Grand Field Trial Champion

doco · Post by **doco** » Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:52 pm

I'm not worried about non-titled dogs. I am more worried about the time involved to ensure the success of the event, the caliber of the event, and the Importance of the Title. A "Tournament of Champions" is not a "Tournament of Anybody Who Has a Dog", it is a Tournament of CHAMPIONS!

The NGSPA and AF requires that a dog is Qualified to compete in a Championship. This New Stake has no Qualifications other than an entry fee. I'm not saying that it is a money grab, but if you are going to hold the title of Grand Champion, IMO, you must beat "A Field of Champions". I'd rather see the title as a one and done by winning a Major stake by beating 15 Champions or better than accumulating points by beating a field of dogs). This is not to disgrace non-titled dogs, but an event where you compete against the proven (titled) dogs.

@ Karen...would you breed Chloe to a non-titled dog tomorrow and expect to sell pups or improve what you have? I've seen Chloe! It won't be long and she'll be titlted. You have worked hard to get her there and when she gets it she didn't just get it by luck, she earned it. Relish in the fact that she will be up there with Champions. Once she gets there maybe your opinon will change.

I know that I won't have the time or money to put a GFC on my dogs, but if anyone can earn a GFC because they can go to as many events as it takes, then the title doesn't mean squat to me. The same as it won't mean anything to me if it is just another bunch of weekend 1 hours stakes with 7or 8 dogs and 1 major win against non-titled dogs. That is nothing more than another weekend stake.

Post by **ezzy333** » Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:43 pm

@ Karen...would you breed Chloe to a non-titled dog tomorrow and expect to sell pups or improve what you have?

I can't answer for Karen but I believe she has bought pups from untitled dogs. But for me that is a no brainer, of course I would. Titles do not make the dog, dogs make titles. Nice to have but do not improve the dog one iota.

Ezzy

doco · Post by **doco** » Wed Dec 05, 2012 9:22 pm

ezzy" wrote: she bought pups from untitled dogs.

I bought both of mine from untitled dogs as well. Worked hard to get them where they are now.

ezzy wrote:Titles do not make the dog, dogs make titles.

As do the handler and trainers improve the dog to earn the title. Therefore, reward them justly by competing against dogs that made the title and improve the breed!

ezzy wrote:But for me that is a no brainer, of course I would.

Of course you would rather breed or buy from a Titled Dog. That's the point. Make the Grand Title mean something. Make it mean you beat the best.

jetjockey · Post by **jetjockey** » Wed Dec 05, 2012 11:15 pm

In the Brit world there is already a lot of emphasis put on 1 hour trials. There's also a good number of dogs who typically run mostly 1 hour trials, and skip the weekend trials. There is no shortage of entry's for the 1 hour trials either, and the quality of dogs entered is typically better. It's easy to throw away a $50 entry fee to play for a half an hour. It gets much tougher to justify running a dog that wont win when entry fees jump to $100-$150, and the Pros show up. In the Brit world the 1 hr trials draw the big guns out because the 1 hr trials are associated with the AA and SD Dog of the year Awards. IMO, That's also why there is much more credit given to a dog with an AF Ch or RU Ch in front of its name rather than just FC. The AKC needs something to differentiate the good dogs from the great dogs in trials, just like they do with the three levels of hunt tests. All FC's are not created equal.

ultracarry · Post by **ultracarry** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:09 am

Make a walking FC, ref FC, Am walking, and reg AFC.... I also like the 1x 2x 3x .....

remmy · Post by **remmy** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 5:56 am

Doc, as I stated before, a dog can only earn Grand Champion points if it is already FC or AFC titled. Otherwise, a dog that is not yet titled that wins a Grand Champion stake has its points awarded toward their FC or AFC only.

ElhewPointer · Post by **ElhewPointer** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:35 am

But what Doco is getting at I think is this. 15 dogs entered in a GFC stake. Only one dog is an FC in the stake. That FC dog wins the stake. How Grand was that?

