Joe Law paper

[Prue Winkfield]

Good one Annie - glad someone else is giving a thought to the Novice end of things!

[Paul Littlejohn]

Hi

A very intersting group of topics, I don't consider it as judge bashing but as constructive critism on certain issues that appear to be across the whole of Australia in all levels. Marks should be marks able to be seen. the other variants are something that need to be looked at. I hate double fall birds as they are very difficult to set and are subject to many variants but are possibly one the most natural run that we would encounter if in the field.

Are we as a Trialling faternity attempting to move away from rule 1 or is it that because of the lack of game seasons in most states that we may be forgeting what dogs do when they are required to actually work in the field?

Some of the replies have had intersting thoughts, I have always believed that Champioship judges should have to judge Beginners and Novice stakes more frequently that AA so they can remember where the sport starts from.

A few years ago I judged a Novice in NSW and had every starter thank me for putting on marks that could be seen, two of these were championsip judges, Why?

Wounded game is a hard run to set up and if the judge takes a lot of time this can be done properly but it takes a lot of time to prepare the ground you just dont go and do it, I think it would be a backward step to remove it from any rules but at the same time education would be of benefit.

The ANKC, yes I'm the current Chairman of the National RAFT and I've had more head aches that should have been necessary but triallers it comes down to you. The list that is currently on the ANKC web site is not even correct. Until 12 months ago the ANKC met every 6 months May and Oct, then they changed to one meeting a year May, this is when the committee's of the ANKC are selected. This put everything out of order by 6 months.

Then come the problems, nearly ever member body had not been informed by their state RAFT on who the delegates were to be nominated for that committee as a result in this year the committee was to deal with the S/R rule changes this committee changed and even 4 days prior to the meeting the members attending from states had not been finalised.

The triallers within each state need to be informed on what changes are about to be made for which discipline and then make sure that their raft committee puts forward a delegate to deal with that discipline to their member body and then make sure that this person is put forward at the May ANKC conference.

I note with interest Glen (WA) letter and agree, I no the every Tasmanina Councillor has a copy of Reg 3 and 4 as does every member of the State RAFT and it is followed to the letter.

With the current situation at ANKC I need some assistance if you the triallers would like the next ANKC RAFT meeting to be a face to face as under the current policy that has been directed upon ALL ANKC committee's it will only be a phone hook up lasting 90 monutes to discuss and agree on rule changes to the Retrieving rules. I think this is impossible and if it is as appears that numerous person would like to see a forum of judges then I don't no how to any one coulf fit it all in an agenda that lasts 90 minutes.

Paul Littlejohn

[Paul Littlejohn]

Hi All,
This is LISA Littlejohn. I was a run manager at the recent National held, (very capably I believe) in my home state. I have read with much interest Joe Laws comments, and the many responses on the future of trials and the abilities of judges. Wow! I wonder how many times, whilst out shooting my dog has seen the duck fall without her view being obscured. Obviously none if one looks at the number of kills to the number of retrieves. I wonder how many times she has been required to track the game that I so carlessly fail to immediately make 'dead'? Obviously quite a few as I am a poor marks woman! I guess I'm just lucky that she is the retriever and not me, however, she would probably be a better shot!
Or maybe, the real truth is that she has not been trained out of her natural instinct and ability. Training a dog is a lot like training a child, simple really. Good kid trainers are good dog trainers!!! Good kids come about by nuturing the built in instincts and good dogs evolve exactly the same way. When sending my child to school I have the luxury of choosing the school I like. When entering my dog in a trial I have the luxury of choosing the judge I like. Its all too easy really. In closing I am reminded of a catch cry often used by children and would no doubt be taken over by dogs if they too could use words. WINNERS ARE GRINNERS - LOSERS ARE LOUD. When the 1st prize for the National is $1000 000 I will become loud, but for now I am content to be a grinner. To all judges, if you enjoy judging continue to do so, and to all those who enjoy trialling there dogs continue to have fun. In my opinion life is to short to worry, BUT when the 1st Prize hits the 1 mill mark you all have my permission to start worrying. HAVE FUN & ENJOY!!!!! Kisses 2 u all

Lisa

[Jason Ferris]

Hi Lisa

Two points in response to your post...

