by 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