# NDRC FT



## LabLady101

These are off the top of my head, but I think they're right...

*QUAL:*
1st- #20 YDK Boss's Nitrous Express O:Eric Fletcher Have Rorem
2nd- #26 Dominator Boots She Worth It O:Hank/Linda Knoblauch H:Steve Blythe
3rd- #17 Sweet Swing'n Fred O:Todd Martin H:Jim Beck
4th-#43 Creekside Maggie J O:Jessie Kent H:Chris Ledford
RJ- #18 Fordland's Joe Willie Oeter Stritzinger H:Chris Ledford
JAMs:
#3- Candlewood's A-Maizyn' Dream O:Bernie & Bev Zylstra H:Jim Beck
#12- Kornman's Back in Black Oaul Hanson Han Sayles
#38- Stillwater's Sam I Am O:Ken Dorr H:Mike Bassett
#50- Smiths Major Payne O:Chris Smith H:Chris Lind
#51- Premier's Duramax O:Jim Shea Have Rorem


----------



## Tom Watson

*ndrc*

Thanks for the report. Congratulations to the Fletchers!

Any news on the open? Heard it was a tight quad and that out of the first thirty or so dogs, only six had done it.


----------



## Angie B

YESSSSSSS! Congratulations Nitro, his owner Eric and Dave for the win.. You just needed a few weekends to warm up!!!!

Angie


----------



## edfletcher

*HDRC FT*

I second Angie B's congratulations to Nitro, Eric and Dave. She, of course, didn't say that Nitro was a MH that she trained and titled and that he appears to have successively made the switch to Field Trial work. So, she gets a congratulations also.

Ed Fletcher


----------



## Gwen Jones

Heard the Open was a killer. Out out of the first 45 dogs, 8 were successful and only 3 of those were nice. This report was mid afternoon. Any word on how far they got on day one?


----------



## Kyle B

My report (as of an hour or so ago) of the open was that 11 dogs have done it so far, but only a few were clean. Quad with a long flyer, 2 middle distance retired birds and a breaking bird.


----------



## Buzz

Congrats to the South Dakota Boys, Jim & Steve.

And congrats to the Knoblauchs. Boots is a sweetie. Two weeks ago she finished her water marks and on their way to the tie out, Boots stops and puts her head on my lap, looks up at me with those friendly eyes - begging to be petted. I told Steve that I was taking her home.


----------



## Gwen Jones

Just had a call. 25 dogs back to 2nd in Open. Aprox.7 with handles.
About to start land blind.


----------



## Angie B

OMG!!!!  

Sounds alot like Bluebonnet last spring.... Yikes!

Angie


----------



## Tom Watson

*ndrc*

Am callbacks to the land blind in the morning, 26 dogs:
1,2,3,9,14,16,19,21,26,32,34,36,37,40,43,44,45,47,48,49,54,57,59,60,61,
63

Derby call backs to the last series:
2,4,5,12,20,21,23,25,27,33

Open land blind should finish tonight, reportedly as tough as the first series was.


----------



## Guest

are you serious? 109 dog open, 25 called back to the 2nd?????????


----------



## K G

Sounds about _normal_............... :? 

Not *right*....but _normal_......... :roll: 

25 with approx. 7 handles (who says you don't need luck in this game) regards,

kg


----------



## Gwen Jones

Starting the water blind this a.m. with 10 dogs!!


----------



## Gwen Jones

Update with corrections and very little info. Bad cell service caused an error in the number of dogs going to the water blind. There were 15 or 16 that ran the blind this morning. There are 9 back to the 4th. All I know is that Farmer has 3, Rorem has 3, Moody has 1,Dave Davis has one and they were not sure of the last one. Sorry that I do not have numbers or dog names.


----------



## Suzanne Burr

No Keith, it doesn't sound normal--it sounds ludicrous. Bullfighting is a sport that can be a bloodbath, field trials should not fall into the same catagory. 

Suzanne B


----------



## EdA

Suzanne Burr said:


> No Keith, it doesn't sound normal--it sounds ludicrous.


according to someone who was there :shock: and whose opinion I value :idea: it was a very difficult set of marks with water and very good bird placement

hard but fair does not equal "ludicrous" IMHO


----------



## Gwen Jones

Heard the same thing as Ed. VERY tough set of marks with a piece of water at 150 yards out. If they avoided the water, it put them back into an old fall. 

