Rule change suggestions from SA

[Jason Ferris]

Hi all

The following suggested rule changes were sent to me by Sue Grant and are posted here at her request.

Cheers, Jason.

RULE CHANGES FOR 2004

QUALIFYING CERTIFICATE (Q.C.) AWARD

Rules 94, 95, and 100

Rule 94 - No changes

Rule 95 - No changes

Rule 100 - A Qualifying Certificate is not a prize or a title but may be awarded at the discretion of the Judge in any stake consisting of at least three (3) retrieves to dogs that have completed the stake to the Judge's satisfaction, having shown that they are under reasonable control and not 'hard-mouthed'

To become-:

Rule 100 - A Qualifying Certificate is an official addendum to the dogs registered name and may be awarded at the discretion of the Judge in any stake consisting of at least three (3) retrieves to dogs that have completed the stake to the Judge's satisfaction, having shown that they are under reasonable control and not 'hard-mouthed'. Three (3) satisfactorily completed trials under two (2) Judges are required. The letters 'Q.C.' may be added after the registered name of the dog

Rational:

In simple terms a QC is an award given to a dog if it completes a Novice Trial to the satisfaction of the Judge. Many gundog owners are breeding gundogs but for many and various reasons are not necessarily working them in Retrieving Trials or Field Trials Whilst this is regrettable, and we should encourage all gundogs to perform the tasks for which they are bred, it would appear unlikely that there will be an immediate upsurge of interest in the sport. However, many breeders, and prospective puppy buyers, still want to know, when choosing a stud dog, or selecting a puppy, that the working ability is there. The addition of QC on the official pedigree would be an indication of some measure of success in the field

A QC is awarded to a gundog and is unique to that group of breeds. It cannot be achieved by a breed other than a gundog

As a comparison to other disciplines, the additional of C.D. and C.D.X. and U.D. conferred in Obedience requires a pass, and not a win.

Similarly, T.D. and T.D.X. conferred in Tracking requires a pass and not a win

Similarly, J.D. and J.D.X.; A.D. and A.D.X. conferred in Jumping and Agility require a pass, and not a win

A comparison with an E.T. title is a further indication of the anomalies between the disciplines.

Future generations of breeders would undoubtedly wish to know which individuals had retained some of the working abilities, currently this is not possible.


ESTABLISHMENT OF RESTRICTED 'A'fter AND 'B'efore STAKES

Rules 36, 37 and 38

Rule 36 - Restricted Stake is a stake confined to gundogs that have not won three (3) restricted Stakes or an All Age Stake or been placed first or second in a Championship Stake

To Become-:

Rule 36 (a) - Restricted Stake 'B' is a stake confined to gundogs that have not won three (3) restricted Stakes or an All Age Stake or been placed first or second in a Championship Stake. N.B. Rule 51 applies

AND AN ADDITIONAL RULE INSERTED

Rule 36 (B) - Restricted Stake 'A' is a stake confined to gundogs that have attained the title of R.R.D. or better. It is to be conducted where practicable in conjunction with Restricted 'B' under identical trial conditions as those set down for Restricted 'B' but is a separate competition that carries no additional formal recognition.

Rule 37 - No changes

Rule 38 - No changes

Rational:

Historically there have been a number of handlers and dogs who have had neither the time or the inclination or the ability to aspire to compete in All Age Stakes. These people have dropped out, never to be seen again; once their dog has won it's way out of Restricted. There are currently a number of handlers who would be quite happy to compete in Restricted and do not wish to run in All Age Stakes

We have all seen, some having personally experienced the situation, when an inexperienced dog wins it's way out of Restricted due to the lack of numbers after just three trials, and then, having been forced up into All Age, doesn't pick up another bird all season. The following season the handler/dog combination may collect a few birds here and there but by then confidence has evaporated and the sport is no longer enjoyable. Hardly the way to encourage people to stay in the sport

Running non-competing is not all that enticing to some, they enjoy the element of competition against their peers. So the Restricted 'A' needs to be an official competition, conducted in conjunction with Restricted 'B', and not just some 'Mickey-Mouse' affair put on by the club conducting the trials as some sort of fund-raiser. Trophies could be confined to cash & sash to the winner, but club's could make their own decisions about that matter

If Restricted 'A' is established some handlers will eventually gain sufficient confidence to run in All Age Stakes, but until then they are denied any form of the sport, not up to All Age standard, but having attained R.R.D. and therefore 'out'

As a comparison to Obedience, Open 'A' and Open 'B' are well supported by triallers, many of whom have obtained U.D. titles, but still want to enjoy the sport at a lower level, why should we not offer the same incentive to our participants?

