DERBY

[Graeme Parkinson]

Peter
I have just read your article on the Derby, great idea. I have considered the problem for some time. I think, and I am only thinking from a NSW/ACT perspective, that the best approach would be to allow dogs to compete in Restricted as non competing dogs until they attain 3 yo. Allocate points for for these dogs for 1st, 2nd and 3rd.
The problem is that it is another set of points for club secretaries to deal with on the day and then pass on to somebody(maybe we can make that part the owners responsibilty). We then need somebody to maintain the totals.
Perhaps we can do that through this forum, I will volunteer to do it. At the end of the trialing year award a sash for the "Australian Working Retriever Central Forum Derby Dog of the Year". I will donate the sash.
What do others think. What does the RAFT committees think.
Graemep

[pmw]

Graeme - have read your post and Peter's article with interest. As an owner with a 'minority' breed I am definitley interested in prolonging the stay in Restricted. In Victoria and I suspect NSW most of the minority breeds drop out once they have their Restricted Title as the bar in AA in NSW and Victoria keeps rising. Wereas fifteen years ago the AA fields consisted of several breeds there are now Just Labs and Goldens (just take a look at Queensland to get a feel for what it used to be like here). A dramatic example of the change is that Bob Tawton won two Nationals with a GSP and I can not believe he could do that now. Unfortunately as numbers in Australia are so small we do not have an alternative to Retrieving trials apart from the Field Trials which do not appeal to many people.

My suggestion would be to allow any dog that has its RRD and has not been placed in AA to run in Restricted for a special trophy. Graeme - perhaps we could handicap the Labs and Goldens by only requiring them to be under 3 years old!!

[Peter Betteridge]

pmw and graeme
thankyou for your interest in my idea.Bob Tawton has responded to my article with a counter argument. In theory Bobs idea is sound but practically it is just a continium of the status quo. The bottom line is that judges will never judge to a standard and will always wont to put up a winner. Difficulties exist in runs that we are all unaware of. How many times have we all seen great dogs struggle on apparently simple runs for no good reason. Many judges are reluctant to try and define the difference between bad luck and bad work. Besides it does nothing for their popularity. My idea of holding a Derby corrects precisely the problem that Bob expanded on regarding the relative difficultys of winning 3 novice events as opposed to winning 3 restricted's(numerically) If we halved the number of restricted's per year and replaced them with derbys we would steem the flow of restricted dogs into all age and provide a meaningful stake for our struggling all age dogs.
graeme thankyou for your kind offer of a sash I have 2 points that i would like to make
1 I dont believe that people enjoy running as a non competitor. Why bother coming to a trial you would get more value staying home and going training. People come to exhibit their dog and to compete. Judges are suposed to evaluate the relative merits of dogs in the field not watch them practice. Retrieving Trials need to be fair dinkum.
2 I dont beleive that there should be any age restriction on competeing dogs. I would like to keep some older dogs in trialing. Hopefully one day we can take up your kind offer of keeping a points score tally on this page

pmw whilst I symphazise with your stance I think it would be impractical and messy to have different rules for different breeds. Perhaps one solution is to de regulate the entry recquirements and allow alot more elasticity. For Example restricted entry totally avaliable to all dogs except those that have placed in ALL Age. Any place in novice or restricted allows entry to All Age. Unlimited wins in all stakes. Now people can progress at there own speed and everyone can find their own level. I know the counter arguments will come thick and fast. people may make a sport out of novice or stay in restricted for years? Well so what if it makes them happy! the more competitive dogs will progress just as rapidally. Minority breeds would also benefit from this suggestion. it will be a boring day when all we see are labs and a few goldens

[Kerry Webster]

I have just read through all the opinions on the possibility of having a Derby added to our retrieving. This topic has actually been bandied around in W.A. for quite some time. Not so much a "Derby", but, that another event separate from the Restricted and All Age stakes, be made available for those dogs which have won their 3 Restricted trials, and are therefore required to go on to A/Age, but who may not have the experience to do so. The suggestion here was that this be an unofficial event, but still be conducted as a trial proper. Once a dog placed in A/Age it could no longer compete in this "Derby", although I suspect that the handler would be aware of when the dog was capable of progressing into the A/Age stakes anyway.

Obviously, the problem with numbers of dogs progressing from Restricted through to All Age, is a National one, with Novice numbers being high, and Restricted low. In W.A. we can have up to 24 dogs of various breeds, in Novice, and around 10 to 14 in Restricted. This sounds a reasonable number, but we must bare in mind, that the majority of the Restricted entries are really still Novice dogs, most of them still untitled, therefore, one dog, which is just a little better trained, obedient, etc. can easily win three trials and go forward to All Age, well before it is capable of coping with the level of retrieves now asked of it.

