by Jason Ferris » Wed 03 Dec 2003 8:13 am
Hi all
The message below is posted on behalf of Sue Grant from South Australia, who does not have web access at present.
Regards, Jason.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi List,
By a circuitous journey I have just read the many responses to the Joe Law paper that has caused so much interest.
So, late as it is, I've put my thoughts to paper, here goes.
Over the past few years I have come to feel that the sport that I have enjoyed for some time is being taken away from me by the obsession that seems to have developed to make trials harder and harder. Just to mention a few events from season 2003:
At a trial early in the season the judge of the Novice was heard to say that there was "a very hard way to the mark bird and an almost impossibly hard way to it", - I ask the question WHY set a run up like that, what is the purpose?
Two prestigious trials this year were ruined because almost the whole field went out on the first run in both trials - I ask the question WHY set a run up like that, what is the purpose?
Very frequently birds are placed/thrown far beyond the 'legal' distance, I ask the question WHY set a run up like that, what is the purpose?
Some runs are set with the birds placed/thrown so that the potential for a 'hard-going' dog to be injured is a very real risk, I ask the question WHY set a run up like that, what is the purpose?
And in principle I don't have too many problems with a diversionary bird (though more properly called a mark) being thrown when the dog is travelling towards a blind-find. But again, it needs to be set-up so that the handler can see and control the dog off it. Throwing a 'diversion' so that it lands such that it is completely hidden from the handler is intended to eliminate dogs. A judges' justification that the dog should not pick up the diversion bird under any circumstances sounds plausible, but the reality is that it will put lots of dogs out. Surely there are enough point-deduction options to effectively separate the dogs' performance, without putting them out of competition. I ask the question WHY set a run up like that, what is the purpose?
I have absolutely no problem with double falls or two birds, if you were out hunting you would not for-go a possible bird just because your dog was retrieving a previous kill. They do, however, need to be carefully planned. Some years ago I competed in a trial where the judge was 'sure' that the dogs would take a particular path back to base, and therefore see the two bird, when in reality only one of the 10 competitors did and it became a very un-equal run.
And we will all remember the push to set up a new title, A.A.R.D. with appropriate regulations governing it, which was discussed at an A.N.K.C. rule change meeting a couple of years ago. It drew support from many triallers around Oz but failed to get up because some people didn't want 'rubbish dogs' gaining a title. What arrogance!
And now there is a push to lengthen the 'legal' distance for blinds to 175 meters, when I questioned the rational I was informed that 'we are only legalising what is already happening'!!
I have neither the time nor the resources to spend hours and hours training for what has become no more or less than 'obedience in the paddock'. I truly believe that in lots of runs an obedient dog of any breed would have just as much chance as a pure bred gundog
It's my belief that a lot of this is because under our current scenario we have to have a winner, therefore the temptation to some judges to have the winner 'find himself' by a process of elimination of the rest of the field is irresistible, just a thought!
And here's another thought, in the U.K. I am reliably informed that the numbers of competitors in retriever trials is growing annually, in the U.S. of A. they have so many competitors they have set up several levels of competition. I understand that the sport is thriving in Europe and in Canada, so why is it collapsing here in Oz? It's not the dogs - ours are easily the equal of anything overseas, nor is it the handlers - we can't all be incompetent!!? Where are our new trialers, why, year after year, do so many 'newbies' come to a few trials with a likely prospect on the end of the lead, and are never seen again?
And finally, I would like to respond to the comment repeated to me that the South Australian State Championship was 'Not a proper trial' and not 'to the standard required'. The judge and two trial managers had endeavoured to stage an enjoyable trial with 'gettable' birds whilst still providing opportunities for the dogs to be judged. I believe we achieved our objective. All but one dog completed the first run, there after there were casualties, as one would expect, but everyone got a fair-go, none of the runs were designed to trick the dogs and a worthy winner was found. So why the criticism? And what is the purpose of retriever trials for gundogs if not to provide an enjoyable sport? Does it really have to be survival of the luckiest, because today's trials have very little to do with testing competent retrievers that would make valuable companions in the shooting field
Sue.