# dozer and Guthrie!!



## Josh Conrad (Jul 3, 2005)

From what I can tell, Ken is sitting in 2nd w s faults. Not sure about time, on my crackberry and can't get all the info. 

50 or so have run. 

Go Dozer

http://www.superretrieverseries.com/


----------



## Richard Halstead (Apr 20, 2005)

I noticed on the running order 2 dogs were scratched and 6 were DQ'ed. How or why were they DQ'ed?


----------



## Troy Williams (Sep 7, 2003)

Richard Halstead said:


> I noticed on the running order 2 dogs were scratched and 6 were DQ'ed. How or why were they DQ'ed?


Probably DNF.


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

[/quote]

Probably DNF.[/quote]

i.e., prolly grabbed the poison bird...


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

spaightlabs said:


> /i.e., prolly grabbed the poison bird...


aka "rubber duckie", not nearly as poisonous as the real thing :wink:


----------



## David McLendon (Jan 5, 2005)

^
On a poison bird that's true, nothing is as deadly as the real thing, but on a 350-400yard mark the real thing is a heck of a lot easier to find than the "rubber duckie".


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

^

Just thinking out loud. On a long mark, provided the dog actually marks it, and gets to the fall area, is the bird that much easier to find?


----------



## David McLendon (Jan 5, 2005)

Yep


----------



## Guest (Jun 4, 2007)

Given that rubber duckies smell like cat pee over time, and dogs love litter boxes... I think they would be equally difficult or easy to find. LOL

Do they inject the SRS ones with anything??


----------



## BamaK9 (Sep 29, 2004)

the dokkens definitely smell like cat pee, the avery ones are solid rubber, no way to inject anything if you wanted to, also helps to combat the 'cat pee-ishness" :lol:


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

Akin and Allison ran clean? FIX, FIX, FIX!!!


----------



## Richard Finch (Jul 26, 2006)

*Guthrie*

Smack that a## Ken!!!!




Richard


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

This is not meant as a slight to anyone, but with 11 people in single digits and two of those running perfect, this would seem to be an easier test than normal or something, right? 

Again, I'm not knocking it, I am sure my dog would have a score somewhere between my bowling and golf score.(the two are really close by the way). 

Are the first rounds normally scored this well on?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

MRGD said:


> This is not meant as a slight to anyone, but with 11 people in single digits and two of those running perfect, this would seem to be an easier test than normal or something, right?
> 
> Again, I'm not knocking it, I am sure my dog would have a score somewhere between my bowling and golf score.(the two are really close by the way).
> 
> Are the first rounds normally scored this well on?


Seems like a pretty typical FT setup. I would think dogs running this should be pretty able to handle it.

/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

A dog's handler has got to be on his game to help a dog avoid a poison bird at 300 yds on a 350 yd land blind. The dog has got to be ultra-responsive to that handler to get past that poison bird at 350 yds.

Why'd we think they started with a test like _this_ anyway?! :wink: 

How many starters were there? Only 11 in single digits? Sounds about right to me.....what little I know about this "game" anyway! :lol:

kg


----------



## lablover (Dec 17, 2003)

Are there any video clips available? Where??


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Dozer can do the big tough retrieves, both marks and blinds.
I just hope he stays in that little doggie blind for the HT portion.

Oner thing is for sure, I'll bet he's the best looking retriever entered in Hot Springs.

Go Dozer!


----------



## BamaK9 (Sep 29, 2004)

I'm pretty damn impressed, there are 13 dogs that have 2 whistles or less from what I can determine. Even if its on a dang golf course, a poison bird at 300yds on a 350yd blind ain't too easy, especially for a high roller....better be quick on that whistle :lol:


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

the lady that works for SRS shannon posted that the blind in 394 and the poison bird is 364. Maybe since I heard there are 60-70 going to the second series they can get the marking series done faster than running it first and running 125 dogs through it.


----------



## Richard Finch (Jul 26, 2006)

*Smack It!!*

Smack it hard Ken!


Go Dozer!!!



Richard


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Does anyone know where the poison bird is in relation to the line to the blind?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

mjh345 said:


> Does anyone know where the poison bird is in relation to the line to the blind?


from Ken's description the line to the blind is behind the gunner, hence the PB is thrown away from the line to the blind........


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

it is about 20 ft off the line of the blind.


----------



## Jason E. (Sep 9, 2004)

any one heard from Guthrie about the 2nd ...?


----------



## Richard Finch (Jul 26, 2006)

*Amen*

Amen K G.....




Richard


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

If I recall correctly, Ken said it was a quad with a wipeout bird/3 retired, remote send.

kg


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Well, our boy and his dog are on their way home....1 point off the cutoff number.........  

I'm not going to go into any detail about how Ken arrived at his 2nd series score, but let's just say the discussion lately about "unwritten rules" will have been _quite_ timely.

12 dogs back.....

kg

....and will someone _please_ explain to me how saying "mark" when putting a dog at a remote sit with _hidden_ gun stations in the field can be called "pointing out the marks?" :shock:


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Oh, no.......


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

that sucks.


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

that's too bad, sounds a bit ticky tack to me...but rules is rules...


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> ...but *rules* is *rules*...


Ahhh.....there's the _rub_...... :wink: 

I'll save it for Ken to explain!  

Gonna be a _fun_ time on the old RTF tonight!!!! :lol: 

Gotta go out and get some snacks regards,

kg


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Thanks for the heads up....I'll prepare popcorn.
:wink:


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

spaightlabs said:


> that's too bad, sounds a bit ticky tack to me...but rules is rules...


Not familiar with what rule you're talking about. 

In a duck blind, I tell my dog to "Mark". That is her signal to watch the sky.

Jerry


----------



## Zack (May 17, 2005)

Pointing out gunner has always been against the rules in the SRS as far as I know. I have no idea how saying mark could be construed as that unless he put his hand down when he said it.

Always two sides to every story regards,

Zack


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> Well, our boy and his dog are on their way home....1 point off the cutoff number.........
> 
> I'm not going to go into any detail about how Ken arrived at his 2nd series score, but let's just say the discussion lately about "unwritten rules" will have been _quite_ timely.
> 
> ...


Your not bashing judges are you?

/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Why, however could you construe _that_ from my post? :shock: 

Doh...I forget.....you're _/Paul_........ :wink: 

I just asked a question. Simple as that. Don't go gettin' all "muckraker" on me........



> Pointing out gunner has always been against the rules in the SRS as far as I know.


Again, how do you point out a _hidden_ gun???????????? :shock: :shock:

kg


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Zack said:


> Pointing out gunner has always been against the rules in the SRS as far as I know. I have no idea how saying mark could be construed as that unless he put his hand down when he said it.
> 
> Always two sides to every story regards,
> 
> Zack


Here is a link to the rules. 

http://www.superretrieverseries.com/rules/

Is there more detail elsewhere? This seems pretty wide open.

Jeff


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> Why, however could you construe _that_ from my post? :shock:
> 
> Doh...I forget.....you're _/Paul_........ :wink:
> 
> ...


Well Mr. King of Implication, you implied that the judges dropped him for pointing out gun stations then questioned their reasoning for doing so. Another KG tricky question hits the board...Your as innocent as Paris Hilton....

/Paul


----------



## Zack (May 17, 2005)

So your saying that you dont think the dogs running the SRS will recognize a round bale as a potential gun station?


----------



## Paul Yates (Mar 3, 2005)

Does anyone see a rule on that sheet that says you can not point out any mark?


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

I didn't get that, I thought Guthrie missed the cut off by one point, and I assumed that something happened when he set the dog down on the remote and cued him to, "Mark." that must have cost him at least that fatal point. 

I'm staying tuned to hear the rest of the story later.....


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Well Mr. King of Implication, you implied that the judges dropped him for pointing out gun stations then questioned their reasoning for doing so. Another KG tricky question hits the board...Your as innocent as Paris Hilton....


Whatever you say, Paul. I'm not arguing with a post again.

kg


----------



## Zack (May 17, 2005)

Paul Yates said:


> Does anyone see a rule on that sheet that says you can not point out any mark?


I dont knowfor certain that it was covered this time, but in the past it has been pointed out at the handler's meeting and in the test descriptions.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

K G said:


> Again, how do you point out a _hidden_ gun???????????? :shock: :shock:


Really????? Or are you just kidding??

You've been judging HT's how long??? 

Hint: Even when they're hidden, the handler (usually) knows where they are. :wink:


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Paul Yates said:


> Does anyone see a rule on that sheet that says you can not point out any mark?


And then there's _that_ little pesky detail................ :? 

kg


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Hint: Even when they're hidden, the handler (usually) knows where they are.


If the handler were making the _retrieve_, that would be a germaine point. :roll: 

Put a blindfold on the handler regards,

kg


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Zack said:


> I dont knowfor certain that it was covered this time, but in the past it has been pointed out at the handler's meeting and in the test descriptions.


according to the involved individual it was neither in the printed rules nor the online rules and such fact was pointed out to the officials who allegedly removed the deducts for violating said unwritten rule :?

that being said Ken and others believed that without those penalites Dozer would make the top 12 based on his performance on the tests..........kinda sounds like a field trial when you are dropped but aren't sure why 8)


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> kinda sounds like a field trial when you are dropped but aren't sure why


Be careful Ed.....you're _perilously_ close to "judge bashing"............... :wink: 

kg


----------



## Aaron Homburg (Sep 23, 2005)

K G said:


> Well, our boy and his dog are on their way home....1 point off the cutoff number.........
> 
> I'm not going to go into any detail about how Ken arrived at his 2nd series score, but let's just say the discussion lately about "unwritten rules" will have been _quite_ timely.
> 
> ...


The _unwritten_is correct....I read on the rules page of the SRS and I did not see anything of this nature :? Too bad I hate to see Dozer out of the competition......I guess there is always this fall
 

Aaron


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Paul Yates said:


> Does anyone see a rule on that sheet that says you can not point out any mark?


Not that I can see...

http://www.superretrieverseries.com/rules/

/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> The _unwritten_ is correct....I read on the rules page of the SRS and I did not see anything of this nature


Careful, Aaron.....you'll soon be a member of the "judge bashing" club, too.... :lol: 

Ken was okay with it. He was disappointed but not surprised. What he predicted would happen came to pass. He'll be on here later and give us "the rest of the story."

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> > Well Mr. King of Implication, you implied that the judges dropped him for pointing out gun stations then questioned their reasoning for doing so. Another KG tricky question hits the board...Your as innocent as Paris Hilton....
> 
> 
> Whatever you say, Paul. I'm not arguing with a post again.
> ...


Dang it, just take your ball and go play in another sandbox then.....we used to have so much fun....

/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Paul Yates said:
> 
> 
> > *Does anyone see a rule on that sheet that says you can not point out any mark*?
> ...


Well how 'bout _dat_, den...........

I'll wait for Ken to fill in the blanks. His descriptions will be much more "colorful" than mine.

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

EdA said:


> Zack said:
> 
> 
> > I dont knowfor certain that it was covered this time, but in the past it has been pointed out at the handler's meeting and in the test descriptions.
> ...


Well if they removed the deductions this is a moot point. He still missed the cut. Good effort but thats how the birds fall...

/Paul


----------



## Aaron Homburg (Sep 23, 2005)

> Careful, Aaron.....you'll soon be a member of the "judge bashing" club.... Laughing
> 
> 
> *I am not trying to bash anyone 8) I just remember back to my childhood when you would play games with certain individuals, they would change the rules on you....or maybe not change rules but they would call something and then say "oh I forgot to tell you" :?
> ...


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Paul, I think the operative phrase is:

allegedly removed


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Aaron, I knew you weren't bashing....I was making a point that needed to be made.

SRS has its place, no doubt. I think we'd all agree that anything that portrays dogs and hunting in a positive light is a good thing....but I'm with you about at least knowing what makes a dog pass or fail. Seems like that would make it more fun to watch as well.

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> Gun_Dog2002 said:
> 
> 
> > Paul Yates said:
> ...


I can't wait to hear to JT's version, and Tellus's version and Akin's version and Justin's version. I have to say one thing, Guthrie may be one of the best marketing scheme's SRS every came up with. JT should put him on the payroll. 

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Buzz said:


> Paul, I think the operative phrase is:
> 
> allegedly removed


Or allegedly dropped for saying "mark"

/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Or allegedly dropped for saying "mark"


It would seem we've established that there's no WRITTEN rule against, eh?




> JT should put him on the payroll.


Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm.........................................I don't much think _that_ is gonna happen........ :shock: 

Forewarned is forearmed regards,

kg


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

K G said:


> > JT should put him on the payroll.
> 
> 
> Ummmmmmmmmmmmmm.........................................I don't much think _that_ is gonna happen........ :shock:
> ...




That is what I was thinking


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Quite a few of us "adopted" Ken & Dozer for this competition and are disappointed that they are no longer "in the hunt".

Gonna be extremely difficult for us to sort it out when we saw NONE of the competition.

