? How much pressure can the chair put on the judges to get done at a certain time? Crazy stuff I tell ya...


----------



## bull (Apr 9, 2004)

I believe that there are lot of ways within the rules to reduce the size of our
field trials. It is important to understand that it will require different solutions to correct the problem around the country.

Most of these solutions are easy and can be implemented under todays rules.
Snowbird is harder to fix because there are at least 8 pros and lots of amatuers
that spend the winter here. The only way to correct this is to have conflicting
trials. 

Before I give my suggestions I want you to know that I have indorsed Ted's and Eds
solution and talked to several memebers of the rac about it. The truth is that even if
it was put to a vote and I think it should be, it won't pass because at the National
most of the participants in the sport utilize a pro and they won't be in favor of it.

Secondly, as a judge, and participant I find when a pro brings 25-35 dogs to a open
that it is offensive and detrimental to the sport. Eventually someone will run 40 dogs
and then maybe the rac will give the clubs some relief, but I doubt it.

Third, I think the rac the akc has done a pretty good job of giving the clubs ways to reduce
the size of the trials. They have made conflicts easier, made forming new clubs easier, provided using regional affiliated clubs to put on more conflicting trials.

Fourth, the rac and akc gave the ptra on opportunity to put on 8 trials a year
to help provide conflicting trials to reduce the number of entries in larger trials.
Yet the prta didn't apply for one trial that I know of that conflicts with a club
that had a big trial the prior year. When a pro puts an extra $2,000 a weekend
in his pocket, he is not worried about the sport, the club, the judges or
the workers in the field. So don't put your hopes on the prta fixing the problem.

Suggestions to correct the problem:

In the east there are 5-6 trials where I understand the land owner simply forbids certain individuals from participating in the field trial. I understand that this ishas been effective but don't know how long if it will last. 

Secondly, I beleive that if the land owner refused to allow trailers (both camping and
dog) that would reduce the size of the trial. Certainly within the landowners rights.
Without trailers it is difficult to bring 30 dogs to the trial.

Third, in a prior thread the akc performance events dept issued a statement the
lists the requirement for the entry process. It states that "Any service fee must be
clearly stated in the premium. I suggest a $100 service fee for any handler entry
over 6 dogs in a stake. If the owner sends the entry he would have to run the dog or the dog couldn't run because he hadn't paid the correct fee. The only difference in what we have now is in the amout of the fee. And it may require $200 fee to be effective.


Fourth, I suggest a progressive entry system. Where the first dog a handler enters
is $50. per stake. The second entry is $75, The third in $100 ..... the 8th is $225.
I do not know of any rules that prohibit a pregressive pricing system.

Fifth, make the entry for the am $10, and the entry for the open $140. The club will 
collect about the same amount of money and I don't believe that there will be 100
dogs in the open. If it is then $140 isn't enough money. I believe that those dogs
that aren't ready for the open won't be run.

I wish that the rac and akc would pass the rule permitting the clubs to limit the
size of the trial, but don't believe that it will happen. So why not get some more
suggestions as to how to limit the size of the trial. I know some of my suggestions
are "out of the box." Isn't that what Ed wanted. 

Good luck Ed at the prison in two weeks, it may make snowbird seem small.

Steve O'Connell


----------



## Canman (Jan 24, 2003)

I think everyone agrees that the current restricting format (Limited, Special, and Restricted) works at reducing numbers without effecting the level of competition at a trial.

If clubs are against using this format because club members cannot participate, maybe clubs need to change the rules to allow club members of the host club to run their dogs in the Open regardless of the level of restriction. This would probably add 5-10 dogs to the total number. It would change a 65 dog trial to 70-75, and it is still be managable.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

bull said:


> I believe that there are lot of ways within the rules to reduce the size of our
> field trials. It is important to understand that it will require different solutions to correct the problem around the country.
> 
> Most of these solutions are easy and can be implemented under todays rules.
> ...