REMOVE OR RE-WORD RULE 90

Rule 90 conflicts with rule 23b

Rule 23 (b) - If any dog at any time picks up an article of game other than the nominated one it should be eliminated from further competition

Rule 90 - Dogs retrieving any feather or fur, other than the object designated to be retrieved, and deemed by the Judge to have been picked up in the area of the run, will be run again without penalty

To Become-:

Rule 90 - Dogs retrieving any feather or fur, deemed by the Judge to have been picked up in the area of the run, but excluding any deliberately placed additional item of game that is not to be retrieved [refer Rule 23 (a)] will be run again without penalty

Rational:

Rule 90 is in direct conflict with Rule 23 (b). Rule 90 was added at the 1999 Rule Change meeting in an attempt to overcome a difficulty, which occurred at the South Australian National Retriever Championship. The wording of this Rule requires amendment in order to become effective.

ALL DOGS TO ATTEMPT ALL RUNS UNDER TRIAL CONDITIONS

DEFINITION OF TERMS

General

(o) No Score - Where a dog has been marked "No Score", the dog may continue on the stake at the discretion of the Judge, but cannot be placed. In subsequent runs they must be run after competing dogs.

To Become:-

(o) No Score - Where a dog has been marked "No Score", the dog may continue on the stake at the discretion of the Judge, but cannot be placed.

Catalogue order/or order of running will be maintained in subsequent runs for all entrants. Subsequent runs will be judged and scored in the usual manner. The Trial Manager or Judge should provide reasonable justification for refusing

Rational:

In obedience competition the dog which zero (0) scores an exercise is entitled to complete the test, even though it cannot pass or gain a place. In Retriever trials, dogs that are unfortunate enough to fail the first run are out of the trial have no more sport available to them for the rest of the day.

Given the high cost involved in running a dog in retrieving we should be seen to be proving value for money. Handlers are seeking a meaningful run under trial conditions, continuing in the trial will provide valuable trial experience for both dog and handler, an experience which differs from a training session

Given the difficulty finding sufficient stewards to conduct a trial this would encourage competitors to stay

GRAND CHAMPION

Add to Rule 107 or insert new Rule (and therefore re-number Rule book)

107 (b)-: The title of Rt. Grand Champion may be awarded to any dog that achieves 100 Championship points, twelve (12) of which must be awarded in Championship stake competition

Rational:

This brings us in to line with the creation of Grand Championship in conformation and will be a just and fitting reward for outstanding achievement in the field. The requirement to win a championship outright or place second in two (2) championship stakes requires significant merit and ensures that the title of Grand Champion will not be obtained simply because the member state has fewer dogs in competition.

[Gareth Tawton]

Some food for thought from SA well done!

The restricted A and B option seems on face value to have quite some credibility. I'm sure I will stew on this idea over the next couple of days.

Personally, I like the idea of a Grand Rt Ch as a way to keep us inline with other parts of the dog fraternity. Would this be retrospective? If so in what way? Can a retired but alive dog now be awarded Grand Ch or only currently competing dogs? Are some of the fine tuning questions that need to be asked and answered. I also like the idea of recognizing some of our sports greats.

The one rule change I struggle with is all dogs allowed to complete all runs. In theory this is great and its reasons are commendable. Practically, I think it is unreasonable. Imagine if all dogs in AA at Easter were allowed to run in every run. You think we ran late at the Vic Champ last year, that would be nothing compared to every dog in every run at Easter. Although the idea is nice, on a national basis with large fields it is not realistic to me. Perhaps this change can be reworded to allow for those types of fields.

Gareth

[Annie Warner]

Hi Sue! (have you got email yet???)