Firstly, I don't think anyone was saying that the Tas Championship and National were not very capably run. I have only heard good things.

Secondly, I don't think we can write this discussion off as "loud losers". The discussion has been about making trials equitable for all competitors and assuring their future. Besides Gareth has been actively contributing to the discussion and he won the Tas State Championship!

Cheers, Jason.

[Peter Betteridge]

thankyou paul for filling us in on the complexity of problems that you obviously have to deal with. I think we can all understand your frustration. I for one am very pleased that you have come on this forum and discussed the present difficulties. this forum has a wide diversity of opinion and it does represent a sizable chunk of the trialing population. I see having yourself and other noted championship judges such as bob ,gareth, glenice etc etc as a giant positive . You are all taking the time to read other peoples opinions and being transparent with your own attitudes and the problems that you face with red tape. I construe this as strong leadership and i offer my congratulations. I sincerely hope that Lisa understands that there is nothing personal or negative in the previous posts. My impression is that everyone is pretty positive and we are all pulling in the same direction.I for one hold different views to gareth and Bob but i can still appreciate and understand their rationale.Bob ,Gareth and I all wont the same things for this sport only our methodology differs slightly.
Paul what about taking Jason up on his closed judges forum????? that way no 90 minute phone hook up would be necessary just an internet vote. Good luck with sifting thru all the various issues that have been raised. I know your job is a hard one but I'm sure you'll manage to pull it all together and help push our sport forwards
good luck peter betteridge

[Visitor]

Paul,
I was interested to read your comments. I don't know you, but I wish you well in your role as Chairman.
In the past, the NRAFT Ctte has been a "secret society" -- the ordinary trialler has had no way of knowing what was happening. According to the web site, it is ANKC policy that member bodies make available ctte minutes but this has not been been followed.
At the risk of sounding sarcastic, why *not* hold NRAFT committee meetings by phone? --After all, some of the state delegates have never actually been to some of the trials for which they are voting on ....

PS This is a great forum - is there one for the field trial disciplines?

[Paul Littlejohn]

Hi all.

I'll wade through the matters that have been raised but I find it a little concerning with a statement made about only two States that held S/R trials last year. How many had shedualed them? How many tried but failed due to lack of game or numbers?. I realise that the mainland is having problems with game but every assistance has to be given to every aspect of ones choosen sport. In Tassie all our S/R triallers are Retriever triallers as well, I no this varies from state to state but if we are looking at new persons entering retrieving then lets not stop them by creating a negative outlook. Yes there may have been only two states that got them off the ground but from my information 6 states had a shedualed date if game became available. Wouldn't it have been nice if every state had managed to hold at least one and if from that every state picked up another trialler who was prepared to compete in more than one discipline.

Thanks to Peter for his views on the judges forum but there is one thing that has not been indicated in any of the mail and that is that Reg 3 and 4 are only the minimum requirements. I note that most states have increased these requirements in some way to ensure that judges coming into the system are educated and aware of all steps that are required.

I have not sent any of these to an Ex Tasmanina Trialler as he would explode. At the last rules review for retrieving there was a proposal put forward in relation to increasing points above the line to 65 ( 45 for field work) and then also increasing it below the line to accomodate, when this was raised at the ANKC RAFT it could not even get a seconder to open it for discussion. How some things change.

This is a duplicate as I puy it the wrong place.

[Guest]

Prue,
the way I see it, if we as a sport/hobby/lifestyle or whatever you wish to call it don't think a lot more about beginners and novice there won't be a sport for much longer...we are already
seeing a large number of our beginner/novice dogs being run by 'recycled AA handlers' as it is!!
This presents a problem as there is still very little new blood coming in, even though there may be a reasonable novice field, and another problem it presents is that having run the novice dog the handler then toodles off to AA to run there and so cannot help out in the other stake....or even just hang around to chat with some 'genuine' novice handlers.
annie

[Paul Littlejohn]

Very true Prue, and raises another interesting point that has been kept quite by some fast talking to controlling bodies in the past.