Most of the people who run the National, serve on the SOR/RAC utilize pros, they would be cutting their nose off by enacting something to curtail the use of what they employ.
Pros are already runing 40 dogs they just split up and hit circuits in different parts of the country. Eckett/ George etc. Farmer will probably do the same.
The AKC has made conflicts and start ups easier but it still doesn't seem to help if one pro doesn't show another takes his place.
Land owners don't allow trucks or trailers they would just shuttle from the main gate, and I don't think that's a fair way to keep people away. It has to be something to do with the rules that is utilizes then the SOR/RAC will act to take it away admitting that there is a problem.
I have never seen anything in the book about a service fee, were is that located? I have mentioned that and got boohooed over it but thought it was a good idea.
I like the progressive pricing system sounds like it would be affective it's harsh but only if your running over 3 dogs and how many amatures do you know that run more than 3.
My favorite is the $140 for the open and $10 for the amatuer, I have been toughting this thought for a couple of years but $100 and $50. People just don't get the concept they seem to think that it will cost them more to run their dog at their own trial. It's hard for them to understand that it will only cost you more if you don't show up. My thought is I would rather have you there so I could get you to throw birds or at least do something meaningful besides sit in your chair all day. 
I also like the Ted and Ed concept I just don't think that it will fly. I think we need to be like everyone else in this great world of ours, sercumvent the system that is already in place.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

bull said:


> if it was put to a vote and I think it should be, it won't pass because at the National most of the participants in the sport utilize a pro and they won't be in favor of it.
> Steve O'Connell


I think you are probably correct if the old system was in place, i.e. the only votes counted were done at the RAC meeting either by delegate of by proxy. Today individual clubs vote. I believe that the rank and file of club memberships (who may utilize professional dog trainers to a greater or lesser degree) also acknowledge that the system is flawed and needs repair. 

In Texas we have at least 9 out of state and 4 resident pros, so even with multiple conflicting trials we are faced with unusually large entries. 

In the Spring there are currently 12 Texas trials, 3 Oklahoma trials, and 4 Louisiana trials.

IF those clubs were willing to cooperate, run 3 trials each weekend, every other weekend, and compress the available number of trials to run to 6 then we might have a solution. Unfortunately there exist greedy clubs who choose profit first and are very protective of their territory so any such solution would have to be mandated by AKC (which would be fine IMO).

However even with a numbers solution the competitive balance issue will always exist when an individual handler is permitted to run an unlimited number of dogs. 

I am judging 2 Opens this year, both of which are likely to be huge, so I have made a personal decision that these will be the last Opens that I will judge pending some relief. In the future when asked to judge my response will be "I would be happy to judge the Amateur or the minor stakes". Perhaps if enough of us refused to judge these monsters the field trial community would find and agree to a solution.

I believe that the Limited Entry Stake as proposed provides the relief from numbers and overdomination by professional handlers who run exorbitant numbers of dogs.


----------



## bull (Apr 9, 2004)

Barry

Look at #49 Ken Archer's memorandum under the Latest Salvo in the
EE v Rftn fight, the only difference is the service charge is $100
not $3.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Jay Dufour said:


> I think its 8 per handler,pro or not.Flight cuts off at 28 or 30.AKC HT splits at 60.Dont know if there is a handler limit.


You cannot limit in AKC HT's. We have catalogs from 85-89 showing limits so it was done at one time. I the past few years, we have seen large #'s in Master(last August 101 dogs in ran in 3 flights, 105 were entered) but a drop off in Senior and Junior so at this time we are able to handle the big #'s. But, we have exceptional members that help to make this happen.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I think that for clubs looking to address trial size - NOW - without having to run through the RAC and AKC, 

Differential pricing - along the lines detailed by Steve - is probably the way to go.

I suspect, however, that once the first club introduces differential pricing - and unhappy individuals start screaming to the AKC - the AKC will change its tune and announce a new policy directive

It would be interesting to watch, though


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> I think that for clubs looking to address trial size - NOW - without having to run through the RAC and AKC,
> 
> Differential pricing - along the lines detailed by Steve - is probably the way to go.
> 
> ...


Some clubs are already have different pricing for the major stakes.I don't think $10 has any effect,except an extra $10 for the club kind of attitude. $10 doesn't even send any kind of message.


----------



## bull (Apr 9, 2004)

Barry

That wasn't $10.00 it was $100.00
service fee.