Let's keep an open mind ...









then fire up the BUS!!!!! :twisted: :twisted: 

Jerry


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

*BASH ALERT! BASH ALERT! BASH ALERT!*

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

kh


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Sure is getting noisy around here with the squalking of tires and reving of the bus's engine....and now KG is banging trash can lids together sounding the alert! I thought we were all going to get snacks, sit back, and wait for the main show to begin?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> > Or allegedly dropped for saying "mark"
> 
> 
> It would seem we've established that there's no WRITTEN rule against, eh?
> ...


But we don't know that he was dropped for saying mark. What we do know is he didn't advance forward because he missed the cut by 1 point. (assuming that is true) What about the rest of his work? Perhaps if Dozer had performed 1 point better in another area he would still be playing. How do we know it was this aspect that produced the fatal point?

/Paul


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

ROFLMAO, Keith is so upset he can't even spell his own INITIALS!!!!  :evil:    

Jerry


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Jerry said:


> ROFLMAO, Keith is so upset he can't even spell his own INITIALS!!!!  :evil:
> 
> Jerry


Now that is awesome. Where is Fallon when you need him...

/paul


----------



## Tom Watson (Nov 29, 2005)

*dozer and guthrie*



Zack said:


> So your saying that you dont think the dogs running the SRS will recognize a round bale as a potential gun station?


I was there yesterday and watched the first 20 or 25 dogs run. There are dozens and dozens of round bales in that small field; way, way too many for a dog to pick ONE out as a gun station. So again, how do you point out a hidden gun station? And even so, none of the rules I can find anywhere address the issue.

And then after all that BS, to miss the cut by *ONE* friggin' point... But then I'm pretty much a "conspiracy theory" guy anyway. Either publish *all* the rules or live by the *published* rules.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

It ws thos mltiple laffing heds tht got mi...............

:lol: 

*K G*


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Me, too, ROTFL!!! I love you Keith, but when you boo-boo it is too funny!


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> K G said:
> 
> 
> > > Or allegedly dropped for saying "mark"
> ...


Oh, and I still think he should be put on the payroll. They could market him as the handler everyone loves to hate, with the dog everyone loves. He's created friends and enemies, and controversy on 4 different dog boards. His status in the game and leading up to it has generated more talk than the event itself. Geez, I'm gonna take on promoting him as his personal manager. I could get rich off the droppings...

/Paul


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

quote="K G"]


> Hint: Even when they're hidden, the handler (usually) knows where they are.


If the handler were making the _retrieve_, that would be a germaine point. :roll: 

Put a blindfold on the handler regards,

kg[/quote]

SRS, rules are written in such a manner as to give the judges lots of room, without boxing them in. This was a similar layout for the World Retriever Championship events held in 2005 and 2006.

I don't see anything in the rules about not pointing out the location of a gun, mark, birdboy, whatever. But, SRS gives the judges the option of adding requirements for a specific series. An example that comes to mind for me is the Stuttgart event that Liza won a few years ago. Dana, JimBo and I worked out that the handlers had to reload their shotgun in XX amount of seconds. If they did not get loaded in time, and get off the required shots on the next mark, there would be some faults assessed.

The judges would have the option to restrict the handlers from pointing out the location of the marks, gunners, etc. and would be well within the rules to do so. They just need to clearly mention this in the handlers' scenario explained prior to the test dog being run. (It is not like a weekend trial where some folks may be at another stake and miss the judges' explanation.)

Keith, I have no idea if this is what was done during series #2 in Hot Springs, but I can see the possibility. If it were, it's a waste of energy to debate how someone can point out a gun when the gunner is hidden. The intent would be to restrict the handlers from pointing out the location of the gun, whether visible in white or hidden behind some sort of landmark. (Tackett/Mealman's patent pending Firewater invisispray is still under development, so for now hidden gunners need some place to hide.) :wink: If the judges say that you can't point out the location of the hide, and you choose to, they'll likely assess a fault or two.

I remember a 1st series SRS poison bird blind where Jerry Day blew a sit whistle three times in a row as Nike clearly wanted to dig for that eliminating rubber ducky. Jerry felt it a good risk to take the six faults assessed in order to get the message across to Nike that the bird was off limits. His gamble worked. He/she scored well enough to survive and come back with a clean slate to the next series. He could have just as easily been six points over the cut....he knew the risk and he took it.

If the judges say you can't point out the location of the hidden gun, and you choose to, it's a gamble you take. Unless Shannon and her team have changed the rules, the judges are completely within their rights to impose such a restriction for a specific series.

Ken likes to joke around on here, but he's a good sport. I have no doubt he'll tell it like it is. If he just missed the cut, for the third series, that's still a pretty darn good showing. There are folks who run SRS events for years and never make it past the first series! 

Ken, good job putting your money where your mouth is! 

Chris


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

*Re: dozer and guthrie*



Tom Watson said:


> Zack said:
> 
> 
> > So your saying that you dont think the dogs running the SRS will recognize a round bale as a potential gun station?
> ...


Yeah, what he said!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> K G said:
> 
> 
> > > Or allegedly dropped for saying "mark"
> ...


He got a MASSIVE deduct for pointing out the guns, according to Ken.

I'm lettin' him take the lead on this. You've got all the info you need to get your answers, Paul. You're already ready with your questions........

Made for TV, indeed......

You're welcome regards,

kg


----------



## Aaron Homburg (Sep 23, 2005)

Jerry said:


> Quite a few of us "adopted" Ken & Dozer for this competition and are disappointed that they are no longer "in the hunt".
> 
> Gonna be extremely difficult for us to sort it out when we saw NONE of the competition.
> 
> ...


Very well spoken Uncle Jerry!!!!!

Got a lot of buses sitting around not being used in the Summer :twisted: :twisted: 

Aaron


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Aaron Homburg said:


> I don't have sour grapes I just wish that Dozer would have went out of the competition because it was something that he could not do or Ken would have done something to mess him up....not because of imho a ticky tack unwritten rule


I hate to see a talented dog like Dozer DQ's from the competition for such a vague reason too!

Ken, take my advice; Stick with the game that has been developed over the last 70 years, it may not be perfect but, it is still the best by far when comparing, "dog work". 

Dozer Fan Club 8)


----------



## Aaron Homburg (Sep 23, 2005)

*con*

Super Retriever Series rules:



> We are judging the "teams" ability to:
> 
> 1.HANDLE ALL TEST AND TRIAL SCENARIOS
> 
> ...


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

yes you can.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Dana, JimBo and I worked out that the handlers had to reload their shotgun in XX amount of seconds. If they did not get loaded in time, and get off the required shots on the next mark, there would be some faults assessed.


Sure am glad THAT didn't come up _here_ when it happened! :wink: 

Maybe they could time how long it takes to tie a boot....or put on waders....or throw out a dozen rigged dekes that all have to land right side up..... :lol: 

Can't _wait_ to see it on TV regards............. 8) 

kg


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

I read somewhere - that they weren't filming this particular series.


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

That smacks of "OK Folks, in this Series, you have to guess which rules apply."

Jerry


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Guess its only unfair if they didn't tell everyone or hold everyone to the same standard. 

/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Lady, I should have clarified that....The Crown is what I meant....or should I say *THE CROWN!!!*

:roll: ............................................



> That smacks of "OK Folks, in this Series, you have to guess which rules apply."


Or worse...........



> Guess its only unfair if they didn't tell everyone or _hold everyone to the same standard_.


_Surely_ not......

kg


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

man, lots of speculation goin' on now...betcha Gut will clear a lot of that up...


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Count on it, spaight... :wink: 

kg


----------



## Ducks and Dogs (May 12, 2003)

let me guess, team waterdog handler(s) did the same without deductions





ducking out of the way and rotfl regards!


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

spaightlabs said:


> man, lots of speculation goin' on now...betcha Gut will clear a lot of that up...


Yep. In an honest object unbiased first person account. I'm breaking out a new bottle of Talisker and hitting the lazy boy for the full unabridged version...

/Paul


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

what if your dog is named MARK!?

tt


----------



## Aaron Homburg (Sep 23, 2005)

MRGD said:


> what if your dog is named MARK!?
> 
> tt


Then he would have left when you said "Mark"

Aaron


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

MRGD said:


> what if your dog is named MARK!?
> 
> tt


ROTFL


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

MRGD you would never say your dogs name while placing him on the line unless you wanted him to go retrieve.


----------



## Labs Will-Do (Jan 31, 2007)

Like I said yesterday...this is good stuff...somewhat like that reality TV for the 1st time ...you know its dragging you along and you're foulish enough to hang with it...can't wait to hear some first hand reports from folks watching today!!!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> what if your dog is named MARK!?
> 
> tt


Then you're an idiot.

I mean....not _you_, of course, mrgd...but whomever named their dog the same command that they used to tell the dog to watch for birds....._that's_ what I'm sayin'..........  

The truth is stranger than fiction regards,

kg


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

deep thoughts:

Mark commented,
It seemed as if the harelipped dog kept angrily calling my name, "MARK,MARK."


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Keith H or G, please refrain from shouting out "crown" so loud. You're going to get Henry and Shayne all fired up! :wink: 


John


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

K G said:


> > what if your dog is named MARK!?
> >
> > tt
> 
> ...


I duckhunted with a guy named "Mark" one time. I'd just met him and we'd never hunted together before. I had a mellow yellow of a lab who was known to lose focus and stare at his feet during duckblind downtime. When a group of birds would appear, I'd lightly whisper "Mark!".

For a half dozen repetitions over the course of the morning, I had this guy on the other side of the blind whisper back "What?!!"


----------



## TxFig (Apr 13, 2004)

K G said:


> > Dana, JimBo and I worked out that the handlers had to reload their shotgun in XX amount of seconds. If they did not get loaded in time, and get off the required shots on the next mark, there would be some faults assessed.
> 
> 
> Sure am glad THAT didn't come up _here_ when it happened! :wink:
> ...



no no no. The *BEST* test would be to have your waders and pants down around your ankles, with your shotgun leaning on a bush, squatting down 15 yards behind the blind where your dog is remotely sat.

When the bird it thrown in the air, you have to wipe :shock: , pull your pants and waders up, grab your gun, and actually hit the bird with live shot before it hits the ground.


Now THAT is the scenario they need to use.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

That's what I was thinking!!!
Somebody is going to be tossing a few back tonight, I'll bet!

That was in reference to the not shouting CROWN so loudly comment....


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Will do.

kG


----------



## Troy Williams (Sep 7, 2003)

What am I missing?????

Wasn't the dog on a remote sit? If on remote how would you point the guns out at all, hidden or exposed?

T-Roy


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> > what if your dog is named MARK!?
> >
> > tt
> 
> ...


What if they like Lardy use the term "Watch" with their dog....?

My old dog Fetch used to retrieve on sit. Moron judges kept telling me to "sit" my dog on the line and he'd take off. Drove me nuts for years until I got even with the judges by teaching him to piss on their leg and eat their lunch on the command "dog" That tought them to use his number when sending him....

/Paul


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

chris, that is hilarious.

"mark"........"what"


----------



## brian breuer (Jul 12, 2003)

> deep thoughts:
> 
> Mark commented,
> It seemed as if the harelipped dog kept angrily calling my name, "MARK,MARK."


I may just be tired but that was hilarious.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

MRGD said:


> chris, that is hilarious.
> 
> "mark"........"what"


Yep.....best one all day.....someone could write a book on the stuff that happens while hunting.....

kg


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

I am laughing so hard at all of you tha tI am choking on my buttered popcorn.
Now quit being so funny!
:wink:


----------



## Ducks and Dogs (May 12, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> My old dog Fetch used to retrieve on sit. Moron judges kept telling me to "sit" my dog on the line and he'd take off. Drove me nuts for years until I got even with the judges by teaching him to piss on their leg and eat their lunch on the command "dog" That tought them to use his number when sending him....
> 
> /Paul



that has to be the funniest thing i have ever read/heard! :lol:


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

K G said:


> MRGD said:
> 
> 
> > chris, that is hilarious.
> ...


But you can't do that because what happened in the blind stays in the blind!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> My old dog Fetch used to retrieve on sit. Moron judges kept telling me to "sit" my dog on the line and he'd take off. Drove me nuts for years until I got even with the judges by teaching him to piss on their leg and eat their lunch on the command "dog" That tought them to use his number when sending him....


Paul's got a head start on the Talisker........ :wink: 

Oh Mr. Corona, where are youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu......


kg


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

I have told this before but at a hunt test there was a guy who named his dog "Dog" and when the marks went off the judges said dog and his dog took off.


----------



## TxFig (Apr 13, 2004)

That's ok - I'm going to name my next dog "No Damit"

Thinnk he'll have a popping problem?


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

He should have been ok because he was released to send his dog. Butthe problem would come when he was on honor and the judge said "dog."


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

Lady, don't you mean, "what happens to the blind stays with the blind." 

you know, no eyewitnesses


----------



## Paul Yates (Mar 3, 2005)

Ya'll might want to do a search on the SRS site. 

There was some discussion on it a few weeks ago about the first series at Louisburg and how some dogs were dq'd for not getting off the boat in three cast and how certain trainers were allowed to give come in whistles then run the blind. The judges instructions were that the handler had three cast to get their dog BACK into the water. 