Stoneface · Post by **Stoneface** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:02 am

ElhewPointer wrote:
deseeker wrote:As far as I know, AKC gets a $35 application fee for a trial and $3.50 a dog recording fee. In turn from AKC you get the trial materials sent to you for recording everything, they keep track of records & points that dogs earn, hand out titles and certificates to the owners, and up grade the titles on a dog's pedigree. It doesn't sound like they are getting rich doing this!!! It sounds more like a service to the dog owners to me. JMO If AKC is making tons of money it must be from something other than trials & hunt tests :roll:
Roll your eyes all you want. But the AKC wouldn't do it if they didn't profit from it.

You're absolutely right, man. AKC doesn't care about the dogs near as much as they would have the general public think. I do think there are a lot of individuals in the organization that want to better the dogs, though.

That being said, I'm excited about the Grand. I think it stands a good chance of adding a little more activity to trials. After a dog reaches an FC it gives them something else to work for, keeping them in the game longer, adding more dogs to the premium. I wish they'd add an unbroke stake, too - something like AF's Gun Dog stakes. If someone would sincerely offer stakes like that, not as a by product of a trial, I'd run it exclusively.

jetjockey · Post by **jetjockey** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:02 am

ElhewPointer wrote:But what Doco is getting at I think is this. 15 dogs entered in a GFC stake. Only one dog is an FC in the stake. That FC dog wins the stake. How Grand was that?

In the Brit world, especially in the Midwest, that's the last thing you have to worry about. Most of the 1hr trials are as big, and often bigger than the weekend stakes. A lot of that has to do with tying the dog of the year award to 1 hr trials, but still, there are a lot of entry's, and typically, it's a lot of the best dogs in the country competing. I can't say how it will work out for the other breeds, but for Brits, I think a GFC title will be a big accomplishment since some of the qualifying trials for a FC title, can be watered down. You can't water down 1 hr trials that draw the Pros, and the top dogs in the country. Just for comparison though, and his only applies to my dog, I just averaged the numbers of starters for trials she has competed in, and placed. In 1/2 hr weekend trials (mostly GD trials), there were 27.7 dogs who ran. The average entry for the weekday 1 hr trials (mostly AA) was 34.5 dogs. If done properly, I think this will only help entries. At least in the Brit world.

dan v · Post by **dan v** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:08 am

Jet...no disrespect intended...but the "Brit world" is vastly different than all the other pointing breeds combined.

Brooks Carmichael · Post by **Brooks Carmichael** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:13 am

AKC has decided this will happen, then let us make the championship it truly what it should be. AF makes you qualify to run in a championship. Same goes for the GSPCA nationals, NGSPA, and AKC all breed gun dog stake. So, as some of the posts suggests it should be only for those who have acquired their FC or AFC. To run in a Limited stake, do you not have to place in open or Am. stake or take first in a Derby stake. Let it be the best of the best who runs in this stake. Or this new title will mean nothing, if you are not having the best dogs competing. AKC realized in the hunt tests, titles were being put on some dogs that really did not deserve them. So, AKC came back and tightened up the rules and the dogs had to earn their titles. There still is work to be done in this area and with the seminars and rule tightening it is getting done.

When it comes down to it, it will be up to the field trial committees to decide if they want to run this GFC stake and if they have the grounds to run it. This will mean running a couple extra days to do this. Remember it is the Am. that runs the trials and it takes a lot of work.

Who ever decides to put on GFC stake on, I wish them the best of luck.

