American Field Ariticle

[shorthairguy]

Did anyone read the article in the AF "demise of the weekend field trial"?
He really bashes NSTRA.......
As a NSTRA member and Judge I can say this guy has no real clue on what actually goes on and is expected of the dogs and the rules. I hope no folks out there really believe this is how NSTRA dogs are and how our organization is.
This just makes me sick to think fellow dog organizations are attacking other groups.
I for one will never subcribe to their publication and will guarantee none of my fellow bird hunter friends will not support them either.

Sorry for the rant but this article just rubbed me the wrong way.

[romeo212000]

I read it and sent them an email about it. I would suggest you do the same as well. What it really comes down to is this guy is seeing is preferref choice of trialing slowly dwindle away and NSTRA is growing by leaps and bounds and frankly jealousy does not look good on him. I realize not everyone is going to choose my preferred venue but what this guy did was uncalled for. I let them know I will never subscribe or buy off the news rack and will do everything I can to disuade others from doing so for letting such trash get published.

[gunner]

Why don't you post the part of the article that you find so offensive.

[scotly50]

I read that article also. I believe a response to it is posted on the NSTRA website.

One must remember, the American Field and NSTRA went their separate ways a few years back. NSTRA was part of AF. I am sure their are lingering feelings, by the AF reflected in the article.

[Sharon]

I am not involved in NSTRA. I trial with the American Field (dogs registered in the FDSB). What they said about the "Weekend Trialing " scene was dead on.
However, I also sent an e-mail expressing my disappointment and anger at the shots they took at NSTRA.
None of the trialing sports are what they once were. We need to stick together and speak positively about each other's endeavours. The editor missed the boat on that one.

[Grange]

Is the AF article posted online somewhere? I've read NSTRA's rebuttal on their website and heard comments from a few NSTRA members, but haven't read the original article myself.

[shorthairguy]

First off, I have not run AF trials, I have thought about trying them. I dont care which one thinks they are better. I would never write an article bashing AF or any other trial organizations. if people like the game they are playing than great. No bashing needed(except around the campfire).


First part, NSTRA Trials are not "bloodbaths". Birds are shot if they are pointed by the dog. if a dog breaks and the bird pops the handler can not shoot the bird. And I will admit that most of the time I miss and the bird flies off.......

Dogs must be broke to flush....This article makes it sound like the dogs just run in and flush the birds.......not true, if they do it twice they are picked up.

Dogs must hold, handler flush and shoots, dog retrieves bird. No retrieve is granted unless the dog holds until flush, article makes it sound like retrieving is a big part, it is if the dog does what it is supposed to do.
And theres more in the article that isnt right but I am headed out muzzy hunting.

Have any AF guys who are wanting to argue here actually read the rules and attended a NSTRA trial?

Please remember not to bash either organizations....we are all in this against the people who want to end our sport.

[kninebirddog]

I also wrote in...Thing is that article is great ammo for the anti whis goal is that none of us own dogs horses etc...

The other thing...NSTRA AF NAVDHA AKC Hunt TEst Birddog Challenge Bird hunters NBHA UFTA and all the other Events there are put together for people and their dogs You know what that is FREEDOM OF CHOICE I appreciate HB trials But my back and Knees can't handle much of that at all ..I go and watch and cheer my friends on...I chose to enter my dogs in SNTRA as it is closer to what I do with my dogs I guide I hunt and for me NSTRA gives me more chances to play with my dogs and I enjoy it...If one doesn't doesn't make what I do Lessor it makes it different

We need to band together to save what WE love and that is stuff to do with our dogs...When the antis attack one of our events if we do not stand up for each other ...Quote me here" WE WILL ALL LOSE"

So bottom line The article was uncalled for no matter what....and I bet if William Brown was alive today he would be appalled by what was printed.

[prairiefirepointers]

So how many of you have your dogs registered through the American Field? Just wondering.
Yes I belive too that what they did was bad press and likely will hurt a little business.. However that's like me getting Peved at Wal-Mart and not going back... Don't think I'm going to bring them down by boycotting them.

[Wa Chukar Hunter]

First off - I didn't read the article - I let my subscription lapse in September. I used to play in NSTRA - but moved to horseback trials - for a couple reasons - but one of them is that - I like a very nice broke dog. Another is it is very expensive to run in. Last time I entered a double/double in 2003 it cost me $140 per dog! At the time I was running two dogs so that was $280 a weekend and if I ran every weekend it was over $1000 per month. That was 5 yrs ago -have no idea what it costs now.

But, to each their own.

[shorthairguy]

Mine are registered with AKC.

[Big Dave]

I don't run NSTRA but have friends that do. I didn't agree with his article but The American Field also printed the rebuttal. I don't have any trouble since they printed both sides of the fence so to speak. I strongly believe that horseback trialers, hunters, hunt test participants and walking trialers all need to stick together as birddog people and not take shots at one another.

[PntrRookie]

I was sent this AF article by a fellow poster on a different forum. So there may be a few typos...it is long...


PARTS 1 and 2 of this series dealt with the weekend horseback field trial, its initial value as a starting place for the neophyte, and its eventual evolve- merit into a less than beginner-friendly event, and resultant drastic decline in the number of available renewals.