I have heard that it was hard but fair.


----------



## Guest

i disagree. if your results are that drastics, its not good bird placement, its just a poor test to make good dogs look bad. 
i dont think when you are asked to judge that the intention is to see how bad you can kill the field.
as for "normal"...
when are you all going to wake up? this is not normal.
it is becoming the "norm" because you all sit back and accept it.
and those that accept this are obviously not out training their own dogs each day, working hard to pay the entry fees to run these ridiculous setups. 

you all wonder whether creek robber will outpoint corky. after reading years of FT news i never saw that corky had to put up with these types of tests.

as for this weekend, although i do not know these judges personally, but they are very well known throughout the FT world and i think should know better than to set such a test and actually keep it to the end. do they not recognize "too much"??? 
do you think even their own dogs could do that test???


----------



## K G

They had 109 entries.....probably only a few scratches.....sounds like those that weren't back just plain didn't do a _hard_ test. Could they have made the test easier? Undoubtedly....._but_......

Anybody who has judged a 100+ dog Open (yep.... :shock: ) knows if you don't start *hard*, you're in a world of hurt for the rest of the weekend.

IMHO, they'd have been better off running a Restricted....I know two dogs that wouldn't have been eligible to run, and that would have been just FINE with me. It would have been more fun for both the judges AND the handlers that way...again, IMHO....

You buys your ticket you takes your chances regards, :wink: 

kg


----------



## Guest

my guess is that at the end of the day they sat back and had a good laugh at how bad the dogs were. how does that make you feel, knowing your dogs are being laughed at by the judges? that is not a "fair" test......


----------



## K G

suprdogs said:


> my guess is that at the end of the day they sat back and had a good laugh at how bad the dogs were. how does that make you feel, knowing your dogs are being laughed at by the judges? that is not a "fair" test......


You don't know the judges, yet you think they were laughing at the dogs? And as for "fair," that goes out the window after about 75-80 dogs start the test.

Run a Restricted Open. Otherwise, it's a money grab for a club when they know they're gonna have 80+ entries.

JMHO.

kg


----------



## Guest

yes, i do think they were. and there should be no limit when it comes to fair.
this was a special, not an open. therefore these were all good dogs. when only 25 can do the test, it is a bad test, IMHO.
why do you defend this? because you werent there either.


----------



## K G

I'm not defending it. I abhor it. There were steps that could have been taken to prevent it is what I'm saying.

That, and while I wasn't there, _I've been in their shoes_. *Have you?*

kg


----------



## Tom Watson

*ndrc*

It's not the judges' fault the field was so large. Not finishing by dark on Sunday night *would* be the judges fault. As I see it, JMHO, the judges had no choice but to have a deep cut in the first series. I say this having been a "victim" of similar situations with deep cuts in the first series of a large trial. My source at the trial said it was fair, but extremely hard, as others have reported. 

No doubt the competition is stiffer than when Corky competed, but such is the nature of the competitive spirit that drives us to participate in this sport. If you can't stand the heat, move on to the parlor where it's cooler.


----------



## Guest

yes, i judge my share and then some. i am pretty sure there are a few people on this forum that can atest to that. i dont comment on what i dont have experience.
and yes, i know that when judging things happen. but dont make excuses for it because you are telling the new people in this sport that its ok to do this. its not ok.
its not ok to set a test that cuts a field to the knees. large entries are no excuse for bad tests and blood bathes at the line.
i absolutely agree that the first series must get separation. always, not just when you have a large entry. the first series is the most important time to be right and each and every series must follow with the same degree of difficulty thereafter to get the right winner for that trial.
but you dont have to take an ax to the dogs to get answers. and dont make excuses for those that do.
this trial had 109 dogs that have placed in trials this year. these are good dogs and these judges cut them off at the knees, and IMHO had a good laugh afterwards.
these 2 judges are not new guys on the block. one has a NFC and the other a very very good FC AFC and both with many years of experience behind both of them. they should know better and if they didnt when they set the test, they should have seen it when the blood started flowing.
dont make excuses because that only tells everyone else its ok.


----------



## K G

> i dont comment on what i dont have experience.


So you _have_ judged a 109 dog open? :? 



> this trial had 109 dogs that have placed in trials this year.