Brooks Carmichael · Post by **Brooks Carmichael** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:22 am

jetjockey wrote:
ElhewPointer wrote:But what Doco is getting at I think is this. 15 dogs entered in a GFC stake. Only one dog is an FC in the stake. That FC dog wins the stake. How Grand was that?
In the Brit world, especially in the Midwest, that's the last thing you have to worry about. Most of the 1hr trials are as big, and often bigger than the weekend stakes. A lot of that has to do with tying the dog of the year award to 1 hr trials, but still, there are a lot of entry's, and typically, it's a lot of the best dogs in the country competing. I can't say how it will work out for the other breeds, but for Brits, I think a GFC title will be a big accomplishment since some of the qualifying trials for a FC title, can be watered down. You can't water down 1 hr trials that draw the Pros, and the top dogs in the country. Just for comparison though, and his only applies to my dog, I just averaged the numbers of starters for trials she has competed in, and placed. In 1/2 hr weekend trials (mostly GD trials), there were 27.7 dogs who ran. The average entry for the weekday 1 hr trials (mostly AA) was 34.5 dogs. If done properly, I think this will only help entries. At least in the Brit world.

Correct me if I a wrong. But, if I remember correctly do not the brits have to qualify every year for the nationals. I have observed that many of these one hour AA stakes are loaded with with gun dogs and the reason being it is a money stake.

jetjockey · Post by **jetjockey** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:24 am

Wyndancer wrote:Jet...no disrespect intended...but the "Brit world" is vastly different than all the other pointing breeds combined.

I understand. But if it works in the Brit world, no reason it can't work for other breeds as well. If people are worried about not having top dogs running, tie it in with an AKC all breed dog of the year award. That fixes that problem immediately since the Pros will show up, along with their dogs. AKC needs to do something to rejuvenate interest in trials. People don't like change, but sometimes change is good.

jetjockey · Post by **jetjockey** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:28 am

Brooks Carmichael wrote:
jetjockey wrote:
ElhewPointer wrote:But what Doco is getting at I think is this. 15 dogs entered in a GFC stake. Only one dog is an FC in the stake. That FC dog wins the stake. How Grand was that?
In the Brit world, especially in the Midwest, that's the last thing you have to worry about. Most of the 1hr trials are as big, and often bigger than the weekend stakes. A lot of that has to do with tying the dog of the year award to 1 hr trials, but still, there are a lot of entry's, and typically, it's a lot of the best dogs in the country competing. I can't say how it will work out for the other breeds, but for Brits, I think a GFC title will be a big accomplishment since some of the qualifying trials for a FC title, can be watered down. You can't water down 1 hr trials that draw the Pros, and the top dogs in the country. Just for comparison though, and his only applies to my dog, I just averaged the numbers of starters for trials she has competed in, and placed. In 1/2 hr weekend trials (mostly GD trials), there were 27.7 dogs who ran. The average entry for the weekday 1 hr trials (mostly AA) was 34.5 dogs. If done properly, I think this will only help entries. At least in the Brit world.

Correct me if I a wrong. But, if I remember correctly do not the brits have to qualify every year for the nationals. I have observed that many of these one hour AA stakes are loaded with with gun dogs and the reason being it is a money stake.

Brits do have to qualify every year. But most of the 1 hr stakes are not money stakes, even though there are a few that are.

whatsnext · Post by **whatsnext** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:28 am

Wyndancer wrote:Jet...no disrespect intended...but the "Brit world" is vastly different than all the other pointing breeds combined.

How so? I am asking out of ignorance and i am in the process of buying a new pup to try FT's with

DonF · Post by **DonF** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 8:48 am

Just an idea. What if the trial was a championship stake? Different Region's have their own stakes, one time a year event for dog's in that region that are already champions? If your dog is out with a handler and running several different regions, you only get to pick one. Tying it on to trials already being run could put a terrible load on the club putting on the trial. Have to be a late fall trial or early spring for cooler weather.

Cajun Casey · Post by **Cajun Casey** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:03 am

DonF wrote:Just an idea. What if the trial was a championship stake? Different Region's have their own stakes, one time a year event for dog's in that region that are already champions? If your dog is out with a handler and running several different regions, you only get to pick one. Tying it on to trials already being run could put a terrible load on the club putting on the trial. Have to be a late fall trial or early spring for cooler weather.

