Real Game or Dummies

For discussion on anything retrieving related - trialing, training equipment, news, etc.

Moderator: Peter Butterfield

Re: Real Game or Dummies

Postby Peter Butterfield » Mon 08 May 2023 4:50 am

REMINDER - All views and opinions are welcome on RA as long as they are not offensive or provocative towards individuals... and stay on topic.
RA Admin.
User avatar
Peter Butterfield
Board Admin
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue 26 Mar 2013 11:56 am
Location: Hunter Valley, NSW

Re: Real Game or Dummies

Postby Anthony Higgans » Mon 08 May 2023 3:45 pm

I have been reading the post on this topic and my opinion is that if the new Retrieving discipline is Activated as Mr Trevor Stevens suggested to make a word change in the Defenition of Game I think this should satisfy all Concerns, I cannot believe that there are some Triallers out there that actually want their gundogs tested with Plastic or Rubber Dummies.What about Hard mouth? Anthony Higgans.
Anthony Higgans
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue 29 Apr 2014 9:43 pm

What Artificial Intelligence thinks about Artificial Game

Postby Peter Butterfield » Mon 08 May 2023 7:13 pm

I realise that this is a delicate matter, but I’m a curious person and wondered what a machine would make of this situation so I asked ChatGPT what it thought.

QUESTION
Hey ChatGPT, can you help with this tricky situation? I am involved in a gundog sport called non-slip retrieving trials that are held in Australia. The competition sport simulates hunting in open environments and measures the performance of competitors “handlers” who pretend to shoot at natural game (such as pigeons and rabbits that have been euthanized) and their gundogs that are sent to find and deliver the items of game safely back to their handler. This is a long standing traditional sport designed to test the natural abilities, talents and training of specific gundog breeds that are used for these purposes. There is nothing untowards or illegal about this activity, however a small number of people who are unfamiliar with the sport have raised concerns about the ethics of using real game in the sport and want the practice stopped despite the fact that the game is humanely euthanized.

One compromise suggested is to replace the natural game with artificial game such as rubber Dokken Ducks. However, some competitors do not like this idea and claim it would prevent the ability to assess the potential for a dog to have “hard mouth” which is an unwanted trait in real hunting situations. The competitors are evenly split on whether to use artificial game or not, or whether to use a combination of both real and artificial game. Each group is very adamant about their particular view on what is most appropriate for the sport.

I must decide whether to change the conditions of the sport in this regard or not and if so how in a way that will satisfy all competitors and critics. What do you suggest is a possible solution to this situation?


ANSWER
This is a challenging situation, as it involves balancing the concerns of animal welfare with the interests of the competitors who participate in the sport. Here are some possible solutions that you could consider:

Implement a hybrid system: This would involve using both real game and artificial game in the competition. This would allow the assessment of a dog's "hard mouth" while also addressing concerns about the use of real game. It would be important to ensure that the proportion of real game used in the competition is minimized and that the euthanasia process is done humanely.

Use only artificial game: This would address the concerns about the use of real game in the competition while still allowing for the assessment of a dog's retrieving abilities. However, this may not be satisfactory to some competitors who feel that the use of real game is necessary to test a dog's abilities in real hunting situations.

Use only real game that has died of natural causes: This would address concerns about the use of euthanized animals and would still allow for the assessment of a dog's abilities with real game. However, this may not be practical as it would be difficult to obtain enough natural game for the competition.

Educate the public about the sport: Many concerns about the sport may stem from a lack of understanding of what it involves. By providing information and education about the sport and how it is conducted, the public may be more accepting of the use of real game.

Ultimately, the solution you choose will depend on the values and priorities of the stakeholders involved. It may be helpful to consult with animal welfare experts, gundog trainers, and competitors to come up with a solution that addresses the concerns of all parties involved.