My question is why would all of the other handlers have anything to add. It should be aquestion answered by Mr. Tackett himself. 

I feel bad for Guthrie. If he thinks he is the only one tell him to call and talk with Scott Baldwin. 

Anyone wonder why you never see a man come back and run an event that his dogs were always in contention at? Especially since the money is so much larger now.


----------



## fowlcreek (Dec 8, 2004)

FWIW, got to meet Ken for the first time and I can honestly say he seemed like a nice guy. I sat around with him on a couple of occasions watching the dogs run at the SRS and answered numerous questions about mechanics and how certain things might be scored. When I left to go get Rankin ready to run, he was handling on a mark. Not sure what Ken did or didn't do at the line. You were allowed to bring your dog to the line, allow it to look around, give it a "SIT", "Watch or Mark", and then we're still allowed to continue talking with your dog while the marks were being thrown. Some dogs watched the birds go down by swinging from shot to shot and some sat there watching to see when their handlers were gonna shot (which we never did!). Rankin tried both ways by watching the first 2 and then looking over at me while the next 2 were thrown. She hammered the marks along with Keith Allison's dog, both getting a 4.

Ken has a nice dog and did well in his first SRS. Hope he comes back to play again!

Stacey


----------



## Paul Yates (Mar 3, 2005)

congrats, Stacey

Good luck


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Anyone wonder why you never see a man come back and run an event that his dogs were always in contention at? Especially since the money is so much larger now.


Nope. Not at all. A couple of "inside" PMs have set me straight.

kg


----------



## Ducks and Dogs (May 12, 2003)

well lets hear from the "insiders"


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

If they want to post, they will.

kg


----------



## Labs Will-Do (Jan 31, 2007)

Good job Stacey on your performance as always and thanks for taking the time to post some first hand knowledge for everyone's enjoyment.


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

118 replies and only 1 from someone that was running a dog. However everyone "knows" what happend ? How is that possible? I'm confused. :?
Someone please help me understand.


----------



## SNardi (Oct 30, 2003)

To all the RFT's and Ken,

My apologies to you all and Ken. You will not need to speculate because I have the rules back up on the SRS site very soon. Why these particular rules are not posted on site is a mishap on my part. I just dug them out of my 2002, 2003, 2004 Great Outdoor Games Manual as well as my 2002 SRS Manuel of rules and regulations.

This rule is stated in all of these books and I know for a fact that you can ask Alex Washburn what her deductions were for this same thing during the Great Outdoor Games in Reno 2003.

I took the SRS project and move it into its own business and we are examining the move of the actual websites and message boards and the possible lose or truncation of some of these rules. NON- INTENTIONAL. 

They are currently being compiled and looked over again and will be added back to the board. 

These rules were originated by the current organizers and the ESPN Great outdoor games organizing bodies. They have been in effect since 1999 and were put into commission in the year 2000, first year of the retriever trials as well as the Great Outdoor Games. They are in every research manual distrubuted from GOG from 2000 to 2004 and transferred to SRS in 2005 to the current date.

Again I hope I have cleared some things up. My apologies to Ken for the misunderstanding. I beleive that the Judges and organizers handled this all very appropiately as they always do.

I did not get the chance to speak to Ken much since this was not a televised event and we are getting shows sent out for air before the Crown Championship. I wil make sure that I do talk with him as soon as possible to personally let him know how sorry I am that rules were not posted. 


Thank you

Shannon


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

in other words,even though you didnt have the rules but you still have to obide by them?


----------



## Labs Will-Do (Jan 31, 2007)

_118 replies and only 1 from someone that was running a dog. However everyone "knows" what happend ? How is that possible? I'm confused. 
Someone please help me understand._

That's just it...armchair quarterbacking....I don't think anyone knows alot of anything....Kip Kemp was trying to get the point across about forum posters and breeding/dog selection not too long back...but like I stated this stuff sucks you in like reality tv at least the 1st time around.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Dman said:


> However everyone "knows" what happend ? How is that possible? I'm confused. :?Someone please help me understand.


wireless communication devices, the only possible explanation, I'm certain that I am not the only person who received an eyewitness account 8)


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

SNardi said:


> To all the RFT's and Ken,
> 
> My apologies to you all and Ken. You will not need to speculate because I have the rules back up on the SRS site very soon. Why these particular rules are not posted on site is a mishap on my part. I just dug them out of my 2002, 2003, 2004 Great Outdoor Games Manual as well as my 2002 SRS Manuel of rules and regulations.
> 
> ...


Lets see, it's in the rules but the rules aren't anywhere for anyone to see unless of course you've been in the game long enough to have your hands on an old rulebook. Sounds good to me.


----------



## Norm 66 (Mar 25, 2005)

If the rules aren't complete on the website, then is it a fair assumption that all entrants are given a written copy of the rules? Can someone anwser that????


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

GOOD OL' BOY CLUB is what I say. Once upon a time, in a game long, long ago, there was a rule. And that rule state that... One truly has to prepare for EVERYTHING in this game :roll:


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> 118 replies and only 1 from someone that was running a dog. However everyone "knows" what happend ? How is that possible? I'm confused. Someone please help me understand.


It's a modern convenience called a cell phone, speaking to the man that ran the test.

Got it now?

kg


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Norm 66 said:


> If the rules aren't complete on the website, then is it a fair assumption that all entrants are given a written copy of the rules? Can someone anwser that????


Guthrie will answer that when he gets home and online, but I think the answer, based on the amount of discussion, is obvious, the rules passed out were the same as the ones online, the ommission was in both places


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

That's what Ken said when I spoke to him by cell phone about 2 hours ago.

kg


----------



## Norm 66 (Mar 25, 2005)

Ed lets hope not.


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

Dman, you and your fact based reasoning........ that's so yesterday! 


suspicion and hype regards


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Yeah....don't you HATE when one of the organizers confirms what was learned from the participant by cell phone?

Fact based _indeed_.....

kg


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Norm 66 said:


> Ed lets hope not.


as I said Ken will give you the details...............he was however VERY SPECIFIC, there was nothing in the printed rules handed out so he turned on his laptop to look up the online rules and he found nothing in the online rules either :shock:


----------



## Paul Yates (Mar 3, 2005)

To be sure you can not expect them to have everything written down. :roll: tongue planted securely in cheek, of course.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

EdA said:


> Norm 66 said:
> 
> 
> > If the rules aren't complete on the website, then is it a fair assumption that all entrants are given a written copy of the rules? Can someone anwser that????
> ...


Forgive me for being slow....was the rule not written online or in the handout?


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Nope....neither.

kg


----------



## Norm 66 (Mar 25, 2005)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Forgive me for being slow....was the rule not written online or in the handout?


You needed to have the rules from previous events and years in order to have them. 

Is the Bus warmed up yet?


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

I got the jumper cables on it now!!! I'll let you know in a little bit.

Who was that omnifi...you know, one of them people that knows everything, person that said it was rigged and got ripped for it???? :twisted: 


Jerry


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

How can you have a rule that is not written or explained before the event? JT has some expaining to do. Gut got screwed! There I said it.


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

So to get this correct...Ken would have been in the semi's had the penalty for pointing out the guns not been assesed?


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

As I recall, yes. I'm sure he'll explain that further this evenin'.

That, and the 10 pt (rather than 5 or 2) penalty for a cast refusal on the remote send...... 8) 

kg


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Norm 66 said:


> You needed to have the rules from previous events and years in order to have them.


That would appear to be the case, this is a situation that would seem to seriously discourage anyone from entering the SRS for the first time :?

Think I'll Stick To Field Trials Regards 8)


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Dman said:


> So to get this correct...Ken would have been in the semi's had the penalty for pointing out the guns not been assesed?


IF he pointed them out! If he just said "mark", I don't think that is pointing them out.


John


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Think I'll Stick To Field Trials Regards


Ditto!  

And if you look at the entries, a lot of the field trial faithful feel the same way regards, :wink: 

kg


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

Dman said:


> So to get this correct...Ken would have been in the semi's had the penalty for pointing out the guns not been assesed?


If so, someone better have a good insurance policy. Things sure get complicated when you start handing out money.

Sure would like to get a copy of those score sheets.


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

sheriff said:


> How can you have a rule that is not written or explained before the event? JT has some expaining to do. Gut got screwed! There I said it.


The PR Department will take care of that, one way or another.

Jerry


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Things sure get complicated when you start handing out money.


ABSO-FREAKIN'-LUTELY!!!!!!!!!  

Money changes _everything_ regards,

kg


----------



## Norm 66 (Mar 25, 2005)

EdA said:


> Think I'll Stick To Field Trials Regards 8)


Couldn't of said it better.


----------



## Aaron Homburg (Sep 23, 2005)

K G said:


> As I recall, yes. I'm sure he'll explain that further this evenin'.
> 
> That, and the 10 pt (rather than 5 or 2) penalty for a cast refusal on the remote send...... 8)
> 
> kg


OK I read on the SRS site and a refusal is a 5 point penalty, so unless Dozer refused twice......JERRY.......... WARM UP THE BUS.....WARM UP THE BUS......WARM UP THE BUS..... :twisted: 

Team Dozer!


----------



## Aaron Homburg (Sep 23, 2005)

Jerry said:


> sheriff said:
> 
> 
> > How can you have a rule that is not written or explained before the event? JT has some expaining to do. Gut got screwed! There I said it.
> ...


I heard it states somewhere in the _unwritten_ rules that if you are a _newbie_ to the game and miss the semi's by a point that the "team" automatically qualifies for the CROWNlook it up....sure it is there......

Team Dozer


----------



## wesley hamm (Feb 20, 2004)

Dman said:


> So to get this correct...Ken would have been in the semi's had the penalty for pointing out the guns not been assesed?


you tell us and that way the rumor mill will be done......you were there weren't you and should have had an "excellent" view?

Extremely curious as to what happened.

wesley


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

I kinda thought Stacey said a mouthful when he mentioned that Gut was having to handle on a mark?? Would those whistles cost points??

Y'all must be gettin' a bit tired, jumping to conclusions all day, getting on the bandwagon and second guessing can really tucker ya out.  

Before the lynch mob gets the rope out for Ms. Nardi, everyone maybe take a couple deep breaths and wait for what Paul Harvey would refer to as 'the rest of the story'...


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

wesley hamm said:


> Dman said:
> 
> 
> > So to get this correct...Ken would have been in the semi's had the penalty for pointing out the guns not been assesed?
> ...


You don't really believe that do you?


----------



## wesley hamm (Feb 20, 2004)

I think if both sides of the story were told then people could make an educated opinion :wink:


----------



## Driftdude (Jul 23, 2003)

It was my fault that Ken did not know that you cannot point out the guns at SRS. I should have checked the site after there was a server change. No excuses. I assumed he would sort of figure that after watching 86 dogs runs the series before him....but it was my responsibility to make sure he understood it. I should have asked him.

After Ken pointed out that the information had been lost wherever it goes???? We went back and changed his score after we realized the rules had been deleted for the lat 4 or 5 months?

He was penalized 5 faults per gun station pointed out. A total of 20...Those 20 points were dropped from his score.

Here's why Ken had the score he did.

1. He handled to the Area of Fall on two of the four marks. This is a major deduction at SRS. This cost him upwards of 20 faults by the time the whistles and poor line penalties were added.
2. He had a no go...which cost him another 10.
3. He had some small deductions on his other marks.

His final score for the second series was a 32, combined with his 4 from the first his total was 36 and this put him at 14th place.

I thought for a handler and dog with only trial expereince he and Dozer did fine. Dozer's a fine dog and with some some more expereience he and Ken could be competitve in the SRS venue.

Thanks,

JT


----------



## maxx (Jan 1, 2005)

I hope this doens't turn into a lose lose type situation.


----------



## DH (Oct 3, 2006)

> I kinda thought Stacey said a mouthful when he mentioned that Gut was having to handle on a mark?? Would those whistles cost points??


I don't know if you ever watch SRS on TV but it seems there is lots of handling on marks. I may be wrong but I think a quick handle on a mark costs you less than an extended hunt.

DH


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

spaightlabs said:


> I kinda thought Stacey said a mouthful when he mentioned that Gut was having to handle on a mark?? Would those whistles cost points??..


Hmmmmm interesting.......I thought everyone believed SRS was a "handling" contest. The top 12 dogs couldn't possibly have not handled. :?


----------



## YardleyLabs (Dec 22, 2006)

Justin Tackett said:


> After Ken pointed out that the information had been lost wherever it goes???? We went back and changed his score after we relaized the rules had been deleted for the lat 4 or 5 months?


That certainly sounds like a reasonable way to have handled the unpublished rule. It also sounds like Ken and Dozer did a great job in an unfamiliar environment.


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

sooo, bottom line, it wasn't poining out the gun stations that cost the points - those were 'given back'. SRS has owned the mistake re the rules and corrected his scores and is fixing the rules site and printed material to make sure it is more clear next time. Gut should be very proud that he came within a trch (thin red chin hair) :wink: of making it to the next level!