Very much in favour of thr Restricted A & B submission.
One of the reasons people in Obedience enter in Open A even after they have the Open (CDX) title is to keep the dogs enthusiasm up by putting him in a stake/class that he knows he can do, as well as putting him in the harder (much) UD class. Nothing knocks a dogs confidence for six as much as failing trail after trial...handler too if it comes to that!
Also in favour of thr Gr Ch. title.
Hope some of the reps to the Rule change meetings pick up on these great suggestions coming out of this forum by the way.
(...and er yes I am missing not having a competing dog...)

annie

[Kerry Webster]

Hi Everyone,

I too can see merits in having a Restricted A and B stake. I also wonder if this option couldn't be offered for Novice, especially in states where Novice entries are at a low level. W.A. enjoys a very healthy Novice field, and I can't see a need in our case to apply an A & B stake, but, Restricted here, and probably in most states of Australia, has a lower level of entries (8 - 14 over here).

The suggestion of letting all dogs run in All Age runs after elimination has been an issue in our A/A trials here. Some clubs are allowing all dogs to attempt each run, even after being disqualified (ie: dogs receiving a No Score on a previous run). These dogs run at the end of the competing field, and generally, are allowed a shorter amount of time to complete the run. Often, one sector of a run will be omitted for these dogs, to save time.
Other times, the eliminated dogs will be allowed to attempt 3 out of the 4 runs, or 2 out of 3 runs, depending on time and light available. It has certainly helped in maintaining enthusiasm with both handlers and dogs.
For extremely large fields, I can see Gareth's point that time would not allow all the dogs to run.............but.......what if no dog had been eliminated in the first run ???? All the dogs would be running anyway, and unless Run One had been purposely designed to eliminate half the field, then the day's trial should have been set with the intent that all the dogs entered were going to finish all the runs.

Re Grand R.T. Champion - sounds like a good idea. Obedience doesn't have a Grand O.Champion, just Obedience Champion, and the show title of Grand Champion to my knowledge, requires 1000 points to be gained by the winning dog.

Also, Gareth, I think you will find that this title only applies to competing dogs now, not retired, or deceased dogs, so would probably have the same application for a retrieving G.Champion.

Kerry

[Gail Phoenix]

Thanks for some positive comments on SA's proposals. I am adding another as it has now been written up ready for comments. The trialers at the rule change meetings all agreed to putting our proposals on this website to allow discussion of them before it gets to delegates meeting.
Yes, applying it to Novice is a good idea. Currently we can get numbers for Novice also but some handlers are not confident about moving on to restricted. It also means entries could increase, if there isn't a stake on that day, handlers may enter the "A" stake. Also helps with steward numbers. We certainly need help in this area
"All dogs running in all stakes" was always going to need refinement. We realise that at major trials it would not be possible. Time would not permit it but suggest perhaps if a certain number of entries or less in a stake this rule could apply.

Proposed change to Rule 5.

Present Rule 5. A Two-Bird Retrieve. First game is cast from concealed cover and one shot fired, dog is sent to retrieve game. While dog is returning to handler with game, the second game is cast and a shot fired, so that the dog may mark or hear the fall of the game. The second game should be at least twenty metres from the first game and not less than forty metres from the firing point.

The proposed change is to delete the first clause so that it reads:

New Rule 5. A Two-Bird Retrieve. Dog is sent to retrieve game. While dog is returning to handler with game, the second game is cast and a shot fired, so that the dog may mark or hear the fall of the game. The second game should be at least twenty metres from the first game and not less than forty metres from the firing point.

Rationale
The change is not to change present practice, but to bring it into line with the proposed change for rule 6 (see below). Also, there is a possible avenue for argument as the rule stands at present. At the moment single marks occur when the dog is returning from any retrieve be it a Mark, Blind, Double Rise, whatever. Nobody appears to disagree, but it could be argued that Rule 5 stipulates that a mark can only be put up when a dog is returning from another mark. By deleting the first clause, a judge is enabled to put up a mark whenever the dog is returning from a retrieve and call it a Two-Bird Retrieve.

Proposed change to Rule 6.

Present Rule 6. Double Fall Retrieve. First game is cast as a mark from concealed cover and one shot fired, dog is sent to retrieve game. While the dog is on the way out to retrieve, the second game is cast and a shot fired so the dog may mark or hear the fall of the game. The first game cast must be retrieved before the second. The second game must be cast to land not less than twenty metres from the line of the first and not less than forty metres from the firing point. This retrieve is restricted to “All Age” and “Championship” Stakes.

