# Should we change National Qualifications?



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

This year, 

116 dogs qualified for the National Open. There were 105 starters.

155 dogs qualified for the National Amateur. There were 126 starters.

Two questions:

1) Do we need to reduce the entry size?
2) If so, how?

Ted


----------



## waggontail (Oct 10, 2007)

how would these changes affect fall trials? who would work and support the trials? where would you get piegons on such short notice? Is Mr Brown not on guard? Or maybe just National Invite...


----------



## waggontail (Oct 10, 2007)

I would just elect you and a small group of people from each time zone to make it so


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

waggontail said:


> where would you get piegons on such short notice? Is Mr Brown not on guard?


Man, who is your pharmacist?


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Man, who is your pharmacist?


LMAO! (too short)


----------



## DeWitt Boice (Aug 26, 2005)

I think Ed covered the how ....
Lets say you want approximately 80 dogs 
look at past nationals, maybe the last 5 years
see how many points it would take to reduce numbers to 80
announce the qualifying number for the next year at the annual meeting

my question is 
why are we still trying to keep everyone in for three series
I realize it is expensive to get to the National
you have to travel a long way
you plan for a long stay

wouldn’t you rather go out in the first series, on a test like this seventh
rather than running 3 quickies that are designed to eliminate dogs


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

my question would be of the 155 dogs that qualified for the National Amateur how many qualified by winning an open with a pro handler. I know it is the dog that qualifies and not the handler but is it fair that a pro qualifies a dog for the National Am by winning an open only to be handled by an amateur later. JMHO...


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Remove an actual point requirement to qualify. The National clubs decide an appropriate entry size "X". The top "X" number of dogs as recorded in RFTN from the preceding year (ie May - May for the Amat, Oct - Oct for the Open) are invited.

JMO

Tim


----------



## JeffLusk (Oct 23, 2007)

I'm thinking it should be easier.. I already know i'm'a gonna get my butt kicked in the big leagues next year! Need all the help I can get to make it to the nationals!! haha

7 points with a win here we come!!!!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

DeWitt Boice said:


> wouldn’t you rather go out in the first series, on a test like this seventh rather than running 3 quickies that are designed to eliminate dogs


I'd rather have the opportunity to play as long as possible. In the 6 Nationals I was fortunate to have a dog in, he went out in the 6th, 9th, 4th, 2nd, 6th, and 7th. Sure, it cost more money to keep playing, but going out in the first would be the pits.



Tim Carrion said:


> Remove an actual point requirement to qualify. The National clubs decide an appropriate entry size "X". The top "X" number of dogs as recorded in RFTN from the preceding year (ie May - May for the Amat, Oct - Oct for the Open) are invited.


Tim, what sort of pressure do you think this would put on judges in particular and clubs in general?  Right now, the pressure is on the owner/handler/dog. For my money, I'd rather keep it that way. Keep it simple: up the point requirement....a win and three, a win and four....and move on.

FWIW regards,

kg


----------



## D Osborn (Jul 19, 2004)

Jeff cracks me up.

I will never be in the position to go to a National Open, except to watch (which I have a few times in Cheraw), because even if I marry my knight in shining truck, I can't take two weeks off from school. I doubt I will ever train that seriously either, at least not until I retire. 
Having said that, I think next year the ecomony will take care of the numbers, so you have a year to consider it, but first consider the reasons, and the implications.Even the very wealthy, trust fund babies as well are being hurt, short term, but still.
BTW-Ted my lawyer friends are finego figure!
Will it make for more pressure on the pro's who keep full trucks? 
What will it do to the trials that are being run?
Is it fairer to strengthen the requirements or limit the window opportunity?
Or should you change the window? I don't think that is fair due to geography.
The AKC obedience invitational sends out invites based on the breed, number of wins and points-would that help? Not breed, but wins and points.
Should it be invites based on that? They all go out at once based on that criteria.
In this particular National, dogs went out in the first 4 series had GREAT years, but this was just not their National. 
I am dying at school-my kids raised 340,000 dollars for the habitat house group here, so we are watching Harry Potter-long movie!!


----------



## Lonny Taylor (Jun 22, 2004)

bonbonjovi said:


> my question would be of the 155 dogs that qualified for the National Amateur how many qualified by winning an open with a pro handler. I know it is the dog that qualifies and not the handler but is it fair that a pro qualifies a dog for the National Am by winning an open only to be handled by an amateur later. JMHO...


I hope you are not serious with this one??????? PROS cannot qualify a dog for the Nat Am.

Instead of looking to cut numbers, how about just adding an extra day to the national. What would it hurt if the national has to finish on sunday? These numbers are not that unmanagable yet. The thing that has put some pressure on these judges this year is bad weather. Yet the thing that seems to be saving them is good mechanics. There has not been alot of delays inbetween series. 

LT


----------



## David Baty (Nov 1, 2003)

quote: "Remove an actual point requirement to qualify. The National clubs decide an appropriate entry size "X". The top "X" number of dogs as recorded in RFTN from the preceding year (ie May - May for the Amat, Oct - Oct for the Open) are invited."

I rarely post here but this is interesting to me. Would this penalize the guys that can only run 6-8 trials a years vs the guys that can run twenty trials. Whether that be for personal, financial or employment reasons, some cannot make the committment to run more than a few trials per year, thus having fewer opportunities to get in the top "X" number of dogs. If you decide to go this route, some sort of fairness must be in play or the little guys will continue to be run out of the game. Suggestion might to use points earned divided by number of trials runs and those "X" number with the highest percentage qualify. With that being said, I still believe the current system is working and until something better comes along we should go with "what brung us"


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

David Baty said:


> quote: "Remove an actual point requirement to qualify. The National clubs decide an appropriate entry size "X". The top "X" number of dogs as recorded in RFTN from the preceding year (ie May - May for the Amat, Oct - Oct for the Open) are invited."
> 
> I rarely post here but this is interesting to me. Would this penalize the guys that can only run 6-8 trials a years vs the guys that can run twenty trials. Whether that be for personal, financial or employment reasons, some cannot make the committment to run more than a few trials per year, thus having fewer opportunities to get in the top "X" number of dogs. If you decide to go this route, some sort of fairness must be in play or the little guys will continue to be run out of the game. Suggestion might to use points earned divided by number of trials runs and those "X" number with the highest percentage qualify. With that being said, I still believe the current system is working and until something better comes along we should go with "what brung us"


Good post, Dave.

kg


----------



## David Barrow (Jun 14, 2005)

Ted,

It has to be, much easier/more fair to the dogs, to judge a national comprised of 7 Days with a 120-140 entry, than a 100+ dog entry Open in 3 days, or a 50+ dog entry "Q" in 1.5 days. (And yes, I know the horse has been beaten and is dead)

I did not say Easy, just more fair to the dogs/easier to judge. As a judge, during weekend trials, more time/smaller entries allow us the opportunity to place birds, rather than using comcepts. The same should be true for Nationals.

My opinion is leave the National Qualifications as they are, for now, this may make it a little more obtainable for the Amateur, when we reach the 150+ entry Nationals (participating) change will be needed, either by increasing the number of days or by decreasing the number of entries/possibly some type of split leading to final three series determining the winner. As long as it is taking to regulate the weekend trial entries, we had better start working on the Nationals now. If it were not for poor economic times and overwhwhelming fuel costs the weekend trials would probably still be extremely high (and some still are). Keeping the Quality/Quantity of the dogs is a delicate balance, however it needs to be addressed until a solution can be made.

Thank you and some others on this forum for helping to get some dialog going as far as large entries are concerned.



David Barrow


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

Just one thought that every body might keep in mind is that the economy might solve ya'lls problems for ya. There a people in this game that are playing on fixed incomes due to retirement that have taken a beaten lately. Not sure but most of the pro's I know and have talked to are a little bit worried about.


----------



## Lonny Taylor (Jun 22, 2004)

Dex,

Amen to that!! Reality for us is that one of the first things cut out of the budget during tough times is having your dog pro trained. I have seen an impact already on gundog training. Hey!! maybe we need to group together and ask the gov. for a bailout package....lol.

LT


----------



## junbe (Apr 12, 2003)

The current point system to qualify for the National Championship Stake was adopted in 1957; a total of 7 championship points including a win. Since then there have been many discussions to change the qualifications. This has even been brought to the membership. In each case there have not been two-thirds of the members voting at a national meeting to change the qualification, as required by the by-laws of the National Club. In each case it was more agreeable to have additional days to conduct the National. A few statistics might be helpful and probably will convince most people that there is a need to at least reconsider the qualifications. In 1957 there were 91 trials, the average trial size was 32 dogs, 46 dogs qualified for the National and 40 dogs started. These only include the Open stake or their derivatives. At that time the National stake consisted of a 4-day trial. Currently we have about 230 trials, the average trial size is about 66 dogs, and we now have over 100 dogs qualified and starting. The length of the trial currently is 7 days. In the past there have been many arguments both pro and con about the qualifications. Certainly I think this should be discussed and brought up at an annual meeting. The Constitution is quite clear about what the Board of Directors can do and the membership can do.

The following are rough estimates of what would happen if the point system were to change. Two wins—35 dogs. One win and a total of 10 points—50 dogs. One win and 9 points—70 dogs. One win and 8 points—90 dogs.

Jack


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

David Baty said:


> quote: "Remove an actual point requirement to qualify. The National clubs decide an appropriate entry size "X". The top "X" number of dogs as recorded in RFTN from the preceding year (ie May - May for the Amat, Oct - Oct for the Open) are invited."
> 
> I rarely post here but this is interesting to me. Would this penalize the guys that can only run 6-8 trials a years vs the guys that can run twenty trials. Whether that be for personal, financial or employment reasons, some cannot make the committment to run more than a few trials per year, thus having fewer opportunities to get in the top "X" number of dogs. If you decide to go this route, some sort of fairness must be in play or the little guys will continue to be run out of the game. Suggestion might to use points earned divided by number of trials runs and those "X" number with the highest percentage qualify. With that being said, I still believe the current system is working and until something better comes along we should go with "what brung us"


Dave 
I agree that those that run more trials would have an advantage but that is also true with the current point system. The more you run the better the odds you may reach 7,8....
The problem seems to be the entry size(nothing new). If current policy of encouraging more trials is followed the size will continue to grow under a specified point system. Whether using top percentages(points earned/trials entered) or highest number of points the goal is to create a workable entry.
If the National clubs were to take the lead by establishing an entry limit for the trials involving the 2 highest AKC recognized titles awarded to retrievers this could go a long way in allowing to local clubs the same privledge(which is probalby why it won't happen).

Tim


----------



## Keith Holsted (Jul 17, 2003)

Leave it alone.


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

This discussion is ridiculous. As junbe's statistics point out. If they need to change anything at all for the National Open because of time constraints and as in this years uncontrollable weather delays is to add a day to the event. Meettings, bitch check, cocktail party on Friday, and begin Saturday. Everyone is there allready, workers are prepared for their service four years in advance so please don't make the excuse that people are taking more time off it would start Saturday. Dumb thread!


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

All I know is if the qualifications change my dream of qualifying will go up in smoke!

Especially if the qualifications applied to both the National and National Amateur.