AKC doesn't work that way. Championships are on a points schedule except for Nationals. I don't see them adopting a regional championship system. The new title format is in place. Like the equivalent in Conformation, it gives an added acknowledgment for continuing to campaign a finished dog. It also gives an advanced title opportunity to people who do not wish to travel or campaign a dog with a pro handler. I know a lot of people who have top ten all systems Conformation dogs who dread making the decision to accept a Eukanuba invitation or enter at Westminster. For them, the opportunity to add a title above Ch has been very welcome, particularly the owner handlers. As far as it being open to unfinished entries, that's very similar to the AF format where a Championship may have qualifiers that don't have a single first among them against dogs with multiple Championships. Any given Sunday, so to speak.

fuzznut · Post by **fuzznut** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:18 am

If you read the rules for this thing.... it IS a Limited Stake, there fore there are qualifications. Dogs must have a placement in a Gun Dog Stake or a Derby win.

No different then what I can figure out for an NGSPA event?

In the beginning you will probably see dogs entered that shouldn't be, or that can't pull it off. I don't think that will continue for too long.... not if the right judges are chosen and they are truly looking for the right dogs. That famous dog "Withheld" may get a whole lotta wins in the beginning!

There are a lot of clubs out there with dwindling entries, this could help them. This will help those dogs who don't fit the 30 min weekend venue, this will benefit them as well. Just having a tough time seeing the downside.

No club HAS to put on one of these stakes, it's an option if they want to!

DonF · Post by **DonF** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:30 am

I know that. Doesn't mean they couldn't. the NW Region, had a shooting dog stake open to AF and AKC dogs. And AKC dog could win points to a championship but an AF dog could win nothing. Have no idea why AF dogs showed up at all. It was a one hour stake. Maybe AF handlers used it as a qualifying stake?

Cajun Casey · Post by **Cajun Casey** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:37 am

DonF wrote:I know that. Doesn't mean they couldn't. the NW Region, had a shooting dog stake open to AF and AKC dogs. And AKC dog could win points to a championship but an AF dog could win nothing. Have no idea why AF dogs showed up at all. It was a one hour stake. Maybe AF handlers used it as a qualifying stake?

That sounds about right. Dual sanctioned would qualify AF competitors. Some are cross registering their dogs, also.

ultracarry · Post by **ultracarry** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:41 am

If someone wants it to be a qualifying event all they have to do is pay the AF the fee to dual sanction the trial or specific stakes. Doesn't even have to cone from the clubs pocket.

Seems like a win for those who don't want to travel, need the hour for the dog that may like to range and flat out hunt for 15 - 20 minutes without the worry of being picked up. People will always complain. I know I like to.

Karen · Post by **Karen** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:41 am

Even dual sanctioned, because of AKC's new(ish) rules, a field trial secretary isn't supposed to knowingly accept the entry of a dog not currently AKC registered. I guess too many FDSB-only registered dogs were placing and then not registering AKC within 30 days.

Post by **ezzy333** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:43 am

Stoneface wrote:
ElhewPointer wrote:
deseeker wrote:As far as I know, AKC gets a $35 application fee for a trial and $3.50 a dog recording fee. In turn from AKC you get the trial materials sent to you for recording everything, they keep track of records & points that dogs earn, hand out titles and certificates to the owners, and up grade the titles on a dog's pedigree. It doesn't sound like they are getting rich doing this!!! It sounds more like a service to the dog owners to me. JMO If AKC is making tons of money it must be from something other than trials & hunt tests :roll:
Roll your eyes all you want. But the AKC wouldn't do it if they didn't profit from it.
You're absolutely right, man. AKC doesn't care about the dogs near as much as they would have the general public think. I do think there are a lot of individuals in the organization that want to better the dogs, though.