-------------------------

I know our present situation is a little more complicated, but this was central to address unbiased logic with. That’s all.
Image
User avatar
Peter Butterfield
Board Admin
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue 26 Mar 2013 11:56 am
Location: Hunter Valley, NSW

Re: Real Game or Dummies

Postby Joe Vella » Mon 08 May 2023 9:17 pm

Hi Pete,
Do think ChatGPT would have answered differently if it was made aware of the full facts about the Real Game which is used to test dogs in Retrieving Trials.
Such facts as,
The Game is not bred with the intention to be used to test dogs at retrieving trials.
The Game which is used is feral or bred for racing and is dispatched by exterminators and culled by Bird Fanciers.
If game is sourced from the above and is live, it is euthanized humanely before it is used to test Gundogs.
Game which is used will be killed whether or not this is used to test dogs after it is dead,
Live Game is never used to test Gundogs.
Real Game is use for the thorough testing of Gundogs

Pete,I wonder what ChatGPT's response would be if it was made aware of the full facts.

Joe
Joe Vella
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon 27 Aug 2007 4:08 pm

Re: Real Game or Dummies

Postby Peter Butterfield » Tue 09 May 2023 8:22 am

Joe Vella
Do you still have electronic copies of your draft proposals for 'Rules For The Conduct of AG Retrieving Trials For Gundogs'? I recall there were two versions one amended with additional conditions. These were originally published in Jan 2019 by ANKC for comment but have since been removed.

Paul Littlejohn
I seem to recall that you also published an alternate AG Rules proposal for comment prior to the AG review sub-committee finding, now also unlocatable. If this is correct would you like to resurrect it?

RA would be pleased host these for comment again in light of current considerations. Documents may be sent to retrievingaustralia@gmail.com for publication.

Peter, RA Admin.
PS I have managed to locate copies of both authors proposals. Simply provide permission to publish if so desired.
User avatar
Peter Butterfield
Board Admin
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue 26 Mar 2013 11:56 am
Location: Hunter Valley, NSW

Re: Real Game or Dummies

Postby Cathie J » Tue 09 May 2023 11:59 am

Peter, I wonder what the value of posting this would be as NO STATE or governing body has requested this be investigated, again. A DRAFT was shelved because no State asked for a Separate Discipline, and no one has now. Why waste everyone's time discussing it when it has not been requested. Love your work on Bot though, LOL.
Cathie J
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon 20 Mar 2023 9:02 am

Re: Real Game or Dummies

Postby Carol Christensen » Tue 09 May 2023 1:45 pm

Wow I can't believe this has got out of hand, I do know if Ron had not supplied NSW with pigeons, none of this would have happen. So, who holds the blame here? It's happen and I just want to say, that I glad I have Ron and Cathy here fighting for us, as I know they have tried there hardest to keep pigeons and other game in this sport. I've always known Joe how you feel, but believe me we want game here as well, regardless of what you think.
Carol Christensen
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu 18 Mar 2004 1:49 pm
Location: Burpengary Queensland

Re: Real Game or Dummies

Postby Peter Butterfield » Tue 09 May 2023 3:50 pm

CJ, true there was "no mandate... However we want to be prepared if such a change had to be implemented." Trevor Stevens 14.11.19. And look where we are! This is an open forum where all views are welcome and this option is most definitely on topic.
Image
User avatar
Peter Butterfield
Board Admin
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Tue 26 Mar 2013 11:56 am
Location: Hunter Valley, NSW