I'd also rather see serious consideration given to cutting numbers in a weekend trial where the majority of us volunteer and work our butts off and then are glued to places like RTF and WRC to follow the National because we aren't there....

FOM


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Fire N Ice said:


> This discussion is ridiculous. As junbe's statistics point out. If they need to change anything at all for the National Open because of time constraints and as in this years uncontrollable weather delays is to add a day to the event. Meettings, bitch check, cocktail party on Friday, and begin Saturday. Everyone is there allready, workers are prepared for their service four years in advance so please don't make the excuse that people are taking more time off it would start Saturday. Dumb thread!


I agree with Mike. Leave it alone. If they can't get it done in the allotted time go again on Sunday. Everything is in place.

The Amateur Nat hardly ever has a time constraint and I think they have more entries. If you want to change anything, change the time of year. Who said you have to have the Open National in November? And why?


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Isn't it ironic that the US Nationals are having this discussion and the Canadian Nationals are discussing how to get better participation. 

The larger the trial - the bigger a factor luck becomes. 

There is nothing magical about 7 points. It seems a pretty simple fix to up the point requirements and get the numbers whatever they need to be.

The bigger question is how big should it be?


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Barry said:


> I agree with Mike. Leave it alone. If they can't get it done in the allotted time go again on Sunday. Everything is in place.
> 
> The Amateur Nat hardly ever has a time constraint and I think they have more entries. If you want to change anything, change the time of year. Who said you have to have the Open National in November? And why?


Hi Barry, they could run in late October before daylight savings ends adding seven hours of daylight to the existing event. Either choice start Saturday end Saturday in November, or start Sunday end Saturday in late October. Either way dicussion of changing qualifications because this years National has unfortunately been delayed by weather is a total kneejerk reaction and as I said ridiculous.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Fire N Ice said:


> Hi Barry, they could run in late October before daylight savings ends adding seven hours of daylight to the existing event. Either choice start Saturday end Saturday in November, or start Sunday end Saturday in late October. Either way dicussion of changing qualifications because this years National has unfortunately been delayed by weather is a total kneejerk reaction and as I said ridiculous.


I just feel that you work hard all year to obtain something, why make it harder. Just to lower the entry? 

They don't seem to mind running the same amount of dogs in the Open stake on a weekend trial.


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

Fire N Ice said:


> Hi Barry, they could run in late October before daylight savings ends adding seven hours of daylight to the existing event.


The hours of daylight don't change with the end of Daylight Savings Time. It justs shifts them.


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Ed Aycock started this discussion last night. Unfortunately as much as I may respect all his contributions it is in my opinion a little frustration showing. The workers of which includes his bird throwing committee have had to work in really crappy conditions. I think the delays for weather have frustrated everyone, but to start a discussion about qualifications because of the delays created by those delays is just plain wrong. St Louis over the years has had to run dogs in far worse conditions because not only was it raining but it was bitter cold, and Dave Vega told me once they even had to break ice on the ponds every morning to run dogs. It is what it is when we run in different time zones every year. Some will experience poor weather and others will encounter very nice. If they want an insurance policy on the event for these delays start Saturday for the National Open only!


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Steve said:


> The hours of daylight don't change with the end of Daylight Savings Time. It justs shifts them.


Your right Steve. That's true. My original suggestion is to start Saturday for the National Open only.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Fire N Ice said:


> Ed Aycock started this discussion last night. The workers of which includes his bird throwing committee have had to work in really crappy conditions.


throwers is Mark Rosenblum, I am guns, no frustration from us, we have the best time at the National, much frustration from contestants though

I do not understand what is so sacred about the status quo that makes the discussion of change "ridiculous"


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

EdA said:


> throwers is Mark Rosenblum, I am guns, no frustration from us, we have the best time at the National, much frustration from contestants though
> 
> I do not understand what is so sacred about the status quo that makes the discussion of change "ridiculous"


Exactly! What is so sacred about keeping the Open an event that starts Sunday rather than starting Saturday to ensure the extra time to deal with the potential weather delays that are unforseen. I'm glad your having fun the Nationals are truly the best events every year period. 105 dogs come on Ed that's not many you and I both know that.


----------



## Lonny Taylor (Jun 22, 2004)

Hey Ed,

Maybe if you want change you should seek some help from ACORN.........LMAO.

couldn't resist regards,

LT


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

David Baty said:


> Would this penalize the guys that can only run 6-8 trials a years vs the guys that can run twenty trials. Whether that be for personal, financial or employment reasons, some cannot make the committment to run more than a few trials per year, thus having fewer opportunities to get in the top "X" number of dogs. If you decide to go this route, some sort of fairness must be in play or the little guys will continue to be run out of the game.


There are a lot of individuals who contribute mightily to the sport who run less than 12 trials per year. Additionally they do their own training in a large part. A higher number of points only excludes those who do not have the time, funds &/or inclination to mount an extensive campaign, as they are too busy contributing to the sport in other ways. 

The suggestion to add another day to the mix is the best idea at this point. 

When that become a burden, you could always set it up to have 2 sets of judges with all dogs doing all tests until dropped by either set of judges. That would be a huge way to save time initially.

Or you could go to Regional Qualifiers for the big dance - 6 regions, 10 dogs from each region - 4 regions, 15 dogs from each region. While this would add to the work involved to organize a National, a regional would provide an opportunity for others to view the best that region has to offer. 

I for one believe this thread has merit & enjoy reading the different opinions.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Just thinking out loud....

So to reduce the number of dogs on a weekend trial it was suggested conflicting trials and more clubs was a possible solution.

Does that not just increase the potential to increase the number of qualifiers for the National?

It is like a double edge sword, is it not? The number of weekend trials keeps growing, the number of qualifiers will grow....

FOM


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

FOM said:


> Just thinking out loud....
> 
> So to reduce the number of dogs on a weekend trial it was suggested conflicting trials and more clubs was a possible solution.
> 
> ...


What about the quality of what you see? I see better quality test with fewer dogs at the weekend trial. ( less dogs more time ) I also see better quality test at a National. ( more dogs but more time to test them ) 

IMHO you can't run a National in three days and let the cream rise to the top. You would end up with what we get at the weekend trial 80% of the time. Test that are set up to make good dogs look bad and dogs being penciled for hooking a bird or slipping a whistle.

In the same respect at a weekend trial you are not looking at the cream of the sport or the dogs that were supposedly the best accross the country in that particular year. At a weekend trial you may only have a handful of dogs that may even qualify for a National, yet look at what we see as far as quality test.


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> There are a lot of individuals who contribute mightily to the sport who run less than 12 trials per year. Additionally they do their own training in a large part. A higher number of points only excludes those who do not have the time, funds &/or inclination to mount an extensive campaign, as they are too busy contributing to the sport in other ways.
> 
> The suggestion to add another day to the mix is the best idea at this point.
> 
> ...


Does this sound familiar to anyone else besides me?? Seems to me that these are some of the same suggestions made to downsize the number of dogs at the AKC Master National.


----------



## BMay (Mar 3, 2003)

Vickie...I've been thinking the very same thing since the start of this thread.


----------



## Jim Danis (Aug 15, 2008)

My thoughts exactly Vickie.

I haven't run trials yet and plan to in the next year or so. As most of ya'll know at the Master Nationals there's over 300 dogs running 6 series in about the same time frame.


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Vicky Trainor said:


> Does this sound familiar to anyone else besides me?? Seems to me that these are some of the same suggestions made to downsize the number of dogs at the AKC Master National.


Big difference between the National Open which has since at least my participation in the 90's always had about 100+/- dogs qualified and the Master National which has in the time of it's existence (one of the first Master Nationals being my home club Sierra Nevada Ret. club being one of the first) having 100 or so if my recollection serves me, to now what?, 400+ and counting. Their is absolutely no reason to reduce number of dogs. Daylight for Nat. Open is the problem when delays unforseen take place. (weather, scrapped test etc.) The answer as I've stated in my opinion is to add a day to the Open only.


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

not to mention that many National Opens have finished Saturday by late morning or very early afternoon with never a consideration of this topic.


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

In continuing, the judges of the National Open book lets say 30 tests. Each day the judges and the Field Trial Committee meet to discuss the next days tests. In that meeting the committee recommends to the judges that they need to run a test that takes x amount of time. Hopefully their book contains a test which accomplishes that goal. It may be a test they are very happy to run or a test they really may not be one of their favorites. Time is of the essance because of the daylight period. The extra day would also allow the judges more freedom to run the tests they really like the most too!


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Sorry for some of my spelling and grammatical errors! Typing to fast and not checking.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Vicky Trainor said:


> Does this sound familiar to anyone else besides me?? Seems to me that these are some of the same suggestions made to downsize the number of dogs at the AKC Master National.


You may have missed the first few words in the second or so paragraph saying "When this becomes a burden". Talking about adding a day. I'm not positive but I don't think Marvin wants the Open National to resemble the Hunt Test National. (ie. number of dogs 400, two flights, and 6 judges)


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Barry said:


> You may have missed the first few words in the second or so paragraph saying "When this becomes a burden". Talking about adding a day. I'm not positive but I don't think Marvin wants the Open National to resemble the Hunt Test National. (ie. number of dogs 400, two flights, and 6 judges)


I agree Barry he was very specific. As I said the numbers of qualifiers has remained the same for many many Nationals. It has not become easier to qualify. A point that has seemingly been overlooked.


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

I did not mean to "compare" the National field trials with the Master National hunt test. I realize that there is a tremendous difference in the setups/time allotted for each dog/etc.

The only inference I was making is that the suggestions were/are very similiar to those made for the MN.

I do not feel it is my place to make any recommendations for field trials since they are "not my game".


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Fire N Ice said:


> I agree Barry he was very specific. * As I said the numbers of qualifiers has remained the same for many many Nationals.* It has not become easier to qualify. A point that has seemingly been overlooked.


There were 116 dogs qualified this year. 
103 dogs Last year and between 88 and 95 dogs for the previous several years. 
The largest entry prior to this year's 105 dogs was 91. 

So there were more dogs qualified and entered this year.


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Vicky your thoughts are reasonable, speaking for myself my thoughts have been and are not personally directed at anyone. My point is: 1. It is not easier to qualify (numbers have not changed for years) 2. The National Open exclusively deals with shorter days. 3. The numbers 90-110 are not excessive. What should be discussed is how to test them with difficulty, fairness, and efficiently. Something I know these judges are doing with great earnest. Above all continue to put on the best events, bar none, (Both Nationals) of the year. In this case time is the only unknown factor not the number of dogs. Add a day and it will surely remove if not eliminate those uncontrollable factors.


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Doug Main said:


> There were 116 dogs qualified this year.
> 103 dogs Last year and between 88 and 95 dogs for the previous several years.
> The largest entry prior to this year's 105 dogs was 91.
> 
> So there were more dogs qualified and entered this year.


Those are not excessive at any point in time. I think if you choose to do so you will find that the numbers have gone up some years than back down and up again. Location is a large factor. Texas is very centrally located thus some extra amateur qualifiers may go whereas when held in Stowe or Oakdale which are obviously on respective coasts dogs from opposite coasts may not attend. 110 even 120 would not be unmanageable with the extra day.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Have less weekend Trials.