Not necessarily. Check the rulebook for what qualifies a dog to run a Special.

It's not a great situation to be in for anyone, neither judge nor competitor. Glad some folks are willing to suffer the slings and arrows of everyone from afar.

kg


----------



## Guest

well, they dont suffer much when they have others from afar defending them.
as for 109 dog specials, nah, just 90+. i guess the extra 10 dogs would really make me think again.


----------



## K G

> _I'm not defending it. I abhor it. There were steps that could have been taken to prevent it is what I'm saying._


Guess you missed this part. It shoots down your argument.

kg


----------



## Guest

oh, me bad. you are so right. placed or jammed in the last 12 months. that makes a huge difference. no less qualified as far as i am concerned. good dogs are good dogs.


----------



## Sue Kiefer

Soooooooooo any way...............
Who did what in the Open?
I have one question for the both of you??
If this trial is usually big because of the southern influence why enter a dog/your dog/dogs If they are babies??
Wait till they all go home and the trials are smaller.
Just askin :wink: 
Sue


----------



## Guest

you have yet to shoot down my arguement. you say it was hard, i say it was too much. there is a big difference between hard and excess.
i can stand by a hard test any day and i look forward to it. when you have to pray to the moon, stars and gods above that your dog may stumble on the bird, thats excessive, not hard.
a good judge not only can set a hard test, he/she also recognizes and appreciates why its so hard and knows when it goes beyond.
a good judge appreciates dogs and good dog work. he/she knows why they are good also.
a good judge does not make fools of good dogs.
all IMHO and i not only stand by it, i do my best to practice the same when i judge.


----------



## K G

suprdogs said:


> oh, me bad. you are so right. placed or jammed in the last 12 months. that makes a huge difference. *no less qualified as far as i am concerned.* _good dogs are good dogs._


Well then by all _means_ let's get rid of any qualifying standards whatsoever! :lol: And now you're quoting John Fallon! Need I say more!! :lol: :lol: 



> you have yet to shoot down my arguement. you say it was hard, i say it was too much. there is a big difference between hard and excess.


I'm going by comments from two folks that talked to people that were there. You're going on number analyzation _only_.



> i can stand by a hard test any day and i look forward to it. when you have to pray to the moon, stars and gods above that your dog may stumble on the bird, thats excessive, not hard.


And you have determined this is what the NDRC test was? How? By number analyzation _only_.



> a good judge not only can set a hard test, he/she also recognizes and appreciates why its so hard and knows when it goes beyond.
> a good judge appreciates dogs and good dog work. he/she knows why they are good also.
> a good judge does not make fools of good dogs.
> all IMHO and i not only stand by it, i do my best to practice the same when i judge.


I will agree with you here. However, there is no way to determine if the above factors were involved or not when looking at this trial, simply by looking at numbers.

It'll be interesting to hear some "first person" comments when folks are able to get online.



> If this trial is usually big because of the southern influence why enter a dog/your dog/dogs If they are babies??


I've already posted *my* answer to that. I have a 6 year old and a 3 year old entered because my pro is up there. Had I been paying attention on EE, I'd have pulled them myself. Lesson learned.

I'm thinking now that if an Open has over 75 entries or an Am over 65, my dogs won't be entered. Pondering, actually...........

The trips home will begin this weekend. More trials and more conflicts between them will mean more manageable numbers. Yippee!!!!!!!  

kg


----------



## Gwen Jones

Oprn Results

1- Rorem -Abby
2. Rorem -Blue
3. Farmer - Quezzy
4. Farmer-Ethel ? I think
RJ-Dave Davis - Big
J - Moody - Tyra Banks
J- one more they did not get


----------



## Jenn

_*Congratulations to...

Dave Rorem - 

Emerald Bay's Miss Abacadabra (O) Mayo and Julie Rude 

and 

Pinehurst's True Blue (O) James & Debbie Hurst *_ 

_*I believe that gives both of them their FC!!! Blue was already qualified for the National, and I believe Abby now is! *_

_*Congratulations to Dave Davis with Biggie! *_
Congrats to all!


----------



## Tom Watson

*nrdc*

13 to the water marks in the Amateur. Don't have numbers.


----------



## Angie B

Congratulations to Dave and Danny... Not a bad weekend considering how tough the tests sounded.

Congrats to you too Gwen!! That Tyra is really humming this summer!!  

Angie


----------



## Jason E.

Congrats Gwen , Charlie Moody, and Tyra... see u guys this fall.


----------



## Russell Archer

You folks are being too harsh on the judges.....It was a fair test, period.

To get through that first series you most certainly had to bring your A game, doing a good job of marking isn't going to cut it in a 109 dog Open. My dog stepped on three and was about 2 feet away from the fourth but, for some reason went a little deep and didn't quite recover.

Hats off to Dave Rorem for taking a 1st & 2nd in a extreamly difficult and competitive Open.


----------



## KEITH L

as long as every dog had an equal chance to do the test 20+% did 
well enough. good enough for me. congrats gwen and those who 
finished. nothing better than finishing a tough big trial of some of the best dogs. remeber they all did quallify to get there... gotta be tough....


keith l
________
500


----------



## Northrup Larson

*Re: nrdc*



Tom Watson said:


> 13 to the water marks in the Amateur. Don't have numbers.



Does any one have the results of the AM ?


----------



## DJSchuur

*am*

congrats to vern and kathy on 4th place in the am with Libby and roger weller as well on his win with Max


----------



## Buzz

*Re: am*



DJSchuur said:


> congrats to vern and kathy on 4th place in the am with Libby and roger weller as well on his win with Max


That's outstanding! Congrats Vern & Kathy! Thanks for the heads up Duane.


----------



## EdA

Russell Archer said:


> You folks are being too harsh on the judges.....It was a fair test, period..


Actually the only ones critical were Suzanne and suprdogs, I do not know Suzanne, I do know suprdogs and know her to be a good and knowledgeable judge. I disagree with her stance on this one, as the saying goes "you had to be there", none of us know the situation other than the size of the entry, judging 109 dogs is daunting.

There are many factors that the judges faced, the primary one being time, but also they had to factor in the quality of the field, the quality of the grounds, the efficiency of the club, was the water good or marginal. As a judge the worst mistake you can make (IMHO) is to overestimate the difficulty of your test and do something so easy that minor infractions are elevated to importance.

After judging field trials for 32 years I am still not always certain how difficult a test will be, perhaps others are much more talented than I am. 

My advice to my inexperienced co-judege is always this......You can call them back if they do poorly but you can't drop them if they do well, make the test (especially in the Open) as difficult as you can and then make it a little more difficult. 

Personally I would much prefer to criticized for being too hard than for being too easy................GO KWEEZY  ..qualified for the 2007 National Retriever Championship


----------



## edfletcher

I was not there and can not say first hand what I thought of the trial, but I can tell you what Dave Rorem has reported to me twice today. When he first called me to tell me what Lilly did, (which was BTW, get a JAM and do the whole trial without a handle, only one of seven) he said that he thought the trial was very hard, but very fair. He said that he had no complaints and that he had complimented the judges on the way it had been set up and judged. He also said that he preferred to have a trial that challenging to one that left him wondering what his dogs really were capable of doing.

I tend to agree with what Ed A said in his earlier post. I have talked to a person who was there, and a person who I have a great deal of respect for and he has his given me his honest opinion. If Dave says it was a hard but fair trial, then that is how I will rate it and you will not hear a word of criticism from me. 

After reading all this criticism on RTF, I called him back just to confirm what he said earlier. He didn't change a thing except that he was more adamant about how much he enjoyed the trial. 

Now, if only Lilly had won!!!

Ed Fletcher


----------



## SD Lab

*nd trial*

I've always liked the trials where the Dog has eliminated itself.


----------



## mjh345

Congrats to Roger Weller on his win in the Am with Max. 
There is no better person in FT's today than Roger. A well deserved win! 
SALUTE!!


----------



## Guest

*Re: nd trial*



SD Lab said:


> I've always liked the trials where the Dog has eliminated itself.



yeah, i suppose most do. it really takes care of the judging aspect all by itself.

in a hunt test the test is set with a specific standard in mind. the dogs pass or fail based on what the judges feel all dogs should be required to do to get to the next series.

in a field trial a test is set to test each and every dog against one another to find the best dog. the callbacks are based on the work of the dogs in relation to eachother. these tests begin with series one, not after series one has eliminated everyone that cannot do an almost undo-able setup.

do you really not understand the difference here??

i have judged rorem, farmer, and most of the other profession trucks at this trial. unless they had a huge turnover in the last year that i am unaware of, you cannot convince me that 80 of their dogs were just not good enough to do a "fair" setup in a first series of a field trial.