No what if's needed regards,

spaight


----------



## wesley hamm (Feb 20, 2004)

thanks JT for explaining the other side to everyone :wink:


----------



## Tom Watson (Nov 29, 2005)

Justin Tackett said:


> It was my fault that Ken did not know that you cannot point out the guns at SRS. I should have checked the site after there was a server change. No excuses. I assumed he would sort of figure that after watching 86 dogs runs the series before him....but it was my responsibility to make sure he understood it. I should have asked him.
> 
> After Ken pointed out that the information had been lost wherever it goes???? We went back and changed his score after we relaized the rules had been deleted for the lat 4 or 5 months?
> 
> ...


JT:

Your web site states a no-go is a *five* point penalty, not ten as you state above. Would that change the rankings?


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

spaightlabs said:


> everyone maybe take a couple deep breaths and wait for what Paul Harvey would refer to as 'the rest of the story'...





> sooo, bottom line, it wasn't poining out the gun stations that cost the points -


Should take your own advice. Let's see what Ken has to say.


----------



## Paul Yates (Mar 3, 2005)

Justin Tackett said:


> I assumed he would sort of figure that after watching 86 dogs runs the series before him....but it was my responsibility to make sure he understood it. I should have asked him.
> 
> JT



:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:


----------



## Tom Watson (Nov 29, 2005)

*dozer and guthrie*

Some of us have talked with Ken on his way home.


----------



## Driftdude (Jul 23, 2003)

Tom Watson said:


> Justin Tackett said:
> 
> 
> > It was my fault that Ken did not know that you cannot point out the guns at SRS. I should have checked the site after there was a server change. No excuses. I assumed he would sort of figure that after watching 86 dogs runs the series before him....but it was my responsibility to make sure he understood it. I should have asked him.
> ...



That's correct Tom. But, the judges can use whatever penalty they like in a certain scenario as long as it's the same for everyone. Because a large part of this scenario was to truly test a dogs ability as a hunter and work from a remote situation...the judges made it a 10 pt. deduction. This is not uncomman at all.

This is a way to reward the dog that truly understands the scenario, and performs.

Case in point... Judges may throw a cheaty water mark and decide that if the dog doesn't get wet they are going to hit him with 40. Not uncommon.

Thanks,
JT


----------



## Dman (Feb 26, 2003)

YardleyLabs said:


> It also sounds like Ken and Dozer did a great job in an unfamiliar environment.


Absolutely.


----------



## Paul Yates (Mar 3, 2005)

Justin Tackett said:


> That's correct Tom. But, the judges can use whatever penalty they like......
> 
> Thanks,
> JT


 :shock: :shock: :shock: :drinking:


----------



## Aaron Homburg (Sep 23, 2005)

Justin Tackett said:


> Tom Watson said:
> 
> 
> > Justin Tackett said:
> ...


Is this done before or after the test is complete? Is it conveyed to the handlers before the test....ie If your dog no go's on this test it is a 10 point penalty???

Aaron


----------



## Tom Watson (Nov 29, 2005)

Justin Tackett said:


> Tom Watson said:
> 
> 
> > Justin Tackett said:
> ...


So, there are rules that not everyone knows about and rules that are made up as you go that no one knows about. Sounds like a system frought with uncertainty, and dare I say, possible lack of veracity.

But then, it's a free country and people can play the games in which they are comfortable.

Rule of law regards


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

Justin Tackett said:


> I assumed he would sort of figure that after watching 86 dogs runs the series before him....but it was my responsibility to make sure he understood it. I should have asked him.
> 
> JT


I'll bet JT never ran this one by the PR people. :roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## Captain Mike D (Jan 1, 2006)

Holy Cow!!

I hope Ken isn't on the road with the hay bale from 2nd and 3rd in the back of his truck!! and really hope he didn"t bump a judge and kick dirt at the line.

I know Ken took lots of pokes from folks over here as welll as a few tongue in cheek jabs from the Waterdog site re: his entering and so on. He took the FUN in stride and he and his dog played the game. He and his dog deserve respect for playing and doing well.

I'm sure he didn't do what I posted above and maybe the fans in the bleachers listening to the game on the radio should relax and wait for the post game interviews!

I'll never forget my son getting drilled right square in the back with 90+ mph fastball his first year in college.His Team mates all yelled from the dugout as he trotted down to first -" DON'T RUB IT".

Mike


----------



## Paul Yates (Mar 3, 2005)

sheriff said:


> Justin Tackett said:
> 
> 
> > I assumed he would sort of figure that after watching 86 dogs runs the series before him....but it was my responsibility to make sure he understood it. I should have asked him.
> ...



You are assuming that there is PR people.


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

Marketing gurus--yes. PR people--no.


----------



## Driftdude (Jul 23, 2003)

Tom,

It's just like anything....it has goods and bads. Unfortunately I don't know what you just said...but it sounded bad. 

I appreciate your thoughts and opinions. I learned a long long time ago...we're never gonna make everyone happy. Fortunately we've had a steady growth for a few years now...and with a some luck it will continue.

We're going to screw up every now and then. Especially if I'm involved...but we'll keep trying to get it right.

I appreciate your interest.

Thanks,

JT


----------



## Bryan Manning (May 22, 2005)

I ran the test and did not do very well but after watching several dogs run I really could not figure out what to do. As far as fualts go they did not tell us about the 10 point no go. And as far as Ken goes I did not get to see his run so I can't comment. I talked with him alot as we tried to figure the hole SRS out.


----------



## Tom Watson (Nov 29, 2005)

*dozer and guthrie*



Justin Tackett said:


> Tom,
> 
> It's just like anything....it has goods and bads. Unfortunately I don't know what you just said...but it sounded bad.
> 
> ...


JT:

You have a huge and successful program. I wish you luck and success. Your hard work has paid and is paying off. 

It's just not everyone's cup of tea. That's why there are so many color chips in a paint store, not everyone likes the same thing. Doesn't mean one is better or worse, just different.

I plan on attending the Crown next weekend since it is so close. Got a condo rented and we will make a weekend of it.

Good luck!


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Justin Tackett said:


> Tom Watson said:
> 
> 
> > Justin Tackett said:
> ...


I don't have a dog in this fight, but that right there leaves your venue wide-open to criticism and more. Then the rules are nowhere to be found? I know manure occureth, but why shouldn't the judges at least declare a change of scoring in advance?

Black and white regards,
Kev


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

JT,

Glad to see you stepping up and trying to keep the bus in the barn. Many of us are disappointed to see Ken and Dozer heading home early.

Tom


----------



## Aaron Homburg (Sep 23, 2005)

*question*

*Honest question.....however may be loaded :twisted: .....how many dogs no go'd in the 2nd series?????

Team Dozer,

Aaron*


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

Lyle Harne said:


> spaightlabs said:
> 
> 
> > everyone maybe take a couple deep breaths and wait for what Paul Harvey would refer to as 'the rest of the story'...
> ...


I did Lyle - it was said by Justin and someone else earlier that the penalties he was assessed were removed when the inconsistencies were pointed out...i.e,. pointing out the marks had no consequence in regard to his score. Thanks for playing...


----------



## Bryan Manning (May 22, 2005)

There were several no-go's and after a few dogs no-goed it was not hard to figure out that it was a 10 point fualt. Ken knew this before he ran everybody was just hoping their dog left the line.Even though they didn't tell us how much the deduction was it was just something we had to deal with.


----------



## Driftdude (Jul 23, 2003)

I appreciate the kind words Tom. We've been awful lucky. Please make yourself available to sit in on a series or two. 

Thanks,

JT


----------



## Jason E. (Sep 9, 2004)

This is just part of the dogs games its not really that big of a deal. How many people messed up thier first time running a trial or hunt test, and or have been dropped or not passed because of a mistake u have made it happens in all of these dog games.


----------



## Laranie Labs (Apr 9, 2006)

Jason E. said:


> This is just part of the dogs games its not really that big of a deal. How many people messed up thier first time running a trial or hunt test, and or have been dropped or not passed because of a mistake u have made it happens in all of these dog games.


I'm not sure that's the point here.

Larry


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

*New Theory*

How about this:

Maybe there really is no, so called, Ken Guthrie. I think he is an invention of Chris Atkinson! I think Chris has paid of Tackett to play up this legend and try to add some legitimacy by acting like he was there. OHHHH, its so convenient that this round won't be on TV. So tell us Mr. Atkinson, how many millions have you made from "War Eagle, Dogs Afield, and Enhance" at the top of each of these tons of pages? Who's the marketing genius now Tackett. I'll tell you who, Chris the traffic generator. 


Insane Conspiracy Regards.

tt


----------



## Jason E. (Sep 9, 2004)

laranie labs said:


> Jason E. said:
> 
> 
> > This is just part of the dogs games its not really that big of a deal. How many people messed up thier first time running a trial or hunt test, and or have been dropped or not passed because of a mistake u have made it happens in all of these dog games.
> ...


I have never ran an SRS but i have always known that u never know what will be thrown at u and never know what the judges will expect of u until then, this is why some say its a different dog game.

To me the point is Kent talked and he showed up and ran so be it, dont get me wrong i was pulling for him i had him winnin it in my pic em...


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

To bring additional prospective to the Dozer fans & maybe ease the disappointment, in the previous two SRS events Jerry Day missed the finals by one point in each event. By challenging the blind in one of those events as a field trialer is apt to do, it costs Jerry valuable pts. In the other, Jerry asked me to kick him several times for a miss-handle that cost him valuable pts again. These mistakes of not playing the SRS game to minimize scoring put Jerry in 6th place in each of those events, missing the finals (& in one of those had he placed 5th, Farmer would not have made the finals & even had a chance to win).

Looking back, like Jerry in the last two events, I'm betting that several of those close to the top 12 would have improved their score with a different approach.


----------



## Chris Miller (Dec 16, 2005)

I have nothing to gain or lose in this discussion but a simple opinion. This was an event neither handler {Ken} nor dog had seen or entered before. All the rules may not have been known. For Ken and Dozer to be one point out of advancing to the next round is an accomplishment. For them to have gotten so close in a new environment and never even wanting to play Great job guys


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

to be so close is great for his first event and to have a low score.I saw the scores of alot of the other dogs and they were high and alot DNF,


----------



## Driftdude (Jul 23, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> To bring additional prospective to the Dozer fans & maybe ease the disappointment, in the previous two SRS events Jerry Day missed the finals by one point in each event. By challenging the blind in one of those events as a field trialer is apt to do, it costs Jerry valuable pts. In the other, Jerry asked me to kick him several times for a miss-handle that cost him valuable pts again. These mistakes of not playing the SRS game to minimize scoring put Jerry in 6th place in each of those events, missing the finals (& in one of those had he placed 5th, Farmer would not have made the finals & even had a chance to win).
> 
> Looking back, like Jerry in the last two events, I'm betting that several of those close to the top 12 would have improved their score with a different approach.


David,

Are you saying you get a better score at SRS by not challenging the test? Surely your not...I've heard a lot of things, but that may be the furthest thing from the truth about SRS....if I've understood that correctly.

Jerry mis handled Birdy on a blind in Dyersburg and on a mark in Louisburg. There was nothing regarding challenging anything involved that would get anyne a better score. She ducked cover when she should not have....and he had to handle her into it. I don't know what he told you...but I can't imagine Jerry saying that if he avoided cover or a test he would get a better score...yet he decided to challenge the test and have a poor score. 

I've just left him a message for him to review this...his room is right below mine. I'll be anxious to hear his response.

if I have mis-read your post David....please forgive me.

Thx

JT


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Ok,

Dozer and I are home. Let me collect my thoughts a bit, and I'll make a post on a seperate thread.

Real quick though, DMAN........would you like to offer your participation in regards to the SRS event this week?

Thanks,

Ken


----------



## Jason E. (Sep 9, 2004)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Ok,
> 
> Dozer and I are home. Let me collect my thoughts a bit, and I'll make a post on a seperate thread.
> 
> ...


Pretty sure he is one of the judges


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Hey Gut; Congrats to you & Dozer. Ive got other engagements scheduled so I won't be able to read your version until tommorrow; but I can rest easy knowing that if its coming from you it won't be the politically correct version, just the correct version. Regardless of what happened Congrats on a good run. Sounds like SRS has some work to do.


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

*program......*

In my only slightly wrinkled program for the series.....there are the rules.It was nice meeting Ken, as we had some mutual friends.


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

Were you happy with rules and explanations?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Justin Tackett said:


> ...
> David,
> 
> Are you saying you get a better score at SRS by not challenging the test? Surely your not...I've heard a lot of things, but that may be the furthest thing from the truth about SRS....if I've understood that correctly.
> ...


No I don't think you mis-read my comments, but maybe just misunderstood them. In any event, like SRS, where whistles count for points, an extra safety whistle on a blind (on a point, through a key-hole etc) that can save you/get you a call-back in a FT may work against you in an SRS or other scoring type event by adding pts. I would consider that extra whistle in a FT blind, an assurance that I am challenging the line to the blind/keeping my dog on line but it might be a whistle that I might forego in a scoring event like SRS. I'm just saying the handler's strategy might be different between a FT & an SRS set-up. And we're not talking a challenging run versus a poor run as you have interpreted my comments. Given Jerry missed 5th by 1-2 pts, I think we are talking about a qualifying run versus a good but non-qualifying run.