That being said, I'm excited about the Grand. I think it stands a good chance of adding a little more activity to trials. After a dog reaches an FC it gives them something else to work for, keeping them in the game longer, adding more dogs to the premium. I wish they'd add an unbroke stake, too - something like AF's Gun Dog stakes. If someone would sincerely offer stakes like that, not as a by product of a trial, I'd run it exclusively.

If I hire you to keep our studbook, why would I expect you to have any interest in bettering the breed? I really wouldn't care if you even knew what the breed was or what they do since your job is nothing more than recording the info we send to you.

Ezzy

brad27 · Post by **brad27** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:49 am

ElhewPointer wrote:But what Doco is getting at I think is this. 15 dogs entered in a GFC stake. Only one dog is an FC in the stake. That FC dog wins the stake. How Grand was that?

What percentage of the entries need to be FC's in order for one of these stakes to be Grand? 25%, 50%, 100%?

Is winning the 2012 NGSPA Invitational any less Grand because only 10/12 entries is a CH, as opposed to 12/12?

I think people are trying to make the GFC something it is not. It is not nationals. It's not a regional championship. It's not, the best of the best. It is another weekend trial format intented to separate the FC's that can run the hour and those that can't.

ultracarry · Post by **ultracarry** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:59 am

Does this also mean we need to make obtaining an FC harder and start entering all.of the GI.usher dogs possible into the open GD and amateur GD stakes just to make it harder?

dan v · Post by **dan v** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:07 am

whatsnext wrote:
Wyndancer wrote:Jet...no disrespect intended...but the "Brit world" is vastly different than all the other pointing breeds combined.
How so? I am asking out of ignorance and i am in the process of buying a new pup to try FT's with

The Brit people have built a juggernaut of a system in which the vast majority of Brits only compete against other Brits (and their need to Q every year for their AA or GD Ch's, coupled with the need to win a major at a Brit FT and closed to other breeds)....not saying that's bad or good, it is what it is. So they have a Brit FT circuit in which Brit pros travel from area to area. Additionally, plenty of Brit FT's are sanctioned both AKC and AF. To my knowledge, there isn't another AKC pointing breed that has built this type of system.

dan v · Post by **dan v** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 10:10 am

Cajun Casey wrote: Championships are on a points schedule except for Nationals.

Explain please.

Post by **slistoe** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:19 am

Wyndancer wrote:[coupled with the need to win a major at a Brit FT and closed to other breeds)

Not quite correct. In order to protect the regional clubs the ABC required that you must win a major at a trial put on by a Brit club - the win does not have to be in a stake closed to other breeds.

doco · Post by **doco** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:20 am

fuzznut wrote:In the beginning you will probably see dogs entered that shouldn't be, or that can't pull it off. I don't think that will continue for too long.... not if the right judges are chosen and they are truly looking for the right dogs. That famous dog "Withheld" may get a whole lotta wins in the beginning!

So why not skip the ones that can't pull it off from the beginning, instead of it continuing then eliminate it and not waste time on a lot of Withhelds?

fuzznut wrote: it IS a Limited Stake, there fore there are qualifications. Dogs must have a placement in a Gun Dog Stake or a Derby win.

There are many 5 -7 year old dogs out there that have placements in these stakes that are not FC's or AFC's. So why dilute or make a stake longer (4 days instead of 2)than it needs to be. Those dogs can still be finished in Limited Stakes.

brad27 wrote:What percentage of the entries need to be FC's in order for one of these stakes to be Grand? 25%, 50%, 100%?

IMO 100%

brad27 wrote:Is winning the 2012 NGSPA Invitational any less Grand because only 10/12 entries is a CH, as opposed to 12/12?

No, because it was an Invitational that invited dogs that are proven and have earned the right to be there by Multiple wins.

brad27 wrote:I think people are trying to make the GFC something it is not. It is not nationals. It's not a regional championship. It's not, the best of the best. It is another weekend trial format intented to separate the FC's that can run the hour and those that can't.

Again, why waste the judges, handlers, and organizers time just to separate out dogs that can't run the hour?