Should a club be allowed to run two AA on a weekend as clubs are limited to the amount of Champ Shows that they can conduct then why is it that a Ret Club can hold two AA on one weekend and then when they hold their next trial do the same thing again and again, or as one state tried if the club wants to do that then they can but they will have to pay an extra scheduale fee and that was $60 plus all the other canine fees.

If anything is going to normally happen where the expierence of a judge will be called upon it will happen at Beginners or Novice and I believe as stated that Champ Judges should spend more time in this area than always doing AA.

Programming may assist in this way bigger is not always better.

[Rick Johnston]

i wont be going to many trials if i have to drive 4,5 or six hours to compete once

[Gareth Tawton]

I thought a little response to some of the recent input from varying people might help this discussion.

Lisa, you seem to have missed the key issues. No one has detracted from the management of the national. In fact as someeone who has both judged a national and competed in many nationals I thought the management of the trial was great. Joes paper discussed a general trend in trialling which may include examples in the national but not limited to the national. I think if you spoke to Joe you would find this type of run and judging is happening all over the country hense "where is our trialling headed". The winner as you would call it should be the trialling fraternity where everyone feels they had a fair chance, were tested on appropiate runs no matter what level nove to AA and the best dog on the day takes home the prize. The loser is our sport if this does not occurr. Some of us actually spend a rather large amount of money trialling and therefore would like to feel that our sport is always the winner and inturn then we will be to.

Margaret/ Paul,

My point about the S&R review was that most people around the country did not even know it was going on. I know Victoria are leading the country in the way of bringing on new judges and being more open about the running of trial in VIC. This seems to have happened as a direct result of political unrest several years ago. Infact I competed in a VIC champ that was boycotted by the Vic competitors. Why did they boycott? I'm lead to believe they weren't happy with actions in their own RAFT. Having seen the disgraceful result of that same Champ I think they did the right thing!! Not all state RAFTs and certainly not the National RAFT have had such an active role in trialling as the Vic RAFT. Perhaps we should all use the VIC RAFT blueprint.

I would agree with a previous entry that the National RAFT is still seen as a secret society. One of the key problems in the dog world is most subjects are viewed on a state only level not as a national issue. Perhaps we could be one of the few trialling diciplines to take on a truly national approach.

Historically our national RAFT has relied on its various state RAFTs to pass on information and seek input from its local competitors. Why doesn't the National RAFT taken on a more proactive role. Advertise key dates in advance, seek direct input from competitors, make sure state RAFTs are passing on info and publish minutes of meetings. With the advent of email, websites and various clubnewsletter this should by easily and timley done. Paul I am aware a lot of these issue are historical but you as our new RAFT Chair are in the hotseat to fix some past issues.

As far as a rule review goes obviously this can not be done via a single 90 minute phone hook up. However if a plan is executed in a timley manner allowing submissions from all over the country to be forwarded to a single collection point. Any suggested revisions with a common theme could be coupled together with a final draft prepared by a review subcommittee. I would suggest this committee could be made up of 5 or so Championship judges who are currently ACTIVELY involved in the sport. Meaning they compete and judge and preferably have some interstate involvement. This final draft could then be published with people given a simple yes or no vote so to speak. This would allow everyone the chance top express a view, have some allowance for "give and take" in developing rewording and some democracy to the whole issue. Count me in if you need any help!!!