Re: Real Game or Dummies

Postby Allan Bartram » Tue 09 May 2023 4:16 pm

Hopefully finally I can add a post to this thread... Thank you Peter

Joe, in your initial posts I must take you to task regarding your references to the National Retrieving & Field Trial Committee (NRAFT) and hopefully clear some misconceptions.
The NRAFT is an ADVISORY sub committee of what is now Dogs Australia formerly ANKC. Its members are the Chairpersons of each and every State/Territory, each of these members are in turn advised by their individual State RAFT committees. The State RAFT committees consist of persons elected/selected by the retrieving & Field trial fraternities in that State.
I as Chair of the NRAFT am purely in a position of convenor/co-ordinator/advisor to the committee I have no voting powers nor do I have any perceived direct influence with Dogs Australia.
The members of the NRAFT are all very experienced , many are Championship Judges, and all give freely their often, not inconsiderable time, to ensuring our sport and the management of it continue on a National basis in a democratic fashion.
Just so you are aware , when decisions are voted on Dogs Australia voting protocols are observed as follows ; Dogs NSW = 2votes, Dogs Queensland = 2 votes ,Dogs Victoria =2 votes Dogs West, Dogs SA, Dogs Tasmania, Dogs ACT and Dogs NT all 1 vote. These protocols have been in place for many years and reflect the overall number of members each State body has.

Joe, you are of course entitled to your own opinion, but suggesting some sort of "secret deal" with Dogs Australia and questioning the ethics or integrity an of the members of the NRAFT , with no corroborating evidence, in an open forum such as this one IS NOT acceptable.
As you are no doubt aware, the correct procedure is , that you as a member of Dogs NSW, voice your opinion to the Dogs NSW RAFT who will consider it ,along with any other opinions, before presenting their majority response to the NRAFT -this is democracy.
The whole issue of Replica Game has come about directly as a result from the Board of Governors of Dogs NSW ( NOT NSW RAFT) requesting to Dogs Australia that "Live Game" be banned. This was duly dealt with by the NRAFT. Dogs NSW also contacted Dogs Queensland questioning the supply of birds from that State that enabled the lead up trials, State and National Championships to go ahead. From here things "snowballed" with Dogs Queensland deciding that it was impossible to verify if "game" had been ethically euthanised and so decided to ban ALL game from retrieving trials effective immediately. They again approached Dogs Australia to apply that decision nationally. All this without the knowledge or in consultation with the Queensland RAFT.
As soon as the NRAFT were aware of this they worked quickly and thanks to the enormous efforts of Paul Hamson a presentation of factual evidence relating to Hunting, Feral animal and birds an their euthanasia caused Dogs Queensland to rescind their proposal to Dogs Australia for 2023 on an understanding that an option of Replica game be considered- THIS motion was adopted by Dogs Australia with the proviso that any Rule amendments be in adopted at the Dogs Australia AGM in October 2023 for implementation Jan 2024.

As for your statement that Rules for the use of Artificial Game are "ready to go" this is INCORRECT
A DRAFT set of possible rules( formulated by a NRAFT working party- not yourself) was presented to the 2020 NRAFT General meeting. The following are extracts from the official ANKC minutes of that meeting;
1/ A DRAFT of the AG rules prepared by the Working Party were circulated to committee members on 29th April 2020.
The Chair noted that the committee had NO MANDATE to establish such a competition at this point in time.
2/ The Chair noted that little discussion has been held at the " Grass roots level" and that it was necessary for State RAFT committees to ascertain level of interest.
3/ Amended Motion 7.5 : That the submissions from the working party relating to AG rules NOT BE ACCEPTED by the committee and that they be held in abeyance until the need requires it due to state based legislation or other unforeseen circumstances. Motion carried unanimously.

There has been NO submission to Dogs Australia from any State to implement a separate discipline.

The proposal to include "Replica Game" into the list of " game" in our rules DOES NOT mean that events cannot continue to use "Real Game" ( providing that State body sanctions it) just as we have done for years to come. Its not mandatory just an OPTION .
I understand some rules need to be addressed and amended but surely that is not beyond us ??
Competitors will always have the option of entering a trial or not
.
On a purely personal basis I always have been and hopefully will continue to be an avid hunter. I can fully appreciate the use of Replica Game goes against the grain of many older, traditional trialers ( me included!) However there are many contentious issues threatening our sport . We have to be Pro active and flexible in our attitudes to enable our sport to continue. We are a National sport with National rules,but we are small in number, we cannot afford to adopt a US and Them scenario . we must work together - United we stand - Divided we fall