I know I may sound a little harsh, but I sincerely feel there are enough stakes to run dogs in that the GFC should stand for something more than just another 6 points with a 3 point win.

dan v · Post by **dan v** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:28 am

slistoe wrote:
Wyndancer wrote:[coupled with the need to win a major at a Brit FT and closed to other breeds)
Not quite correct. In order to protect the regional clubs the ABC required that you must win a major at a trial put on by a Brit club - the win does not have to be in a stake closed to other breeds.

I knew that...just don't know how it didn't get written correctly.

dan v · Post by **dan v** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:35 am

fuzznut wrote: There are a lot of clubs out there with dwindling entries, this could help them. This will help those dogs who don't fit the 30 min weekend venue, this will benefit them as well. Just having a tough time seeing the downside.

IMO...entries are dwindling for reasons other than not have an hour stake. One is expense, and the hour stake is gonna to be an expense. Look, I like to run my dog. Locally, some of the OLGD are payback and they have entry fees to match. I don't care about the payback...why should I have to pay an additional $25-$40 to run my dog in an OLGD stake? I just want to run the dog.

Downside? I like you don't see any...other than some pros will pressure the people that really put these events on to add the new stake...and that means more vacation time mid-week being burned. Couple that with the many of the "workers" may not have a dog entered in the trial, much less the stake.

But if a group of people want to get together and put the new stake on.....more power to them.

Cajun Casey · Post by **Cajun Casey** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:46 am

Wyndancer wrote:
Cajun Casey wrote: Championships are on a points schedule except for Nationals.
Explain please.

If an unfinished dog wins, it gets the title regardless of the points it carried going in.

dan v · Post by **dan v** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 11:55 am

Cajun Casey wrote:
Wyndancer wrote:
Cajun Casey wrote: Championships are on a points schedule except for Nationals.
Explain please.
If an unfinished dog wins, it gets the title regardless of the points it carried going in.

It gets the title of NFC or NAFC...it doesn't however, get the FC or AFC in all breeds. I know it doesn't for Gordon Setters, because the dog that won the GSCA NAFC in 2006 still needs some points to finish. Additionally the dog the won the GSCA NAFC in 2008/2009....still needs one am point to earn the AFC title.

Cajun Casey · Post by **Cajun Casey** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:05 pm

Yeah, what you said. Better explanation. They can finish the lower title as well as gain the NC, but they don't have to have it to get the NC.

ACooper · Post by **ACooper** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 12:56 pm

ultracarry wrote:Make a walking FC, ref FC, Am walking, and reg AFC.... I also like the 1x 2x 3x .....

Sorry I've been busy but wanted to jump back in on this. I agree with Ultra I like the idea of having a walking FC and an FC or some way to differentiate. I also like the idea of the AKC pushing the hour stakes. But why not make Limited stakes an hour? I also prefer the 1x 2x 3x etc to the GFC, "grand" is just kind of corny to me.

Cajun Casey · Post by **Cajun Casey** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:02 pm

Personally, I think retrieving should be eliminated and recorded as an add-on vs. required by breed. Same with water tests. Agility people don't seem to have a problem with a multi-tier format.

Ms. Cage · Post by **Ms. Cage** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 1:56 pm

Cajun Casey wrote:Personally, I think retrieving should be eliminated and recorded as an add-on vs. required by breed. Same with water tests.

I'm not a field trialer. IMO a retrieve should be required in the field under actual conditions vs call back. Folks say FT dogs are the best but most don't require a retrieve or a bird shot over the point.

dan v · Post by **dan v** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:03 pm

Cajun Casey wrote:Personally, I think retrieving should be eliminated and recorded as an add-on vs. required by breed. Same with water tests. Agility people don't seem to have a problem with a multi-tier format.

It's my understanding that a "retrieve certificate" program was brought up at one of the AKC Pointing Breeds meetings, but GSPCA thought otherwise. And seeing they're the 800lb gorilla in the room.......

Post by **ezzy333** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:05 pm

Ms. Cage wrote:
Cajun Casey wrote:Personally, I think retrieving should be eliminated and recorded as an add-on vs. required by breed. Same with water tests.
I'm not a field trialer. IMO a retrieve should be required in the field under actual conditions vs call back. Folks say FT dogs are the best but most don't require a retrieve or a bird shot over the point.

Agree. Retrieving is half of what a dog is supposed to do. Don't understand why anyone would want it eliminated.

Ezzy

Cajun Casey · Post by **Cajun Casey** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:08 pm

Ms. Cage wrote:
Cajun Casey wrote:Personally, I think retrieving should be eliminated and recorded as an add-on vs. required by breed. Same with water tests.
I'm not a field trialer. IMO a retrieve should be required in the field under actual conditions vs call back. Folks say FT dogs are the best but most don't require a retrieve or a bird shot over the point.

I'm fine with that, also. I do think it should apply to all breeds and follow suit in hunt tests, also. I think it would raise entries and benefit clubs if everything was consistent.

Cajun Casey · Post by **Cajun Casey** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:09 pm

Wyndancer wrote:
Cajun Casey wrote:Personally, I think retrieving should be eliminated and recorded as an add-on vs. required by breed. Same with water tests. Agility people don't seem to have a problem with a multi-tier format.
It's my understanding that a "retrieve certificate" program was brought up at one of the AKC Pointing Breeds meetings, but GSPCA thought otherwise. And seeing they're the 800lb gorilla in the room.......

I disagree. Gorillas fling less poo.

dan v · Post by **dan v** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:11 pm

ezzy333 wrote:
Ms. Cage wrote:
Cajun Casey wrote:Personally, I think retrieving should be eliminated and recorded as an add-on vs. required by breed. Same with water tests.
I'm not a field trialer. IMO a retrieve should be required in the field under actual conditions vs call back. Folks say FT dogs are the best but most don't require a retrieve or a bird shot over the point.
Agree. Retrieving is half of what a dog is supposed to do. Don't understand why anyone would want it eliminated.

Ezzy

Really? What is the historic use of Pointers and for that matter Setters? Retrieving wasn't part of the job....see, they had retrievers for that.

Cajun Casey · Post by **Cajun Casey** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:16 pm

Announcement on this on AKC's FB says they've added a National Walking Championship, too.

Question, Dan, do judges need anything special to judge retrieving vs. non-retrieving stakes?

dan v · Post by **dan v** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 2:52 pm

About the AKC Walking GD Ch. Jimmy D'Amico is a great guy, and he'll be a great judge for that event....after all he owns Gordon Setters.

Special requirements ret. vs non-ret?

No, but it does help if a one of the judges has been a number of the cluster** that a call-back is, otherwise it gets to be an even bigger cluster.

MillerClemsonHD · Post by **MillerClemsonHD** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:01 pm

ezzy333 wrote:
Ms. Cage wrote:
Cajun Casey wrote:Personally, I think retrieving should be eliminated and recorded as an add-on vs. required by breed. Same with water tests.
I'm not a field trialer. IMO a retrieve should be required in the field under actual conditions vs call back. Folks say FT dogs are the best but most don't require a retrieve or a bird shot over the point.
Agree. Retrieving is half of what a dog is supposed to do. Don't understand why anyone would want it eliminated.

Ezzy

How many call backs have you seen recently? Most of them are a joke. Dogs walking at heel and whoad to point. Have seen birds planted under a pile of hay so there was not scent for the dogs to smell. The rules seem to vary widely on what is acceptable, what gets a redo, and what isn't ok. Then all that might go out the window when the placements are called. Callbacks are so far from any kind of hunting situation or true test of an ability to retrieve it means nothing.