The basis for the two prior articles was my experience and observations in my native state of Illinois. However, based on phone calls I have received from those who have read the first two articles, the situation as was described seems to he prevalent in other states as well, and even among some of the continental breed groups.

In light of the dwindling numbers of the aforementioned trials, one cannot help hut wonder what happened to all of those bird dog enthusiasts who frequented the weekend trials Where did they all go? Did they simply disappear and take up golf or bass fishing?

Some of them, of course, gained knowledge arid skill from their experiences at the weekend trials and “graduate” to higher levels of competition. Their numbers were few, however, and the increased cost of competing in the more competitive major arenas made such a progression unaffordable to many, even though the ability to compete was intact.

Conveniently, someone came up with the novel idea of a type of trial that ultimately became known as the National Bird Hunters trial. This type of trial was to feature a dog that was mom of a practical gun dog, that could double as a comfortable hunting companion, yet he possessed of the intangible qualities called “class” that would place it a cut above the run of the mill gun dog, and render it a pleasure to watch and compete with under somewhat different circumstances.
As was true in part at the early week end trials, the handlers would walk and the pace would be in keeping with that of a foot hunter. A situation prevailed wherein all you needed to compete was a means of getting you and your dog to the event.

Judges and some trial officials rode horseback, and eventually galleryites were allowed to ride as well, but the horse was simply to be a means of conveyance. Because these dogs were to be judged on primarily gun dog standards, it was deemed necessary to kill birds for them so that they could demonstrate the ability to retrieve. Although this was not in accordance with the initial philosophy of field trial competition, it was never the less an attractive feature to many, and perhaps drew some dyed-in-the-wool bird shooters into the ranks of Bird Hunters trials. It was a kind of having your cake and eating it too situation.

This type of field trialing soon became very popular, and the attractiveness thereof may have been a factor in the exodus of some of the horseback people, in addition to the causes mentioned in my earlier articles — a veritable “what came first, the chicken or the egg” dilemma.
Oftentimes the ‘bird hunter” people would share one of the state areas with the horseback group on a given weekend, which was feasible since they initially required much less ground upon which to compete. The difference in numbers of participants on these shared weekends was dramatic, with the “bird hunter” trials featuring far more participants and spectators. The handwriting was beginning to appear on the wall. Soon the horseback trials would he weighed in the balance and found wanting!

If HE bird hunter trials, with their growing popularity, appeal to the average bird shooter, ease in attending and participating, and with a format suited for indoctrinating the newcomer, seemed destined to flourish. And they did for awhile, with every event heavily at tended, and a governing organization that was growing in strength and numbers. This was soon to change, however, as so often happens to “the best laid plans of mice and men.”

What was the cause of the beginning of the decline? As was the culprit in the deterioration of puppy stakes, once again poor judging reared its ugly head. Judges prevailed that did not have the powers of discernment when evaluating qualities that could have been used to separate performances, and the obvious once again became a benchmark — sheer range.

In conversations with the bird hunter enthusiasts, one would hear them boast. “Why, our walking dogs arc running every bit as big as your horseback dogs.” Great, but why? That’s not what they were meant to be.

Once again a very good idea was sabotaged by folks who could not or would not recognize the subtle qualities wherein bird dog performances could be evaluated and instead chose to hang their hats on what was most obvious, albeit less significant — sheer run.

It was not long before these supposed gentleman’s gun dogs were being scouted, and from horseback to boot. Everyone but the handlers was mounted, and the handlers themselves walked at breakneck speed to stay in contact with their overly ambitious charges. No longer could one throw his bird dog in the back seat of the family sedan and head for the trial. Trucks, horse Trailers and horses be came standard gear, and a good idea evolved to a situation that was once again not conducive to getting new people involved lest they were willing and able to make a sizable investment in equipment

In light of this, it is no surprise that here in the Midwest the bird hunter trials have declined dramatically in numbers and attendance. Still, many bird dog folks were desirous of extending the hunting season by competing with their dogs. Where have they gone?

NOT long after the advent of the National Bird Hunters trials and the various trials of similar status, another form of bird dog competition evolved — the shoot-to-retrieve trials.
Once again here was a form of field trialing available that required very little equipment and allowed for spectators to view much of the action. These were walking stakes that championed the gentleman’s foot dog. Or did they?

These trials became quite popular here in the Midwest, with every day’s running full to the brim, and an event somewhere virtually every weekend. However, those whose brainchild this type of competition was were sorely lacking in under standing the basic philosophy of bird dog field trials that has been in place for decades. That being, in essence, featuring competition that would improve and preserve the integrity of the breed, and that would still conform to good wildlife conservation practices.

Horseback field trials are by no means perfect in form or fashion, but one factor that is integral to the make-up of their followers has been in place as long as I have been involved with them. That is: the desire to establish and maintain healthy game bird populations. Not only have the efforts to do so helped retain the integrity of these trials, but the study and resultant methodology to do so has spilled over into the realm of simple bird hunting, helping the average hunters to deal with the constant battle against declining game bird populations.