The proposed change is to delete the first clause so that it reads:

New Rule 6. Double Fall Retrieve. Dog is sent to retrieve game. While the dog is on the way out to retrieve, the second game is cast and a shot fired so the dog may mark or hear the fall of the game. The first game cast must be retrieved before the second. The second game must be cast to land not less than twenty metres from the line of the first and not less than forty metres from the firing point. This retrieve is restricted to “All Age” and “Championship” Stakes.

Rationale
The Double Fall was reworded at the last rule change in an attempt to force judges to put up single marks only when the dog was on its way out to another mark. However, the change was poorly worded and was often ignored. Some Judges argued that Rule 22 allowed them to put up a single mark whenever they wished. They also argued that if they were allowed to put up a Two-Bird off a blind, then why not a Double-Rise as both were worded similarly.
In practice there were a number of good runs in All-Age and Championships that incorporated a Single Mark while the dog was on its way out to a Blind. The proposed change will allow the judge to do so without fear of protest.
If a dog is going to chase another bird, then, in practice, it does not seem to make much difference whether the dog is on its way out for a Mark or a Blind. Therefore to restrict the Double-Fall to only first bird being a Mark is reducing the scope of a competent judge unfairly.

[Kirsty Blair]

Hi Gail,

Wouldn't it just be simpler to delete "as a mark" from rule 6?

Kirsty

[Lynne Strang]

Hi all,
Thanks to Jason for helping me get my login right.
Firstly, Id like to say how much I have enjoyed reading all the bulletins. There has been much food for thought.I
think that having a Restricted A & B sounds great, but practically how would this fit into the trialling calendar? In W.A. we have a Novice and Restricted day. First we run the Novice, Then start the Restricted at about 11am. Usually we have the same judge for both. Dogs may run in both if qualified. We would not have time to run 2 distinct Retricted stakes.I
have also noted the different situations in each state as regards numbers, etc. Perhaps it would be an idea to try different methods of extending opportunities for Restricted competition without trying to change rules yet. For example on our Novice & Restricted trial ,2nd May, we are having a "Members' Comp" Restricted for dogs out of Restricted but not placed in A.A. They will do the same runs as the competing dogs , running after them with a different person judging. This is so the competing dogs are not delayed. We will see how it works!

Congratulations to the people who worked so hard on the Guidelines.
They will be helpful. Some of the items are discussed in the judges' training courses, but new rules and ideas have arisen since most judges did their training and judges may not have had many chances to discuss them. I have been judging for a few years and still refer to my training course notes, for instance, the suggestion that if you set a triple in Restricted, its a good idea to only have one piece of game on the ground at a time and with a double mark, having some open ground between them so handlers have a chance to stop their dog switching.
Thanks for all the interesting news and ideas. I have learned a lot.
Best wishes,
Lynne Strang

[Kerry Webster]

Hi Gail,

Sorry, I don't agree !!! And, my vote is against both proposals.

The wording for a two bird states "first game is cast from concealed cover". It doesn't say, "cast as a mark".

Several judges have interpreted this as meaning a hand thrown bird as being "cast", therefore incorporating a blind as the first part of the retrieve of a two bird.

Doublefalls, clearly state, "first game is cast as a mark". How hard is that to understand ? Actually, I understand the whole wording of this rule obsolutely, and, I'm not a judge.

I have competed in All Age in W.A., N.S.W., A.C.T., Victoria and Tasmania, and only once did I come across a judge who ignored Rule 6, and put a blind before a doublefall, and received a protest on it. (It was against the rules after all). It is since then that the subject of the first game being cast as a mark, has been stipulated, and, that a dog already sent on its way on a blind retrieve, must not have a mark cast, as this DOES constitute a doublefall, not, a complete and separate single mark as I have heard argued.

Some may argue about the control of the dog here in taking directions to the blind, and ignoring the D/fall bird, but I thought the object of the run as it read in the rulebook is: Bam! Send dog for mark. Bam!!! Another bird = distraction. Finish first retrieve; then memory bird.

Take the present method away, and you may very well increase the number of Restricted triallers leaving the sport, as it just appears to get harder and harder in All Age. There are so many opportunities available for testing dogs now in retrieving for judges, please don't start suggesting new methods of tricking our good hearted dogs.