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Have less weekend Trials.


Pat I was just thinking the same. Not every trial in this country has been added to conflict with another because the one had 100 entries in both majors. Some yes but most no.


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Speaking for myself only. If you want to be the best you have to compete with the best. If one weekend that means 50 and the next 100 so be it. The last thing I want to see is Field Championships and National Qualifications get watered down with lots of trials with tiny entries. Speaking for myself.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Have only the points garnered by the dog at the first (x) number of trials in the qualifying peroid count toward its qualification to run the National.

It's a relativly simple solution....................;-)

Two birds with one stone regards

john


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

_Yeah_....let's shrink the sport for the sake of a National Championship....;-)

That's a GREAT idea. Let's take our eye off the efforts of the anti's and do their work _for_ them...out_stand_ing........

Big picture regards,

kg


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

KG I think I agree with you. Another couple of things to consider regarding this years National. There were very few multiple winners this year as evidenced by the low point totals for high point (low 20's). I for myself having competed on the west coast circuit (please not to compare circuits) had to compete until this year from 2000-2007 against Shooter, Auggie, Carbon, Chopper, Mollie, Peaches, and a little with Code Blue (if I've forgotten or failed to mention other greats please excuse me). All these dogs Hall of Famers and yearly won multiple opens. Evertime they won was one less chance for a win for all. All time zones have experienced these great ones over the years. This year, not to diminish any dogs, seems to be different as I said evidenced by the high point totals. This alone in my opinion contributed to the increased number of winners and therefore qualifiers. Will the trend continue is anyones guess. A new batch of Hall of Famers in any time zone may be just around the corner. Secondly this years first series from what I saw online looked like a great test. There was no way anticipate that those dogs would have made that steep 30 yard climb and hunted back there and then entered the water and made that swim, nor that they would hunt so far down that backside of the dike all the way to the flier. One of those tests that just makes you go hmmm! as a judge. I think they have done an incredible job ,under trying conditions recovering, and are in full command with the twenty cleanest dogs for thier next two series. A very deserving National Champion will be crowned tommorrow right on time!!!


----------



## Karen McCullah (Feb 28, 2007)

I agree with Mike and Barry, just add days to the front and end if necessary. All the workers are already there, or could be if planned ahead. 

Question: is it necessary to have full 10 series in? I mean, if it ended right now, I'm sure there could be a clear winner(?)... So if they couldn't get in the full amount, and ran only 8 (maybe they have, there's been some confusion on that point), can they just be done with that and call a winner? Or do they absolutely HAVE to run them all?

Having only the first x numbers of trials count is ridiculous-totally unfair to the worker bees.

I don't see the point in reducing National entries right now when 2 judges get a winner in 2/3 days every weekend with the same number of entries. Maybe if it was too excessive. 

Moving it up may be a problem, because as others said...it's prime trial season in other parts of the country...or if you're like my dad, prime hunting season too! ;-)


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Karen, Nationals as most know as I'm assuming you also do are not judged as a weekend trial. Customary practice is 2 major mistakes (handles, gorilla hunts, poor blinds etc.) Blinds in particular especially water blinds are not typically as difficult or most importantly time consuming at a National. Not saying they aren't hard but not typically a 10-12 minute blind as may be encountered on a weekend. If it became necassary judging could be more stringent in regards to mistakes, but knowone would like to see it come to that. That being said even with the weather delays these judges have tested the field at a very high level, and are right on time, and ten full series will be in the books tommorrow and a new National Champion crowned.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> Having only the first x numbers of trials count is ridiculous-totally unfair to the worker bees.


Worker Bees? 
I own a few worker bees. 
Should I realistically have an expectation of one of them being the next NFC

Would you or someone else care to elaborate on that line of reasoning.
The points from trials run after that would still count toward it's FC, High point Open dog, etc.

If we need to limit entries at all (???????????????), and I don't know that they do, that would be a way. 

Cinderella is a fairy tale;-)

Don't slay the messinger regards

john


----------



## Karen McCullah (Feb 28, 2007)

Thanks for the clarification Mike! 

I've only been to one National, the one in Oakdale a few years back, and I worked it for two days and then had to go back to work, so I didn't actually SEE alot of dog work or the tests. I think I saw one test, a land blind, and maybe 4 or 5 dogs run.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

john fallon said:


> Worker Bees?
> I own a few worker bees.
> Should I realistically have an expectation of one of them being the next NFC
> 
> ...


What if you have a slow starter? Meaning that maybe it takes your dog three trials to warm up after that he is in a butt kicking mode. Seems to me you would eliminate yourself from a National at that rate.


----------



## Karen McCullah (Feb 28, 2007)

john fallon said:


> Worker Bees?
> I own a few worker bees.
> Should I realistically have an expectation of one of them being the next NFC
> 
> ...


 
Because we already have problems with the number of entries on a weekend trial. Suppose the first x number of trials only will qualify you for a national....then all the entries are going to be "top heavy"...people rushing to enter those first trials to possibly qualify. That's going to really put pressure on clubs and workers.

Then, once the number runs out, sure some people will still run but it won't be the same if your points don't even count to qualify you for the national. Or worse, suppose people work during a school year and can only run summer trials? They can't ever qualify because they can't run in the beginning of the year? 

So to me, it seems it's not fair to the trial worker bees or the everyday work-for-a-living bee either.


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Wiredlabz said:


> Thanks for the clarification Mike!
> 
> I've only been to one National, the one in Oakdale a few years back, and I worked it for two days and then had to go back to work, so I didn't actually SEE alot of dog work or the tests. I think I saw one test, a land blind, and maybe 4 or 5 dogs run.


Thank You! for your help. The workers at all field trials including nationals are the backbone of our great sport. Young boy's and girls throwing birds all weekend for all of us sometimes in the rain or 100 degree weather is something I have to admit would not have appealed to me as a youth. The National grounds committee's in particular go so unfortunately unnoticed and give two full weeks of their time making everything look so smooth but work so very hard to achieve. I'm very proud to be a part of our sport, nothing like it in the world.


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Wiredlabz said:


> Because we already have problems with the number of entries on a weekend trial. Suppose the first x number of trials only will qualify you for a national....then all the entries are going to be "top heavy"...people rushing to enter those first trials to possibly qualify. That's going to really put pressure on clubs and workers.
> 
> Then, once the number runs out, sure some people will still run but it won't be the same if your points don't even count to qualify you for the national. Or worse, suppose people work during a school year and can only run summer trials? They can't ever qualify because they can't run in the beginning of the year?
> 
> So to me, it seems it's not fair to the trial worker bees or the everyday work-for-a-living bee either.


You got it right Sister!!!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> "...people rushing to enter those first trials to possibly qualify


I did not mean to imply that chronologically,only the first first (x) number of Trials results would count, rather that the dog would have a finite number of trials in which to qualify.

I hope this helps.

john


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

john fallon said:


> I did not mean to imply that chronologically,only the first first (x) number of Trials results would count, rather that the dog would have a finite number of trials in which to qualify.
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> john


Respectfully, are you kidding!!! Do you realize how diificult it is to win an open against the best dogs. This aint no hunt test against a standard. Respectfully.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> Do you realize how diificult it is to win an open ..............This aint no hunt test against a standard. Respectfully.


Are we taking about a Hunt test here. What are you infering ?

You might want to go back to page one and read Teds question.

john


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

john fallon said:


> Are we taking about a Hunt test here. What are you infering ?
> 
> You might want to go back to page one and read Teds question.
> 
> john


I think you need to read the entire thread. I know what Ted posted. I have stated my opinion at length. It is very clear what I am stating. The thought of limiting the number of trials necessary to qualify for a National be it Open or Amateur is ridiculous. Right out of the handbook of what the MN had to do with little success at reducing their qualifiers as is reflected in their 400+ qualifiers. Lets also make something perfectly clear I advocate and support all forms of retriever events, hunt tests included so don't even go there. Your idea in my opinion is in a word lame!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> Your idea in my opinion is in a word lame!


Putting aside your opinion on the necessity of limiting entries at the National for a moment.

*If you were assigned the unpleasant task of having to to do so.*

How would you do it in a way that was not in your words "LAME" ????

john


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

john fallon said:


> Putting aside your opinion on the necessity of limiting entries at the National for a moment.
> 
> *If you were assigned the unpleasant task of having to to do so.*
> 
> ...


If one would have to limit entries at the National would it not be classified as a Championship stake?


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

John I have made it very clear throughout this thread what my opinion is. Please take the time to read my posts. My opinion is very clear from my beginning post and what in my opinion would be helpful. Having said all this this National is right on time to finish by mid afternoon even with the weather delays. A testament to the hard work of the judges and workers.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Fire N Ice said:


> John I have made it very clear throughout this thread what my opinion is. *Please take the time to read my posts*. My opinion is very clear from my beginning post and what in my opinion would be helpful. Having said all this this National is right on time to finish by mid afternoon even with the weather delays. A testament to the hard work of the judges and workers.


I have taken the time to read the entire thread and have to agree, you have made your opinion on part one of Teds question very clear but............. In your 21 posts you have yet to address part two of Teds two part question.

So I repeat my request: "Putting aside your opinion on the necessity of limiting entries at the National for a moment.*If you were assigned the unpleasant task of having to to do so. *How would you do it in a way that was not in your words "LAME" ???

FWIW I am on record on this forum as being against restricting entries in *any fashion* in any FT event be it Open Am or Q at the weekend level.

My feelings on the Nationals and their limiting of qualifying points to _member in good standing_ club trials is also archived.

I hope you don't get your win at a Trial given by a club whose National dues are in arrears ;-).

john


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

John Ted's question indeed did have two questions. The first being should we? My opinion is definitely not as I have expressed and why I believe so. The second being If so (meaning I agree) then how? I don't agree so there is no reason to address a hypothetical question that I believe not to hold validity now or anytime in the near future. If at sometime my opinion were to prove wrong I have made mention in my posts that the addition of conflicting trials where large entries (100 dogs consistently year after year) have necessitated. There have been, in my opinion, conflicting trials created to eliminate competition. Just as blogs in past have advocated owner handler qualifyings to eliminate competing against pros. In my opinion anything done to create an easier path to a qualified all age dog let alone a Field Champion does an injustice to our sport. Unfortunately not every dog is created equal. All dogs don't deserve to be Field Champions nor do all competitors deserve to run Nationals. Sorry if thats sounds blunt, just my opinion.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Mike

Is there really any need to call those who disagree with you - lame? Or ridiculous?

Ted


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> Mike
> 
> Is there really any need to call those who disagree with you - lame? Or ridiculous?
> 
> Ted


Ted I said that the *idea* of increasing the National qualification is Ridiculous!
I said the *idea* of limiting the number of trials to qualify to be lame!
Just because the question/idea came from you doesn't mean I think your ridiculous just as I don't think John is lame for his idea.
Don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Continuing Ted since your sensitive. If I was having a conversation with you and you said I think we should change the National qualifications I would look you in the eye and tell you "that is ridiculous" are you telling me you would infer I had called you ridiculous. I think not, you would tell me why you thought as you did and I would counter as to why I disagreed. Called conversation or debate. I know you are a very intelligent man and can see the difference. Check my posts if I wanted to call someone ridiculous or lame I would have proceeded it by "You are" in both cases. Very common practice when insulting someone's person.