As for asking Jerry, I'm sure Jerry will be gracious as always. My interpretation of his comments to me were not criticism of SRS, just that the handling strategy between FTs & SRS are not necessaily the same - and the criticism I heard from Jerry was on his handling, not SRS. I.e., just like in FTs, you have to know the game you are playing.


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

I just keep thinking that there was a pretty hefty entry fee involved. 

For Nardi and Tackett to keep making excuses for a so called "rule" sucks!!

Jerry


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

JT stated the thought Ken would have seen the first 80 something handlers run and would have known but the FT and HT I have been to I have been in the gallery and still havent been close enough to hear what the handlers are or arent saying to there dogs.


----------



## David Wood (Mar 10, 2005)

> No I don't think you mis-read my comments, but maybe just misunderstood them. In any event, like SRS, where whistles count for points, an extra safety whistle on a blind (on a point, through a key-hole etc) that can save you/get you a call-back in a FT may work against you in an SRS or other scoring type event by adding pts. I would consider that extra whistle in a FT blind, an assurance that I am challenging the line to the blind/keeping my dog on line but it might be a whistle that I might forego in a scoring event like SRS. I'm just saying the handler's strategy might be different between a FT & an SRS set-up. And we're not talking a challenging run versus a poor run as you have interpreted my comments. Given Jerry missed 5th by 1-2 pts, I think we are talking about a qualifying run versus a good but non-qualifying run.
> 
> As for asking Jerry, I'm sure Jerry will be gracious as always. My interpretation of his comments to me were not criticism of SRS, just that the handling strategy between FTs & SRS are not necessaily the same - and the criticism I heard from Jerry was on his handling, not SRS. I.e., just like in FTs, you have to know the game you are playing.


What would an extra whistle cost you for "safety" in the SRS? 2 points ? If you didn't need that extra "safety whistle", you get an advantage, right ? Thats what you get for having a dog that has been trained to handle the setups. Thats the game. 

The handling between a FT and an SRS are similar and the scoring is set up accordingly. What would you recieve in a FT if you HAD to handle to an AOF ? Not one but three ? I doubt you would see the next series. Correct me if I'm wrong, please.


----------



## bruce (May 18, 2004)

After reading all 14 pages plus Ken's to whom post I can but wonder what Qui Chang Trainer might have to enlighten us on regarding the use of safety whistles adn handling to the AOF ... is a quick handle prefered to an extended hunt?

Just Wondering regards :wink: 

Qui Chang Trainer where are you ... :?:


----------



## David Wood (Mar 10, 2005)

Granddaddy said:


> [an extra safety whistle on a blind (on a point, through a key-hole etc) that can save you/


I guess I'm kinda scratching my head to. Is this something that new age guys are coining a new phrase ? Hold up...I'll get some incense.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

David Wood said:


> Granddaddy said:
> 
> 
> > [an extra safety whistle on a blind (on a point, through a key-hole etc) that can save you/
> ...


Who mentioned handling to the AOF, you, not me? You must scratch your head a lot if you don't understand that a whistle on a FT blind will generally not cost the dog anything *in the example I gave *& 2 pts in SRS can keep you from getting to the next series.........BTW, good luck getting to the 2nd series in a FT if you handle like you would in an SRS event, handling to the AOF.... :roll:


----------



## David Wood (Mar 10, 2005)

Granddaddy said:


> David Wood said:
> 
> 
> > Granddaddy said:
> ...


Sorry I made myself clear as mud. I was simply stating some of the differences between the two games. Your are allowed to handle to the AOF in SRS, with a penalty, but you can overcome that and move on. In a FT you wouldn't see the second. See, what wouldn't really cost you in one would cost in the other and visa versa. That's what I meant, sorry it didn't come across that way. Do be so dang snippy.


----------



## Guest (Jun 6, 2007)

fowl hunter said:


> JT stated the thought Ken would have seen the first 80 something handlers run and would have known but the FT and HT I have been to I have been in the gallery and still havent been close enough to hear what the handlers are or arent saying to there dogs.


I can watch handlers ahead of me all day. It doesn't mean I'm going to handle anything like them. So that's not a good excuse. I see people go to the line at master all the time and call for the birds immediately. I like to sit, take a breath and then call. How would I know that "might" be against the rules just because nobody else did it??

Hard lesson learned, I guess. The question would be "did Ken read the available rules prior to running the event" and if that wasn't in there, I'd have a hard time with it. BUT, then again, you can't penalize people who have been there and know the rules... Tough situation. 

-K


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

*Pointing out*

For one who never has run a HT of any flavour,it probably wouldn't be known that pointing out the guns are a no no.If it was stated that this series is a hunt test scenario,most would know not to by experience.Pointing out the gunners is automatic to a field trialer,and Im just guessing this was the case. It was pretty cool that they gredited the deductions though,as this well known ( to hunt testers) no no is not in the rules in the program.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Justin Tackett said:


> This is a way to reward the dog that truly understands the scenario, and performs.
> JT


after the judges explain the scenario to the dogs are the dogs allowed to ask questions? :wink:


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

bruce said:


> Qui Chang Trainer where are you ... :?:


I believe that he has gone into seclusion to meditate while being attended to by petal clad nymphs


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Hey, I've got an idea.....Since this is made for TV dog running, why not do like Dancing with the Stars and let the 3 judges have their say after each run and then let the viewing public vote by call in? Makes as much sense as the present way of doing things. Also if you add all three judges points and divide by 3 you get a different number in Gut's case...30.6. I don't understand dropping one of the judges points at all.


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

call a network and pitch the idea!!...I'd rather watch so you think you can train a dog or field trialing with the stars or Canine Idol than any of the other reality crap on the tube...


----------



## El General (Aug 20, 2004)

EdA said:


> bruce said:
> 
> 
> > Qui Chang Trainer where are you ... :?:
> ...


What kind of petal? Heather or Rose?

It makes a difference regards,

Will

P.S. Qui Chang Trainer, in your seclusion, remember the ancient chinese proverb "He who is drowned is not troubled by the rain."


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Justin Tackett said:


> Tom Watson said:
> 
> 
> > Justin Tackett said:
> ...




I couldn't find any discussion of this in the rules that are on the website. 

It seems to me there is a fundamental question of which rules apply to this event. 

Is this event being governed solely by the published rules that are on the Super Retrieve Series website or, is it being governed by a different set of rules used for past events (the old rules) but not currently available to all?

Do the "old rules" provide judges with the discretion to change the point penalties? 

Jeff


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

In the words of Ricky Ricardo..."Somebodys got some 'splainin to do"


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

El General said:


> What kind of petal?


Orchids of course, only the finest for Qui Chang Trainer


----------



## SNardi (Oct 30, 2003)

You know I guess it is I that has some SPLAININ to do and you know what else....

It would matter if I explained the last 7 years to you and how this event has grown bigger and badder than I ever imagined. You know why? Becasue it seems to me that the spirit here is to tear down and not to build up about the one reason we, SRS, are here. The dogs and their owners. 

I love reading your opinions on this event and how it all works and what you think our motives are.

Well you do not know us very well and and personally I really do not have to explain anything to anyone. 

SRS has and will always explain itself. She is proving herself.
You don't have to like it and I for one respect that, as I do all the retriever sports, butthere are alot that do care about it and have nutured the hell out of it for 7 years. 

The conclusions you come up with are unbelievable and I for one am very dissapionted that dogs folks can be so harsh and disrepectful of a retriever sport. 

Ken, I am sorry you had some misfortune at this event. You did very well for your first time and you should be extremely proud. Most newcomers do not. You did meet the best folks in the world here, the reason I am involved as well. 

Good luck to all of you in your dog games and please excuse me but we have a Crown to do. Good Luck to all of you that have made it to the Crown and enjoy your weekend. 

Shannon


----------



## Ken Newcomb (Apr 18, 2003)

> nutured the hell out of it for 7 years.


This explains everything. :lol:


----------



## Troy B (May 25, 2005)

Well said Shannon.


----------



## FowlDogs (Dec 31, 2004)

At-a-girl Shannon.


Some people will always want to be the ones that want to stir the mud up rather than let it fall to the bottom so we have a nice water to swim in.


Roger


----------



## MIDTNGRNHEAD (Jun 17, 2004)

The wind always blows hardest at the top of the flag pole.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Man, that bottle of Talisker was smooth last night. I knew this would be entertaining...

/Paul


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Shannon; I love all dog games, and support your effort to "bring them to the masses" as it can only expose & bring new blood into the sport, which it can definitely use.
However if this is your idea of 'splainin, I for one find it sorely lacking. Yes we do love these games, and it is all about the dogs, howeverthe idea of having a list of codified rules is meant to eliminate confusion;not create it!!
If you have rules they must ALL be printed up and be available to all contestants for their review & perusal in preperation for competing in what is a relatively new venue. Particularily when you are reaching out and trying to embrace new competitors. These new competitors which you are trying to get from FT's have to have a reliable set of rules & parameters to know how to succesfully prepare their dogs
The idea of telling a competitor "its in the rules" and then having competitor say not in mine. SRS apparently then responded that it is in the on line rules and again had to have the competitor show them once again that they were in error, show some serious holes in how your event is handled.
Additionally I fail to see the logic in having codified objective rules saying a certain infraction or flaw is 5 points. Then apparently without telling or notifying at the first days handlers meeting that it may actually get 10 points demerit apparently at judges discretion. The codification of the rules is usually designed to take some of the subjective nature out of judging and allow competitors to better prepare for events. In the example given wherin I think it may gave been Jerry Day gave his dog 3 sit whistles on a poison bird figuring I'll take 6 points as the cost to cement in my dogs mind to stay on line; his decision may have benn different if he knew judges may decide to hit him with 4 pts oper whistle. 
You say in one point in your answer that you don't have to explain anything to anyone, then in the next line you state that SRS has and will always explain itself. WHICH IS IT??
You say that there are alot who care about & have nurtured the hell out of SRS for seven years. I find it coincidental that Dozer the dog in question her just turned seven years old, and without knowing Ken personally I bet that he has done a lot more loving & nurturing of Dozer than you or anyone has done with SRS. I feel sommeone at SRS should take ownership of these issues & give an explanation of what can be done to insure less confusion for future contestants in preperation. I for one will just stick with FTs & feel many more will which is your loss since those are truly the best dogs IMO


----------



## Ducks and Dogs (May 12, 2003)

SNardi said:


> You know I guess it is I that has some SPLAININ to do and you know what else....
> 
> It would matter if I explained the last 7 years to you and how this event has grown bigger and badder than I ever imagined. You know why? Becasue it seems to me that the spirit here is to tear down and not to build up about the one reason we, SRS, are here. The dogs and their owners.
> 
> Shannon





Sooo..... the one reason the SRS, a for profit, for TV business, is here is for the dogs and owners?



:twisted:


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

mjh345 said:


> Shannon; I love all dog games, and support your effort to "bring them to the masses" as it can only expose & bring new blood into the sport, which it can definitely use.
> However if this is your idea of 'splainin, I for one find it sorely lacking. Yes we do love these games, and it is all about the dogs, howeverthe idea of having a list of codified rules is meant to eliminate confusion;not create it!!
> If you have rules they must ALL be printed up and be available to all contestants for their review & perusal in preperation for competing in what is a relatively new venue. Particularily when you are reaching out and trying to embrace new competitors. These new competitors which you are trying to get from FT's have to have a reliable set of rules & parameters to know how to succesfully prepare their dogs
> The idea of telling a competitor "its in the rules" and then having competitor say not in mine. SRS apparently then responded that it is in the on line rules and again had to have the competitor show them once again that they were in error, show some serious holes in how your event is handled.
> ...


So says the unknown comic....Lot of people hammering on the whole scoring aspect, but name me one other venue where your dog no-go's and your have 2 more tries before being DQ'd....?

/Paul


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

we can all say what we want but its not going to change the fact Ken got screwed and srs is just going to say man so sorry but tooo bad and thanks for your big entry fee as they are on there way to the bank.If SRS was about the dogs I cant imagine the entry fees would be that high and the land owners would have to pay for the srs to come to there land and they have plent of sponsors that I am sure pay a decent penny to have there stuff posted Everywhere.. We keep saying good job for your first time,BS he is a good handler and has a great dog and it doesnt matter if it was his first or 10th he got bent over.Dont get me wrong because I do like JT and met him a few years ago and thought he was a good man when he stopped to talk with my son at a hunt test. I think He should be asked to run another event at no entry fee cost since SRS didnt have there stuff together and have rules posted.


----------



## SNardi (Oct 30, 2003)

No I still will not explain, Go and ask the 125 teams that enter these events, that is what I meant in SRS will explain herself. My point is that it doesn't matter if I explain it or not, you will tear a hole in it somewhere, no doubt.

I came on and explained immediatley what we think happened to the rules in the transfer over from one company to another, because I felt terrible that it was not posted. That did not matter, you all made your own conclusions on that. 