Bull


----------



## lanse brown (Apr 22, 2004)

Unfortunately Ed's decision to refrain from accepting future judging assignments of Open,Limited,Special, Restricted All Age Stakes is that of 11 other qualified and experienced people I know. I for one will not judge anymore All Age Stakes after my three assignments in 2008. After 46 years in Retriever Field Trials and 108 All Age Judging points I am not having fun judging excessively large entries. I will and want to judge ONLY O/H Qualifyings and Derbys. I will continue to take 4-5 days of my life to help bring new AMATEURS into our sport.The fact that seems to be escaping many of us is that of the aforementioned 11 people(old farts) all of whom have made many FC/AFC's, won Double Headers, Judged National Championship Stakes those people are the spark plugs that hold their clubs together, organize and put on Liscensed Trials. All train and compete with their own dogs and obviously have a passion and dedication to the dogs. As those who make it possible to have a trial age and fatigue there will be fewer trials and So it will be that those clubs will revert to hunt test clubs. The guts of this game is the Amateur trainers and handlers- I for one am sick of the person who has a dog on a pro's truck and thinks "working a trial" is eating the free lunch. The paperwork, the planning 6 months in advance, the managing of judges travel, obtaining of birds, permits, landowners consent, maintaince of equipment, purchasing of shells, equipment--it goes on and on. " Pro to the line"-thanks for paying with other people's money-without you we wouldn't be able to work for YOUR benefit.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Additionaly....
There was a proposal that would have required Pros or any handler with over a certain number of dogs entered to make provisions to have someone run their entries in the minor stakes if they themselves were tied up at the major stakes for an extended period.Sounds reasonable to me.

As I understand it,this proposal was voted down at a National mtg. 
Why?

So not only do they screw up the large major stake but........................

john


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

bull said:


> Barry
> 
> That wasn't $10.00 it was $100.00
> service fee.
> ...


I was refering to the fact that some clubs already charge $80 Open $70 for the Am. $10 charge difference isn't making much of a statement.


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

It has been alluded to that most, if not all, of the members of the RAC use pro's and therefore may have a bias against limiting entry size. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought that Nelson Sills and John Goettl ran their own dogs and I know that Pete Simonds has a couple of dogs with the Arthurs but that he and Kate also train and run a couple on their own.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Mark

I think if you were to examine the recent history of this issue, you would find a bias against taking affirmative steps against limiting trial size - other than promoting conflicting trials.

For example, 

- Ed and I submitted our proposal to the RAC in advance of the 2004 National Open in hopes that it would be discussed there. It has never been placed on the table for discussion at any public meeting of the RAC before the membership at the National Am or National Open

- At one time, the Rules REQUIRED that clubs hold a Limited, Special or Restricted if their Open was over 65 dogs. That rule was amended to make the decision PERMISSIVE. That is, the clubs were - by rule - permitted to chose whether they wanted to limit numbers by use of a Limited, Special, or Restricted. Curiously, after the Rules were amended, AKC Performance Events would not authorize an Open if a club had more than 65 entries in the Open the previous year, the club had to have a Limited, Special, or Open. Go figure!

- The RAC recently wrote that it had completed its focus on trial size and would now turn its attention to the quality of judging. Thus, recent rule changes focused on an apprentice FT Judging program, and requiring contestants to have competitive experience (which contrary to Steve Amrein's contentions had its genesis long before Marvin's site ever saw light - Dennis Bath has been pushing something along these lines for many years)

Regardless of who trains the dogs of the members of the RAC, the fact is that the RAC is not interested in addressing the issue of trial size. They have told us - in writing - that they believe that they have done what can be done.

One of my issues about this whole process is that so much of it is concluded behind closed doors.

- The RAC is not accountable to the general public
- The RAC does not tell us how its individual members vote on various issues (we do not, for example, know whether the RAC itself is democratic, or autocratic) 
- And the RAC only places for public discussion, the issues that it wants to address

There appears to be some sentiment - growing, it seems - to make the RAC, and the National Club Officers and Directors more accountable to the constituency

- The issue of trial size is one example
- The National clubs decision to compete in the entry business is another

If you - and others - are interested, now is the time to become actively politically as clubs

Ted


----------



## greg ye (Nov 28, 2007)

What if the case was made directly to the PRTA? Wonder if self-governed limits could be made part of the Code of Conduct? Part of the Code could address agents/ employees of pro. Could clubs "suggest" entry limitations per pro? If a tradition of entries per pro could be established, wouldn't this side-step more restrictive rules that have unintended fall out?


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

One more time
WE, the FT giving clubs,are the RAC !




> The chair recognized Marshall
> Simonds, Delegate for the Midwest
> Retriever Club, who spoke as follows:
> We have two rule changes for consideration
> ...


----------



## Chad Engels (Aug 17, 2004)

I think Ted's idea is GREAT! It seems like a very fair way to achieve the goal of limiting entries to a desirable number.

Unfortunately, in the May 2007 issue of the Retriever Field Trial News, the RAC Subcommittee published a report on Rules and Recommendations for 2007. In that report, they stated the following:

“For the past several years the Subcommittee on Rules has devoted its major efforts to dealing with excessively large all-age entries. With the approval of the 2005 and 2006 proposals we believe that the procedures now exist to permit clubs to schedule conflicting trials, and at their option to hold Restricted Stakes, Owner-Handler Amateur Stakes with or without an early start, and Owner-Handler Qualifying Stakes. These particular options in concert provide the tools to achieve an almost certain significant reduction of entry size. In short, a cure for the large entry problem is now available. It is up to the trial giving clubs to invoke those procedures to control entry size.”

The RAC also states in the May 2007 issue of the Retriever Field Trial News that they will no longer be addressing the issue of large entries and will be turning their attention to other matters.

So, here's to the future!


----------



## Lab-Kid (Aug 26, 2005)

Chad Engels said:


> “For the past several years the Subcommittee on Rules has devoted its major efforts to dealing with excessively large all-age entries. With the approval of the 2005 and 2006 proposals we believe that the procedures now exist to permit clubs to schedule conflicting trials, and at their option to hold Restricted Stakes, Owner-Handler Amateur Stakes with or without an early start, and Owner-Handler Qualifying Stakes. These particular options in concert provide the tools to achieve an almost certain significant reduction of entry size. In short, a cure for the large entry problem is now available. It is up to the trial giving clubs to invoke those procedures to control entry size.”
> 
> The RAC also states in the May 2007 issue of the Retriever Field Trial News that they will no longer be addressing the issue of large entries and will be turning their attention to other matters.


Iguess all those people down south didn't get the memo!


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

EdA said:


> In Texas we have at least 9 out of state and 4 resident pros, so even with multiple conflicting trials we are faced with unusually large entries.
> 
> In the Spring there are currently 12 Texas trials, 3 Oklahoma trials, and 4 Louisiana trials.
> 
> IF those clubs were willing to cooperate, run 3 trials each weekend, every other weekend, and compress the available number of trials to run to 6 then we might have a solution.


We would be more than happy to work a solution out with the clubs mentioned above. Suggest a date that you would like to see us host an Open and Am and we will look at it hard. The reason we are hosting our trial the weekend of March 21st is because it was the first available weekend to do without conflict with a close by trial that doesn't need a conflict or the possiblity of weather too cold.

Last weekend in January is the 3DQ, don't want to conflict with that.
Next weekend is the Superbowl.
Then Acadiana
Open weekend (could be too cold for a trial)
Shreveport
SLRC
Tuscaloosa
Port Arthur
Cajun Riviera
Open weekend
Brazosport


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> There is a subcommittee of that committee called the Subcommittee on Rules which has representatives from each time zone who have spent many years in retriever field trials, and *they receive and independently generate and consider rule changes to keep the sport in touch with what is happening in the field*.


So...does everyone feel BETTER now?

......................................

Why do I get the feeling that if it doesn't affect them _personally_, it doesn't get considered.

kg


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Before I start please understand I think this to be an excellent post with a lot of understanding of what's on the ground & a couple of really good ideas. The rac as mentioned I believe is the SOR (Subcommittee On Rules). 



bull said:


> I believe that there are lot of ways within the rules to reduce the size of our field trials. It is important to understand that it will require different solutions to correct the problem around the country.
> 
> Most of these solutions are easy and can be implemented under todays rules.
> Snowbird is harder to fix because there are at least 8 pros and lots of amatuers
> ...


If in fact this proposal is DOA then attention should be given to proposals that have a chance of being implemented in a more timely fashion. If we continue to push a proposal that has no chance of being implemented that will stand in the way of those effective changes that could be more easily implemented. So we are just babbling away & resolving nothing.



bull said:


> Secondly, as a judge, and participant I find when a pro brings 25-35 dogs to a open that it is offensive and detrimental to the sport. Eventually someone will run 40 dogs
> and then maybe the rac will give the clubs some relief, but I doubt it.
> 
> Third, I think the rac the akc has done a pretty good job of giving the clubs ways to reduce
> ...


These are the same pro's who don't mind that every other participant "cool their heels" until they get over to the minor stake or tell their clients to wait until later to to get over to run even though they have an early number. Apparently there is no way of legislating Good Sportsmanship.

The third comment - No doubt this is the SOR's method of dealing with the issue, which in itself is unsatisfactory. There are no NEW people to staff these organizations so all that happens is the "BURNOUT" rate of those who do double & triple duty with these clubs just increases. The existing clubs need to operate more effectively before we add more franchises.

I am sure the people exist who could mentor these clubs into existence but until they have some raw material to work with they end up doing the thankless task. The other issue with the new clubs would be grounds. I in good conscience would not be able to tell a land owner that I asked for property use, the damage that could happen if there is a wet weekend. In most cases you would not get the use of that property. 



bull said:


> Suggestions to correct the problem:
> 
> In the east there are 5-6 trials where I understand the land owner simply forbids certain individuals from participating in the field trial. I understand that this ishas been effective but don't know how long if it will last.
> 
> ...


I particularly like the progressive entry system. 1st 2 dogs standard price - 3-6 $50 additional per dog - 7-10 $100 per dog = over 10 dogs entered $200 per dog - over 16 dogs entered - $500 per dog, would be my suggestion. It should be set up so if your name is there as a handler you must pay the fee, to include multi handlers. 

Also, those individuals who insist on multiple staking would be assessed the above fees for dogs entered in minor stakes while majors were running.

These along with the options Ted S outlined in post #138 would be a good start to allowing clubs to manage to their club's skill level & resources. They would also be very easy to implement without overtaxing existing resources.


----------



## Josh Conrad (Jul 3, 2005)

ftrjuj said:


> I particularly like the progressive entry system. 1st 2 dogs standard price - 3-6 $50 additional per dog - 7-10 $100 per dog = over 10 dogs entered $200 per dog - over 16 dogs entered - $500 per dog, would be my suggestion. It should be set up so if your name is there as a handler you must pay the fee, to include multi handlers.



I'm not near as sharp as you guys so bare with me. 

Regarding the "progressive system", In Chapter 8, 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.....................

From the wording, it sounds like this was to prevent clubs from trying to get more entries, but I think it could also be interpreted the other way and not allow the "progressive entry system", to keep entries low?

What say you?


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

In short, Josh, it means everyone gets treated equally with regard to entry fees.

I think we've already determined that different stakes can charge different entry fees, but it'll be interesting to see who's willing to try to take it to another level, i.e. "progressive" entry fees or establish a "service" fee, without a rule change or clarification.

kg


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

Something here does not compute. I acquired a collection of RFTN that dates back to when Augie and Soupy won the National. In reading the old issues, it seems that there were folks writing letters to the editor back in the late 60 early 70s and on up thru the years relating to this same topic. Have the various committees charged with revising the rules and recommendations had their heads in the sand that long? or is there some directive from on high at AKC that has precluded a solution over the years. Its hard to believe that an issue as contentious as this one that has such a history has not been addressed with any finality in a sport where so much has changed with rapidity over the years.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

ACEBLDRS said:


> I'm not near as sharp as you guys so bare with me.


This opening statement should be barred from use. But you'll have to "bare" yourself while the responders "bear" with you.



ACEBLDRS said:


> Regarding the "progressive system", In Chapter 8, 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.
> 
> What say you?


My "gut" feeling would be you would need a letter of understanding from the AKC Performance people prior to institution. If it were published - you are covered - but the large enterers would squeal discrimination - so you would need some understanding. But I didn't write the rule - when you accept a free sack of someone's product is when you are more than likely breaking the original intent of the rule. JMO - I'm sure Steve O'Connell has given this more thought than I - IMO it would be a good way of dealing with the takers - throw a Workers Party with the proceeds,if there are any.


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> Something here does not compute. I acquired a collection of RFTN that dates back to when Augie and Soupy won the National. In reading the old issues, it seems that there were folks writing letters to the editor back in the late 60 early 70s and on up thru the years relating to this same topic. Have the various committees charged with revising the rules and recommendations had their heads in the sand that long? or is there some directive from on high at AKC that has precluded a solution over the years. Its hard to believe that an issue as contentious as this one that has such a history has not been addressed with any finality in a sport where so much has changed with rapidity over the years.


Bob,

Are you forgetting the creation of the restricted, limited and special open's and the RAC's belief that these measures adequately address the problem?


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

K G said:


> So...does everyone feel BETTER now?
> 
> ......................................
> 
> ...


 
You have a _feeling?_ Unless you have firsthand knowledge that the above is true, and you care to share that knowledge, your remarks are wholly inappropriate and a smear of the reputations of these gentlemen.

I _feel_ that your remark is in poor taste on a public forum.


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

DEDEYE said:


> I would like to know how it is possible to be done at 8:00pm with 100 dogs, much less 6:00pm with 60 dogs. Amazing. I have seen Howard run as the last handler after 10:00pm with a 30+ dog Open. How do you guys do that? What time management do you guys have? How much pressure can the chair put on the judges to get done at a certain time? Crazy stuff I tell ya...


You, Howard and others are in a totally different world regarding the available sunlight.

That's the difference.

Jerry


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Goldenboy said:


> You have a _feeling?_ Unless you have firsthand knowledge that the above is true, and you care to share that knowledge, your remarks are wholly inappropriate and a smear of the reputations of these gentlemen.
> 
> I _feel_ that your remark is in poor taste on a public forum.


You're welcome to your opinion, Mark.

What I _do_ have, and so does anyone who reads the entries on EE, is firsthand knowledge of the fact that RARELY do any of those gentlemen have dogs entered in trials of over 80-100 dogs. When THEY run some of these trials, I'll have a much better FEELING that they _get_ what's going on and what a burden it creates for all involved.

Add to that the total LACK of consideration of any alternative entry limiting viewpoints previously submitted and you have -viola!- MY opinion. 

I know Pete, John, Bob, and Nelson....I hardly think ANY of them would have reacted as strongly as you did to my post.....but by golly, you're entitled.

Calm down.

kg


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

K G said:


> You're welcome to your opinion, Mark.
> 
> What I _do_ have, and so does anyone who reads the entries on EE, is firsthand knowledge of the fact that RARELY do any of those gentlemen have dogs entered in trials of over 80-100 dogs. When THEY run some of these trials, I'll have a much better FEELING that they _get_ what's going on.
> 
> ...


John is entered, running his own dog, in the Open and Amateur at Snowbird. Yes, you wrote "RARELY". 

I know a couple of these gentleman and I have a pretty good idea what they probably think of you, privately. 

My opinion is that you are a sanctimonius internet bully, equivicator and blowhard.

And I'm always calm


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Goldenboy said:


> And I'm always calm


All evidence to the contrary. You've always been overly sensitive here.

Someone's got to take the high road, though. Might as well be me.

_Great_ use of your thesaurus on those adjectives.....you'll get a PM or two on those. You can print them out and frame them like trophies.

It was an opinion, Mark, not an _accusation_. It has become readily apparent (to most, anyway) that some sort of remedies other than the ones at hand need to be considered as potential answers to this seasonally incessant and geographically consistent problem. I'm glad John will have a hands-on opportunity to experience the "fun" next weekend. That should help refocus the issue with the RAC. 

kg


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

If they are over a manageable limit for *true testing in the first series* they should have to go 4 days 

http://retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9494&highlight=poppers

We was talkin' this trash 4 years ago and it ain't got no better regards,

john


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Jerry said:


> You, Howard and others are in a totally different world regarding the available sunlight.
> 
> That's the difference.
> 
> Jerry


No, what I am wondering is if you guys can get it done early with that many dogs, and we can't because the outside judges are so happy with tons of daylight, then how much say does a chair have, when showing the judges the land. I mean, can a chair tell the judges here is the land, and we hope to be done by 7? Or something like that? Our helpers are out there forever I swear!