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

Maybe it should be added that to qualify a dog for a national. The owner or handler of a dog has to actually work at a weekend trial.
Throwing gas on the fire regards...


----------



## zipmarc (Jan 23, 2006)

B Peterson said:


> Maybe it should be added that to qualify a dog for a national. The owner or handler of a dog has to actually work at a weekend trial.
> Throwing gas on the fire regards...



Heck of a good idea - but....what if the handler is a pro with a string of entries??? Does that mean the owner has to attend the National to work?


----------



## Karen McCullah (Feb 28, 2007)

zipmarc said:


> Heck of a good idea - but....what if the handler is a pro with a string of entries??? Does that mean the owner has to attend the National to work?


The Arthurs wouldn't have a problem there...they put on two trials a year at Central Savannah and work their rears off at 'em. 

Plus aren't there other PRTA trials and do the pros work those? 

I'm NOT advocating this idea, just throwing in some observations


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Fire N Ice said:


> Continuing Ted since your sensitive. If I was having a conversation with you and you said I think we should change the National qualifications I would look you in the eye and tell you "that is ridiculous" are you telling me you would infer I had called you ridiculous. I think not, you would tell me why you thought as you did and I would counter as to why I disagreed. Called conversation or debate. I know you are a very intelligent man and can see the difference. Check my posts if I wanted to call someone ridiculous or lame I would have proceeded it by "You are" in both cases. Very common practice when insulting someone's person.


Mike

I have expressed no opinions on this subject.
I don't have a dog in this fight. 

So, I am hardly being sensitive about your being critical towards me, as you seem to believe

I just think that calling someone - or their ideas - lame or riduculous is poor etiquette. 

Nor do I believe that such labeling - of either people or their ideas - encourages discussion.

Obviously, you disagree

Ted


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Wiredlabz said:


> The Arthurs wouldn't have a problem there...they put on two trials a year at Central Savannah and work their rears off at 'em.
> 
> Plus aren't there other PRTA trials and do the pros work those?
> 
> I'm NOT advocating this idea, just throwing in some observations


Maybe PRTA should be the National Open host club each year using their regional members. Club members put in trials and run their dogs each weekend. "Just throwing out an observation." 

Tim


----------



## waggontail (Oct 10, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> Mike
> I just think that calling someone - or their ideas - lame or riduculous is poor etiquette.
> 
> Nor do I believe that such labeling - of either people or their ideas - encourages discussion.
> Ted[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]


Really,  

Mr. Mike has earned many a good dog men and woman's respect on the w coast. I am not a big fan and do not know him personally, but he is a well rounded FT guy, and I would listen to anything he had to share.

side note Mr Bart said weekend trial


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

waggontail said:


> Really,
> 
> Mr. Mike has earned many a good dog men and woman's respect on the w coast. I am not a big fan and do not know him personally, but he is a well rounded FT guy, and I would listen to anything he had to share.


Didn't say his opinions did not have value

Simply said that dismissing others as "lame" or "ridiculous" does not encourage discussion

Period. End of story.


----------



## Guest (Nov 16, 2008)

B Peterson said:


> Maybe it should be added that to qualify a dog for a national. The owner or handler of a dog has to actually work at a weekend trial.


For the record, I think that is _lame_.

Oops, forgot we were not supposed to express our opinions on a *discussion forum*!


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Leave it alone or add a day. I think the economy will take care of it. 

How did the idea that handles carry at the National evolve where they won't at a weekend trial? It amazed me when I went to my first National and saw that handles often get carried. I would think if you wanted to keep things moving, handles would be treated the same way they are at a weekend trial-a quick handle could be carried but not necessarily.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Melanie Foster said:


> For the record, I think that is _lame_.
> 
> Oops, forgot we were not supposed to express our opinions on a *discussion forum*!


Isn't it possible - or even desirable - to explain why you disagree with someone?

Isn't it possible - or even desirable - to not need to place a negative label on someone's opinion that is different than yours?

Doesn't a simple exchange of ideas rather than insulting the merit of those ideas ENCOURAGE discussion?

Obviously, you believe discussion means dissing someone's opinion with nothing more. 

Why does that not surprise me?

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> How did the idea that handles carry at the National evolve where they won't at a weekend trial? It amazed me when I went to my first National and saw that handles often get carried. I would think if you wanted to keep things moving, handles would be treated the same way they are at a weekend trial-a quick handle could be carried but not necessarily.


There are a lot of differences between a weekend trial and the National.

First, I think that most people recognize how very hard it is to qualify for one. In addition, when you run a National, you are typically setting aside two weeks of your life - one week for pre-National training and another for the National itself. Depending on where you live, when you add travel time, you may be taking yet another week off from work. So generally speaking, there is a reluctance to send people packing too soon.

Second, it has generally been the case that you need two mistakes to be send home. So a monster hunt or a handle or a really difficult time getting your dog in the water on a water blind alone is not enough to send you home UNLESS you make your mistake on a series where the judges are looking to cut numbers. Typically speaking, it is best to make your mistakes early, when the judges are forgiving. Later in the trial, the knives are out, and mercy is hard to find.

The key point here is that you should not just look at judges carrying handles as different at a National but also, judges carrying 

- Monster hunts
- Hacky land blinds
- Water blinds where the dog barely gets in the water

Etc.

The Nationals are simply different beasts.

Third, one of the things that is unusual about a National is the sense of comraderie that exists between the competitors. At a weekend trial, there is often a sense of competition between the competitors, at the National, there is more a sense of competition between the competitors and the judges. 

Finally, one of the reasons that people are discussing reducing numbers at the National is the belief that increasing numbers at the Nationals will make them more like weekend trials and less like Nationals have traditionally been.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

1 win and 4 placements in 7 events or 1 win and 6 placements in however many attempts.

Helped reduce Master National #'s


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> First, I think that most people recognize how very hard it is to qualify for one. In addition, when you run a National, you are typically setting aside two weeks of your life - one week for pre-National training and another for the National itself. Depending on where you live, when you add travel time, you may be taking yet another week off from work. So generally speaking, there is a reluctance to send people packing too soon.


I understand all that, but the National numbers have pretty much been _around_ 100 participants with a handful qualifying but not running for quite awhile. Why change the qualification at this point, which is already admittedly difficult, when the mindset could be skewed a little. I'm not saying a handle you're out, but participants know when their dog had a mark or not. I could see if the qualifyers were at 150, but raising the bar to me would be excluding some of the non-regular National participants from having the opportunity to have their dogs run the National. I just think it should be left alone unless the numbers get outrageous. 



> The key point here is that you should not just look at judges carrying handles as different at a National but also, judges carrying
> 
> - Monster hunts
> - Hacky land blinds
> - Water blinds where the dog barely gets in the water


I agree, they should be all taken into consideration. I've hear stories of a national field champion that barely got wet that got carried and I consider that a major failure, but if that's the only failure they can become a NFC.

Maybe Junbe could give a more historical perspective about handles in the National.


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

Melanie Foster said:


> For the record, I think that is _lame_.
> 
> Oops, forgot we were not supposed to express our opinions on a *discussion forum*!


Melanie
It would be my guess and only a guess that this years national had 10-15 dogs that the owners never have helped work a trial. 
Bruce Peterson


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> I'm not saying a handle you're out, but participants know when their dog had a mark or not. I could see if the qualifyers were at 150, but raising the bar to me would be excluding some of the non-regular National participants from having the opportunity to have their dogs run the National. I just think it should be left alone unless the numbers get outrageous.


Just some points for thought

First, when do the numbers become "outrageous"?
What makes a certain number of dogs "outrageous"?
To put it another way, what are the criteria - in your opinion - for changing the qualification standard?

Second, if you are taking the position that a National should be like a weekend trial, does that mean that:

- Handles get dropped
- Monster hunts get dropped
- Hacky land blinds get dropped
- Marginal water blinds get dropped

The point is this, it is not just whether you bring back a "handle" but whether you bring back any dog with any significant mistake

For example, this year's first series had about 40% handle rate. Add monster hunts, and maybe you get to a 60% failure rate. Is that what the criteria should be.

Understand, I don't have a position on this subject - yet.

On the one hand, I see the desirability of maintaining consistency in National qualification

On the other hand, I see the desirability of maintaining the National Experience (it really is something far different from a weekend trial)

I believe that - at some point - increasing numbers result in a diminished experience.

Are we there? I don't know
If we were, should we change? I don't know

I was interested in hearing what other people had to say, which is why I posted this thread

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> I'm not saying a handle you're out, but participants know when their dog had a mark or not. I could see if the qualifyers were at 150, but raising the bar to me would be excluding some of the non-regular National participants from having the opportunity to have their dogs run the National. I just think it should be left alone unless the numbers get outrageous.


Oh, and by the way, there were 155 qualifiers for the 2008 National Amateur

And over 120 of them came to Stowe, which for many was the far side of the world.


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> Oh, and by the way, there were 155 qualifiers for the 2008 National Amateur
> 
> And over 120 of them came to Stowe, which for many was the far side of the world.


Ted
were the 155 entries, 155 different owners? 
how many of the 155 were multiple entries from one owner?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Second, if you are taking the position that a National should be like a weekend trial, does that mean that:
> 
> - Handles get dropped
> - Monster hunts get dropped
> ...


I am not taking that position. I am not for making it that black and white. I do not have aspirations, but I do know people that do aspire to run the National. As far as the National Amateur, the way I would view it would be since it requires more points to make an AFC than FC, if the numbers continue to rise at that rate, then requiring more points to qualify would be appropriate. If you raise the bar for the National (Open), then you would possibly increase the participants at the weekend test, which you all want to avoid, because those that qualify, _usually _do not continue to be run in order to qualify more dogs on the truck.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Golddogs said:


> 1 win and 4 placements in 7 events or 1 win and 6 placements in however many attempts.
> 
> Helped reduce Master National #'s


You got to be kidding??????  Might as well quit now....

FOM


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Golddogs said:


> 1 win and 4 placements in 7 events or 1 win and 6 placements in however many attempts.
> 
> Helped reduce Master National #'s


 
You've confused HT and FT's....if you win a HT then you've really done something....

/Paul


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

FOM said:


> You got to be kidding??????  Might as well quit now....
> 
> FOM


Why, yes, yes I am. Hence the quaint little smiley face.


----------



## North Mountain (Oct 20, 2003)

I once ran a Master where my dog was the only finisher..........


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

North Mountain said:


> I once ran a Master where my dog was the only finisher..........


Did you feel like a winner or consolation prize.....?

/Paul


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> I am not taking that position. I am not for making it that black and white. I do not have aspirations, but I do know people that do aspire to run the National. As far as the National Amateur, the way I would view it would be since it requires more points to make an AFC than FC, if the numbers continue to rise at that rate, then requiring more points to qualify would be appropriate. If you raise the bar for the National (Open), then you would possibly increase the participants at the weekend test, which you all want to avoid, because those that qualify, _usually _do not continue to be run in order to qualify more dogs on the truck.