Allan Bartram
Chair NRAFT
Allan Bartram
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon 04 Jul 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Toodyay WA

Re: Real Game or Dummies

Postby Allan Bartram » Tue 09 May 2023 5:07 pm

Maybe something which will clarify some issues
Extract from Dogs Australia memo from the Special Board of Directors Meeting in February 2023 to all member bodies. Dated April 2023 ;
. Review of Rules for the conduct of Retrieving Trials for Gundogs - Game usage and management

item 2 / Approves the immediate commencement of a review of the "Rules for the conduct of Retrieving Trials for Gundogs" subject to the following conditions;

a ) Any such review process is limited to the INCLUSION of "artificial game" and looking at game usage and management in the rules and any matters directly relating to that issue
b) is to be administered by the NRAFT under the oversite of the ANKC
c) is to be conducted in consultation with all relevant Member Bodies and
d) Is to be finalised in 2023 with any subsequent amendments to the Rules to commence on 1st Jan 2024

This represents the mandate given to the NRAFT - it specifically refers to the INCLUSION of Artificial/Replica game into the existing rules. It does NOT mandate any new discipline.

Regards
Allan
Allan Bartram
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon 04 Jul 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Toodyay WA

Re: Real Game or Dummies

Postby Joe Vella » Wed 10 May 2023 11:11 pm

Hi Allan,
Thank you for your post.

Allan I too was on National Raft Representing NSW, and you ,Western Australia. The make up of Nraft has changed, for at the time when I was on Nraft I was not the Chairman of the NSW Raft nor was Graham Parkinson and others and actually Graham Parkinson did not even reside in the State he was representing.

I am aware of the position Nraft plays, and I do know what the normal Rules Review process consists of. I do not believe this one is being conducted through the use of the same process.

Allan is it ethical this Rules review is being so rushed, and I can only talk about NSW, that we have not had a meeting to discuss this issue thoroughly and vote accordingly? Are other States experiencing the same? Surely Dogs Australia and the Nraft must insist that member Bodies ensure their members are fully aware of the facts.

Allan is it ethical that the vote which is taken on this is in secret form, between the member and the powers to be?

Is it ethical that we have a Retrieving Rules Review happening through this year and next year, and this is being pushed separately, is it Nraft or Dogs Australia which is pushing this along?

Allan why is this one being conducted separately and not as a part of the normal Retrieving Rules Review Process? It seems all of this is being done in this manner to appease Queensland and at the expense of the ANKC Retrieving Discipline as we currently know it.

Why is it, that the subject of the inclusion of Rubber dummies,was suggested to Dogs Queensland through the argument which was had,between Dogs Queensland Board and Dogs Queensland Raft.

Allan you are aware Queensland have advocated the inclusion of Rubber Dummies into Rule 8k for a hell of a long time. This emanated after the argument which caused a split in Queensland, and Sporting Shooter Trials surfaced soon after.
After this, the argument by Queensland started, we cannot get birds, and the nonsense of the inclusion of Rubber dummies into Rule 8k.

Game had not been in poor supply in Queensland, there is no basis for the argument brought forward by Queensland at every time a Retrieving Rules Review is about to be conducted.

NSW have conducted ANKC Retrieving Trials for so long, and the issue of birds would have been discussed in the past. Why would NSW Board think that Live Game is used in the conduct of Retrieving Trials.? At times Board members attended Retrieving Trials and witnessed the use of Game.
Allan as you are aware live game is only hunted during ANKC competitions such as, Utility Trials and Springer Spaniel Trials, and only if the law in the State in which the trial is being conducted Permits it, and in conjunction with the ANKC Rules which govern the discipline.

My understanding the birds supplied by Queensland to be used by NSW during the conduct of the lead up trials, State Championship and National Championship, were birds which Queensland had procured in preparation for the conduct of the Queensland National and State Championship.