On the judging front. I would have to say in most cases our recently appointed judges are often our best. They are careful, seek advice and currently competing. Judges are human they make mistakes and as long as they learn from those mistakes we should all be grateful for the time and effort they put in. Most trials that competitors walk away from feeling dissatisfied are judged by noncompeting judges from yesteryear. Perhaps we need to have in place some form of balance. e.g A judge that has not competed actively in the previos 5 years must be retested or steward at a minimum of 3 trials per year to ensure they are more aware of the current expectations. Otherwise they would not be entitled to have their licence renewed. (I think WA already has something like this in place). I believe having judges that only turn up to trials that they are judging inevitably loose the plot!!

As a little side note, it is interesting to see that most contributors to this discussion have agreed with the general gist of Joe Laws paper.

Finally, a clubs choice of trials that it holds should be soley the right of that club. The club is there for its member and its members should have the right to choose what type and quantity of trials it holds. be that only AA only novice or any combination

Gareth

Gareth

[Raymond Johnson]

some reasons.
At times it can be extremely hard to see all birds. The judge has to be in position to see that the handler, is ready, reloaded (if necessary), fires from the shoulder & that dogs steady.
The judge may have to signal the steward to release 2-3 birds.(in A/A)
Remember your not on a football field.
A judge can't move around as it could distract the dog.
Sometimes you just have to rely on the game steward. The important thing is they know what you want & what is expected of them.

PS there been some good post & I enjoy reading them.
Ray

[Julie Cramond]

I too have been enjoying reading the various posts.

It is great that in this forum we have the opportunity to discuss and debate.

I agree with many of the points that Joe Law presented in his original thread.

I am no judge and quite frankly would not have the confidence to be a judge, so really I can only look at our tests as a competitor.

It has worried me over the last few years, that our marks have often fallen beyond the horizon of the dogs view, the different colour of birds being used, and the positioning of the handler and dog to observe the marks and handlers ability to help the dog when they have not marked the bird cleanly.

Personally I have always wondered the merits of a double rise? It is not marking, but we should not treat it as a blind?? What does it really test? If a judge could explain to me the concept of this particular test I would be most grateful, as to me, it is just that a concept, nothing else. In my mind a double rise should never be in restricted. In restricted stakes we are at the beginnning stages of doubles, diversionary birds, blinds before marks. I fail to see, without confusing "a perfect dog" how we are helping a dog by testing it going back to an old fall area.

Some of the best dogs in Australia competing in our nationals and championships return to an old fall area if they miss, for example, a diversionary bird, that they had not seen, sometimes due to their speedy return or initial line!!!!!!

It also seems odd to me, that we place the dogs in areas close to water at the starting pegs. After a few dogs that area becomes slippery and uncomfortable for rest of the competitors. Sometimes even dangerous.

I also find it strange that after one dog may have problems with a particular bird the rest of the field thus warned and sometimes by the judge advised of the problem. This is me is not fair and definitely not equal. Why not if we are confused as handlers ask the judge while running our dog if the test mechanics have escaped us. Are our trials testing the handlers or our dogs?

Why not have the blind area marked with an orange ribbon?

And I have brought this up in the past but why not the mark thrower have the option of calling a no bird. They are often in the best position to see that the mark has not arrived at the correct area. I have seen marks thrown in such heavy cover that it had taken 3 humans, over 20 minutes to locate a missed mark.

Again placing the dog to see the mark. I have seen AA marks thrown when the dogs practically has to blink the cover from their eyes. Surely a mark is a mark, a dog cannot mark what he has not seen.

It can never be easy, but some of bad LUCK of our tests needs to be taken out of our tests.

Julie, again no judge, just adding her thoughts.

PS Blinds up trees, horror!!!!!!

[Jason Ferris]

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.

[Annie Warner]

Jason,
thanks for posting Sue's thoughts on retrieving.
Sue and I have discussed these points on many an occasion and I am waiting to hear (read) what others think of these comments - If retrieving is to continue as a viable sport/hobby in this country it has to become openly and obviously fair to all competitors (and even more importantly, to all dogs) and somehow we have to get back the FUN element that was certainly very much in evidence when Sue and I both started out back in South Australia.
I think all of Sue's WHY'S are very relevent.

Annie Warner