If I explained what I put into this game for the last 7 years, that would not matter either, because you would find a hole and tear it apart again. It seems as if you all like to punch holes in something you know absollutely nothing about. 

Is it for TV, no, Is it for the love of the sport and the dogs, yes. Did I put as much time in this learning and watching all your games, AKC, HRC, NAHRA, GOG and SRS as Ken and Dozer have in training?? Yes. Do I love this sport? Yes. Am I trying to do more and learn more about this event, Yes. Will we make mistakes, Yes.. Will we suceed.... yes.

SRS started with 19 dogs in 2002 a qualifier for the greatoutdoor games. 2 events, with 19 dogs each. 

2007 5 events, 125 dogs each..... we like anything else that grows very very fast will have growing pains. That is what make us better. 

and what I mean by nuture... Well to me... SRS is like a living thing. She is alive and she is growing and we nuture her through the good and the bad times. 

Yes we have learned from this, but do not seem to move fast enough for folks here. Right now I am proud of what we are giving back to the teams that contributed to this event this year at the Crown and to be perfectly honest that is where my focus should be and not here. But again I am nuturing SRS. 

Shannon


----------



## Frenchy (Jul 9, 2005)

mjh345 said:


> I feel sommeone at SRS should take ownership of these issues & give an explanation of what can be done to insure less confusion for future contestants in preperation. I for one will just stick with FTs & feel many more will which is your loss since those are truly the best dogs IMO



Thankfully NOBODY cares how you feel! And I'm sure your absence from the SRS venue will actually help to improve that venue.


They owned up to their mistake regarding Ken's pointing out the birds, and have apologized and corrected their mistake. Frankly everything else you mentioned is nothing more than your personal opinion on how you think they should run THEIR event, THEY see it differently.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

fowl hunter said:


> we can all say what we want but its not going to change the fact Ken got screwed and srs is just going to say man so sorry but tooo bad and thanks for your big entry fee as they are on there way to the bank.If SRS was about the dogs I cant imagine the entry fees would be that high and the land owners would have to pay for the srs to come to there land and they have plent of sponsors that I am sure pay a decent penny to have there stuff posted Everywhere.. We keep saying good job for your first time,BS he is a good handler and has a great dog and it doesnt matter if it was his first or 10th he got bent over.Dont get me wrong because I do like JT and met him a few years ago and thought he was a good man when he stopped to talk with my son at a hunt test. I think He should be asked to run another event at no entry fee cost since SRS didnt have there stuff together and have rules posted.


Boy, you are new to all retriever sports aren't you....

/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> SRS started with 19 dogs in 2002 a qualifier for the greatoutdoor games. 2 events, with 19 dogs each.
> 
> 2007 5 events, 125 dogs each


What was the difference in entry fee/prize money value between 2002 and 2007?

kg


----------



## Ducks and Dogs (May 12, 2003)

SNardi said:


> I am nuturing SRS.



i think Ken was N U T U R E D :lol: 


make your own assumptions


----------



## Paul Yates (Mar 3, 2005)

The one constent in SRS from 2002 to 2007 is that the rules of the game can change at any time.


----------



## El General (Aug 20, 2004)

EdA said:


> El General said:
> 
> 
> > What kind of petal?
> ...


But unfortunately, the largest :twisted:


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

mjh345 said:


> Shannon; I love all dog games, and support your effort to "bring them to the masses" as it can only expose & bring new blood into the sport, which it can definitely use.
> However if this is your idea of 'splainin, I for one find it sorely lacking. Yes we do love these games, and it is all about the dogs, howeverthe idea of having a list of codified rules is meant to eliminate confusion;not create it!!
> If you have rules they must ALL be printed up and be available to all contestants for their review & perusal in preperation for competing in what is a relatively new venue. Particularily when you are reaching out and trying to embrace new competitors. These new competitors which you are trying to get from FT's have to have a reliable set of rules & parameters to know how to succesfully prepare their dogs
> The idea of telling a competitor "its in the rules" and then having competitor say not in mine. SRS apparently then responded that it is in the on line rules and again had to have the competitor show them once again that they were in error, show some serious holes in how your event is handled.
> ...


All I can say is thank you.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

mjh345 said:


> (snip)
> The idea of telling a competitor "its in the rules" and then having competitor say not in mine.
> 
> (snip)
> ...


Whoever you are MJH345, your post is excellant and hit the nail on the head.

"The Wheel Has Already Been Invented"! 

Maybe SRS should look at the AKC FT Rules a little harder if and when they rewrite their rules. Rules that have been refined over the last 70 years in determinig what constitutes great dog work by some of the best retriever handler/trainer minds in history. This would give the SRS "dog work" the credibility it lacks. The best dogs are not winning these events because as you stated, the best dogs don't enter. Except for Danny Farmer who was there to promote his new DVD, the really great trainers and their talented dogs aren't there because of the rules, their system of scoring, and most importantly, their idea of what constitutes good dog work.

I'm all for people making money and it wouldn't bother me in the least if all involved with SRS made 25 million each! I salute their efforts of bring retriever work to TV. I'm sure that their financial gain to this point has been small. They are obviouly going through growing pains. But, if they ever want to get the upper tier of handlers and dogs to their event, they are going to have to make that huge leap. If not, it will always be refered to as that made for TV retriever game. 

P S I could do without the Dock dogs. :wink: But, then again I may not be your target audience for the show, since I only spend a small fortune to duck hunt every year.


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

SNardi said:


> No I still will not explain, Go and ask the 125 teams that enter these events, that is what I meant in SRS will explain herself. My point is that it doesn't matter if I explain it or not, you will tear a hole in it somewhere, no doubt.
> 
> I came on and explained immediatley what we think happened to the rules in the transfer over from one company to another, because I felt terrible that it was not posted. That did not matter, you all made your own conclusions on that.
> 
> ...


My opinion probably isn't worth what you payed to read it, but in my mind when someone throws 'I' into a response that many times while they're trying to explain about how it's all about the dogs, I sorta start to think that maybe they aren't 100% sincere...seems like a lot of ego to me, but I don't know you from Eve and maybe I'm just getting a bad read...


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Booty, you need to call me sometime..........it's been too long. :lol:


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Heck, we talked last month, right after the Brazosport trial. I wanted to be Dozer's pimp, remember?


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> Heck, we talked last month, right after the Brazosport trial. I wanted to be Dozer's pimp, remember?


 :lol: :lol: I remember, I was being sarcastic. :wink:


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

spaightlabs said:


> SNardi said:
> 
> 
> > No I still will not explain, Go and ask the 125 teams that enter these events, that is what I meant in SRS will explain herself. My point is that it doesn't matter if I explain it or not, you will tear a hole in it somewhere, no doubt.
> ...


 :shock:


----------



## spaightlabs (Jul 15, 2005)

filter was switched off...dang Coors light...

I been pi$$y all day today...sorry.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> What was the difference in (SRS) entry fee/prize money value between 2002 and 2007?


Is this a tough question or is no one in a position to answer it?

kg


----------



## Troy B (May 25, 2005)

> I for one will just stick with FTs & feel many more will which is your loss since those are truly the best dogs IMO



Fortunately not everyone would agree with that sentiment.


----------



## Steve Dannaway (Dec 13, 2006)

I can't find a record of what it was in 2001, but as for 2004, it was $100 and went to $200 for 2005 and went to $225 in 2006.

I'll keep looking, but I don't think we'll be able to find that. There was a disk crash around 2003 that wiped out just about every old version of the site.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

What was the prize money before or for 2004?

kg


----------



## Steve Dannaway (Dec 13, 2006)

1st $3500
2nd $2500
3rd $1700
4th $1250
5th $1000

That was for 2003 (or maybe 2004, I can't tell from the code I'm looking at)


----------



## Driftdude (Jul 23, 2003)

fowl hunter said:


> we can all say what we want but its not going to change the fact Ken got screwed and srs is just going to say man so sorry but tooo bad and thanks for your big entry fee as they are on there way to the bank.If SRS was about the dogs I cant imagine the entry fees would be that high and the land owners would have to pay for the srs to come to there land and they have plent of sponsors that I am sure pay a decent penny to have there stuff posted Everywhere.. We keep saying good job for your first time,BS he is a good handler and has a great dog and it doesnt matter if it was his first or 10th he got bent over.Dont get me wrong because I do like JT and met him a few years ago and thought he was a good man when he stopped to talk with my son at a hunt test. I think He should be asked to run another event at no entry fee cost since SRS didnt have there stuff together and have rules posted.



Whoaa big fella....Dozer didn't get screwed in the least. He didn't have a single fault he didn't earn. Not one.

Ask anyone that saw him run....anyone, they'll tell you exactly what happned. He was judged as fair as anyone.

Let's clarify some things.

#1. 100% of the entry fees go back to the competitors.
#2. Land owners have never paid a dime to hold an SRS event. Local economies pay those fess because they recieve business and publicity from our being there. It's exactly like a hotel giving rooms or discounts to a HT or FT club.

I don't give a dam if Ken is better than Lardy, Akin and Farmer combined and Dozer is twice as good as Maxx, Corky and Super Sue combined his dog handled to the area on 2 out of 4 marks after pointing out every gun station....(yes they are very visible before they throw). I'm not talking about a slight show, I'm talking about a complete walk through. because we made the mistke these penalties were dropped. I can't do anything more fair for him.

You've let yourself believe this stuff...man...come on. It doesn't behoove us not to have new people win. Come on, I'm dumb, but not that dumb.

When a strict field trialer wins it's good for the SRS...Come on guys. if I didn't want Ken to do well I wouldn't have asked him to come. 

Ask Jerry day about Ken's run, or John Broucek....ask him if they think he got screwed.

We make our money on television sponsors....nothing else. Ask Chris Atkinson if he was asked to score anything one sided...he's judged, ask any judge we've ever had if they were every influenced or a score was changed...other than the score they gave. Ask them. 

Thanks,

JT


----------



## Driftdude (Jul 23, 2003)

K G said:


> > What was the difference in (SRS) entry fee/prize money value between 2002 and 2007?
> 
> 
> Is this a tough question or is no one in a position to answer it?
> ...


100% of every entry fee has always gone back to prize money....always.

Thanks,

JT


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

Then I guess I learned something, that all the money in entry fees goes back to the winner.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

I don't question that in the least, JT.

I'm trying to get a feel for the relative growth of SRS entry fees vs entry fees, cash prizes vs cash prizes from 2002-2007.

Shannon quoted the entry #s then vs now. I'm just trying to compare growth, that's all.

kg


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Justin Tackett said:


> fowl hunter said:
> 
> 
> > we can all say what we want but its not going to change the fact Ken got screwed and srs is just going to say man so sorry but tooo bad and thanks for your big entry fee as they are on there way to the bank.If SRS was about the dogs I cant imagine the entry fees would be that high and the land owners would have to pay for the srs to come to there land and they have plent of sponsors that I am sure pay a decent penny to have there stuff posted Everywhere.. We keep saying good job for your first time,BS he is a good handler and has a great dog and it doesnt matter if it was his first or 10th he got bent over.Dont get me wrong because I do like JT and met him a few years ago and thought he was a good man when he stopped to talk with my son at a hunt test. I think He should be asked to run another event at no entry fee cost since SRS didnt have there stuff together and have rules posted.
> ...


JT,

I'm not gonna get in a pissing match on who is telling the truth or not.

Those who know me will tell you I don't lie.

Funny you mention the names you do, because two out of three have called me in the last 2 days. Out of respect I will leave our conversations private.

Gunners were visible? Are you serious JT? 

JT, you can try to fool all the folks you want. But you ain't gonna fool me.

I knew I was walking into failure, but it's funny how it happened. Your mistake allowed for the truth to come out.

Also got a phone call from Avery Outdoors tonight. Should get interesting.

It's ashame you put an honest man like Jerry Day in this post. Jerry didn't see Dozer run because he just ran birdie and was leaving the line. He told me that himself.

But again, I guess I'm the liar.

Trust me folks...........I don't BS.

Those that know me can attest to that.

What will those say that know you JT?

Oh, if you only knew.


----------



## Josh Conrad (Jul 3, 2005)

Ah hell, this is gettin goood!!

Ken, did they try to run you over at the plate and bit off more than they could chew? HAH. :lol:


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

right on Ken.


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

I cant believe JT but Akin Lardy and Farmer in the same sentence.Akin is good but has a LOOOONNNGGGG way to go before he is in the same line as those 2.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Funny how Ken a week before the event accused JT and SRS of setting him up, being dishonest and working on his excuses. The mods even locked the thread to stop him from attacking folks associated with the event. As I see it, this has turned out exactly as Gutman wanted. He threw his ego out there, then realized he's in over his head on this one, laid the groundwork that he would be treated unfairly by the event and now he's playing it for all he's worth. Its called poor sportsmanship and is one of the basic problems in sports today. His first post made me think he was a bigger man and could walk away with honor, but his posts today show the kind of man he is. Face it buddy, anyone who ever ran a HT knows that you do not point out the gun stations to the dog. That is HT 101. You ran it like a FT, and got caught. Your proud of your number retired on that baseball field fence, think about the example your setting right now for all the kids playing in that field. This depicts whats wrong with our society today. 