Kerry

[Robert Tawton]

Hi All,

I read with interest the SA proposal as well as the comments/suggestions from others.
Following are my suggestions and /or observations:

Grand Champion
I fully support the concept, but suggest that the choice of 100 points needs further consideration. For a start, it is not a number that is easily divisible by 6 and it is not 10 times a Champion, as is the title of Grand Champion in the Show world. May I suggest that the total number of points required to gain the title be increased to 120 i.e. ten times a RTCH. I also think that the requirement to gain 12 points in Championship Stakes is an excellent idea. However the current wording is a little ambiguous viz, “twelve (12) of which must be awarded in Championship stake competition”. Is this intended to mean the dog must have won a Championship (thereby gaining 12 points) or is intended that two 2nd Places in Championships would suffice i.e. two times 6 points?

Perhaps the proposal should read: 107 (b)-: The title of Rt. Grand Champion may be awarded to any dog that achieves 120 Championship points, of which not less than twelve (12) have been awarded in Championship Stake/s.

The proposal does not address the issue of implementation and retrospectivity. In this regard, it may be advisable to follow the example set by the Show world, see below.

7 Grand Champion (10/97, 4.7.2)
a) Using the points system as approved by the ANKC at the time, an animal will be required to receive 1000 points to be eligible to the title of Grand Champion.

b) The implementation date for the awarding of the title of Grand Champion is 1.1.98.

c) Grand Championship will not be awarded to animals retrospectively, but an animal will be eligible to be awarded the title of Grand Champion, if they gain some points towards the title of Grand Champion (1000 points)
after the implementation date of 1.1.98.
d) The title and number of points for a Grand Champion to be reviewed annually for the next 3 years.

The areas to be examined in the annual review are:

i Total number of Grand Champion titles awarded.

ii Number of Grand Champions awarded per individual breeds.

iii Number of Grand Champions awarded per Member Body.

Grand Champion Title be retained and a 5 year moratorium imposed on changes to the Grand Champion Title. (5/01)

No Score
I understand and have considerable sympathy for the rationale that underpins the proposed changes. Like Gareth, I struggle with allowing all dogs to run on all Runs, especially when large fields are involved. Maintaining the running order also brings with it the potential to unnecessarily disadvantage some active competitors, especially in fading light conditions and where dogs spend long peiods of time in the hide with little or no shade or area to be "aired".

Perhaps the solution is to include in the “Guidelines for Judges” a statement to the effect that; “wherever practicable Judges are encouraged to provide dogs that have received a “No Score” the opportunity to complete subsequent Runs in the Stake and shall be judged and scored in the usual manner”.

The SA proposal states;
(o) No Score - Where a dog has been marked "No Score", the dog may continue on the stake at the discretion of the Judge, but cannot be placed.

Catalogue order/or order of running will be maintained in subsequent runs for all entrants. Subsequent runs will be judged and scored in the usual manner. The Trial Manager or Judge should provide reasonable justification for refusing.

Apart from the typo “on the stake”, which should read “in the Stake” , the proposed additional paragraph is in conflict with the wording for Rule No 7 (o). On one hand, dogs that have received a “No Score” may continue in the Stake at the discretion of the Judge and on the other hand, “The Trial Manager or the Judge should provide reasonable justification for refusing”. It is not clear to me exactly what role the Trial Manager has to play in this matter and the requirement “to provide reasonable justification” (who decides) and “at the discretion of the Judge” is an area for conflict.

BFN, RWT

[Robert Tawton]

Hi Gail,

My congratulations to the SA crew for its attempt to address the complex and at times a highly emotional issue of Two-bird and Double Fall Retrieves and how these relate to ANKC Rule 22, which says:
“On multiple Retrieves the Judge may stipulate the order of retrieving. Any reasonable combination of the listed retrieves shall be permissible, provided that a dog shall not be required to pick up more than three (3) items of game in any retrieve”.

As currently described in the Rules, both the Two-bird and Double Fall Retrieves each consist of two components, namely, the first item of game, which must be cast as a Mark (implied in ANKC Rule No15 and specifically stated in ANKC Rule 16) and a second item of game that shall also be cast as a Mark. The only material difference between the two Retrieves is that in the case of the Two-bird Retrieve, the second item of game is cast while the dog is returning with the first item of game. Whereas, in a Double Fall Retrieve the second item of game is cast while the dog is on its way out to recover the first item of game.