Nancy

You are not addressing one of the underlying questions - should we change the criteria for the Nationals. 

And I am not sure what your criteria are for changing - or not changing

You seem to be saying no to the National Open - and yet, you are willing to change the criteria for the National Amateur. What's the difference - is it simply that it takes 15 points to get an AFC? But, of course, you can get an AFC with 10 Open points and an amateur handling. So what is the distinction?

Why does it make a difference to you how many dogs are running in the Open or Amateur on the weekend?

Does size make a difference in the quality of experience? (And should we therefore seek to decrease size?)

Is it important that we give more people an opportunity to qualify?(And if criteria remain the same, more people will sit out?)

My observation is different than yours, I would say that usually people continue to run their dogs after they are qualified and that they may sit out one or two trials just before the National (whether National Open or National Amateur)


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

FOM said:


> You got to be kidding??????  Might as well quit now....
> 
> FOM


Me too! I can't even finish an AA test!


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

They could make the Amature have a requirement that the dog be amature trained.....that would reduce the number down considerably...

/Paul


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Why does it make a difference to you how many dogs are running in the Open or Amateur on the weekend?


Hmm, you're right. I have no business posting here because I lost my 4yo open dog this spring.


Why don't you just tell us what YOUR ideas are-I'm not sure about the encouraging discussion part.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Nancy

I am sorry you lost your Open dog

I really don't have an agenda here.

I thought Ed's suggestion that qualifications for the National might be changed was an interesting one and one that should not get lost in the clutter of the National Open coverage, so I brought it over here.

I don't understand why you made the distinctions that you did

Which is why I asked the questions that I did

Nothing more or less

I don't have a dog in this fight

Ted


----------



## zipmarc (Jan 23, 2006)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> They could make the Amature have a requirement that the dog be amature trained.....that would reduce the number down considerably.../Paul


How would you define "Amateur Trained"? Or should this be made into a separate discussion thread?


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

If you change the qualifications for the Nationals then you will have a need for more weekend trials…isn’t the number of National qualifiers directly related to the increase in the number of trials that were suppose to be the answer to reduce the number of dogs at weekend trials? It is like the FT game has gotten itself in a circular reference from hell. 

Outside looking in regards

btw, sounds like the FT game is succeeding...not failing.


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> Nancy
> 
> I am sorry you lost your Open dog
> 
> ...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Mike, 

I think that both you and Nancy are reading things into my posts that are not there.

I am not trying to stir the pot.

And I don't have a position on this issue.

I do want to hear what people think about this issue and more importantly, why they feel the way that they do.

What I do think about this issue is this -

At some point in time, an increase in the number of dogs results in a change in what the participants - workers, judges, and competitors - experience. I don’t know when that point is reached - or if it has been reached - but, I do know that it will be reached. And I suspect that time is just around the bend. 

When it is reached, I think that the old tradition that competitors generally got two mistakes, before they were dropped, will be necessarily gone.


You can make the value judgement that it is more important to keep the National qualifications as they are to make the Nationals as accessible to all competitors as they have always been. That is the position that you and Nancy seem to have taken. 


You can make the value judgement that it is more important to preserve the National "experience" - that is, permit the competitors to play longer than they might expect at a weekend trial. That is the position that Keith and Ed seem to have taken.


I say that these are value judgements, because I don’t think that either position is "right." It is just a matter of what you prefer. 


Some people prefer chocolate ice cream. 
Other people prefer strawberry ice cream. In my opinion, there is no basis for telling either of them that their preferences are "wrong," "lame," or "ridiculous"
Preferences are simply preferences. Nothing more or less.


I am interested in learning why people prefer one flavor over another. 

So I am interested in learning why people want to either keep or change the National Qualification process.


And I am interested in learning how people would change the process if they had to do so.


That's my agenda - nothing more or less.

Ted


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

I agree ith Ed and Kieth also. So we all seem to agree. Except for one point. I do not see numbers being a factor anytime in the near future. I have stated in my posts what I believe to be a statistical anomaly this year and why. I may prove to be wrong, lets see the numbers next year. As it is this National finished right on time and the judges from my view here online did a great job of testing the field at a very high level even with the delays. They also did not panic into eliminating dogs with a stricker criteria, as I also did post as a last resort, because knoweone wants that to happen. As I said from my first post. Add a day. Start Saturday. Again noting they finished right on time with many delays for weather. In my opinion conflicting trials have also been created not just to lessen the burden on clubs from large events, but have been created sloely for the purpose of eliminating competition.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Don't forget that they counted the poison bird as a marking series ....


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Ted you and I know that it is common practice to combine series after the fact at both Nationals. I have seen a 9th series be resorted to a qualifying land blind just to move on. They were right on time and didn't sacrifce any quality in doing so.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

They did what they had to do

But, I have little doubt that they would have preferred to get another triple or quad in rather than a single


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Of course. Still nothing new to a National. You ran the first series. There was no way to anticipate those dogs doing what they did on that test. Hardly not the judges intention as you and I both know. To then assume that they were going to throw down the gauntlet and eliminate dogs never entered my mind. Mike and Lynn Moore were with me training and I told them I believed the judges would most likely be very lenient with that first series as to their eventual callbacks and drops. I was right. Keep this in mind at the 1995 Open in Oakdale 54 of 89 handled in the first series. They however were told not to shoot a pheasant in the high bermuda cover in a particular field by Joe Boatright. So not the first National to have a first series a little stiffer than maybe the judges had hoped for. In fact my recollection was that 2007's National had a pretty stiff first series too. Never any talk of this then, because other than some short fog delays weather not likely to be a overiding factor just short days. Add a day and everyone judges, workers, trial committee relieved of much worry and as I said then the judges could really run the tests they really like most.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

The bigger the entry, the smaller the margin for error.

Sometimes, the weather eats into that margin.
Sometimes, a test just doesn't work the way you want.
Sometimes, stuff happens

So, if you want to keep the National Experience, and entries continue to grow - you have to do something


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Lets just wait and see what happens. The National experience is paramount as you and I both know. I don't believe that is in jeopardy as yet. If it proves out to be in the future my vote is to first add a day. Then to eliminate trials (probably not what some may want to hear). Cuz for me it wouldn't bother me to run against 50-100 national qualifiers every weekend. Only makes it sweeter, but as I said I am only speaking for myself. I think we have worn this thread out Ted. Good luck in the spring, hopefully our paths cross in the near future.
Mike


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> The bigger the entry, the smaller the margin for error.
> 
> Sometimes, the weather eats into that margin.
> Sometimes, a test just doesn't work the way you want.
> ...


They could do what the MN does. Cut the field by 40-50% in the first series. Problem solved...

Now that would be quite an experience...

/Paul


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> ........Then to eliminate trials (probably not what some may want to hear).


IMHO With all due respect, that* idea* is so beyond lame it might just be a Quadriplegic 

To do away with weekend trials would be the epitome of the tail ( the National RC's single event) wagging the dog (the entire AKC Retriever FT program)

john


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

john fallon said:


> IMHO With all due respect, that* idea* is so beyond lame it might just be a Quadriplegic
> 
> To do away with weekend trials would be the epitome of the tail ( the National RC's single event) wagging the dog (the entire AKC Retriever FT program)
> 
> john


You forgot to add the rest of my quote. Wouldn't bother me to run against 50-100 National qualifiers every week. How bout you stud!


----------



## North Mountain (Oct 20, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Did you feel like a winner or consolation prize.....?
> 
> /Paul


Any time my dog and I do well I feel like a winner. Even when I am not the winner. Why would I feel like a consolation prize?


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Why would anyone want to offer another solution to a problem of overcrowding when it's the same as a weekend trial except for the fact that at the National you have a week to judge the contestants. Worse case scenario you don't get done on Sat. So what? Go again on Sunday. If that doesn't work there's always Monday. Isn't that what happens at a weekend trial. The National can allow for the extra time it's hell at a weekend trial but it's been done. 

Judges make their own bed by some of the things they do. Thinking that they have plenty of time so they stop because of bad weather only to continue again the next day. They continually think that the sun comes up in the west and sets in the east. They don't realize that there are thirty something test set up and have to stick to one instead of being flexible. They think that everyone has to stay and play when the should have cut in the 3 rd. Most of the time they carry way to many into the late series changing their criteria as the trial goes on. After awhile that handle in the first looks a lot worse by the 6th than it did after the 4th. Not very consistent. Mechanics is very critical at a National. Blah Blah Blah. 

I am so sick and tired of some thinking that the hard working people of this sport should take a back seat to the game that is supposed to be for Amateurs By Amatures. These Nationals wouldn't even be run if it was not for the hard workers of the sport. I'm talking about the givers not the takers. How many working stiffs have you ever seen run a National? Most of the workers at these Nationals are the same stiffs that do all the work at the weekend trials. How many of these people have real competitive dogs. I would think only a handful. Why don't people really support the game and everyone get off the butts and work at 5-6 trials and a National every year and quit trying to make it harder for people to enjoy their sport.

We now have a Restricted stake to eliminate the club member or the working stiff and now people are talking about a way to lower the numbers at the National by having less trials to try and qualify which amounts to bigger entries less quality dog work test that are designed to make good dogs look bad and less workers because who wants to work big trials. Raising the qualification for the National because of the entry size is a great idea let's make it harder for the same workers to qualify their dog because we want to make it easier for them to work the trial. Maybe we will let them run test dog. Leave it alone it's got along fine for all these years. 

Remember the reason only the few are working these trials is because the masses are at home letting someone else work for them or sitting on the fence offering up noncommittal thoughts about what they think should or should not be.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Fire N Ice said:


> You forgot to add the rest of my quote. *Wouldn't bother me to run against 50-100 National qualifiers every week*. *How bout you stud*!


 65 and still being called a stud.....Thanks

As i said earlier, I am on record on this forum as being against restricting entries in any fashion in any FT stake be it Open Am or Q at the weekend level. This includes the Limited , the Restricted, the Special, and all the various OH's and would rather take on all comers..............Now to your hypothetical, if by some happenstance it turned out that I were entered in a trial that 50-100 entrants were *already* National qualifiers (quite an event I might add) I would relish the opportunity to compete against them but would hope that the Judges were up to the task of judging such a strong field in 3 days without resorting to pencil whipping and celebrity callback. 


john


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Barry said:


> Why would anyone want to offer another solution to a problem of overcrowding when it's the same as a weekend trial except for the fact that at the National you have a week to judge the contestants. Worse case scenario you don't get done on Sat. So what? Go again on Sunday. If that doesn't work there's always Monday. Isn't that what happens at a weekend trial. The National can allow for the extra time it's hell at a weekend trial but it's been done.
> 
> Judges make their own bed by some of the things they do. Thinking that they have plenty of time so they stop because of bad weather only to continue again the next day. They continually think that the sun comes up in the west and sets in the east. They don't realize that there are thirty something test set up and have to stick to one instead of being flexible. They think that everyone has to stay and play when the should have cut in the 3 rd. Most of the time they carry way to many into the late series changing their criteria as the trial goes on. After awhile that handle in the first looks a lot worse by the 6th than it did after the 4th. Not very consistent. Mechanics is very critical at a National. Blah Blah Blah.
> 
> ...


Barry it sounds like we've come full circle on this thread to where you and I both started. Leave it alone. I'm out on this one guys nuff said. Have a Great Day!!!


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

john fallon said:


> This includes the Limited , the Restricted, the Special, and all the various OH's and would rather take on all comers.............. john


I won't attempt to put words in your mouth so will try to frame the questions.

Are you OK with someone retiring as a pro & showing up a year later running the O/H Am with the same dog? You might try to explain what changed?

Are you OK with someone selling a dog for big bucks & continuing to handle that dog in the Am as a DH?

Are you OK with someone co-owning a dog with a professional for any reason?

Are you OK with club members importing dogs to run as DH so they won't have to work & taking the opportunity for a placing from a hard working club member?

Are you OK with the Amateur? showing up at a trial with 6-8 dogs, most not their own, to run in the Amateur Stake?

There are more but I would like to see your answers to the above.

Taking on all comers, Regards.


----------



## North Mountain (Oct 20, 2003)

I am okay with all the above because the rules allow for such. 

1. What changed was the person (retired pro) no longer accepts payment for training dogs. Pretty simple.

2. Rules allow it.

3. Rules allow it.

4. ????? Most folks I know who don't want to work just come up with some excuse why they can't. Seems like a lot of trouble to get out of working to run a bunch of dogs when you can just say, "no".

5. I guess that's why some clubs have the O/H. Whatever works for your club.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> I won't attempt to put words in your mouth so will try to frame the questions.





> Are you OK with someone retiring as a pro & showing up a year later running the O/H Am with the same dog? You might try to explain what changed?


Yes
Being a Retriever Field trial pro has nothing to do with anything but training retrievers under a published set of conditions and doing it for money



> Are you OK with someone selling a dog for big bucks & continuing to handle that dog in the Am as a DH?


 Yes, unless you can show me an illegal payment for handling the dog Are you 


> OK with someone co-owning a dog with a professional for any reason?


I'd better be;-)



> Are you OK with club members importing dogs to run as DH so they won't have to work & taking the opportunity for a placing from a hard working club member?


We are there to find the best dog there that weekend if you can't get the best out of your dog you might want to consider a DH yourself


> Are you OK with the Amateur? showing up at a trial with 6-8 dogs, most not their own, to run in the Amateur Stake?


as long as they are an Amateur

When I have one ready I prefer to run the Open rather than the AM, points toward title wise, one gets _more bang for your bucks._

The operative word being when.

john


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

john fallon said:


> Yes
> Being a Retriever Field trial pro has nothing to do with anything but training retrievers under a published set of conditions and doing it for money
> 
> Yes, unless you can show me an illegal payment for handling the dog Are you
> ...


I was out of this but must add last word for you John. WE AGREE on all the above, THATTA BOY!!! Out!!!!


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

North Mountain said:


> 1. What changed was the person (retired pro) no longer accepts payment for training dogs. Pretty simple.


You mean, no longer admits to accepting payment, who verify's?



> 2. Rules allow it.
> 
> 3. Rules allow it.


And you are positive of that?



john fallon said:


> Yes
> Being a Retriever Field trial pro has nothing to do with anything but training retrievers under a published set of conditions and doing it for money
> 
> Yes, unless you can show me an illegal payment for handling the dog Are you
> I'd better be;-)


For someone who is constantly fine tuning other's efforts, you are vague on your approach to an answer. 




> We are there to find the best dog there that weekend if you can't get the best out of your dog you might want to consider a DH yourself
> 
> as long as they are an Amateur


Do you believe in the part of the rulebook that calls for sportsmanlike conduct?



> When I have one ready I prefer to run the Open rather than the AM, points toward title wise, one gets _more bang for your bucks._
> 
> The operative word being when.
> 
> john


I'm sure you work hard at what you try to do - just keep wishing - *when* is fairly elusive.


----------



## jollycurl (Mar 4, 2008)

Interesting topic. I guess I would make another point since the economic one has already been made. I don't know about other parts of the country, but in the mideastern area, we are losing trial grounds every year. Ohio Valley no longer puts on FTs, Maumee Valley only one and Buckeye is getting hard pressed to find grounds in the fall because the state DNR is making things very tough. There is only one FT in PA and 2 in IN.

Are other parts of the country losing grounds and, thus, the potential for even putting on a trial?


----------



## North Mountain (Oct 20, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> You mean, no longer admits to accepting payment, who verify's?
> QUOTE]
> 
> I think it would be pretty difficult to get clients if you have declared your amateur status. Word would get out if you were giving folks a "wink, wink, I'm an amateur". Risking your AKC standing to run an amateur seems like a poor trade to me.
> ...


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

North Mountain said:


> Marvin S said:
> 
> 
> > You mean, no longer admits to accepting payment, who verify's?
> ...


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Barry said:


> Worse case scenario you don't get done on Sat. So what? Go again on Sunday. .


There is little support for adding an emergency day as most have travel arrrangements which could not be easily (or cheaply) changed and work obligations on Monday which would preclude most of the workers being there on Sunday. Of course the remaining contestants could shoot and throw birds for each other the way we typically do in the last series of a weekend Amateur... 

There most commonly held solution is to add a day at the beginning, i.e. have the RAC and National Retriever Club meetings on Friday and begin the National on Saturday.

I do not believe that this year's entry was an anomaly as the pros (who comprise >75% of the entry) will attend when ever and where ever the trial is held. 

That the judges had to call 75 yard land blind to set up the water blind a series and a 75 yard shot duck in no cover to set up the 2nd water blind as a series attests to the need for some solution to the size of the entry in the available time.

The only day we did not split tests was the last day.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Barry It's all about honesty and integrity. [/QUOTE said:


> Hard to believe the regression of that in the sport.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

EdA said:


> > There is little support for adding an emergency day as most have travel arrrangements which could not be easily (or cheaply) changed and work obligations on Monday which would preclude most of the workers being there on Sunday.
> 
> 
> At times there are an emergency day at the weekend trial. I think the problem that everyone has is that it's a Sunday or Monday typical getaway days. You either make allowances for days at the end or at the beginning. What ever is necessary to get the job done.
> ...


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Barry it is my understanding that they only broke for conditions that were unrunnable, ie. Fog, and Lightning, not something you want to mess with. As it is I think the judges did a great job testing the field from what I was able to observe online and from communicating with someone there running dogs. As far as combining tests or whether or not they were diificult or not. In 2003 at Joe's having run all ten series, I have to be candid and say the 4th/5th series double blind, the land blind was pretty similar to this years 3rd, and the late series water blind 7 or 8 was changed from the really hard one along the duck pond bank to a rather easy one on the end of the pond. A very common theme at most Nationals. It is what it is, nobody complained then nor should they have. As we all know blinds are the first way to save time at a National. I think these guys did a great job and didn't panic. Nice marks judged fairly it seems and a couple water blinds pretty standard for a National. Hope your doing well!!!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Barry said:


> Instead of giving into the weather you have to play through it as we do the weekend trials. .


the call to suspend the 4th series was made by the Chairman and Chief Marshall, and had they not done so I was prepared to bring the gunners out of the field. It was a dangerous weather situation with lightning and strong gusty winds, to continue would have been foolish and potentially catastrophic.

That was the only time lost to weather other than to poor visibility caused by fog.

2 early tests cost more time than they should have yet the problem remains one of insufficient hours of daylight to properly test (by traditional National standards) a field of dogs of this size.

the National Retriever Championship is a unique event unlike any other in the retriever world, to alter the event by changing the way it is judged would be a mistake. 

Given that the only other methods to continue to judge the Championship as it traditionally has been judged are adding time or reducing the entry and those are the choices that the NRC and it's members must face.

At this time in my life I have no dog in the fight (and probably will not have again) so whatever decision is made (if any is made), would only affect me in my capacity as a person who is available and willing to work in any capacity to ensure the success of the National Retriever Championship, this desire because of my personal history as a contestant, a committe member, an officer of NRC (field trial Chairman, Chief Marshall, and President), and committee Chairman since 1984.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Fire N Ice said:


> Barry it is my understanding that they only broke for conditions that were unrunnable, ie. Fog, and Lightning, not something you want to mess with. As it is I think the judges did a great job testing the field from what I was able to observe online and from communicating with someone there running dogs. As far as combining tests or whether or not they were diificult or not. In 2003 at Joe's having run all ten series, I have to be candid and say the 4th/5th series double blind, the land blind was pretty similar to this years 3rd, and the late series water blind 7 or 8 was changed from the really hard one along the duck pond bank to a rather easy one on the end of the pond. A very common theme at most Nationals. It is what it is, nobody complained then nor should they have. As we all know blinds are the first way to save time at a National. I think these guys did a great job and didn't panic. Nice marks judged fairly it seems and a couple water blinds pretty standard for a National. Hope your doing well!!!


I was only commenting on the comment. Ed brought up the test and the combining of them. If someone goes out of their way to make the comment then they must have had an issue with it not me. IMO if you have to add two series by doing what they did well it speaks for itself. It is what it is. 

The question was what to do about the larger issue of entries. I stand by my remarks. You make allowances for them. They deserve to be there.


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Barry said:


> I was only commenting on the comment. Ed brought up the test and the combining of them. If someone goes out of their way to make the comment then they must have had an issue with it not me. IMO if you have to add two series by doing what they did well it speaks for itself. It is what it is.
> 
> The question was what to do about the larger issue of entries. I stand by my remarks. You make allowances for them. They deserve to be there.


It seems You, I, Ed and others have all came to a consensus opinion in regards to that, which I stated on my first post. Start Saturday looks to be the best solution.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

> 2 early tests cost more time than they should have yet the problem remains one of insufficient hours of daylight to properly test (by traditional National standards) a field of dogs of this size.


I understand what you are saying, but if you had not lost time on 2 early test we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.

Buy the way congrats I heard the mechanics were great and the guns had a good time. Thanks for your hard work.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Barry said:


> the guns had a good time.


the guns ALWAYS have a good time as do many other committees, the ones who seem not to be having such a good time are the grim faced competitors.....


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Barry said:


> but if you had not lost time on 2 early test we probably wouldn't be having this discussion


probably not

I remember the 1985 National Championship in Albany Georgia which lost 3 full mornings to fog. They only had 5 days to run the trial but their salvation was that they only had 67 dogs entered.

these days the loss of 3 full mornings would be catastrophic


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

I haven't read all the threads on this but....let's try to put something into perspective, please.

It takes an Open WIN and 5 additional points to earn the title, Field Champion. It currently takes an annual Open WIN and 2 additional points to qualify for the National. That darned near means that the dog must "re-title" each year to qualify!

I think the current time allotment and the requirements to qualify are just fine the way they are. 

Certainly, if the requirements to qualify were to be increased, the commensurate number of points or additional wins should be added to the requirement to achieve FC status as well. The title should not be demeaned as a means to decrease competition!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Marvin,

This incessant whining about the plight of the true Amateur and their dogs is really waring thin. 

The stripped down version of what you want is an AA stake............ where someone with marginally good handling skills competing *for the most part* against those similarly endowed would* be able to* take a moderately trained dog and be competitive on the weekends.
Sorry to say, that just ain't in the cards.

As for the Shamateur Pro
To my way of thinking You should file charges if you have proof of any of your allegation and let the FT committee do their job.

Is that clear enough

If you feel this is an unfair characterisation please explain what this TRUE AM and AM Trained Dog movement is all about

john


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Certainly, if the requirements to qualify were to be increased, the commensurate number of points or additional wins should be added to the requirement to achieve FC status as well. The title should not be demeaned as a means to decrease competition!


I don't understand:

1) Why you think that if more points were required to qualify for the National, that more points should be required to title; or
2) Why you think that the title would be demeaned if the points required to qualify were increased

To me, they are not necessarily connected


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Because I believe that the FC title is much more important than a national qualification requirement. 

I don't really want to debate this, and I'm really tired of the "too many dogs" stuff. If its too many dogs, stay home! I think those who don't like the number of entries in either weekend trials or nationals should just stay home & wait for a smaller one, or find something else to do besides complain.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Because I believe that the FC title is much more important than a national qualification requirement.


Your point still escapes me.

But, if you don't want to talk about it, that's that


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Because I believe that the FC title is much more important than a national qualification requirement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, we were discussing for what it was worth. Oh, and by the way if you haven't noticed there are less people running the Open and working and judging these big trials. Except for the pros. We are all getting older and they are talking up the slack for the rest of us. Pretty soon they will have to do all the work plus take our dogs to and from the trials.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Barry said:


> Well, we were discussing for what it was worth.


and quite a civil discussion at that, certainly not one that merited a tirade....;-)


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

Vicki Worthington said:


> .... *I'm really tired of the "too many dogs" stuff.* ....


ME TOO!!! Why is it that field trialers can't stand a little popularity and prosperity? It is true that putting on a large trial is very difficult, and they are even more difficult to win, but this is the game that we choose to play. 

To answer Ted's original question, "NO!" Why change the qualifying policy based on one data point (this year's large entry). At least give it a couple of more years to see if the large number of national qualifiers are indeed a trend. Upping the requirements would IMO penalize many of the weekend warriors that make this game possible. 

fp


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

EdA said:


> and quite a civil discussion at that, certainly not one that merited a tirade....;-)


I thought Tirade was the brother of Koolade, sister to Gatorade.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

EdA said:


> the guns ALWAYS have a good time as do many other committees, the ones who seem not to be having such a good time are the grim faced competitors.....



Some folks would be disappointed that they found a ten dollar bill instead of a twenty. When I have a dog that is qualified I wound need to have a plastic surgeon wipe the smile off my face. I wouldnt give a crap if my dog broke on the first bird. Getting there should be a reward in itself everything beyond that should be gravy. I doubt if I was in the 9th series and had to take another day off work would be even a question. I am not sure that it would be the end of the world for the judges or workers. For most a dozen dogs or so on any set up is a half days for most training groups.

I myself feel that if anything that will impact weekend trials would be counter productive.


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

The title should not be demeaned as a means to decrease competition![/QUOTE]

Hi Vicky, If what you meant was "trials shouldn't be added" "as a means to decrease competition" I agree with ya sister!!!


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

john fallon said:


> Is that clear enough


*I've just made a personal note to allow you to babble-post to your own incontinence in the future.*

Clarification was requested, you chose to avoid the issue. 

Thank You!


----------



## North Mountain (Oct 20, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> Laura - What you are stating is IYO. Have you read the rulebook discussing these subjects? If so, I would ask, did you believe you had any inkling of what was being presented? I would say you did not. So I will end this discussion with you. BTW, Swede, Norwegian or German? That might help explain your closed mind position.QUOTE]
> 
> I am somewhat perplexed at why the rude retort. You asked some questions and yes I answered them with my opinion. You then asked a couple of other questions which I then again answered. I did not see you attempt to enlighten me with your opinion which I would be happy to hear. Perhaps you could sway my opinion but I saw no attempt to do so. How does that make me closed minded? I guess for you, my ethnicity plays a role. Not that I believe it matters in this instance but I will share with you that my name is Swedish in origin.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I think that in this area, as in many areas of discussion, there is room for legitimate debate.

I think that it is fair for some to say that they do not want to change the qualifications because they do not want to restrict access to the premier event. And I have appreciated those who explained why they feel that way. 

I think that it is fair for others to say that they want to change the qualifications because it changes the nature of the event. . And I have appreciated those who explained why they feel that way. 

I don’t think that there is "right" or "wrong" here, just different points of view.

I am disappointed that some have deviated from the generally civil tone of discussion in this thread.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

I thought Marvin S was banned from this site. If not, after the snide comment above regarding a persons heritage, I think it's time to do so now.


----------



## waggontail (Oct 10, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> I think that in this area, as in many areas of discussion, there is room for legitimate debateI think that it is fair for others to say that they want to change the qualifications because it changes the nature of the event. . And I have appreciated those who explained why they feel that way.
> I don’t think that there is "right" or "wrong" here, just different points of view.
> 
> I am disappointed that some have deviated from the generally civil tone of discussion in this thread.




First, I feel the statement regarding ethnic origin was of poor taste, and surprised it was allowed. I hope that gentleman at least writes an apology, the old fashion way, and begs to be forgiven.

Second, by throwing the question of qualifications out for debate what kind of responses did you expect. With increased costs (entry, fuel, and birds), and the ablility to to even get to 4th series of either AA events is extremly difficult. The current state of economy squeezes the hopes and dreams of many. The amount of sacrifice one generally contributes to even get a JAM is overwhelming to the average individual (retired or not).

Lastly, your thread did stimulate people to share data and facts regarding: time elements, history of stakes, and experiences. Though you back peddled, side stepped, and avoided the nature of your post. I hope the time between now and your trial in SJRC 2009, gives you a chance to reflect on the various changes and suggestions to the rules and there interpretations you have repeatedly made. Once again, why change some almost too difficult, and who will supply the labor. Civil? Are you.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Breck said:


> I thought Marvin S was banned from this site. If not, after the snide comment above regarding a persons heritage, I think it's time to do so now.


That works for me. There are NONE that give more to the sport and ask less in return than Laura. We don't need racists here.

Racism has many forms regards

Bubba


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

North Mountain said:


> Marvin S said:
> 
> 
> > Laura - What you are stating is IYO. Have you read the rulebook discussing these subjects? If so, I would ask, did you believe you had any inkling of what was being presented? I would say you did not. So I will end this discussion with you. BTW, Swede, Norwegian or German? That might help explain your closed mind position.QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## zipmarc (Jan 23, 2006)

Barry said:


> I thought Tirade was the brother of Koolade, sister to Gatorade.


More levity is what's needed in this thread. Thank you for that.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Before this starts I have this to say - as soon as I recognized Laura had taken my comments in a manner that not intended I was spending time putting together something of substance so she would see that was not my intent. 



Breck said:


> I thought Marvin S was banned from this site. If not, after the snide comment above regarding a persons heritage, I think it's time to do so now.


Laura & I actually know each other, who are you?



Bubba said:


> That works for me. There are NONE that give more to the sport and ask less in return than Laura. We don't need racists here.
> 
> Racism has many forms regards
> 
> Bubba


For someone who is adept at piling on you might want to reconsider who you try to tell what they are thinking. I would try to explain a couple of things to you but believe it would be for naught.



waggontail said:


> First, I feel the statement regarding ethnic origin was of poor taste, and surprised it was allowed. I hope that gentleman at least writes an apology, the old fashion way, and begs to be forgiven.


I would call your attention to my original statement.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

waggontail said:


> First, I feel the statement regarding ethnic origin was of poor taste, and surprised it was allowed. I hope that gentleman at least writes an apology, the old fashion way, and begs to be forgiven.


I am not a moderator and have no control over content on this site.



waggontail said:


> Second, by throwing the question of qualifications out for debate what kind of responses did you expect. With increased costs (entry, fuel, and birds), and the ablility to to even get to 4th series of either AA events is extremly difficult. The current state of economy squeezes the hopes and dreams of many. The amount of sacrifice one generally contributes to even get a JAM is overwhelming to the average individual (retired or not).


I expect that people will be civil - no matter what the topic. I am frequently disappointed, however. 



waggontail said:


> Lastly, your thread did stimulate people to share data and facts regarding: time elements, history of stakes, and experiences. Though you back peddled, side stepped, and avoided the nature of your post. I hope the time between now and your trial in SJRC 2009, gives you a chance to reflect on the various changes and suggestions to the rules and there interpretations you have repeatedly made. Once again, why change some almost too difficult, and who will supply the labor. Civil? Are you.


Once again, I don't know what your point is. It is unclear to me what you are trying to say.

Is it that someone cannot ask for opinions on an interesting topic without having formed an opinion?

If you want to take a shot at me, the least you can do is identify yourself


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I have to say. The entertainment factor has sure gone way up on this thread.

/Paul


----------



## North Mountain (Oct 20, 2003)

Marvin,

Apology accepted. I guess that's why I was perplexed. I didn't get the joke. Sorry bout that. Look forward to the real response.


----------



## waggontail (Oct 10, 2007)

Patrick O'Neill
it is stated in many of the few post made. not running for any elections.

you still are side stepping. My point is and has been: who will work the so and so need a pt. blah blah. trials. the fall trials used to be the best shot for dog people.

i have never seen you work at one or offer to do anything other than politic at the maybe 4 trials i have seen you at since maybe 02 MVHC NHC SRC (OK)NTRC. I might have seen you UT/WY04.in fact at MVHC in you walked out of line of to runwhen dogs were running in rain I was marshalling in AM and pretented not to hear. 

have you ever taken off work, to work at trial and not run. drive hundreds of miles to support and not try to get into pecking order. and give some sweat maybe learn something from the dog work.


----------



## waggontail (Oct 10, 2007)

you must have an important call to take.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Patrick

I have no idea what you are talking about.

But, here is what I do for the sport

- Judge 2x a year
- Find judges for the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club, West Nebraska Club, and in the past, Nebraska Dog and Hunt Club
- Do all of the paperwork for the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club (fill out AKC paperwork, pay bills, register events on Entry Express)
- Work at Rocky Mountain's two trials each year (you can ask Lainee or Vickie about how much I work at the trials)
- Sack birds at trials where I am visiting and run them out into the field
- Pay membership fees for the Missouri Valley Club and Nebraska Club - I think a $100 each - as a way of saying thanks for their putting on trials that I attend (even though I never train on their grounds)

If that is not enough for you, well I suggest you take aim at some others, because I guarantee that I do my fair share


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

waggontail said:


> you must have an important call to take.


For once, you were right.

I was on the phone with Rorem, talking about the National.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> For once, you were right.
> 
> I was on the phone with Rorem, talking about the National.


Did you pass on my message to him?

FOM


----------



## waggontail (Oct 10, 2007)

i take that as still side stepping. i am sure you'll judge your national


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Patrick

I don't see you listed as a judge on the AKC site.

Am I missing something?

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

waggontail said:


> i take that as still side stepping. i am sure you'll judge your national


 
Patrick

What is the burr under your saddle?

I am not promoting a change in qualification standards. So why do I have any obligation to respond to your issues? Why not look at someone else - Mike, perhaps, who wants to extend the National by a day?

I am not side stepping anything.