----------



## Guest

K G said:


> suprdogs said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh, me bad. you are so right. placed or jammed in the last 12 months. that makes a huge difference. *no less qualified as far as i am concerned.* _good dogs are good dogs._
> 
> 
> 
> Well then by all _means_ let's get rid of any qualifying standards whatsoever! :lol: And now you're quoting John Fallon! Need I say more!! :lol: :lol:
> 
> To clarify, as far as I am concerned those Jams are important finishes as well and I guess if we are going to continue to run trials judged with excessively difficult test then they ought to be even more important.
> When I say "no less qualified" I feel a dog that has Jammed an Open will probably be able to place as some time and should be given the credit due for the finish. Too many people IMHO discount the Jams.
Click to expand...


----------



## 2dogs

I would just like to know the Am and Derby results.........?


----------



## Wade Thurman

I guess you need to be at the trial to really justify the savagery of the 1st series test. I say this because I didn't read one thing about the 1st series test from a week ago.
68 dogs enter BUT only 13 or 14 dogs did the fisrt test without a handle.

This test in ND was a tight triple with a water push. Ya there was a 4th bird a walk out thrown 50-60 yards off the line to allow the retired guns time to retire. 
As someone stated earlier, if you didn't get enough of the water you would ultimately end up moving into the middle bird.

It was a very tough, difficult test WITHOUT any gimmicky stuff. Lastly, I can tell you this, Gary or Mike were not laughing at the handlers or dogs as they left the line or at the end of the day when they sat down to do their callbacks.

The dogs are so doggone good now days. Each week is different where last weeks winner can't do this weeks 1st series. Last week Ichiro goes 20 for 25 as a hitter for your Mariners but this week he goes 5 for 25.
THAT IS NATURE.


GOOD LUCK to ALL who run this upcoming weekend!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Gwen Jones

Wade, this was a really nice reply. Having a dog that got a jam - I feel like she has really shown me that the summer trips training program was a success. This was a trial that made me proud to have her finish!


----------



## K G

suprdogs said:


> K G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> suprdogs said:
> 
> 
> 
> oh, me bad. you are so right. placed or jammed in the last 12 months. that makes a huge difference. *no less qualified as far as i am concerned.* _good dogs are good dogs._
> 
> 
> 
> Well then by all _means_ let's get rid of any qualifying standards whatsoever! :lol: And now you're quoting John Fallon! Need I say more!! :lol: :lol:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To clarify, as far as I am concerned those Jams are important finishes as well and I guess if we are going to continue to run trials judged with excessively difficult test then they ought to be even more important.
> When I say "no less qualified" I feel a dog that has Jammed an Open will probably be able to place as some time and should be given the credit due for the finish. Too many people IMHO discount the Jams.
Click to expand...

While I don't disagree with your premise, the Jams awarded at the end of *any* all-age stake, whether it be a 20 dog Am in Alaska or a 109 dog Open in North Dakota, make dogs eligible to run a Limited for the rest of their lives and a Special for the rest of that calendar year and all of the next calendar year. What they "ought" to count for and how we "feel" about them as indications of a dog's ability is entirely subjective. There's no way to tell the difference _on paper_ between the dog that Jams a small AA stake vs. a large AA stake. 

Wade put it pretty well: the dog that wins this week doesn't finish next week, ad infinitum.

I particularly liked his assessment of the trial where 68 dogs started and only 13 or 14 finished the test (first series, I'd guess) without a handle. I guess the callbacks as a % of the number of starters didn't stand out as much as the NDRC Open did.... :? 

kg


----------



## Buzz

I just got off the phone with Steve Blythe. He said that the test was a really tough SOB, but that it was a really good test, and a very fair test. The two dogs he ran came within a hair of doing it but got dropped. He said he had to hand it to the judges for being able to tough out two days of watching 109 dogs try and do it... 

Congrats on the Jam Gwen.
Also, congrats to Dennis Mitchell for the Jam in the Am!