/Paul


----------



## Tom Watson (Nov 29, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Funny how Ken a week before the event accused JT and SRS of setting him up, being dishonest and working on his excuses. The mods even locked the thread to stop him from attacking folks associated with the event. As I see it, this has turned out exactly as Gutman wanted. He threw his ego out there, then realized he's in over his head on this one, laid the groundwork that he would be treated unfairly by the event and now he's playing it for all he's worth. Its called poor sportsmanship and is one of the basic problems in sports today. His first post made me think he was a bigger man and could walk away with honor, but his posts today show the kind of man he is. Face it buddy, anyone who ever ran a HT knows that you do not point out the gun stations to the dog. That is HT 101. You ran it like a FT, and got caught. Your proud of your number retired on that baseball field fence, think about the example your setting right now for all the kids playing in that field. This depicts whats wrong with our society today.
> 
> /Paul


Thank you Mr. Arbitrator of Morality, Judge of Men's Hearts, and Keeper of Purity. You're practically omnicient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, aren't you?. You must be a pleaure to live with.

Speck in your own eye regards


----------



## Tom Watson (Nov 29, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Funny how Ken a week before the event accused JT and SRS of setting him up, being dishonest and working on his excuses. The mods even locked the thread to stop him from attacking folks associated with the event. As I see it, this has turned out exactly as Gutman wanted. He threw his ego out there, then realized he's in over his head on this one, laid the groundwork that he would be treated unfairly by the event and now he's playing it for all he's worth. Its called poor sportsmanship and is one of the basic problems in sports today. His first post made me think he was a bigger man and could walk away with honor, but his posts today show the kind of man he is. Face it buddy, anyone who ever ran a HT knows that you do not point out the gun stations to the dog. That is HT 101. You ran it like a FT, and got caught. Your proud of your number retired on that baseball field fence, think about the example your setting right now for all the kids playing in that field. This depicts whats wrong with our society today.
> 
> /Paul


Thank you for that treatise and analysis Mr. Arbitrator of Morality, Judge of Men's Hearts, and Keeper of Purity. You're practically omnicient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, aren't you?. You must be a pleaure to live with.

Speck in your own eye regards


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Funny how Ken a week before the event accused JT and SRS of setting him up, being dishonest and working on his excuses. The mods even locked the thread to stop him from attacking folks associated with the event. As I see it, this has turned out exactly as Gutman wanted. He threw his ego out there, then realized he's in over his head on this one, laid the groundwork that he would be treated unfairly by the event and now he's playing it for all he's worth. Its called poor sportsmanship and is one of the basic problems in sports today. His first post made me think he was a bigger man and could walk away with honor, but his posts today show the kind of man he is. Face it buddy, anyone who ever ran a HT knows that you do not point out the gun stations to the dog. That is HT 101. You ran it like a FT, and got caught. Your proud of your number retired on that baseball field fence, think about the example your setting right now for all the kids playing in that field. This depicts whats wrong with our society today.
> 
> /Paul


As your post show, I realize what I'm dealing with already.

But I'm gonna give you a chance to at least show you have an ounce of intelligence.

Please show or quote me where I've accused JT of anything on here.

I deal with facts..........you deal with assumptions.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

fowl hunter said:


> I cant believe JT but Akin Lardy and Farmer in the same sentence.Akin is good but has a LOOOONNNGGGG way to go before he is in the same line as those 2.


That's what I was thinking too.

And to even use the first letter of my name in the same sentence as Farmer and Lardy is a disgrace to the training ablilities of those two guys.

:lol: :lol:


----------



## MIDTNGRNHEAD (Jun 17, 2004)

Ken-what do you honestly think your score should have been on the second series? Keep in mind the no-go and handling on half of the marks .


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

MIDTNGRNHEAD said:


> Ken-what do you honestly think your score should have been on the second series? Keep in mind the no-go and handling on half of the marks .


I don't know.........

That's why I asked the questions on my very first post on the other thread.


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

Folks,

Please do not continue with any personal attacks. I realize that this is a touchy subject for many but an intelligent discussion is much more productive and educational than personal attacks.

Please "play nice",

Vicky


----------



## MIDTNGRNHEAD (Jun 17, 2004)

If the no-go was 10 points which we all thought it was and handling to the AOF twice was 5 each and 2 for each whistle thats 14 total and I think you posted that you remember 3 total whistles which is at least 2 more points. Thats 26 just on known faults you and I can remember. I also think Dozer's line to the long bird was wide right. Poor lines are at least 2. We're at 28 from memory two days and alot of driving miles later. Like I posted yesterday, the group I was standing with had his run between 30 & 35.


----------



## roger (May 5, 2004)

fowl hunter said:


> I cant believe JT but Akin Lardy and Farmer in the same sentence.Akin is good but has a LOOOONNNGGGG way to go before he is in the same line as those 2.


Obviously you know nothing about Chris Akin, and his accomplishments with our beloved retrievers. Because Chris chooses to lean more towards hunt test and SRS venues as opposed to Fields Trials leads you to believe he's not worthy of being mentioned in the same sentence as Lardy and Farmer. Why don't you ask those two mentioned, what they think of Chris. I'll tell you,,,it's what the majority of us already know, very few of us could only dream of having the talent and work ethic that Chris has when training dogs. I've seen it first hand, also he must be a fairly good teacher , Justin Etter who tutelaged under Chris is now going to work for Lardy, must be doing something right, so as you put it, maybe he doesn't have such a loooooooong time!


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

*Re: New Theory*



MRGD said:


> How about this:
> 
> Maybe there really is no, so called, Ken Guthrie. I think he is an invention of Chris Atkinson! I think Chris has paid of Tackett to play up this legend and try to add some legitimacy by acting like he was there. OHHHH, its so convenient that this round won't be on TV. So tell us Mr. Atkinson, how many millions have you made from "War Eagle, Dogs Afield, and Enhance" at the top of each of these tons of pages? Who's the marketing genius now Tackett. I'll tell you who, Chris the traffic generator.
> 
> ...






I have my opinions of this whole mess but am keeping it to myself.
But I WILL NOT let this dog (lie :wink: ). I'm not sure if I'm taking your post correctly or not but please let me know if this is a serious post or not before I get over you like a stud on a bitch in heat via pm ofcoarse. I can see both sides of of the Ken SRS thing and lean towards Kens side but the above quote if serious will really set me :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: off :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Tom Watson said:


> Gun_Dog2002 said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how Ken a week before the event accused JT and SRS of setting him up, being dishonest and working on his excuses. The mods even locked the thread to stop him from attacking folks associated with the event. As I see it, this has turned out exactly as Gutman wanted. He threw his ego out there, then realized he's in over his head on this one, laid the groundwork that he would be treated unfairly by the event and now he's playing it for all he's worth. Its called poor sportsmanship and is one of the basic problems in sports today. His first post made me think he was a bigger man and could walk away with honor, but his posts today show the kind of man he is. Face it buddy, anyone who ever ran a HT knows that you do not point out the gun stations to the dog. That is HT 101. You ran it like a FT, and got caught. Your proud of your number retired on that baseball field fence, think about the example your setting right now for all the kids playing in that field. This depicts whats wrong with our society today.
> ...


Thanks Tom. :lol: 

/Paul


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

I believe even Mr Akin will be the first to tell you he has a looonnnggg way to go before he is close to there level.Your comment was pure blind


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Gun_Dog2002 said:
> 
> 
> > Funny how Ken a week before the event accused JT and SRS of setting him up, being dishonest and working on his excuses. The mods even locked the thread to stop him from attacking folks associated with the event. As I see it, this has turned out exactly as Gutman wanted. He threw his ego out there, then realized he's in over his head on this one, laid the groundwork that he would be treated unfairly by the event and now he's playing it for all he's worth. Its called poor sportsmanship and is one of the basic problems in sports today. His first post made me think he was a bigger man and could walk away with honor, but his posts today show the kind of man he is. Face it buddy, anyone who ever ran a HT knows that you do not point out the gun stations to the dog. That is HT 101. You ran it like a FT, and got caught. Your proud of your number retired on that baseball field fence, think about the example your setting right now for all the kids playing in that field. This depicts whats wrong with our society today.
> ...


Ken my friend, I already showed you once the locked thread. You had a perfect opportunity to shake hands and walk away a hero. You did very well for not having any experience in anything but FT's. Now look at it. 

/Paul


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

Roger you said i didnt know about Chris's accomplishments or I wouldnt have said anything like that.He has a good record but no where near close to being where Farmer and Lardy are.Do you homework


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

*Re: New Theory*



Steve Shaver said:


> MRGD said:
> 
> 
> > How about this:
> ...


Why do so many people have such a hard time understanding MRGD's attempts at humor? :shock: I've never met the guy but I continue to see people jumping all over him for saying something that seems an obvious attempt to be funny.
MRGD, maybe you should start putting a disclaimer on the bottom of all your posts: "You may not think I'm funny but I do, please don't take anything I say seriously because it's probably not."


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

aCHIRO,Yes I think he is trying to be funny and esometimes he has been kinda but usually it is far from funny and way out there but he seems to be a good guy


----------



## roger (May 5, 2004)

fowl hunter said:


> Roger you said i didnt know about Chris's accomplishments or I wouldnt have said anything like that.He has a good record but no where near close to being where Farmer and Lardy are.Do you homework


I guess that's where we beg to differ!! Accomplishments are in the eye of the beholder. All three have succeeded on a National Level, just different venues. I believe it's Chris's love for waterfowl hunting that started him in this business, and also why he CHOOSES to stay closer to the Hunt test games. No doubt if desired, he would be competitive in any venue!


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

what National level did he compete at?Dont get me wrong I wouldnt hesitate to have a dog he has trained.I am not saying he is good because he is but the comparison is just not there.Sorry to bring your name up but Angie B is a very verygood trainer and has dogs shes trained doing well in fT and has many many MH and has dogs QAA and has been training for awhile but she would agree to having her name as being level with lardy and farmer.Sop do you think Akins dogs are on the same playing field as the dogs JT described in Lottie and super sue?


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

roger said:


> fowl hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Roger you said i didnt know about Chris's accomplishments or I wouldnt have said anything like that.He has a good record but no where near close to being where Farmer and Lardy are.Do you homework
> ...


Until Successful FT trainers/handlers start training for and consistently competing in SRS or the SRS handlers step up and compete in FT your OPINION is just that.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Over 15 thousand reads. Damm...........


----------



## Aaron Homburg (Sep 23, 2005)

*con*

*I don't have a dog in this fight of which trainer is the best....but I would add that being on TV Nationwide and competing in the SRS would be on a National level..imho....That being said ....I think Mr. Akin's dogs for the venue he chooses to compete in are as good as anyone's......the same can be said for Mr. Lardy or Mr. Farmer....in their venues their dogs are as good as anyones......I guess this will only be answered when and if Mr. Akin runs a FT....because we know what happens when Mr. Farmer chose to run a SRS......  

Two Cents Regards,

Aaron*


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

MIDTNGRNHEAD said:


> If the no-go was 10 points which we all thought it was


 Yes, as JT stated it was in a previous post *BUT* Ken's score sheet shows no 10 nor does it show consecutive 5's to total 10. Was it 10 as JT stated? If so Ken has a score of 5 with no fault to attach it to by going with the time line on the score sheet. AND the 10 penalty couldn't of been added later because the score sheet accounts for the stated score of 36. 
Lyle


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

*Re: con*



Aaron Homburg said:


> I guess this will only be answered when and if Mr. Akin runs a FT....because we know what happens when Mr. Farmer chose to run a SRS......
> 
> Two Cents Regards,
> 
> Aaron[/b]


He had a dog or dogs entered at the Memphis FT 2 or 3 years ago. The dog(s) didn't do anything but I know he has enetered at least one FT.


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

*Re: New Theory*



Steve Shaver said:


> MRGD said:
> 
> 
> > How about this:
> ...


Steve, you have got to be freakin kidding me. How could you possibly take that seriously. Like Chris would actually invent a persona ans spend what would have to be 100's of hours typing posts and stirring the pot, just to get more web traffic. How could that not be a joke. You would think the "INSANE conspiracy theory regards" would have made it clear to the ones that didn't get it from the proposterous assertion. 

I've already got my next thread, "The Sky is Falling, The Sky is Falling" Just kidding, don't run outside Steve.

On the advice of the great a wise back cracker See Disclaimer Regards


----------



## FowlDogs (Dec 31, 2004)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Also got a phone call from Avery Outdoors tonight. Should get interesting.


This is interesting that you post this. I wonder just who exactly you talked to.

I just had a phone conversation with the top 2 people that head up Avery's Sporting Dog division, Avery's marketing director, and the Territory manager for your area, and an Avery Pro-Staffer/Sporting Dog Specialist. None of them have talked to you and none of them have even heard about a conversation you may have had with Avery. A couple of them didn't even know your name until one of the guys mentioned that you are the one that's not taking getting sent home very well.

The marketing manager is in-charge of the relationship between SRS and Avery and he didn't even know who you were at first until it was explained to him. This manager was sitting at the line when you and Dozer ran.