We are all aware that unfortunately Queensland had to cancel the National due to Covid. The birds which Queensland passed on to NSW had been dead and frozen for a number of months. I would like to think Queensland passed the birds on to NSW because they had no more use for them.

Why would this fact be so hard to convey to the powers to be. Do these people not understand what is being said to them.

Allan if the NSW Board questioned Queensland as you say, and did this without firstly consulting its own Raft Committee then I believe the NSW Board made an error.

Allan do you think Queensland Raft would be in favor of the Inclusion of the words in Rule 8k, “Live Game will not be used”, in the definition of Game, as your predecessor Trevor Stevens suggested in his post on this topic, and the introduction of the New Retrieving AG. Discipline.

I am of the opinion Queensland Raft would not be, but Dogs Queensland probably would be.

Extract from your post.
A DRAFT set of possible rules( formulated by a NRAFT working party- not yourself) was presented to the 2020 NRAFT General meeting. The following are extracts from the official ANKC minutes of that meeting;

1/ A DRAFT of the AG rules prepared by the Working Party were circulated to committee members on 29th April 2020.
The Chair noted that the committee had NO MANDATE to establish such a competition at this point in time.
2/ The Chair noted that little discussion has been held at the " Grass roots level" and that it was necessary for State RAFT committees to ascertain level of interest.
3/ Amended Motion 7.5 : That the submissions from the working party relating to AG rules NOT BE ACCEPTED by the committee and that they be held in abeyance until the need requires it due to state based legislation or other unforeseen circumstances. Motion carried unanimously.

Allan, Helena Cornelius and myself did prepare the Rules to enable the conduct of the AG Trial as a starting point for the NRaft Working Party to make further changes if it deemed it necessary.

Extract from Trevor Stevens post on this topic.
1 A set of draft rules for trials using artificial game was tabled by NSW as part of the 2018 rules review. The intention was that a separate discipline be established that used artificial game.
2 A working party was established to finesse these rules, so that something could quickly be implemented if it became necessary.
3 In 2020 the draft rules were accepted by NRAFT on the basis that they be available for use if it became necessary. It was noted that NRAFT did not have a mandate to introduce the new discipline at that time.
No secret about any of this. Its in the minutes.
It is up to the current committee as to how this is progressed.
Trevor Stevens
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu 22 Jan 2004 2:38 pm
Location: Melbourne

Allan the above, is not quite the same as you highlighted. Who is correct?

At the time I disagreed with Trevor that he did not have a mandate to introduce the Discipline as all this was part and parcel of the 2018 Rules Review which ANKC Ratified in October that year.
The work has been done by the Nraft Working Party and the Rules have been accepted by Nraft. All that remains to be done to introduce this Discipline, is, to ask Dogs Australia to Ratify it and that is it.

Allan you as well as I, have been taking part in ANKC Retrieving Trials for a hell of a long time. We both understand the enormity of such a change to the Retrieving Game.
The introduction and the intent of the ANKC Retrieving Discipline by our predecessors was to thoroughly test Gundogs for the field, through the use of Real Game. They understood the importance of the listed retrieves and most importantly to recognise Hard Mouth when it is produced by the dog.

Allan as you are the current Chair of NRaft I recommend to you and the NRaft Commottee the following,
1. The introduction of the New Retrieving Discipline which is being held in abeyance by Nraft as the level of interest to take part in such a trial is obvious..
2. The inclusion of the words into Rule 8k, the definition of Game, “Real Game Will Not Be Used” as is being suggested by the previous Nraft Chairman Trevor Stevens,
Please Consider.

