Response to Peter Betteridge's Blueprint

[Joe Law]

I have just read Peter Betteridge's "My Blueprint for the Future" in the "Articles" section. As I feel partly responsible for triggering some of the interesting discussion that has been taking place recently, I now feel some sense of duty to stay with the debate. Here are some immediate reactions:
(1) Peter, you have raised so many issues that a RAFT committee would only be reacting responsibly if they dissected your "blueprint" and treated it in piecemeal fashion, refusing to either accept or reject the whole package. I don't have a problem with agitating for change, but we must present an agenda where each step has been debated and prioritised before presenting it at the next level.
(2} When analysing motives, it would seem to me that there is no need to risk offending and alienating the show and obedience fraternity by derogatory remarks such as "face judging" and "boredom"
(3) The reasons you give for our sport not growing (or being more "numerically successful" as you put it) all seem sound to me and any change that aims to address these problems would have my support.
(4) Your comment about "the whole trialling fraternity is screaming out for change" could certainly be challenged. When you analyse the discussion that has taken place on this website, I suspect you will find that most RAFT members along with most judges, many of whom are triallers as well, as well as many triallers have been noticeably silent on the issues that have been raised. That is not to say they would not be supportive. Silence will be interpreted in whatever way it suits!
(5) Several of the recommendations you would submit to the NATIONAL RAFT are worthy of serious debate and consideration, and I particularly like your suggestion for making the use of a firearm optional at Novice level. However, as I understand the current process, recommendations to the NATIONAL RAFT are only accepted from STATE RAFT committees and in the past the main reason given by our NSW RAFT for not proceeding with recommendations is that they, in their wisdom, do not believe they would be acceptable at the NATIONAL level. Of course this can be very disappointing for those who have put serious time, effort and consideration into making proposals, only to have them vetoed by our own state RAFT. Add to this the present situation where the NATIONAL RAFT meets only once a year by way of a 90 minute phone hookup and you start to wonder where the opportunity to address change is going to come from. I tend to agree that a website arrangement such as this with closed forums for appropriate committees and sub-committees that in turn could be answerable to a GENERAL FORUM in some sort of democratic sense might offer some avenue of hope. However, what are the chances that this type of reform would even be discussed at a NATIONAL level.
(6) Referring to Graeme P's comment about "CHANGE WILL COME AND CHANGE MUST COME" my understanding of the reasons given for the demise of organisations that can't cope with change is that they generally fall into one of two categories;
(a) they have been ultra-conservative for a long period and their management appears to be only interested in maintaining the "status quo". These organisations eventually reach a point where their existence is irrelevant.
(b) they embrace too much change too quickly and get lost in runaway situations. A change in one area often triggers the need for change in other areas and any program for change needs to be well thought out, monitored constantly and maintained.
Finally Peter, thanks for your views and I hope your wish for something more than just talk eventuates. Regards to all the users of this website and a special thanks to Jason for his work in managing this excellent forum.

[Jason Ferris]

Hi all

To read Peter's blueprint click here.

Cheers, Jason.

[Peter Betteridge]

Joe
Thankyou for your response to my blueprint.I appreciate your views.I would like to comment on the 6 points that you raised and give a more detailed explanation.
1 Your reaction to my blueprint being treated as an entity and not dissected piecemeal? To pull my blueprint apart may be responsible in your view,but I beleive that provides just another opportunity for mass procrastination. I fully expect my blueprint to be rejected but my hope is that someone else will have the foresight to develop a 'blueprint' that will be acceptable to a majority of trialers,sooner rather than later!
2 My analysis of motives were in no way mean't to offend and I apologize unreservedly if this was so . I was meerly mirroring a set of opinions that may or may not be representative.
3 Joe,I'm glad you find my logic sound in respect to my reasons for the sports lack of growth.You say you would support changes but which ones!!!!! Optional gun for novice? ,what about performance based awards ?? eg nrd's or rrd's???

4) Your comment about "the whole trialling fraternity is screaming out for change" could certainly be challenged

Joe I don't accept this assertion.the Joe Law paper has had to date 44 replys and 1250 views. the majority of views expressed have been favourable. People are interested and concerned about where our sport is heading.It seems to me that overwhelmingly people wont reform. the sentiments in the Joe Law paper have clearly hit a chord with most people and given the large response we have a pretty good core sample.
6 Joe lets not put up bandaid solutions to a major problem.As you have correctly mentioned the machineary for change is very unwhieldy.On a positive note Paul Littlejohn is a regular contributor to this forum and is currently sifting thru the volume of ideas that are expressed in this forum.hopefully action is coming. Thats my opinion and merry xmas to you all

[Prue Winkfield]

Peter - the hot sun might have gone to my head, but I don't understand what you mean by allowing competitors unlimited access to the lower stakes for two years unless they move up to a higher level? Different States have different issues - here in Vic one problem in Novice is AA handlers with young dogs having won one or two Novices and being placed in Restricted and AA still being able to run in Novice - this is really great for novice handlers! I would like to see a place in Restricted eliminating the dog from Novice and possibly a place in AA eliminating a dog from Restricted.

As you now can win 3 Novices, it means the AA handlers stay in Novice much longer which means it can be months and months before a Novice is made up of Novice dogs and handlers. Somehow we need to make Novice a fun stake for people who have a pet or hunting companion and want to show off how good it is - in the days of 40plus entries in Novice, these are the poeple who made up the bulk of the fields. Totally agree with you about not needing to fire a gun in Novice. Prue

[Peter Betteridge]

prue
under my blueprint a place in restricted would rule you out of ever competing in novice again with that particular dog.All Age handlers with a new dog, could move up to restricted any time they felt ready and a place in restricted would qualify that dog to run in all age. I would allow any dog 2 calender years in a particular stake regardless of success.The dog only eliminates itself within the 2 year period by placing in a higher stake.
In the US ,their qualifing stake( equivalent to our restricted) is open to all except field champions as I understand it.Many dogs spend their entire career running in the qualifing stake.
I beg to differ with your point about all age handlers staying in novice for extended periods even with my system of unlimited wins for 2 calender years all age handlers are not going to leave their young dogs in novice if they are capable of moving up successfully.If you find an all age handler in novice it is generally because he has a novice level dog
The basis of my blueprint is performance based awards and the partial deregulation of our current system of exclusion.

[Prue Winkfield]

Thanks Peter but I still don't understand the two years - do you mean that once a dog has been in novice for two years it can''t stay there if it has been placed? Some people stay in Novice for years and that is all they really want to do. In NSW you may not have AA people with young dogs running in several stakes on the same day but we do here - probably going for club trophies! This is why we need to change to a place in restricted putting you out of novice. As far as Restricted goes, personally I would like to be able to run in Restricted for ever even if as 'ineligible to win 'if the dog has its RRD. Think this has been discussed here before - could also be available for people who want to stay in Novice for ever.

[Peter Betteridge]

prue
under my blueprint a dog would disqualify itself from a stake by placing in a higher one.The two years refer to the time frame that a dog may stay in a minor stake regardless of its performance in that particular stake. For example if a dog entered 30 novice stakes in 2 calender years it could conceivably have 26 wins and 4 seconds. At the end of the 2 calender years it would have to move up.However one 3rd place in restriced terminates that dogs eligibility to ever run in novice again regardless of the number of wins or lack thereof in novice competition.I dont think you should get so hung up about all age handlers running in all age because they are rarely there very long and in novice the dog matters more than the handler.All age handlers give there young dogs every chance but good novice competitors can do likewise
hope this answers your question Prue