Apart from the dog aspect, there is the handler problem. New handlers to the sport gain confidence in themselves and their dogs as they compete in more and more Novice trials, most often, not worrying whether they win or not, just that their dog does the job reasonably well. If the dog does more than that, wins, and goes onto Restricted, many handlers panic. They see the task as too difficult. How can they ever see themselves training their dog to this standard, let alone All Age. We lose so many dogs and handlers this way. Not all, of course, wish to go on with their dogs and are happy to bow out after novice, but I have seen and heard many handlers, frighten themselves out of trying for the next title.

I do agree that something is needed inbetween Restricted and All Age, that can be offered as an alternative. I do feel that dogs should have their RRD title before being allowed to enter this event, and that it should still have placings (unofficial). (They have to have something to strive for!).
KerryW

[Peter Betteridge]

It is interesting to note that is forum topic covers very clearly a nation wide problem. Although we have 5 different solutions proposed so far it is interesting that the problem is universally acknowleged.Hopefully the appropriate committees can take these concerns on board. I wonder if we'll see any action.I would be interested in any other comments in this debate
peter betteridge

[Kerry Webster]

In addition to the suggestions voiced in this forum, there has been a movement initiated from W.A. in 2002, to have an additional title for All Age stakes.

The concept and rationale is too lengthy to explain in full, here, but it is for All Age dogs that prove they are very capable and consistent in completing All Age stakes, even placing, but these same dogs may never be 1st place winners. This has and does occur in AA trials all over the country, and the proposed title, would reward these dogs for their consistency, (a criteria would be set), without taking away the specialness and high achievement of the dogs that win All Age and are awarded a Retrieving Trial Champion title.

To my knowledge, as yet, no actual decision has been made by RAFT, as to when they will really consider the possibility of initiating this new title, and I recall being told there were some state representatives who were vehemently against it, which I believe was a belief that the RT Ch title may be threatened, or made to appear insignificant.

On the contrary, I believe that ALL competitors in retrieving need a goal to strive towards. For some, the goal is to win as many trials as possible to be topdog of retrieving. For others, the goal is just to finish trials, and more often, the goal is to finish, and, be amongst the placegetters, preferably the winner. With this in mind, I feel having the "All Age Dog" (or similar) title, would only inspire handlers to continue on trialing with their dogs, even when the probability of achieving the top title of RT Ch may seem unattainable.

Unfortunately, it is a very real fact that not all the dogs competing will achieve the title of RT Ch. In these days of trials catering to what sometimes appears to be, "almost robotic" dog and trainer, the ordinary person with a pet retriever, and a love of the sport, doesn't have a hope in hell of winning an All Age trial. They become despondent, lose faith in their ability, the dog's ability, the judges ability, and some, quit the game.
Is this what we want for retrieving ? Ask a few of your trialing mates, how they would feel, with no new dogs or handlers reaching the level of All Age, apart from the same people now competing.

So, this proposed new title was suggested as a way to reward those dogs/handlers who kept on trying, similar to the suggested Derby in this forum. We need to keep people in the game. Not everyone has the time, money, experience or help offered, to achieve the often absurdly high expectations now seen to be a prerequisite for getting through the runs set.

Anyone interested in receiving a copy of the proposed title can email me and I will forward it on, or ask your state RAFT representative what your states stance on the proposal was.

Kerry

[Guest]

To continue with the status quo is to let Retrieving Trials head towards a slow death.
There are a couple of states that have good numbers of entries but how many new people are entering trials?

One of the big problems is the trouble people have to go through to get a gun licence and own a gun.
Another problem is people who have not been exposed to sports involving the use of firearms are not comfortable handling them.

Suggestion.

1: No gun used used by the handler in beginners. The person using the thrower can fire a gun.
2: No gun used by the handler in novice. Same again, the thrower operator fires a shot. (or somone with them)
Some people will say "Our trials are supposed to be a duck shoot"
Well, we live in duck hunting country and we often start the young dogs out by having someone shoot while we handle the dog.
Some people will say "Dogs have to be steady to shot and not gun shy". Fine, let them pass a steady to shot test to claim the NRD title.

If they get involved there is more chance of getting them to move up.