----------



## edfletcher

I agree with Gwen. I am proud of Lilly's JAM. To be one of only seven dogs, out of 109, to finish a tough trial like this one without a handle, is something to be happy with and build on, especially after her trip to the cemetery. If it was a funny in person as it was when Dave told me the story, it must have been quite a sight. I wish I had been there to see it.

Ed Fletcher


----------



## Franco

This Open was a toughie last year. :wink: 

In 06, they had 110 dogs entered, 18 call-backs to the water blind. 
With that many, looks like the judges did what they thought they had to do.


----------



## 2dogs

Ok, I am sorry.........but one of you must have the results of the Am and Derby.......please post it!


----------



## Wade Thurman

All I can tell you about the AM & Derby are the winners.

Roger Weller won the AM with Max I believe.

Steve Yozamp won the Derby with Seasides Pelican Pete. Owned by Bob Zylla.

Sorry I don't have more for you.


----------



## john fallon

Hey Keith,

I would like to see someone on the Forum quote you some time!!!! 

:idea: Why don't you say something worth repeating .

Four day OPEN regards

john


----------



## K G

Being quoted is not always a _good_ thing, John.... :wink: ....especially when it wasn't _exactly_ a thought-provoking phrase........not to mention that it was _so_ obviously unintentional on Kim's part.... :?....and I should have _known_ better than to bring it to your attention...... :lol: :lol: 

You're _welcome_........... 8) 

Restricted Open/cut back on the "donations"/110 entries last year/those-who-forget-the-past-are-condemned-to-relive-it regards,

kg


----------



## Guest

I would like to clarify my opinions which I have voiced and then this will be my last comment on this subject.
My frustration is not with the NDRC Open and their judges. Nor actually the test as I was not there to see it. And as for the other trials that were mentioned, I missed those. I only saw this one because I was looking for a friends derby dog info.
My frustration and emotion is and always has been with the responses from almost all of the persons on this forum in regards to a test, any test in any trial that causes such a mortality rate in the first series.

Have you all forgotten there are 4 series provided to deal with these dogs?

You dont have to get all your answers in the first series and then just make some separation the following 3 series.

When 25 dogs are called back from the 1st series and 11 finish, it sounds like the following 3 series were not as tough as the first series.
And these 2 judges are well known and well respected. What they do will influence someone if not someones. They set examples for others whether they know it or like it.

And yes Keith this is just a numbers analyzation but I think probably not far off the mark.

You cannot get the cream to rise to the top and get the best dog of the trial if you do not continue to increase the degree of difficulty in the tests for each series.

The quality of judging is continually declining and much due to this type of scenario. We call this acceptable because of a large entry. The large entry should have nothing to do with it. The judges had 3 days to judge 100+ dogs, NOT an impossible task.
And then of course the next new person puts this scenario in their
"bag of tricks" and WAAALAAA! We have just created one more "educated" judge to add to our list.

A few weeks ago I ran an Amateur. The 1st series was an inverted triple. Nice set of marks. The short middle retired threw first, long flyer left and long go bird right which retired immediately after he threw.
The middle gun was instructed to remain standing until the dog left the line upon which he then "ran" to his chair in the cover, arms above his head trying to get his white coat off quickly.
The running dogs watched him as they were enroute to the go bird, most distracted and some changed direction and picked up the middle bird, others just lost focus on where they were going, got lost and were picked up. Others followed the kid into the cover and hunted in his lap, while the bird was out in the short grass and then either handled, switched to the flyer and some got the bird ok. The judges sure got their answers.
IMHO Good bird placement, very very bad mechanics.
There were several new amateur handlers running dogs that day and the concensus was "Wow, what a hard test. I guess its fair because we all have the same test and its very hard. They are really getting some answers. I will have to remember this. I think I will come back next week and train on this."
Not one recognized why this test was getting the answers, heck maybe the judges didnt either. This test bordered illegal, movement in the field to intentionally distract the dogs, Of course we cannot prove intention but nonetheless, it did the job. These 2 judges are both in excess of 8+
points, one judged a national. Both well respected and as I saw it did a dandy good job of educating some new people in the sport.

I do not know what the test was at NDRC and really dont care as I was not there. All I know is that any test that cuts the field so drastically in the 1st series is inappropriate for the field of dogs that were judged, IMHO.
Maybe if the Open were a Restricted and they had a higher caliber of dog to judge it would be necessary to get separation, but obviously not here. Not when only 18 out of 109 can do it without handling and only 7 can handle to the bird when needed.