Not saying that a separate test would solve the issues as much of a joke as some clubs have turned the current callbacks into. Might at least help get the best dog that day get a placement.

dan v · Post by **dan v** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:12 pm

MillerClemsonHD wrote:

How many call backs have you seen recently? Most of them are a joke. Dogs walking at heel and whoad to point. Have seen birds planted under a pile of hay so there was not scent for the dogs to smell. The rules seem to vary widely on what is acceptable, what gets a redo, and what isn't ok. Then all that might go out the window when the placements are called. Callbacks are so far from any kind of hunting situation or true test of an ability to retrieve it means nothing.

Not saying that a separate test would solve the issues as much of a joke as some clubs have turned the current callbacks into. Might at least help get the best dog that day get a placement.

True dat

brad27 · Post by **brad27** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 3:27 pm

Wyndancer wrote:
MillerClemsonHD wrote:

How many call backs have you seen recently? Most of them are a joke. Dogs walking at heel and whoad to point. Have seen birds planted under a pile of hay so there was not scent for the dogs to smell. The rules seem to vary widely on what is acceptable, what gets a redo, and what isn't ok. Then all that might go out the window when the placements are called. Callbacks are so far from any kind of hunting situation or true test of an ability to retrieve it means nothing.

Not saying that a separate test would solve the issues as much of a joke as some clubs have turned the current callbacks into. Might at least help get the best dog that day get a placement.

True dat

I'm a fan of first brid shot on course. I do realize it is a bigger headache for the hosting club, however.

ultracarry · Post by **ultracarry** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:00 pm

Brad I think we are just lucky to have a guy that rides braces and shoots birds, them again GSP of reno had walking gunners and did a first bird shot on course in the open gun dog in June.

If the GSP wasn't bred to retrieve then I would see not having the retrieving mandatory for an FC or AFC. Pointers don't need it, Brittanys don't need it.

There should be rules about the call back that are followed like no whoaing dogs, no heeling, and make it a larger area for a callback.

Post by **ezzy333** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:05 pm

MillerClemsonHD wrote:
Ms. Cage wrote:
Cajun Casey wrote:Personally, I think retrieving should be eliminated and recorded as an add-on vs. required by breed. Same with water tests.
I'm not a field trialer. IMO a retrieve should be required in the field under actual conditions vs call back. Folks say FT dogs are the best but most don't require a retrieve or a bird shot over the point.

How many call backs have you seen recently? Most of them are a joke. Dogs walking at heel and whoad to point. Have seen birds planted under a pile of hay so there was not scent for the dogs to smell. The rules seem to vary widely on what is acceptable, what gets a redo, and what isn't ok. Then all that might go out the window when the placements are called. Callbacks are so far from any kind of hunting situation or true test of an ability to retrieve it means nothing.

Not saying that a separate test would solve the issues as much of a joke as some clubs have turned the current callbacks into. Might at least help get the best dog that day get a placement.

I didn't indicate in any way that the present manner of judging a retrieve is good or bad. But if we all agree it isn't adequate then lets fix it and not just quit testing. After all we are trying to promote trials as a way to better the breed????????

Ezzy

Cajun Casey · Post by **Cajun Casey** » Thu Dec 06, 2012 4:15 pm

ultracarry wrote:Brad I think we are just lucky to have a guy that rides braces and shoots birds, them again GSP of reno had walking gunners and did a first bird shot on course in the open gun dog in June.

If the GSP wasn't bred to retrieve then I would see not having the retrieving mandatory for an FC or AFC. Pointers don't need it, Brittanys don't need it.

There should be rules about the call back that are followed like no whoaing dogs, no heeling, and make it a larger area for a callback.

Shorthairs were developed to trail and hunt fur, also, but that's not part of the AKC trial requirements.

It's a game, based on the dog's natural ability, not a demonstration of everything the dog is capable of performing. A reasonable example from another dog game would be Border collies in Agility. They use many of the same natural abilities that serve them in herding, but they DON'T HAVE TO MOVE SHEEP to title.