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

DEDEYE said:


> No, what I am wondering is if you guys can get it done early with that many dogs, and we can't because the outside judges are so happy with tons of daylight, then how much say does a chair have, when showing the judges the land. I mean, can a chair tell the judges here is the land, and we hope to be done by 7? Or something like that? Our helpers are out there forever I swear!


It seems to me that too often we run until dark, with club members remaining on site to put away equipment, birds etc. 

I've read of the good old days with relaxed club members, reasonable hours, and early dinners...I'd love for that to be the norm.


----------



## thunderdan (Oct 14, 2003)

jeff t. said:


> It seems to me that too often we run until dark, with club members remaining on site to put away equipment, birds etc.
> 
> I've read of the good old days with relaxed club members, reasonable hours, and early dinners...I'd love for that to be the norm.



That is the truth. We are often breaking down by headlights.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

thunderdan said:


> That is the truth. We are often breaking down by headlights.


Seems like that's the rule rather than the exception, 'specially on Friday and Saturday.

kg


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

jeff t. said:


> I've read of the good old days with relaxed club members, reasonable hours, and early dinners...


ah yes, for the good old days of coat and tie Saturday night cocktail parties (and Sunday morning hangovers).....;-) ;-)


----------



## thunderdan (Oct 14, 2003)

EdA said:


> ah yes, for the good old days of coat and tie Saturday night cocktail parties (and Sunday morning hangovers).....;-) ;-)



I usually somehow manage the latter, even without the coat and tie. ;-) ;-)


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

EdA said:


> ah yes, for the good old days of coat and tie Saturday night cocktail parties (and Sunday morning hangovers).....;-) ;-)



Would the Pros have to eat and stay in the kitchen with the other help, like in the good old days or would you allow then to socialize with the owners?

I kind of like the idea of making them stay in the kitchen.

(my smilies/emicons don't work!)


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

DEDEYE said:


> No, what I am wondering is if you guys can get it done early with that many dogs, and we can't because the outside judges are so happy with tons of daylight, then how much say does a chair have, when showing the judges the land. I mean, can a chair tell the judges here is the land, and we hope to be done by 7? Or something like that? Our helpers are out there forever I swear!


Mary

You wrongly assume that the first series was completed. 

We were getting equipment out of the field at 8 pm, only to reset the following morning for the CONTINUATION of the first series

Ted


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> Mary
> 
> You wrongly assume that the first series was completed.
> 
> ...


HAHAHA! Ok. I am retarded. Thank you for clarifying that! That is hideous! The 1st series.....


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Jerry said:


> You, Howard and others are in a totally different world regarding the available sunlight.
> 
> That's the difference.
> 
> Jerry


They are also in a totally different world with regard to entries

Based on the last three years of data, it appears that typical Alaskan All-Age stakes have fewer than 30 entries.

Jeff


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Alaska is a good place to run a Qual, too....

kg


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Now that the Snowbird trial is history, I think it is worth noting that the trial was very well organized and ran smoothly.

It is also noteworthy that FT professionals pitched in and helped out. Mike Lardy, Jim Van Engen, and Lynn Troy setup the Open, Derby, and Qual stakes. Dave Smith was the game steward. Other pros (or their wives) worked as marshals. Mike Lardy and Dave Smith made their bird boys available to the trial and also provided dead birds to be used to get things started on Friday morning.

It would be wonderful if all field trials could get pros to provide the type of hands on help and support provided to the Snowbird trial.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

I am going to Alaska for my first qual.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

If I could make it work financially, I'd be right there with you!;-)

kg


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

jeff t. said:


> Now that the Snowbird trial is history, I think it is worth noting that the trial was very well organized and ran smoothly.
> 
> It is also noteworthy that FT professionals pitched in and helped out. Mike Lardy, Jim Van Engen, and Lynn Troy setup the Open, Derby, and Qual stakes. Dave Smith was the game steward. Other pros (or their wives) worked as marshals. Mike Lardy and Dave Smith made their bird boys available to the trial and also provided dead birds to be used to get things started on Friday morning.
> 
> It would be wonderful if all field trials could get pros to provide the type of hands on help and support provided to the Snowbird trial.



Is this normal???  Were they asked to help??? Hats off to those that pitched in.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Since when does whether or not we can afford it effect our games????? My husband has been talking about an Alaska trip on his motorcycle for years, well now is maybe the time for me to relent and agree to fly out (with dog) and meet him. Shhhhh....don't tell him why the change of heart.


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

jeff t. said:


> Now that the Snowbird trial is history, I think it is worth noting that the trial was very well organized and ran smoothly.
> 
> It is also noteworthy that FT professionals pitched in and helped out. Mike Lardy, Jim Van Engen, and Lynn Troy setup the Open, Derby, and Qual stakes. Dave Smith was the game steward. Other pros (or their wives) worked as marshals. Mike Lardy and Dave Smith made their bird boys available to the trial and also provided dead birds to be used to get things started on Friday morning.
> 
> It would be wonderful if all field trials could get pros to provide the type of hands on help and support provided to the Snowbird trial.


Wish i heard stuff like this more often(locally). Should be the norm considering.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

jeff t. said:


> Now that the Snowbird trial is history, I think it is worth noting that the trial was very well organized and ran smoothly.
> 
> It is also noteworthy that FT professionals pitched in and helped out. Mike Lardy, Jim Van Engen, and Lynn Troy setup the Open, Derby, and Qual stakes. Dave Smith was the game steward. Other pros (or their wives) worked as marshals. Mike Lardy and Dave Smith made their bird boys available to the trial and also provided dead birds to be used to get things started on Friday morning.
> 
> It would be wonderful if all field trials could get pros to provide the type of hands on help and support provided to the Snowbird trial.


you must be mistaken. Pro's are the cause of all the problems in FT today. 


/Paul


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> you must be mistaken. Pro's are the cause of all the problems in FT today.
> 
> 
> /Paul


could you please explain


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

B Peterson said:


> could you please explain


I think he was being sarcastic...


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

DEDEYE said:


> I think he was being sarcastic...


More than likely, since he *is* one.....

Tongue in cheek regards, 

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

B Peterson said:


> could you please explain


Sorry I just wanted to fit in. 

/paul


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

i wasn't being sarcastic 
i'm far from being a pro
and i don't think pro's are the problem with large field trials.
i was hoping paul would explain why he feels that pro's are the problem.
thanks bruce peterson


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Most of the Open judges that I know do not want any of the Pro contestants out in the field setting out equipment for both blinds and marks. Many feel it gives them an advantage, especially on blinds when they can get a close look at everything. 

Great that a Pro would chip in but, I wouldn't want them out in the field looking things over before they ran any of their dogs. If a contestant has to be out in the field setting out equipment, have one of the club Amateurs do it.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

B Peterson said:


> i wasn't being sarcastic
> i'm far from being a pro
> and i don't think pro's are the problem with large field trials.
> i was hoping paul would explain why he feels that pro's are the problem.
> thanks bruce peterson


We were talking about Paul, Bruce....not you. HE (Paul) was being sarcastic with the "pros are the problem" comment, 'specially since he is one.

kg


----------



## D Osborn (Jul 19, 2004)

Everyone in the southeast including the pro's were talking about how big the entries were,(not just on the interent:shock: ) add to that the ton of rain they got, and no one in this case had an advantage. The rain changed the way everyone trained, and they were looking for lizards everywhere. While with normal weather I might agree, I know that the last week had been challenging to say the least. 
On the other side-might get more people to help-Can you see it now "Oh I will be happy to walk out the equipment to the 500 yd station"  "oh you want me to go where.." Now this could be fun!!!


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

guess i'm not the sharpest stick in the bunch


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

B Peterson said:


> guess i'm not the sharpest stick in the bunch


 
Kinda what I wuz thinking but then again I have empty beer cans that are more professional than that PH /paul.

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain regards

Bubba


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

B Peterson said:


> guess i'm not the sharpest stick in the bunch


Then you could be a pro too. Welcome to the club.....

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Bubba said:


> Kinda what I wuz thinking but then again I have empty beer cans that are more professional than that PH /paul.
> 
> Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain regards
> 
> Bubba


I'll have you know my ******* brother that it takes a real pro to sneak beer outa your truck without you ketchin him. Who's a pro now....

/Paul


----------