Shoot-to-retrieve trials, on the other hand, are a veritable blood bath, with every effort made to shoot and kill every bird that a dog comes in Contact with, regardless of how the contact was handled. If ol’ Sport knocks and chases it. no mat ter. BOOM! Dead bird. “Sport, fetch it here:’
The trials place a high priority on a dog’s ability to retrieve, and thus are determined to provide every opportunity to do so. The problem is, virtually every contestant has been force-trained to retrieve, so insofar as improvement of the breed in that regard. Where are they gaining anything?
Further, shoot-to-retrieve fanciers have come up with several rules to govern the running of these dogs that defy common sense and sound logic.

A good example is their “out-of- bounds” rule. It would be safe to say that these events are run on approximately 40 acres, The course is marked in some fashion with flags or sticks or whatever. Needless to say, these items mean absolutely nothing to the competing dogs. Yet, if a dog goes beyond the imaginary line that lies between two of these markers and points a bird, it does not count. Now birds being birds, the occasional bird that manages to escape the “killing field” and settles just beyond these imaginary lines, when approached by a keen- nosed canine with the wind in its favor is best ignored by said dog, lest valuable time be wasted wherein it could find one that was “in hounds,”

In fairness to the dogs, which have no clue as to the ramifications of crossing the imaginary line, perhaps each club could invest in one of those hidden electronic fences with which to define their course; when the dog, with his nose full of bird Scent, crosses the line it gets shocked senseless. Shucks, if you’re going to encourage one to blink you might as well go all out!

This is a part of the ingenious judging format these folks have conjured up. They determined that the subjective spotting system that has been used for over a century was not effective in separating performances. So they came up with a system wherein the performance, is broken down into categories, such as ground coverage, bird work, retrieving, ect!. Each judge then awards each dog so many “points” in each category, or maybe even subtracts some for extremely poor quality. How are these determinations made? Why by using a far more tedious and complicated “objective spotting system” that they regarded as a bane to effective discernment.

Since bird work is scored by allotting so many points to each contact, the number of contacts becomes paramount to a winning performance. Thus the good old calculator comes into play. Such being the case, the handler, who can overtly direct his dog to an area where he knows a bird is hiding, such as a marked bird, and can even call a dog off of a point and guide it elsewhere, scurries around the course like a whirling dervish in order to create as many bird contacts for the dog as he can. Gone is the leisurely pace one would expect at a renewal intended to glorify the classic foot hunting dog. Gone also is any kind of well-directed hunting pattern, and since most of the venues are largely homogeneous in nature, absent is a logical choice of birdy objectives.

SADLY, this kind of field trialing became very popular and very well attended. Why do I say sadly — simply because it is frightening to think that the future of our bird dogs could be influenced by such bizarre goings-on.

I do not wish to demean these events as folly, but would hope that some better judgment could be employed to create a contest more geared to placing a premium on the dog’s inherent qualities that are passed on in the genes. It is frightening to think that the original weekend field trial that was a most effective beginning place for the newcomer has deteriorated into this kind of event. Those trials where we first began our bird dog experiences have to be resurrected. They were a great place for newcomers to learn every aspect of the field trial experience — handling, judging, marshaling, field trial administration, wise choice of prospects, and the great pleasure of camaraderie and good sportsmanship. To validate this point, I know for a fact there are folks out there right now who are putting on and/or judging field trials that arc not familiar with the Minimum Requirements, who have never read the booklet “Guidelines to Judicial Practice and Field Trial Procedure:’ A good working knowledge of all of the aforementioned should be required of anyone serving in these capacities. Unbelievably, many newcomers feel they have the wherewithal to start at the top; Once they have been around for awhile, they will come to realize, as most of us have, that any early success they enjoy as competitors is no doubt due to a talented and precocious dog rather than to their own effectiveness in showing it.


The rebuttal from NSTRA's President was also published and is online at http://www.nstra.org/region_president_letter.htm As with any publication in the good ol USA, they have a right to publish it and we all have a right to read it, agree/disagree with it, purchase it, respond to it, etc. Many have said "we all should just get along", that would be great, but it is not going to happen as long as people are allowed to have and voice their own opinions. I personally look at it this way. Anyone can say what they want, if facts are not correct (which only SOME of his were not - a majority of it is correct) those facts should be corrected. I believe the NSTRA rebuttal did that. It is up to the reader to agree or disagree and move on.

[romeo212000]

So what are some controversial things you think he got right?

[snips]

II cannot remember how much money AF lost on each paid trial announcement NSTRA paid them, but I know when NSTRA pulled their support it had to hurt them in a big way. IMO, it is their low class attempt to get back for loosing all that money. A game is a game and it does them NO GOOD to be bashing others games. They were'nt complaining and bashing when they were cashing those big checks.

[gunner]

Thanks for posting the article.

It was not written by the editor or staff of the American Field, the Field Dog Stud Book, nor a representative of the Amateur Field Trial Clubs of America, but by an individual thats been around the sport for a considerable amount of time as a breeder, amateur handler, professional trainer and club official.

I read articles everyday in the newspapers, magazines, and internet bulletin boards where folks can and do print things important to them. I may not agree with them, I see bias and often incorrect information and deliberate misinformation.
It's one's right to free speech.

Lots of feelings were hurt when the Field (Field Dog Stud Book) & the Amateur Field Trial Clubs of America decided not to
recognize NSTRA championships. Lots of animosity.
It wasn't so long ago some NSTRA members were posting on various gun dog sites that the split up between the Field, FDSB and the AFTCA was because those organization's boards had been infiltrated by animal rights operatives. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As the article pointed out there are major differences between shoot to retrieve trials and the traditional venues, many old time trialers and bird hunters wondered why the split took as long as it did to occur.

[Grange]

Thanks PntrRookie for the article. There does seem to be an overly negative tone to the article.

[snips]

I might add they decided not to recognize them, after they were recognizing them for 2 yrs under the format they agreed on.

[PntrRookie]

Gunner well put...article was NOT written by an American Field employee. It could have been listed under "My Opinion" or "Letter to the Editor"

Romeo...I guess it depends on what each individual considers to be controversial. I will only put here what I think he got completely wrong - NOT just something that is his opinion...because he is entitled to that (in my opinion)...

"with every effort made to shoot and kill every bird that a dog comes in Contact with, regardless of how the contact was handled. If ol’ Sport knocks and chases it. no mat ter. BOOM! Dead bird. “Sport, fetch it here:’ " - WRONG...bumped birds are NOT shot

"can even call a dog off of a point and guide it elsewhere" - WRONG...every pointed bird is to be worked and shot, NO calling a dog off an established point

What else does he state that is FACTUALLY incorrect, and not just his opinion? I honestly may have missed more...???

[Duane M]

Thats been my first oppurtunity to read the article and outside the use of the term bloodbath and some semantics I truly fail to see what has some so up in arms. I do not run NSTRA but have watched a few as well as talked to MANY who run in them. Oddly things like this:

"with every effort made to shoot and kill every bird that a dog comes in Contact with, regardless of how the contact was handled. If ol’ Sport knocks and chases it. no mat ter. BOOM! Dead bird. “Sport, fetch it here:’ " - WRONG...bumped birds are NOT shot

Some say this does not happen I have seen with my own eyes at two local events. No the dogs were not rewarded the points but how about some honesty here folks, that scenario does happen. How often I do not know but if a very seldom viewer such as myself has seen it how is it that you who are regulars say it does not? Interesting and quite curious.

What he states of the end of the weekend trials demise is partially true as well, yet I am not gonna go off the dep end of name calling that I have read. The demise came when the Amatuer handlers in reality were 90% of the time merely the owners of a dog on a pros string and that dog was also running in the Open class, and winning in both. The walking stakes became in reality a place where a few select handlers would run 18 of the 20 SD in the trial and just as high a percentage of the Derbys. Broke derbys also have hurt the game and from what I have seen been the cause of far too many very nice dogs being washed out from the opressure put on two year olds to have the manners of a more mature dogs, thats why I will not run derby stakes, I want my dogs judged on a true as written derby standard not a SD standsard.That has changed little as has the so called Amatuers situation.

I know lots of guys who used to run weekend walking stakes and those reasons are why they quit and did not come back, that and judging that many times was far more political than reality. Not a one of those guys went to NSTRA either instead a few of these folks hold their own events every fall here locally which is as the original NBHA was. They shoot a bird or two, require a good retreive and run on grounds you would actually hunt wild birds on, not a slightly overgrown golf course. But they also expect the manners a true trial dog should have, not merely a hutning dog broke performance which most any decently raised, well bred dog can put on. While these trials are not sanctioned by anyone they also fill up each time they run, the one this past November the week before bird season started, was full for three straight days I know because I judged for a day at it. There is interest in other words but until the higher officers begin to look at the well being of the game and not just at their own personal interest the weekend trial will continue to decline. Mind you this stating of issues with weekend stakes is being typed by an officer in the local walking club. We have improved in the more local clubs but there are other clubs who still have not realized they are only hurting themselves and the tradition of true trials all for a plaque.

[romeo212000]

Let's go one step further to point out a little information he omits to try and make his point. He states that where Shoot to Retrieve trials are different from his preferred format because his format actually promotes the growth of bird populations, but states that the Shoot to Retrieve trials are a "blood bath" because every bird that is come in contact with is shot, which leads into his lie of a statement that all birds are shot no matter what. What the writer fails to mention is the birds used in the trials are pen raised birds, raised for exactly these purposes and for training. By failing to mention this he makes it sound as though Shoot to Retrieve trials are out there every weekend destroying the wild bird population wherever they set foot. If this was not the autor's intention then he is clearly saying that the use and shooting of pen raised birds is the cruel "blood bath" of which he speaks. I am quite certain he has used pen raised birds to train dogs.

[romeo212000]

Thats been my first oppurtunity to read the article and outside the use of the term bloodbath and some semantics I truly fail to see what has some so up in arms. I do not run NSTRA but have watched a few as well as talked to MANY who run in them. Oddly things like this:

"with every effort made to shoot and kill every bird that a dog comes in Contact with, regardless of how the contact was handled. If ol’ Sport knocks and chases it. no mat ter. BOOM! Dead bird. “Sport, fetch it here:’ " - WRONG...bumped birds are NOT shot

Some say this does not happen I have seen with my own eyes at two local events. No the dogs were not rewarded the points but how about some honesty here folks, that scenario does happen. How often I do not know but if a very seldom viewer such as myself has seen it how is it that you who are regulars say it does not? Interesting and quite curious.

I can tell you I have not seen this happen, and if it has it should not have. In fact a handler could get disciplined for doing this very thing. You may have seen it happend but if I were the judge that handler would get one warning and if I ever saw that happen again even at another trial I would be doing my part to make sure the handler felt the consequences for it.

[kninebirddog]

Not sure what transpired in the trials you watched But if a handler shoots at a bird which has Not benn scored on that was a wild flush ..they can get written up for it in Shoot to retrieve

now there are situations where a scored on bird is taken out ....so that it can not be rescored on later

running in the field ...there again there are rules in NSTRA against it and I as a Judge will not tolerate a handler and will warn a handler to keep it at a fast walk or I will take bird work away No if ands or buts

anyways

Even though the editor didn't write the article he did allow it to be printed and sent out which again ...The reason there are different games is to appeal to different people

Hearts Spades Poker Black jack Go fish War all the dfferent Solitaire games....what good would it be to call them different names if you had to play by the same rules to all of the games reason they are different is have something different to do they are all played with the same deck of cards one game is not better then the next they are different different base sets different goals to win different rules .....They are all there cause it gives more to do .....

[Duane M]

Romeo see there is one problem I have seen time and again. Now I KNOW this will be taken as a personal attack and am willing to accept that without crying to anyone about it. While I have readily seen competitors in AF and AKC trials admit that there are issues to be dealt with the same has not been the case with NSTRA folks. Seems odd that one group admits to some issues yet another acts as if their event is good as gold. Sorry folks my eyes don't lie neither do the people who have told me of themselves AND dogs being hit and no discipline to the offending shooter nor anything about an eye injury a little while back. Like I have said ya run what ya like, I could care less, but at least be honest that your events are not near as perfect and without flaw as you would like the non NSTRA public to beleive at times.


Moderator edited for offensive language. ..."pear"

[kninebirddog]

Lets just say No event is perfect

I will not say stuff doesn't happen

My good friend about lost his life at an AKC trial when his horse fell over when he was trying to get up to his dog on point severe internal injuries
in the Brittany wrld ask paul Dorian what it is like when you land in the hospital when lightning strikes and kills the other judge and 2 horses

In over 10 years I have been pelleted by 1 BB in a NSTRA trial

I know one judge got shot ...and had he been with the dog he was supposed to be judging not trying to watch the other dog driving around the field to get to that other dog he wouldn't have been shot as the handler knew where his judge was but the wounds were not even close to being life threatening

So....I am not posting this to say one is better then another ...I am posting to show that any venue we chose to do is not free of issues

[Greg Jennings]

IMHO, need to take "Conservation" off the conversation table.

For the overwhelming part, game bird conservation is about habitat. Habitat in the large, not habitat in the small.

Pen birds liberated at AKC/AF FT events are, for the overwhelming part, predator/scavenger food within a couple of days if not hours. They do not know how to escape predators nor do they even know how to forage for food.

[shorthairguy]

Im sure not every trial goes off without any issues. As with any organizations it is not perfect, I can say though when we have brought issues up they are heard and sometimes rules are changed. No one here that I have read so far is saying NSTRA is perfect as with any organization. The thread was about a publication/organization openly slamming a fellow organization.

[scott townsend]

Romeo see there is one problem I have seen time and again. Now I KNOW this will be taken as a personal attack and am willing to accept that without crying to anyone about it. While I have readily seen competitors in AF and AKC trials admit that there are issues to be dealt with the same has not been the case with NSTRA folks. Seems odd that one group admits to some issues yet another acts as if their event is good as gold. Sorry folks my eyes don't lie neither do the people who have told me of themselves AND dogs being hit and no discipline to the offending shooter nor anything about an eye injury a little while back. Like I have said ya run what ya like, I could care less, but at least be freakin honest that your events are not near as perfect and without flaw as you would like the non NSTRA public to beleive at times.

Duane I doubt there is anyone that will claim any format is without it problems. What may be happening with people preceiving these so called knocked birds being shot. This bird could have already been scored on in that brace, so if you did not see that bird get scored the first time you may have interpreted it as a knocked bird being shot.
I have run no less then a thousand braces in this format and have seen a knocked bird be shot twice. It was in the same brace,that person was warned the first time and received a one year suspension for it after he did it again.

Bottom line if you don't know the rules to the game, it is not hard to misinterpret what really happened out there on that field.

[romeo212000]

Romeo see there is one problem I have seen time and again. Now I KNOW this will be taken as a personal attack and am willing to accept that without crying to anyone about it. While I have readily seen competitors in AF and AKC trials admit that there are issues to be dealt with the same has not been the case with NSTRA folks. Seems odd that one group admits to some issues yet another acts as if their event is good as gold. Sorry folks my eyes don't lie neither do the people who have told me of themselves AND dogs being hit and no discipline to the offending shooter nor anything about an eye injury a little while back. Like I have said ya run what ya like, I could care less, but at least be honest that your events are not near as perfect and without flaw as you would like the non NSTRA public to beleive at times.


Moderator edited for offensive language. ..."pear"

Please show me in any of my posts where I said NSTRA was without problems? We bring rules to a vote all the time on things that need to be changed. There is at least one rule I personally would like to see changed in NSTRA. But I'm not going to stop running the venue because of it. I adjust myself to that rule and if the opportunity ever arises to contribute to changing that rule I will play my part.

[Sharon]

As romeo asked earlier:

He got this right:

"Those trials where we first began our bird dog experiences have to be resurrected. They were a great place for newcomers to learn every aspect of the field trial experience — handling, judging, marshaling, field trial administration, wise choice of prospects, and the great pleasure of camaraderie and good sportsmanship. " Quote

[wems2371]

I'm going to guess that there is enough evaluation and discussions among participants within these organizations who actually play the individual games...............that people from the outside don't need to be throwing stones. Kind of the clean up your own room before you try to clean up mine. If they're happy with their game, what do the rest of you care?

Hearts Spades Poker Black jack Go fish War all the dfferent Solitaire games....what good would it be to call them different names if you had to play by the same rules to all of the games reason they are different is have something different to do they are all played with the same deck of cards one game is not better then the next they are different different base sets different goals to win different rules .....They are all there cause it gives more to do .....

I tend to avoid these "who's doggie game is better than who's" threads, and like Knines analogy. IMO the stone throwing seems shameful and leaves a bad taste, for anyone like myself, who is new and yet to participate in either venue. In regards to the article, is there a reason that the publication doesn't have enough to write about (or publish) about their own venue--in that they have to publish a critique of someone elses game? :roll: :roll: :roll: Denise

[romeo212000]

As romeo asked earlier:

He got this right:

"Those trials where we first began our bird dog experiences have to be resurrected. They were a great place for newcomers to learn every aspect of the field trial experience — handling, judging, marshaling, field trial administration, wise choice of prospects, and the great pleasure of camaraderie and good sportsmanship. " Quote

I dont disagree with that. That is one of the few statements I actually agree with. But I would not call that a controversial statement.

[scott townsend]

I like a lot of people was offended by this article. I sent my emails to AF like hundreds of others did, but I also took the time to call the person that wrote the article.Mr. Gerry MacKenzie. When I called I didn't want the conversation to turn into anything ugly, I never raised my voice, I never condemed him for his opinion. In my mind I was wanting to learn what kind,and how much experience with NSTRA he had to base his statements about NSTRA on.He informed me that he had never participated in a NSTRA trial,but he had attended ONE and watched from the side line, in southern Illinois. I asked him if he thought that was enough experience to make those kinds of calls.He answered yes. I asked if he had bothered to read the rule book before printing his article.His answer was No. I tried to explain to him that most of his claims were spelled out in the rule book that they were against the rules. Mr MacKenzie then started to get angry and loud.His next statement was pretty much short and to the point. His exact words were, "Hey F you,M F er, you don't know who your F ing with ".
And of course he hung up after that. A real class act. This man claims to be a field trialer and a pro dog trainer and worst of all a writer.

[Dave Quindt]

The thread was about a publication/organization openly slamming a fellow organization.

And this is part of the problem; the "publication/organization" never "slammed" anyone. They printed an opinion piece freely submitted by a subscriber. Then they printed responses and criticisms from a number of people about a number of issues, above and beyond the NSTRA thing.

Some of what Mr MacKenzie wrote was correct, IMO; we have lost a lot of the weekend trials that made it easy for the "newbie" to get into the game. Dog clubs have abandoned their training sessions and "outreach" programs to local sportsmen to focus on nothing but trialing and trialers. For a variety of reasons, some We have championship stakes like crazy, but those are best suited for the hard core guys, and the folks who have lots of time and $$ to play the game. The weekend trials have been replaced, to some degree, with other "non-traditional" dog games, from the "find, flush and shoot" type deals up to NSTRA.

I think a lot of you jumped to the conclusion that "ha, this is AF trashing NSTRA" or " the almighty horseback guys are trashing walking trials" - that is the furthest thing from the truth.

JMO,
Dave

[gunner]

Mr. Townsend there's always two sides of a story. Those of us reading your interpretation were not privy to the actual phone conversation. Funny though how one can usually sum up a callers intent.

I'll ask Mr. McKenzie what his thoughts were regarding the conversation the next time I see him.

I think if you'd written or emailed him he would have responded kindly.

I'm not sure if McKenzie reads these bulletin boards. Like most of us he'd probably not like to be called "a clown" as one writer seems to find delight in his postings of his description of Mr. McKenzie.

Veiled ad baculum edited by Greg

[Ruffshooter]

Too bad we need to settle this in a bar fight. (Supports Mr. Townsends exerience) Give me a break. Mr. Townsend seemed decent in his approach, giving Mr. MacKenzie an opportunity to discuss his opinion piece, And to educate Mr. MacKenzie. Mr. MacKenzie seems to have not responded with the same decency (if protrayed accurately) which kind of supports his manner and apparent bias in the article.

The editor and publication has the right to print or not to print anything in the magazine. They chose to print this piece for better or in my opinion worse.

OFF TOPIC HERE.
One thing I think NSTRA could do better is the final use of the birds. Many of the trials use up the birds for dinners or folks take some home but I have seen many other times when they have not. It seems to me that we could clean the birds and give them to a soup kitchen or something. (I would think the NSTRA officials should address this and make a policy). In Canadian NSTRA, when I attend those trials or even at our NAVHDA events, I have cleaned the birds my self for snacking at the event.

[Greg Jennings]

I've edited on this thread some to cut the emotive content. People need to stay away from it till they can keep their posting rational and informational.

[Duane M]

Duane I doubt there is anyone that will claim any format is without it problems. What may be happening with people preceiving these so called knocked birds being shot. This bird could have already been scored on in that brace, so if you did not see that bird get scored the first time you may have interpreted it as a knocked bird being shot.
I have run no less then a thousand braces in this format and have seen a knocked bird be shot twice. It was in the same brace,that person was warned the first time and received a one year suspension for it after he did it again.

Bottom line if you don't know the rules to the game, it is not hard to misinterpret what really happened out there on that field.

Scott just so ya know I do know the rules of your game very well and have studied the rule book as at one time I had considered running in it before I started in NBHA trials. Further two of the people I mentioned earlier both have NSTRA Ch dogs, one has multiple CH and I think they know what they speak of pretty well. Considering that one of the offenses I mention seeing I was accompanied by one of these people I believe I speak the truth on what I saw. Now if ya wanna stay with your claim of only seeing such an incident twice in no less than 1000 braces ya do that I nor anyone else could prove otherwise the same as you cannot prove I did not witness what I have seen at NSTRA events.

I still however stand that what Mr. McKenzie stated was not far from reality in many aspects and that I have read far worse horse manure slung at AF and AKC trialers on these boards over the years than what he wrote. Some by NSTRA folks, some by people who support NSTRA much more just beacuse it supposedly proves a dog will retreive and as such is closer to hunting. I felt he summed up and "attacked" more the AF people than he did the NSTRA people to be honest about it.

[snips]

In my experience, whoever runs NSTRA has their reasons they enjoy it and same with other venues. Does no good to thrash it out over what is wrong with each venue, as they ALL have their drawbacks, for sure! Nothing is perfect. I have a big problem with someone coming out in a publication running down what someone else does with their weekends. I just cannot see this ever happening in the NSTRA magazine, and very surprised the Am Field ALLOWED it to happen. I don't care WHO wrote it. Be-littleing another sport people participate in with their dogs is a pretty "little", no class thing to do...IMO.

[scott townsend]

quote="Dave Quindt"]

The thread was about a publication/organization openly slamming a fellow organization.

And this is part of the problem; the "publication/organization" never "slammed" anyone. They printed an opinion piece freely submitted by a subscriber. Then they printed responses and criticisms from a number of people about a number of issues, above and beyond the NSTRA thing.

Some of what Mr MacKenzie wrote was correct, IMO; we have lost a lot of the weekend trials that made it easy for the "newbie" to get into the game. Dog clubs have abandoned their training sessions and "outreach" programs to local sportsmen to focus on nothing but trialing and trialers. For a variety of reasons, some We have championship stakes like crazy, but those are best suited for the hard core guys, and the folks who have lots of time and $$ to play the game. The weekend trials have been replaced, to some degree, with other "non-traditional" dog games, from the "find, flush and shoot" type deals up to NSTRA.

I think a lot of you jumped to the conclusion that "ha, this is AF trashing NSTRA" or " the almighty horseback guys are trashing walking trials" - that is the furthest thing from the truth.

JMO,
Dave

Dave,let me start by saying this. What I wrote in my previous post is the truth.I have absolutly no reason to say anything different, not a thing to gain from it.The point I was wanting to make is the attitude of the person that wrote it.If Mr MacKenzie would have said anything different I would have gladly added it to the post.

Now with that said,anyone can read his article and interpret that as an insulting slam on the NSTRA org. Insinuating that these type of formats have led to the demise of the AF trials.

The AF is not to blamed for what MacKenzie wrote.But they ARE responsible for what gets put in their magazine.Do you think the AF would have allowed those type of statements to be printed in their magazine if it was slamming the AKC org?Do you think they would print an article I wrote slamming the AF?Maybe but I highly doubt it. They allowed that to go to print for a reason.

My personal opinion on the AF printing the rebuttal from the NSTRA org. was done, only because of the tons of angry emails they received. This went through the NSTRA org like a fire.
What just absolutly blows me away is the AF never stopped to think that most of those upset people( And they had to know that it was gonna set people off) send them money every time they register a dog or litter, order a pedigree or buy a subscription.Again just my opinion but after that sank in ,then they printed the rebuttel.

[Blue Briar]

In my experience, whoever runs NSTRA has their reasons they enjoy it and same with other venues. Does no good to thrash it out over what is wrong with each venue, as they ALL have their drawbacks, for sure! Nothing is perfect. I have a big problem with someone coming out in a publication running down what someone else does with their weekends. I just cannot see this ever happening in the NSTRA magazine, and very surprised the Am Field ALLOWED it to happen. I don't care WHO wrote it. Be-littleing another sport people participate in with their dogs is a pretty "little", no class thing to do...IMO.

Well said!


I thought the reasons we join forums and or read magazines was because of our common commitement we have for our dogs and for improving the breed and not for the purpose knocking what someone else chooses to participate in. Although AF did not write this article I pesonally feel this was bad judgement on their part to publish it. JMO

[Neil Mace]

Mr. Gerry MacKenzie is a pro thrainer/handler and an excellent reporter. I think the NSTRA slam should have been edited out, but it was a small part of the two part article, and AF did print the rebuttal.

I think you all are a bit too sensitive. It is just one guy's opinion in a periodical that is unlikely to be read by anyone that would even consider running in NSTRA. So few of you subscribe someone have to post the articles for you. I fail to see the real harm. It had some minor errors, but come on, it was less than 2% of what was written.

To claim that shooting every bird that is pointed is not a form of a "blood bath" is less than honest. You guys need to understand that it does bother some folks to kill that many birds and fill up trash cans, me for example. I understand that most of the birds we release for AKC/AF will soon die, but they do have something more of a chance than being chased about a 40 acre field with loaded guns. If it bothers me, a hunter, think about the AR people.

Neil

[snips]

Sounds like you are the sensitive one.

[Maurice]

I read the article when it came out in the field, agreed with most of it.. We use to have 20 local trials in sc each year, now very few. It seems more classics and championships nowadays. What was written about nstra being a blood sport I don't agree with.. Probably 95% of released quail at field trials and hunt test will be dead within 1 week, cold wet weather will kill most in a day or 2, varmits will get the rest in short order. That's how I see it in my part of the country.

Maurice

[Rob]

I don't have an affiliation with either group. But in my opinion anything that even remotely portrays anything we do as a bloodsport is terrible for the sport and hunters in general.

Rob

[slistoe]

Sounds like you are the sensitive one.

Methinks you are the defensive one.

[scott townsend]

I think you all are a bit too sensitive. It is just one guy's opinion in a periodical that is unlikely to be read by anyone that would even consider running in NSTRA. So few of you subscribe someone have to post the articles for you. I fail to see the real harm. It had some minor errors, but come on, it was less than 2% of what was written.

Neil[quote]

Come one Neil, If a NSTRA member that has never even entered a horse back stake or walking for that matter, were to print an article of negitive,misleading to outright false information,downgrading the both the people and the game (Like your man MacKenzie did)of the AF,you guys wouldn't be on here trying to set the record straight.Then we could be on here claiming you are a bit too sensitive.

I will give you this much though. At least you have admitted it is exactly what it was ment to be. A Slam, and that it should have been editted. It had more then some minor errors though. It was based on mostly flat out untruths.
So this leads me back to my original question. Why do you suppose it was NOT editted out???

I don't participate in the horseback trials, been to several,its holds no real interest to me, not what I want out of my dogs.But I don't think there is a thing wrong with it.Certainly don't know enough about it to even begin to debate the demise of it. But with that said, I would never want to see it go away.It is a great test of the dogs.
It does no one any good to condemn any of the other venues.MacKenzie was way out of line with that article.

[Greg Jennings]

Come on, folks.

Keep the "you're too", "you're the one that" barbs out of this. Likewise, keep the emotionally charged phrases out. Have a rational, informational debate or stay away from the thread.

My problem with the original article was two-fold: 1) Use of emotionally charged phrases like "blood bath" and 2) An "Us versus Them" attitude.

With respect to 1): I think the demerits of using emotionally charged language in the context of what should be a rational debate is pretty obvious from the way this thread has gone.

With respect to 2): "Us versus Them" is quite obviously self defeating. If somone wants a productive discussion on the loss of weekend field trialers, they shouldn't distract from the thesis by taking a tangent to point out what they don't enjoy about the alternate format that has been growing. IMHO, they ought to stay focused on righting their own ship.

Keep in mind when you read this that I, myself, do not run NSTRA. I also don't, personally, enjoy competing in the format. But, I have friends that do, and I have very much enjoyed the camaraderie when I have helped put on a NSTRA trial.

[Mike Clutter]

It was an OPINION piece. All newspapers and magazines run them and the field is no different. Do I agree with the whole article? no. Was the rest of the article informative? yes. I've been involved in both venues. And I can say from MY experience The NSTRA folks I've been around don't have a whole lot favorable to say about other forms of field trialing either. So What! you do your thing we'll do ours and we agree to disagree. The last time i checked we were allowed to have our own opinion without fear of persecution. the last time i checked. It's one guy and the only difference is his opinion got printed.
Somewhere along the line having an opinion became a bad thing, and voicing it in a public arena became even worse. Sad and scary.

[ezzy333]

It was an OPINION piece. All newspapers and magazines run them and the field is no different. Do I agree with the whole article? no. Was the rest of the article informative? yes. I've been involved in both venues. And I can say from MY experience The NSTRA folks I've been around don't have a whole lot favorable to say about other forms of field trialing either. So What! you do your thing we'll do ours and we agree to disagree. The last time i checked we were allowed to have our own opinion without fear of persecution. the last time i checked. It's one guy and the only difference is his opinion got printed.
Somewhere along the line having an opinion became a bad thing, and voicing it in a public arena became even worse. Sad and scary.

The thing that is forgotten is that everyone has this right and not just the ones you agree with. Some have the opinion the article was bad, some think it was good, and a whole bunch think it was unnecessary at the least to be printed in a field dog publication.

Truth is there is no right or wrong but if we are to continue to prosper we better be concerned how our spoken and written word is recived by the listener and reader. And unless everyone gets off their own little box and get on the bandwagon we have accomplished nothing and have just aided those who would like to bring our sport a little closer to its demise.

Everyone needs to become part of the solution and not continue to promote the problem with onesided opinions thrown up into the wind where we don't know where they will settle.

Ezzy