Let people run in novice and restricted as long as they like. Who cares?
All-Age handlers will qualify their dogs and move on through.
It's no big deal getting your NRD against 8 dogs or your RRD in 3 or 4 trials if you're only running against 4 or 6 dogs anyway.
I have heard the argument that someone will stay in novice or restricted and win all the time.
If that happens it can be delt with, but not to change because it may happen is like being scared of the bogey man.

I heard someone say one day there is no distinction between a dog that wins 2 All-Ages and one that wins 20. Fine.
Have a NRD,RRD,RTCH, then Supreme NRD RRD RTCH , for a certain number of wins and then the Master NRD, RRD, or RTCH and make it hard to win.
People change their training methods to move forward and improve but when it comes to changing rules to get more people involved they resist change.
For every problem there is an answer. If we move forward and don't get it 100% right so what, we just fine tune things and keep going.
Change will come, Change must come.
We can manage change.
The only thing we shouldn't try is handicapping Labradors by tying their back legs together. Sorry PMW.
Waynep.

[Waynep]

That is my post above.
I forgot to put a name to it.

Waynep.

[Peter Betteridge]

I have read with interest wayne and kerry's solution to our current problems.I completely agree that the current rules are killing our sport.I think some of your suggestions are excellent.lets hope that the RAFT My thinking revolves tackling this problem from a practical point of view, rather than the"people should' mentality.I feel that the areas of focus should be
1 promotion Bob Tawton has some good ideas in this area.
2 encouraging new competitors in novice and allowing them an extended stay if necessary. Waynes idea on firearms is excellent.
3 keeping the sport viable for people who simply just wont to run their pet gundog in a stake in which they are comfortable. kerry ,Prue and Wayne all have excellent ideas from which we can sort through

Waynes idea of deregulating all stakes is superb.Having all the additional titles such as super or master NRD or RRD or AAD may be an attraction to some people and if it gives even one person enjoyment in attaining it and the pleasure of something to strive for, then WHY NOT! The americans do something similar with their hunt tests. People can compete against a standard as well as against each other another great idea I will bring this forum to the attention of our new chairman of the RAFT who I now has been following this " in forum" debate
regards peter betteridge

[Kerry Webster]

Wayne, it is interesting that you brought up the topic of guns; getting a license for them, and inexperienced persons handling them.

You may or may not be aware that in W.A. competitors in retrieving trials do not have to have a personal gun license for the state, any more. We are covered under a corporate license held by the Canine Association of W.A. All the shotguns are held in a gunsafe at the CAWA headquarters and are signed out for their use in trials. There are still some who have a private gun license, and own their own guns, and these people usually go shooting themselves during the year, but for the average trialer who really doesn't have a need for a license, this necessity has been eliminated.

I feel this is a giant step in the right direction from our controlling body, and now there are hints that other state bodies are being influenced to do the same.

In regard to inexperienced handlers, and guns, I agree, that this is and will always be a problem, especially amongst some of the female handlers.
But, without the handlers actually getting out there and having to learn how to handle the gun and cope with the inconvenience of it, then they and their dogs are never going to advance. It is the same old story, "Practice makes Perfect".

If, in other states, you have as we do, a training day every Saturday morning during the season, where Novice and Restricted handlers and dogs can attend and learn all there is to know about trialing, then this would be the ideal opportunity for new handlers to familiarise themselves with the guns, feel their weight, their bulkiness, and how to cope with them whilst running their dog. It is also the time when they could accustom their dogs to the sound of shot, if need be.

Just getting off the subject of guns, and going back to a comment in a previous post by another person, regarding minor breeds, and goldens and labs dominating the trials.
I would like to point out that in W.A. we have a large assortment of breeds competing, especially in Novice and Restricted.
Several GSP's and cockers, Vizsla, Pointer, Irish Setter, Brittany, GWP's and Nova Scotia D.T.R. as well as the Labs and Goldens. Sure, Labs and Goldens are in the majority, but it doesn't mean that any of the other breeds are less capable of winning a trial. There are some very good dogs competing, many with owners with little retrieving experience, but, that is how we all started out, and as long as there are people to offer help to these owners, then they will keep on trying. It isn't a point of the individual breed winning/placing in a trial, but whether the actual dog is capable of doing so. Having a GR in trials myself, has shown me first hand how difficult it is to overcome prejudice, especially the fact that all breeds will tackle a run in the method peculiar to that particular breed.
A Cocker spaniel does not run like a GSP, etc. Some breeds use their noses better than others, some quarter, some figure out a slightly shorter route that doesn't involve brambles. They are all different, and should be accommodated by the judge for their individual differences in retrieving.
Kerry

[Maureen Cooper]

Have been reading all the comments re Restricted and All Age with interest. Last September I submitted a letter to the NSW RAFT committee and it has been approved for this next 2003 season in NSW only that having achieved your RRD status you may still enter Restricted non-competing for a maximum of four trials unless you finish an All Age. There will be no ribbons or trophies given but the dog will be scored.