What does judging a National have to do with anything on this thread?

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

FOM said:


> Did you pass on my message to him?
> 
> FOM


 
Sorry, I forgot.

Got into discussion of the dogs, tests, etc. and spaced it out

Hope that doesn't put my elk meat in jeopardy

Ted


----------



## waggontail (Oct 10, 2007)

well or not civil, you avoided the points made, and when on with your speech. you did string out the duties of Event Sec pretty good. key word was work


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Sorry, I forgot.
> 
> Got into discussion of the dogs, tests, etc. and spaced it out
> 
> ...


Nope - I think I'll call Rorem later this week and congrat him myself.....I will have to say the elk jerky was quiet tastey. 

Hmmmmm, onions, for some reason I keep thinking "onions." 

FOM


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

waggontail said:


> well or not civil, you avoided the points made, and when on with your speech. you did string out the duties of Event Sec pretty good. key word was work


I think Lainee can speak to whether I work at the Rocky Mountain Club Events or not

But, I notice that you are silent about what you do 

And about whether you judge - since you don't consider that work


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Just wondering
Why doesn't anyone stick up for blonds,,,they seem to be abused and humiliated the most. And what about those polocks, who's sticking up for them.
People are to sensitive.

I haven't detected any hate on this board at all. Just people getting agitated or defensive which can be natural when people are passionate about something.,,, Which reminds me ,,,I need to find a passion.,, It seems like everyone here could care less what color some is or what race or even what religion
except muslum just kidding. Take it easy, It was a joke.
No really its an attempt at light humor


Hell you cant say I dont like chocolate without being called a racist.

I don't believe Marvin was making a racist attack and I don't think Laura took it that way. Marvin came across rude,,,so whats new It doesn't make him a German hater or even a Laura hater. Both Marvin and Laura come across as top notch people in their postings.

I may even get reprooved for my atempt at light humor . Be kind though I have a very low IQ.

Pete


----------



## tshuntin (Mar 22, 2003)

Ted, how about you take my Willie pup for a month or so and work a little magic with her and I will give you some elk meat.  My dad did shoot a nice 320-ish 6 pt and I have a cow tag I should be getting taken care of in the next few weeks.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Tell you what Patrick, 

Since you think so poorly of me

Talk to the folks at San Jose and tell them that you will take my place and judge the Open in January

Then I will only have to judge two trials next year

And you can complain to more people about how little I do


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> - Work at Rocky Mountain's two trials each year (you can ask Lainee or Vickie about how much I work at the trials)


Ted you were a great help at the trial - I appreciated everything you did to make my first experience judging an AA stake a good one!

Edit - I should add, Ted was out in the rain hanging birds, marshalling and rebirding for us. He worked his tail off at the trial and he does at both of the trials his club holds.....just because a person does not work every trial they attend does not mean they do not do their share!

Especially the rain gear!

FOM


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

FOM said:


> Ted you were a great help at the trial - I appreciated everything you did to make my first experience judging an AA stake a good one!
> 
> Especially the rain gear!
> 
> FOM


Just like a woman to appreciate me for my stuff


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Just like a woman to appreciate me for my stuff


The frisbee was nice, too!  And the idea of putting up tape at the line was good, but next time could you get rid of the snakes? Oh yeah and bring an extra shovel for me!

Screaming Like A Sissy Girl Regards,

FOM


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I don't do snakes


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I want to add one more thing since it seems Ted is a target of opportunity - I've been in the FT game for almost 5 years now and Ted has been the ONLY person besides my Pro and Dave Rorem to take the time and mentor a newbie......and I'm not talking just gallery chat, either.

I am thankful that he is willing to help me be a better handler.......

FOM

Oppps I have to add Bill Schrader into the mix, too.


----------



## waggontail (Oct 10, 2007)

you still side stepped and you accepted a job do it. Don S is a very good guy.

My last assignment was 07 Sagehens Limited, i think pts 6 mjr 7 minor I have two differnt judges numbers one alphanumber and rreasigned number. I have been on board CSRC. Worked at MVCH before there was even a club house. I have judged with Barry and Marshalled his open SCR I believe cannot recall exactly maybe 06 lost hills. what else do you want . oh yeah i just a working stiff- uneducationed (can't spell) who elseare your going to drag into Mike P. I have run agaisnt him and underhim but do not know him personally. But he is a good dog person and civil.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Patrick

I have no idea what you are saying.

I think I will simply give up trying.

I am going to bed.

Ted


----------



## waggontail (Oct 10, 2007)

poorly of you . that is not accurate. i stated my observations only. no burr. just not big on bombs posted about rules and political motivation. i hope you do get to judge your national. reread , simply asked you to reflect posts. you have been too kind, and still side stepped the things you asked to be stated. back to the need a pt trials. i do not think poorly of you, and to quote my Fathers saying If you do not care for someone actions/person you have not had a chance to meet them. You cannot be in the same place at once. Judgement/ Understanding one or the other. Simple as that. I wish you the best of health and happiness. Forgot the chat note of your loss. Principle not personal


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> North Mountain said:
> 
> 
> > Laura - My *best friend* was of German heritage - on a stubbornness scale of 1 to 100 with 1 being worst he was about a 10 if he got locked in. That did not make him any less likable, we roomed together going through college. I am of Swedish-Belgian, 50% each, with both sets of grandparents immigrants, which in today's society makes me a purebred. I haven't figured out how to put the laugh icons on a post or would have included them.
> ...


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

P.S. I've gotten some PM's about this thread and just got done reading it from start to finish. I gotta head to the office and already feel like I've been working! 

Marvin, test out your smiley thing please. See how it works!!! :razz:

It's going to be a great day here in the flatlands. Hope all of you in RTF land have a great day too!

Chris


----------



## junbe (Apr 12, 2003)

If one looks at the original application from the National Field Trial Club, the event was to be different from a weekend trial. Originally they wanted all dogs to run all series. and then pick the winner after looking at 10 series without dropping any dogs. AKC rejected this proposal and said they must follow the rules and procedures and that there were mandatory eliminations under the rules. If you read James L. Free’s later writings, you will find that in his opinion they dropped dogs for other than mandatory eliminations. (James L. Free was one of the original judges.) Also note that the qualifications have been tweaked many times—at least 7 times they have changed the qualifications. It is interesting to note that originally they were to pick the 20 best dogs in the country. Their scheme formed a que of all dogs running field trials. First priority was a dog winning a first place and ranked according to the total number of points. Second priority were dogs receiving a second and ranked according to the total number of points. Third priority were dogs receiving a third and ranked according to the total number of points. (A fourth place was not awarded championship points until 1947.) If a dog declined to enter the trial the next in the list was invited. They also stated there must be at least 15 starters.
The original idea of a fixed number of dogs to run the trial was eventually eliminated. There were two stated reasons. First to get a dog qualified you had to campaign a dog nation wide to be sure you were in this fixed number. Many people thought this was unacceptable. The second reason was the dogs on the bubble did not know if they were going to be invited until the final field trial of the year. And then they had to wait to see if someone rejected the invitation to see if they were next in line—this was unacceptable. It was universally agreed that there should be a fixed number of points and when you arrived at that you knew you were invited to the “big dance.”

Jack


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Marvin S said:
> 
> 
> > Marvin,
> ...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Barry

Thank you.

I am sitting on the fence on this issue. I can see both sides of the issue. 

My old man Zowie, who is lying on my feet as I type, never got to run a National Open, hampered by injuries and my poor handling skills. Two years ago, he got the win, but did not have enough points to qualify. I wished he would have been able to run at a National. He was well suited for the National and it would have rounded out his career. So, I understand full well how hard it is to qualify and the consequences of increasing the restrictions.

On the other hand, I think that the National Experience is a unique one. I think a big part of that is the "two strikes and you are out" mentality at a National, as opposed to the "one strike and you are out" at a weekend trial. It is a huge investment of time and money to train for and run a National. It’s a big bummer when you drive to a weekend trial and you go out in the first series. It’s a HUGE bummer when you drive across the country, train for a week, and then go out in the first series. 

Like I said, I can see the arguments for both sides. I don’t think either is right or wrong. It’s a difference in preference.

And I think it is useful to discuss what we prefer ... and why.

Ted


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Time has and always will be the number one factor for the judges to deal with at a National. Splitting tests is inefficient time wise because it requires almost one hour to make a move at a National. While the conditions may change during a single day on a test they are more likely to change over night. When tests are split the luck factor comes into play more, this does not always mean good luck, sometimes it just means not having bad luck.

The larger the entry there are more split tests and the inclination by the judges to to drop dogs is increased. 

These are issues the sport must address, I do not presume to have the answers but I do recognize the problem. The National Championship is a unique event and should remain so, it will be up to the officers of The National Retriever Club to maintain that uniqueness.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I find it interesting that the thread turned to the age old "what you have done for the sport" and "what do you give back" arguments instead of remaining focused on the topic of "should we change the qualifications." I see them as two distinctly different topics. I suppose people want to believe that in order to have a valid opinion on this topic they must have "given back" to the sport. While I believe it is important to give back to the sport and certainly help clubs put on events, I also view people as customers of the sport and the events. As a customer of the event, any person should have a the opportunity to share their opinion of the qualifications needed to attend the national. 


/Paul


----------



## Lonny Taylor (Jun 22, 2004)

This thread has been very interesting and has at times derailed but it is a great topic and should be looked at. I personally think that the first change would be to add a day to give the judges more leeway would help. If that does not help then a toughing of the qualification requirements could be considered. 

I have watched the Master National go through a process of trying to bring the numbers down and I am afraid that it has not had alot of success so far and will be interesting to see if there is further attempts to bring the numbers down. 

From what I could tell they had alot of delays with weather and that obviously made them adjust what they wanted to do in the test setting. I have always liked seeing the big 5th or 6th series marking test that separates the field but this year was not able to happen. 

Ted, I have watched you from your begginings in this sport and feel that you are a great contributor and competitor. You have always studied any problem you see and are not afraid to bring up the discussion to the problems in our game. I will never forget your survey you sent me in an effort to try and address the problem of the overly large trials we face out in the mountain circuit. Atleast you wanted to try and address the problem and help find solutions not just sit on the sidelines and complain. If people differ on the solution that is fine but you should not be condemned for bringing up a potential problem you see. If they do not like the subject matter then they do not have to join in the discussion. 

regards,

LT


----------



## Lance-CO (Jan 10, 2003)

I'll bite since Ted and I are in the same region. In my opinion, we don't have to do anything to limit the quantity of FT entries due to the fact that the state and federal goverment are already limiting the number of people playing FT by putting restrictions (leash laws) in using public open lands. I had my pup w/ me for the last two weeks, I had spent most of my time going around Colorado Springs to find some good training grounds w/ little to no success. You have to know somebody w/ a sizeable land or have a good pro if you want to play and have some success in FTs. Thank God my pro is now back from the National and should start training again tomorrow. I could only speak for myself , but it's frustrating to play the game if you are training by yourself or even joining a local retriever club if the resources of training grounds are very limited. If I don't have a pro, I would have given up in playing this game until I could find some good training grounds or change the leash laws (to e-collar acceptable) for public open land.

Angelo


----------