We need to better educate the judging population. And it is not going to happen if you all hide under your keyboard and accept what is happening.


Kim Johnston
Suprdogs


----------



## Vicki Worthington

*JAMS*

I want to comment about the importance of JAMs in all-age stakes. I agree that they are extremely important. 

My rationale for giving out as many JAMs as possible is that we say that a dog that WINS or Places 2nd in a Qualifying is eligible to run a limited or a special all-age stake. In my mind, a dog that gets to the last series of an Open or an Amateur, but handles or has a big hunt on a bird--or even several small dings throughout the trial which keep him out of the placements, definitely deserves the same consideration via a JAM that a 2nd place dog in a Qualifying receives! After all, that dog must have done creditable work up to the last series to keep getting called back! Finishing an all-age stake should be rewarded!

JAMs cost little, but can mean so much.


----------



## Henry V

On behalf of the NDRC, I want to thank club members, owners, and handlers for attending our fall trial. This years trial ran as smoothly as any in recent memory. The weather was great, the help was good, and the judges were able to test the dogs fairly and get everything done by late Sunday afternoon. Bad weather and/or poor test set-up/mechanics could have had us running late Sunday or even Monday with a 258 dog trial.

Given that we have now had two back to back fall trial with large entries, the field trial committee (I am not a member) will consider a variety of options for next year. I am told that early discussions have included consideration of the following options.
1) Holding a restricted open. The actual impact of this on our 07 entries is being investigated.
2)option removed to protect the FT committee
3) option removed to protect the FT committee
4) option removed to protect the FT committee
5) option removed to protect the FT committee

It seems that there are currently quite a few options for reducing FT numbers than just holding a restricted open. I am not sure if all these options are "good for the sport" but I guess since they are current legal options that are available to the club they must be better for the sport than an entry cap option which is not allowed.
Oh, and do not worry. Options 4 and 5 will not be chosen because of "tradition".


----------



## Ted Shih

Henry

Option no. 4 is not presently available to clubs. A rule change is required. 

Ted


----------



## FOM

Is #3 legal? Just curious....

FOM


----------



## Ted Shih

Oops

My bad, I meant #3


----------



## Henry V

This is why I am not on the FT committee. :lol: 

In reality, options 2-5 are not likely to be seriously considered. Thus, for now, that only leaves option 1. We do have a number of club members that wonder why we hold a fall field trial instead of a hunt test so, to accommodate the majority of our member's interest, we have added a second hunt test in September this year. Now, if we could cap the MH we would be set for sure.


----------



## Golddogs

> Now, if we could cap the MH we would be set for sure.


Good luck with that Henry. I am still catching up from the 104 Master we had last weekend. Couldn't have done it without the fantastic members we have.


----------



## drbobsd

Watched NDRC open for approx 1.5 hrs on Sat just to see what all the talk was about. I sat on mound where Marshall was. i looked out on test and thought to myself this is a really aesthetic series that looked tight but not impossible.

Watched one of Rorem's dog's do the test and it was truly a piece of artwork. Watched several dogs almost do the test but got lost in never never land between the two retired marks and tended to drift toward flyer station.. Watched Jim beck tweet tweet the dog to shorter retired quickly and was carried to next series.

I feel the test was fair and there is no way for the judges to know how few dogs would be able to do this particular series even 30-40 dogs into it. 

Wish i had one of the dogs that almost did it.


----------



## Henry V

Here is a mocked up air photo of the first series in the NDRC open.







Photo removed.

Stations 1 and 2 retired to the tree at "R" after throwing from the right and left of the tree. Station 3 was the flier.
I threw the flyer Saturday. Surprisingly, there were quite a few hunts on the flyer. The biggest trouble was getting the middle bird which was thrown several yards directly in front of a bush. Many dogs ran right up the middle between 1 and 2 and ended up at the road. Once there, that flyer area was attractive. The water did push dogs toward the middle bird. Some did get mark 1 though while others ended up at mark 2, and some others ended up at the flyer. The line was probably a bit further to the left than indicated here so that the line to mark 1 just passed through the edge of the water. Areas of the fall around 1 and 2 were quite distinct from my perspective.


----------