All the arguments would disappear if this was accepted.
If this is actioned upon then, the current Retrieving Game is not polluted by the use of plastic and the ramifications it would produce.
1. Hardmouth issues,
2. Judging plastic or Real game which will produce a double standard, Real Game and hardmouth, the dog may be disqualified, with Plastic it continues.
3. Throwing plastic dummies among plastic decoys,
4. The possible elimination of wounded retrieves.
5. The inclusion of plastic would manipulate judges with regards run setting.
These are but a few examples but the list goes on.
Joe Vella
Joe Vella
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon 27 Aug 2007 4:08 pm

Re: Real Game or Dummies

Postby Kirsty Blair » Wed 17 May 2023 12:45 pm

It may be worth a reminder that this website is open source information and the written content within is freely accessible to anyone who can use the internet. Whilst I note the administrator has posted a cautionary comment on conduct, some of the language used and insinuations being made may leave individuals open to action by controlling bodies and may reflect poorly on our retrieving community.

Is this really how we want to represent ourselves? Whilst I concede this is an emotive topic, at what cost to us all is this public discourse?
Kirsty Blair
 
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed 23 Apr 2003 7:41 pm
Location: Hawkesbury, NSW

Re: Real Game or Dummies

Postby Jessie Hughes » Wed 17 May 2023 10:03 pm

Following on from Kirsty's comment, maybe this should all be transferred to "RA Registered Users Only" ?? It doesn't have a post since 2019 and would seem more appropriate.
Jessie Hughes
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Tue 29 Oct 2013 10:45 pm

Re: Real Game or Dummies

Postby Joe Vella » Fri 19 May 2023 12:15 pm

Hi Allan,

Since my initial post on this topic to which you post a reply, I have not been able to stop thinking about the issues involved and the comments I made with regards to National Raft being involved in some sort of a deal with Queensland.
National Raft was asked by ANKC to make recommendations to it.

I was at the time grossly disappointed as to how this was being handled, and I should not have made the comments which I did.

To suggest this was very unfair to you and your committee and I will retract the comments made by me. I do apologize to you and your Committee and I hope my apology is accepted.

I pride myself as being a person which would argue for the well being of our Retrieving Game as it is currently conducted.

I also pride myself as being a fair minded person and, if what I say is incorrect and is wrong then I would say so.

Allan I believe the actions taken by which ever Member Body, may it be Queensland or NSW with regards to this issue, this could have been handled differently and stop this from escalating as it has done..

My opinion is, the State Body which had concerns with regards to live game being used in Retrieving Trials, could have been made aware by the ANKC / National Raft that live game had never been used and it will never be used in Retrieving Trials.

Allan I suggest some of the arguments may not have been made, if a full explanation had been put forward by ANKC/National Raft of all the facts surrounding this very important issue.

We, which are not involved in Committees such as Nraft are not privy to such information, unless it is communicated.

If Queensland still wants to continue with the inclusion of Dummies into Rule 8k then this could be handled through the normal Retrieving Rules Review Process which is scheduled to commence next year.

Joe Vella
Joe Vella
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon 27 Aug 2007 4:08 pm

Re: Real Game or Dummies

Postby Allan Bartram » Fri 19 May 2023 7:41 pm

Joe,
Thank you for your post.
It takes a big man to apologise as you have done, and I for one gratefully accept that, I also think everyone can appreciate the passion you have for retrieving as it is today.
I accept that in some instances full explanations of facts/ circumstances may not have been well communicated by the various State bodies, however some times our hands are tied .
It is the job of each State RAFT to communicate /refer to their retrieving fraternity and establish the majority decision which then in turn is sent to the NRAFT, each State then has the chance to present its case to the NRAFT where a National decision is made following the voting protocol previously mentioned. In other words the majority get the decision which the NRAFT advisory committee relay to the ANKC Board of Directors for ratification.
Joe, I state this simply because I believe there are some "rank and file" members out there who do not understand the workings of the NRAFT and believe that we are some sort of body who can make decisions without consultation.
This whole issue has arisen due to State Boards of Directors ( NOT RAFT committees) submitting motions direct to the ANKC without consultation .
Trust me, the NRAFT made the various States and ANKC Board CLEARLY aware that Live game is NOT and has NEVER been used in retrieving trials.
Regards
Allan
Allan Bartram
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Mon 04 Jul 2005 1:56 pm
Location: Toodyay WA

PreviousNext

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests