I am game - may I start with a few suggestions?

[Prue Winkfield]

Sorry guys but still can't come at being able to win an unlimited number of novice or retricted. What is the point if it is not to trophy hunt? What are you trying to achieve exactly? If it is trying to keep people in the sport and encourage new people, I think it will do the exact opposite. With time and cost pressures increasing probably twice as fast as the complexity of our trials, people will not keep coming if they know they have very little chance of winning. Now Novice people can say, once so and so has gone on to Restricted/AA, we will have a hope of winning and getting those magic letters after the dog's name. The same applies to RRD. By all means go the unregulated way as graeme suggested but put in a pass system of some sort for the title and then have stake winners. That would probably keep most people happy. Still keep the wins for RtCh though.

[Robert Tawton]

Hi All,

Let me say from the outset I have yet to come to a firm decision on this aspect, nevertheless, I am watching the debate with much interest. As I ponder the pros and cons, I thought it might be useful to reflect a little on past history to see if there are any lessons to be learned!

Prior to the 1999 Rule Review, the situation was that dogs were permitted to win only one Novice Stake before they were automatically up-graded to Restricted level. Equally, dogs had to have won three Restricted Stakes, an All Age Stake or have been place first or second in a Championship before being automatically up-graded to All Age level (this remains current requirement),

In 1999 the cry was, "that Restricted is too hard, that just one Novice win is not sufficient to prepare a dog for Restricted Stakes and because of this we are losing people from the sport". The majority decision was to amend the Rules and permit dogs to win three Novice events before they are automatically up-graded to Restricted level. The NRD and RRD tiles were also introduced. What has been the outcome of this change? In general, handlers are staying in Novice longer in order to get their three wins. In most States the number of competitors in Restricted has fallen because the pool of Restricted dogs is being depleted quicker than it is being topped up by dogs progressing from Novice level. The reduced numbers in Restricted has, in my view, led somewhat to a lowering of the standard, or alternatively the standard of our Restricted dogs has not progressed in keeping with that now achieved in All Age and Championship events. So today the cry is, " that All Age is too hard for our Restricted dogs (despite having three wins) and that because of this we are losing people from the sport." These is an even smaller body of opinion that thinks Restricted is too hard despite the opportunity for three wins at Novice level. Where does it end and what is the solution?

In every sport where will be a level of attrition for a whole raft of reasons. I do not think the level of attrition we are experiencing is of concern, but rather for long-term survivability our focus should be on attracting newcomers to the sport! Social attitudes to firearms and hunting, the attitude of civil authorities toward dog owners, the loss of training grounds due to urban growth and limited or no support from our controlling bodies are key factors influencing the long-term future of our sport. I do not have a ready solution for solving these complex issues, but it behoves us all to try and find viable outcomes.

Is increasing the number of wins permitted in either (or both) Novice and Restricted the right solution? This approach cetainly does not have Prue's support (see her earlier post) for a range of well argued reasons. Running Restricted Sweepstakes is an approach explored in NSW and the ACT, but it does disadvantage those competitors seeking to gain their three wins. Perhaps the solution lies in recognising a new class of entrant called a "non-competing dog". Dogs in this class must have attained their three wins in Novice and/or Restricted (as appropriate) but are not eligible for a prize or trophy and would not be entitled to any reduction in the entry fee. If accepted, this approach would not deter or affect other competitors in the relevant Stake, but would provide the handler with the opportunity to run their dog until they were comfortable with the prospect of competing in the higher class. The fact that they were no longer eligible for a prize or trophy would provide a positive incentive for moving up to the next higher Stake. Introducing and/or accepting the concept of an All Age Retriever dog would also provide goal for the less confident to stay in the sport.

BFN, RWT

[Maureen Cooper]

Had a lot of catching up to do with this topic and interesting to sort through the comments.

First of all, NRD's and RRD's came in long before 1999, I have just checked with my ACT State win in 1991 and on the certificate Jay had her NRD and RRD at that time and I think they came in about 1988 or so and two wins were required in Novice until 1999 when it became three. As a breeder I have numerous certificates from dogs I have bred with NRD's etc back to the early 90's.

I dont really think Restricted runs have got harder, there have always been judges who have put on tougher tests and though they might come as a shock to a newcomer to the Stake I have always welcomed them as being more of a stepping stone to All Age.

The comment re qualifying one to run in a Championship with one win has long been stated with some judges. I think it should be remembered that when people enter Championships, they are usually well aware of the ability of their dog and that it might not have a snowball in h...s chance but some people want to be able to say they ran in the Stake and this might hold true for more than you think! Dont forget these folks are also paying from $30 - $50 to run their dog and in a National just 20 of them contributes $1000 to the kitty, the sport is for everyone not just a bunch of elite handlers! By losing out on these entries, clubs would need to work even harder to raise money.

Agree with Gareth's comment on no birds as when judging a stake, a dog might get a good look at a bird so the judge makes the decision to let the dog retrieve even if the fall is not quite the same. As he says, most bird stewards are instructed when to call a no bird. I think Julie's point on bird colour was relative to one made by Jack Lynch in another topic and that is that in a stake, especially a Championship one, unfair advantage is given to the dog who gets a near white bird as opposed to the dog who gets a dark one and though we may not have a choice when we buy our birds we should ensure all bird colours are equal and any white birds could be used for a blind.

Rob, loved your piece about the Double mark progressing to a Double rise and mark, long or short. I start the concept with slippers/shoes too!! End up with a pile along the back of the sofa!! Getting a bit hard now with 4 dogs in the house at night!

I would like to see a limit to relocations, loved Joe Laws comment about the dog needing a knowlege of trigonometry! Good to see we can have a sense of humour despite our problems in the sport.

I also love the idea of being able to compete non competing in Restricted and have done so several times as my dog got out of the Stake far too soon and I well recall having a GREAT day with Rob Tawton as the obliging Restricted judge when I could have had an awful one when I went out on the first AA run... again!! There are a lot of plus's to this idea and I have no objection to paying to run my dog when there is no trophy available to me.

TTFN
Maureen

[Maureen Cooper]

Forgot to add my training tip to any newbies to Restricted, when you are training a mark and blind concept, we get the dog to pick up the mark first and then the blind and then we REVERSE it and collect the blind first etc. It might be necessary to do the run with the mark first twice before reversing but also we usually set up the blind first anyway and run that a couple of times before adding the mark. I fell into a big hole with my first dog as she had always picked up the blind first in Restricted and suddenly the opposite nearly always happened in AA.

Maureen

[Gareth Tawton]

Maureen/ Bob,

Personally I don't have any problem with allowing people to run as "non competing". However, I do think you have forgotten one important issue. If you look at this on a national basis, we have a number of states who struggle to get the minimum number of dogs to allow a restricted stake to proceed. If we let dogs compete for longer it will be easier for those states to actually run the stakes. Non competing dogs will not be considered an entry and therefore this method would not assist clubs struggling to get a field.

Also given that the gap between AA and Rest is already so large woudn't we be better to try to increase the standard of dogs winning at Restricted. This will be achieved by letting dogs stay longer and competing

If as it appears the majority of people agree with the idea of allowing handlers to stay in restricted longer. Do people think the better option is to be non competing or allowed another couple of wins?

If we do not have some consensus of opinion and some "give and take" once again we will end up with no rule change at all !!!

Gareth

[Prue Winkfield]

Gareth - why would dogs competing for a highest scoring dog but not a win towards RRD not be counted. I thought NSW was doing this to make up numbers already? From various posts, the standard in Restricted is already high enough. If you want to do something, allow all the combinations you can have in AA - thought this was the case anyway - what can you do in AA but not in Restricted?

I am beginning to wonder what this whole debate is about! Is it about bringing new people into the sport and encouraging them to stay or is it all about changing the standard to which we judge for all stakes - (upwards!)? I think the Tawtons, Laws, etc are coming from a completely different place than the average person who wants to have fun with their dog and compete in activity for which the dog was originally bred! That is not to say I don't admire the fore mentioned people - I do but if that was all retrievering trials were about, I would take up bowls (perhaps I should anyway!).

[Kirsty Blair]

Hi Prue,

You can't do double falls in Restricted but they're permitted in All Age.

The current system running in NSW using non-competing dogs does not serve to make up numbers. We can only run a stake if there is a legitimate number of eligible dogs. The non-competing dogs tag onto the end of a stake if that stake is run. Most clubs are now running Restricted Sweepstakes which all dogs are eligible for, even if they have their RRD. A win in the sweepstakes will not give you any credit towards your title and these stakes serve purely as an opportunity to work a dog in the trialling environment.

I wouldn't mind an increase in the number of wins required before a dog is made ineligible for Restricted. This is provided that it still remains that 3 wins gives you your title and that a place in All Age renders you ineligible to compete in Restricted. Perhaps 10 wins is too many - maybe 5 would be a more reasonable number. This would ensure that the winners of Restricted are worthy winners, not just dogs that wait until its their "turn" in a very small field to get their wins.

As you say, Prue, most of the All Age runs are already found in Restricted in one form or another. However, I see Restricted as a stake which tests dogs' understanding of the concepts and foundations of All Age. A good judge will be able to readily pick a worthy winner from a Restricted field using straight forward runs testing these concepts. To me, but apparently no-one else on this site, Restricted shouldn't be about attempting to trick dogs with tight angles, multiple blinds before marks and splitting two-birds. And now I've said more words on a subject I promised I wouldn't revisit - slap on the wrist for me!

Good night
Kirsty

[Prue Winkfield]

Kirsty - your message and the one from SA just goes to show how different the states are and how different the issues are. In Vic our Restricted stakes are large - recently up to 21 dogs - many of them very good. So, I don't think I am the only person in Victoria who does not want to see ten wins in Restricted. Being able to stay in Restricted for ever is ideally what I, and others, would probably like and tagging on the end as non=competing is fine but don't know what our judges would think of that when they already have large fields. In the field trial scene WA has local events as they are not allowed to shoot quail - they have modified trials. Also in Tasmania, there was dispensation for Pointers and Setters to compete with Utility Gundogs (check Paul?). If so, why can't States introduce changes to suit their conditions as long as it does not affect the basic title ladder? Prue

[Kirsty Blair]

Hi Prue,

What conditions do you think have lead to the fact that Victoria has such a strong Restricted field? Perhaps there's something that we can learn in other states.

Kirsty

[Lisa-Maree Price]

There is a lot of talk about the pro's and cons of the Restricted stake. I am going to turn my attention onto the Novice stake. I have had 3 dogs in the Novice stake now.

I think you are more likely to lose people in the Novice stake. As experienced handlers are competing with less experienced handlers. I had a dog that completed every novice run for 3 and a half years and still did not get out of novice. As it would never come first in a Novice stake (VIC) with the dogs and handlers that have been placed in a Restricted stake and are also entering Novice.

I agree that if the dog has been placed in a restricted stake then it should no longer compete in a novice stake. This gives everyone a more positive experience.

If I was just in the sport to win and compete, I would no longer be in the sport today. I ended up getting sick of everyone telling me that at least you ended up completing the runs.

I have run dogs in two states now. In Queensland and Victoria. The only place I got was in Queensland. There was no way I could ever compete with the Restricted dogs in Victoria. Victoria would have to be the most competitive state out there.

This year I will be competing in NSW.

[Jason Ferris]

Lisa-maree

with the dogs and handlers that have been placed in a Restricted stake and are also entering Novice.

The situation you describe is contrary to the present rules - specifically

"103. The title of Novice Retrieving Trial Dog (N.R.D.) and/or Restricted Retrieving Trial Dog (R.R.D.) may be awarded to those dogs which are no longer eligible to compete in those stakes because of wins in those stakes or wins/placing in higher classes. (This Rule will be effective for dogs entering trials as from 1/1/1988 and those completing qualification after that date.)"

Cheers, Jason.

[Jason Ferris]

If we do not have some consensus of opinion and some "give and take" once again we will end up with no rule change at all !!!

Gareth

Given the polarity of views on this topic so far, I doubt we will reach consensus, however I think the non-competing dog option is a good compromise.

Several people have signalled that they would be happy to pay to run as non-competing to gain an opportunity to develop their dogs experience. I know I would be glad to, as the dog work is what is important to me not the trophies.

Another positive aspect of this option, particularly in states with low restricted entries, is that non-competing entries give trial managers the option of switching from a restricted stake to a sweepstake at the last minute if they don't get the required 4 dogs and 4 handlers. This way people can travel to a trial with confidence that they will get to run their dog even if it is only in a sweepstake. We have gone perilously close to cancelling some trials at the last minute due to bitches coming into season the day before etc, and having people already travelling and uncontactable.

I look forward to discussing this further at our ACT rule review meeting on Wednesday.

Cheers, Jason.

[Prue Winkfield]

Jason & Kirsty - once more I am confused! Looking at a schedule for the Lab Club Trial: 'A novice Stake is a stake confied to Gundogs that have not won any stake other then two novices'. This means a dog that has been placed in AA can still run Novice - and do. In fact I think you can still run in Novice if you have won two, and been placed 3rd in a Championship! In Restricted you can run as long as you have not won an AA or been placed first or second in a Championship. Don't know why things are stronger in Vic. It is cyclical to a point but the fact that we have a strong hunting tradition might help -it does with field trials but as retrieving does not have a lot to do with hunting - can't explain it! Most of our successful handlers - especially the men, do hunt ducks though. The change in standards has (in my opionion) conributed to the fall in numbers though - a few years ago we regularly got 40 odd dogs in Novice and I don't think we will ever see that again. For instance, if you go back 10 years there were a wide variety of breeds competing - especially in novice - most have dropped out now.
But Kirsty - the numbers of Goldens have risen enormously! Prue

[Jason Ferris]

Hi Prue

I realise it is happening, but it seems from rule 103 that a placing in a higher stake should mean the dog gets its NRD or RRD and is out of novice or restricted respectively.

If taken literally this rule could mean that a dog could win one Novice (thereby qualifying for AA), then run and place in AA and get its RRD without even having competed in restricted!

I didn't pick this up myself until I was doing the work on the review.

Cheers, Jason.

[Kirsty Blair]

Hi Jason and Prue,

I hope inconsistencies such as these, which are readily rectified, are addressed in the rule review. The NSW meeting is over but there is still opportunity for other states to raise this issue. It seems, in NSW and the ACT, we are assuming that triallers will do the right thing and move onto a higher stake when their dog is competitive in the higher stake. From what you are saying, Prue, this isn't happening in Victoria. I can't believe that a dog which has placed in AA is continuing to trial in Novice. WHY?

BFN
Kirsty