So maybe you did have a conversation with Avery. Was it about an order you placed for some decoys? Because according to the 4 guys I just mentioned, who are the 4 people that would be directly involved with any communication with you concerning a dog event, they have not talked to you or heard of a conversation concerning you and Avery. 

Heck, I can say I got a call from the president last night and it would be true. It was the president of the company I work for, but it was a president none-the-less. But that would be mis-leading what actually took place.

Roger


----------



## Aaron Homburg (Sep 23, 2005)

*Re: con*



Mr Booty said:


> Aaron Homburg said:
> 
> 
> > I guess this will only be answered when and if Mr. Akin runs a FT....because we know what happens when Mr. Farmer chose to run a SRS......
> ...


*That is my bad Booty...I should have thought a little harder on that...his assistant runs the minor stakes quite a bit.....I guess I should have said until Mr. Akin concentrates fully on FT....dunno my bad...

Aaron*


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

again I can say it until I am black and blue,I know Chris is a very good trainer and will be a good one for a long time to come and I am not trying to bad mouth him or disrespect him.He seems to be very professional and a great overall good guy.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Ok..........

I think this has gone on too long.

At this point........nothing I say or anyone else says will make this matter any more.

I've tried to steer clear and obviously haven't done a good job. I apologize for that.

The venues we chose to play with our dogs are personal choice. The trainers we use will be personal choice. There is no doubt in my mind Mr. Akin is a fantastic trainer. So to debate who is better takes no advantage.

I think this thread has run it's coarse.

I still stand on that I did not accuse anyone of any foul play. Would I have like the situation to have been handled different, yes. But the same could be said from folks about myself.

Bottom line, this all doesn't matter it's time we recognize that we live in an imperfect world. It's time we try to do the right things for the retrievers in this game and give to them what they give to us.

Whatever venue you chose to do this in, as long as you have the best interest of the dog is all that matters.

I would hope we could wrap this topic up and move on to somethingproductive. 

I'm sure Chris would like for the force fetching topics to start coming back. :lol:


----------



## Tom Watson (Nov 29, 2005)

FowlDogs said:


> Ken Guthrie said:
> 
> 
> > Also got a phone call from Avery Outdoors tonight. Should get interesting.
> ...


That's the second time Gut has been called a liar on this thread (or the other one) by you SRS groupies.

Ms. Vicky, where are the personal attack police?

Keepin' it real regards


----------



## Tall Gunner (Apr 17, 2007)

Hey Gut.......I think you would look good in a Water Dog handlers shirt! 

What a marketing opportunity............

"Ex pro baseball player, trained by Danny Farmer, playing the dog game with the big boys in SRS!" 

Avery would be crazy not to pursue this.........And it's not out of the question by any means. Remember, Dan Heard is not a pro.....he makes dentures for a living. 

Now who is going to come up with the Gut T-shirt design?


----------



## FowlDogs (Dec 31, 2004)

Tom Watson said:


> That's the second time Gut has been called a liar on this thread (or the other one) by you SRS groupies.
> 
> Ms. Vicky, where are the personal attack police?
> 
> Keepin' it real regards


Tom,

I am not calling Ken a liar. He may very well have received a phone call from Avery Outdoors. I'm not saying anything to the contrary.

What I am saying is that the 4 people I spoke to a short time ago are the top 4 people at Avery to address his issues and they have not heard one word about a conversation with Mr. Guthrie. 

There would be only 1 person above these 4 that Ken might have talked to and that would be Tom Mathews, the owner of Avery Outdoors. Being an Avery Pro-Staffer/Sporting Dog Specialist myself, I know that if Ken had a conversation with Tom, that at least one of those 4 individuals would have heard about it.

So Ken may have had that conversation that he mentioned previously. But I guarantee it does not hold the merit to the conversation at hand like he would like to lead us to believe.

Roger


----------



## Tom Watson (Nov 29, 2005)

*dozer and guthrie*

Roger;

Gut said that someone from Avery had called him. He is not responsible for what you thought he meant by that. You can infer anything you like, but it doesn't change the facts.

Not responsible for what you think I meant by what I said regards,

Tom


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

*Re: con*



Mr Booty said:


> ...He had a dog or dogs entered at the Memphis FT 2 or 3 years ago. The dog(s) didn't do anything but I know he has enetered at least one FT.


I think I heard Akin say at a recent HT he has/has had a dog running FTs with Al Arthur or maybe its some other association. Being a GA resident, he recommended Al Arthur to me on that basis.

Does Akin run the Master Nat'l or the Grand for those of you familar with his program?


----------



## FowlDogs (Dec 31, 2004)

Tom Watson said:


> That's the second time Gut has been called a liar on this thread (or the other one) by you SRS groupies.
> 
> Ms. Vicky, where are the personal attack police?
> 
> Keepin' it real regards


Oh, and Tom,

I find it interesting that you speak up when you think I have called Mr. Guthrie a liar, which I did not.

However, you never said a word when people are insinuating that Justin Tackett is a cheat, hack, scoundrel, sheister. That SRS is a fraud and unethical. That the judges manipulate the scoring. etc.

These were all personal attacks that have occurred over the last couple of days and you said nothing then.

I bring factual information to the conversation and you say that I am calling Ken a liar and you want a moderator to step in?

Double standard, don't you think?

Roger


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

FowlDogs said:


> Tom Watson said:
> 
> 
> > That's the second time Gut has been called a liar on this thread (or the other one) by you SRS groupies.
> ...


I like Tom. He gave me fancy new titles....

/Paul


----------



## FowlDogs (Dec 31, 2004)

*Re: dozer and guthrie*



Tom Watson said:


> Roger;
> 
> Gut said that someone from Avery had called him. He is not responsible for what you thought he meant by that. You can infer anything you like, but it doesn't change the facts.
> 
> ...



Come on Tom!!!! We are all smarter than that. Avery was never mentioned one time in any of these conversations until Ken brought it up.

His comment was "Also got a phone call from Avery Outdoors tonight. Should get interesting."

Why did he say this? Was it open ended? You bet it was. But in the context of the message he used this in, he was rebutting some of Justin's comments. Avery is a key sponsor of SRS. It does not take a genius to understand why Ken threw these words out there.

I followed up to find out what it was about and learned that the key people that would be involved with any conversation of a nature that Ken wants us to believe it was don't even know anything about it.

Or maybe he meant by saying "Also got a phone call from Avery Outdoors tonight. Should get interesting." that he got a call saying his order for the new full-body decoys will be arriving soon and with these great decoys his duck season this fall should be interesting? I DON"T THINK SO!!!!!!


Roger


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

*Re: dozer and guthrie*



FowlDogs said:


> Tom Watson said:
> 
> 
> > Roger;
> ...


He also threw this out there....



Ken Guthrie said:


> What will those say that know you JT?
> 
> Oh, if you only knew.











/Paul


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

Tom Watson said:


> Ms. Vicky, where are the personal attack police?
> 
> Keepin' it real regards


Tom,

Staying very busy, as you already know, with PMs.  Between working with my training dogs in force fetching, I get a chance to log onto RTF and monitor these threads. It seems that quite a few people want to make Ken's business their own. 

It always amazes me to see how threads evolve into matters not at issue. (ie Farmer, Lardy, Akins) 

Many on RTF were rooting for Ken & Dozer.....as would be expected as they are part of the "RTF Family". I'm sure there were some that were not. This isn't surprising as there is "sibling rivalry" even in real life families. As in real life families, I'm sure that some of the RTF Family want to be the "big brother" and protect and/or "fight" for their "sibling".

As has been stated numerous times on RTF, personal attacks will not be tolerated...this also goes for attacks against business.

PLEASE FOLKS.....PLAY NICE.

Vicky


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

Are there still folks out there that believe "it's all about the dogs"? :shock: HPW


----------



## TxFig (Apr 13, 2004)

fowl hunter said:


> what National level did he compete at?



Just off the top of my head:

HRC Grand.


----------



## Ducks and Dogs (May 12, 2003)

HarryWilliams said:


> Are there still folks out there that believe "it's all about the dogs"? :shock: HPW



yeah DOZER was SCREWED 

and possibly nutured by shannon :lol: 



just not sure who he was screwed by


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

*Re: con*



Granddaddy said:


> I think I heard Akin say at a recent HT he has/has had a dog running FTs with Al Arthur or maybe its some other association. Being a GA resident, he recommended Al Arthur to me on that basis.
> 
> Does Akin run the Master Nat'l or the Grand for those of you familar with his program?


He runs the HRC Grand, which--according to a Eukaneba commercial featuring Mr. Tackett and his dog--"is the pinnacle of retriever events." :wink: 

MG


----------



## FowlDogs (Dec 31, 2004)

*Re: con*



Granddaddy said:


> Does Akin run the Master Nat'l or the Grand for those of you familar with his program?


In recent Grands, Chris has been one of the most successful handlers there. Taking the maximum allowed dogs, he passes all but 1 maybe 2. I think it was last years Fall grand that he passed every dog he took. Would have to look that up to verify that though.


Roger


----------



## FowlDogs (Dec 31, 2004)

*Re: con*



crackerd said:


> He runs the HRC Grand, which--according to a Eukaneba commercial featuring Mr. Tackett and his dog--"is the pinnacle of retriever events." :wink:
> 
> MG


I don't know the commercial by heart off the top of my head, but I believe it says something more line "the pinnacle of a hunting retriever's career". Very different from what you have stated and would be true for dog's that run HRC events.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

*Re: New Theory*



achiro said:


> Steve Shaver said:
> 
> 
> > MRGD said:
> ...







That's why I put it the way I did and give him a chance to tell me he was just kiddin cuz I'm not real sure. A little smiley face here and there would help, that's what the emoticons are for :roll: :? 
I've been on his board as long as just about anyone and a lot longer than most but I don't post much cuz I dont put my thoughts into words very well. Internet interpretation is not always easy.
BUT if ANYONE truly bashes Mr Atkinson I will get riled up pretty good. Chris is one of the few people on this board or in this world that I would genuinely consider a really decent human being.
So if I took it wrong I apoligize.


----------



## roger (May 5, 2004)

Ken, very well put, we all share a common bond and we all know thats the dogs we so love very much, sorry about your misfortune in the SRS games. I never intended to steer this post away from your happenings in Ar. and like JT stated, I agree the sport needs men like yourself and others from all venues to keep SRS, and other dog games up and running for years to come. 
Obviously I'm a Akin fan, for my first love is waterfowl hunting, and HRC games, but like so many others, Lardy, Farmer, and several other accomplished trainers on here, there's guys like myself who marvel after and admire so much for what they all have accomplished, and how they set the standards for so many of us. I never suggested Chris, was better than Lardy or anyone else for that matter, and by all means, anyone that knows Chris would agree, He'd be the last to ever suggest anything remotely close to that. 
It's just I felt in other dog venues he's reached the pinnacle of those competition's that myself and many others love to compete in. I also will lay this debate to rest for I to feel this thread has run it's course. Congratulations on having the nads to step to the plate and play a game you weren't all that familiar with.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

*Re: con*



FowlDogs said:


> crackerd said:
> 
> 
> > He runs the HRC Grand, which--according to a Eukaneba commercial featuring Mr. Tackett and his dog--"is the pinnacle of retriever events." :wink:
> ...


Watch it (and listen) again.

MG


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

*Re: New Theory*



MRGD said:


> Steve Shaver said:
> 
> 
> > MRGD said:
> ...





Exactly why I dont post much, shouldnt have this time.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> Being an Avery Pro-Staffer/Sporting Dog Specialist myself....


Just what does this entail, besides getting free stuff?

kg


----------



## FowlDogs (Dec 31, 2004)

K G said:


> > Being an Avery Pro-Staffer/Sporting Dog Specialist myself....
> 
> 
> Just what does this entail, besides getting free stuff?
> ...


Are youasking because you seriously want to know or are you looking to spin this information like so many others have spun information throughout this thread?


Roger


----------



## MRGD (Apr 9, 2007)

No big deal Steve. I do agree, Steve does seem to be a good and decent guy. He welcomed me when I got here and has been nice sense. I meant absolutely no disrespect to him, I just thought it was so outlandish. Anyway, maybe I will look into some of these smilee things.

tt


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

K G said:


> > Being an Avery Pro-Staffer/Sporting Dog Specialist myself....
> 
> 
> Just what does this entail, besides getting free stuff?
> ...


Waaaall now, I'd wager when it comes to gundogs or specifically retrievers, this entails about the same as a bicycle's utilitarian value to finned species.

Yours in marketing strategems,

MG


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

OK...everybody had their fun?

I'm locking this thread now.

Ken, congrats on getting along quite well in your first entry into SRS, having never run a hunt test before!

To all here. Please stop accusing others of lying, personal attacks etc.

A few of you should apologize directly to Shannon Nardi. Tackett thrives on this stuff. Shannon, however, makes her fulltime living bringing retriever work to the entire world. I think it really sucks the way some of you have chosen to disrespect her in the mannner that you have.

I'll keep the rest of my thoughts to myself.

Chris


----------