Many years ago there were no titles for either Novice or Restricted ( when I first began!) and from what I recall, the reason they were brought in was two fold. Getting an NRD or RRD meant you had at least proof your dog would work if bred from or with but also it stopped people from just staying in either stake and just being a trophy hunter! Certain handlers would not go up into the next stake! One would be pretty miffed if trying to earn an NRD or RRD one was blocked by a person with a good dog who would not leave the Stake!

Re one preferring to stay at home and train rather than enter a trial and not be rewarded?? Dogs often behave totally different at training than at a trial, all sites are different, judges have differing ideas of a good run, the dog has to travel and come in contact with a lot of other dogs. I have no problem with paying for a day of 'training' and again if one feels one has to be rewarded then it sounds like trophy hunting!

Maureen

[Peter Betteridge]

maureen
perhaps we can institute a system of qualification for nrd's and rrd's based on working to a standard,such as the americans do in their hunt tests. Allowing rrd dogs 4 extra practice runs doesn't solve the problem of providing a viable stake for all competitors. The current regulations would be alot more tenable if all the fields were big(30 dogs or more), but saddly this is not the case in NSW at least.I dont think trophy hunters will be an issue.Most people will wont to progress their dog if their dog is any good.It is a problem easily solved by having a quiet word in someones ear.However I believe your idea is a step in the right direction

[Guest]

A dramatic example of the change is that Bob Tawton won two Nationals with a GSP and I can not believe he could do that now.

Do you mean that you don't think Bob could do that now with a GSP? Is Bob not good enough. Boy, now there's a challenge Bob.

Or don't you think the GSP's are good enough? If this is your point I think you will have a few people disagreeing with you.

I tend to agree that the non-Labrador and non-Golden Retriever breeds are sadly losing out here in Victoria, compared to say Queensland. Maybe I'll have to move to Queensland to get a better go, where they identify different breeds and their different ways of retrieving and finding the game. It may happen in Victoria, well I can dream can't I?

[Pat Thorn]

I completely agree that the current rules are killing our sport.

It has been mentioned that people, experienced and inexperienced triallers spend considerable time training their dogs, travel great distances, and on the day to be put out of the trial in 1 minute.

I would suggest that the reasons they are put out of the trial be changed to major point deductions, eg. a dog that half eats a bird could be docked 30 points, or a dog that swapped game could be docked 15 points.
A dog that does not find the game (any of the birds in the entire run) could be scored 0 for the run, or, if the dog picked up the 1st 2 in a triple, but not the last then take away points, eg. 35/number of birds in the run.
This would give people a chance of running their dogs in all 3 runs which would be a great benefit to them.

Of course this line of thinking is just too radical, it means change, shudder !!

[Prue Winkfield]

This is PMW reregistered as I could not get under my original registration!
No, I don't think GSPs are worse now than they were - in fact in some respects they may be better. My point is that the standard in AA has increased so much in Vic and presumably in NSW that GSPs find it very difficult compete - they have not been designed to be a specialist retriever. As someone said, training a GSP for retrieving is like playing cricket with a golf stick. GSPs in Victoria are primarily bread for hunting quail, rabbit and duck and of course the show ring. Personally, I try to breed dogs that are capable of obtaining their RRD in Victoria however, 90% of my pups go to hunters who are not interested in trials and the balance as pets. There are now several Lab kennels that are specifically breeding trial dogs and an AA handler knows exctly where to go to get a good prospect. In my, uneducated eyes, the top trial labs are very different from the mass produced lab pet and recreational duck hunter market. Yes, there will always be the exception!

On the related subject of the future for our sport - I agree with Peter that something radical needs to be done. For Novice and Restricted a 'pass' system would seem much better but which judges would agree to that ? You would preferably then have two judges to help ensure a common standard. Why is it not possible to take all dogs through the three runs (or at least 2). so people get their money's worth? I also agree that guns should not be required in Novice and Restricted - in fact if all these labour governments have their way, there won't be any recreational shooting left in Australia - then what!!

finally, there are judges and RAFT members on this forum - what do they think?