To me the phrase “Any reasonable combination of the listed retrieves shall be permissible” means that in any Stake the scenario proposed by the Judge must satisfy three criteria:
Does it emulate as closely as possible a situation that could be found whilst shooting?
Does it bring the work of each dog within an ambit of equality where assessment may be fairly made? and
Is the proposed scenario specifically excluded by the current Rules?

Based on these criteria, I suggest that a Judge can substitute a Double Rise Retrieve (see ANKC Rule 14) for the first item of game in either the Two-bird or the Double Fall Retrieves and comply with the Rules. Similarly, a Judge can substitute a Double Rise Retrieve for the second item of game in both the Two-bird and Double Fall Retrieves and still comply with the spirit of the current Rules. It should be remembered that in each of the foregoing scenarios and from the dog’s perspective, it still sees the key elements as Marks and the only addition requirement is that it understands the concept of returning “ON COMMAND” to an old fall to hunt and recover the second element of the Double Rise.

The practise of substituting the first item of game in a Two-bird Retrieve with a Blind is occurring with increasing frequency. A recent example was in a Restricted Stake in January; nevertheless, I am not aware of a single concern. In fact, most handlers thought the Run was an excellent and challenging test. From the dog’s perspective it still saw the second item of game as a Mark and while it was returning with the first item of game. So, again from the dog’s perspective, does it matter that the first item of game was a Blind or a Mark, I think not!

The proposal to permit the first item of game in a Double Fall Retrieve to be a Blind will meet with strong opposition in certain quarters. The concept unquestionably satisfies the first criteria in my test for, “is it reasonable?” As a hunter and a competitor, I would welcome the proposed change, but as a Judge I have a differing view. For a Double Fall Retrieve to work, dogs must be in a position to see or hear the second item of game as it is cast or as it falls. In order to achieve this objective the Judge must accurately predict the path that all (or at least most) dogs will take. Even in the situation of where the first item of game is a Mark, either on land, in or across water, the variability in path to the Mark can adversely affect the equality of opportunity to see/hear the second bird. To a degree this inequality can be tolerated since the dog made the decision as to the path it chose to take to the Mark.

Now consider the case of where the first item of game is placed as a Blind Find Retrieve. The variability in the paths taken by dogs will increase ten fold, despite the best efforts of their handlers! Skilled handlers may choose handle their dogs in such a way as to advantage their dog in seeing/hearing the second item of game as it is cast. Others will be less fortunate. On balance, I feel that the potential for inequality far out weighs the merits of the proposed amendment to ANKC Rule 16. Do others agree?

Included below is a variation based on the proposed changes to Rule 15, which my colleagues from SA may wish to consider?

A Two-Bird Retrieve. The first game shall be cast from concealed cover so that the dog may mark its fall, or alternatively it may be cast or placed as for a Blind Find Retrieve. In accordance with instructions from the Judge, the dog shall be sent to recover this item of game. While dog is returning to handler with the first item of game, a second item of game shall be cast so that the dog may mark or hear its fall. The second game should be at least twenty metres from first item of game and not less than forty metres from the firing point.

BFN, RWT

[Kate Eltringham]

Hi All,

Congratulations to everyone who is contributing to the discussion on the upcoming rule changes.

I agree that we should be considering the introduction of the title Grand Champion but have some reservations/observations.

At the time of the implementation of the Gr Ch title in Confirmation I was actively (every weekend) involved in showing and would like to offer some observations which may like to be considered should we proceed.

As has been shown the Gr Ch Show title was not awarded retrospectively but could be granted if some of the points were awarded after the implementation of the title. What happened was that there were a number of dogs that were on 1000 and the owners naturally wanted to have their dogs obtain the Gr Ch title. What was found was that in the ensuing months a number of retired dogs were brought out of retirement and entered in a Championship Show in the hope that the dog would be awarded a Challenge being 6 points which then qualified them for the title. Whilst it was a pleasure to see the dogs being awarded the points what wasn’t so nice to see was that other competitors withdrew dogs just so the “retired champion” would get the points. In some cases with the rarer breeds there was never any competition to be withdrawn. Remembering that in showing all the dog had to do was enter the ring, run around, do an up and back possibly a triangle and then do one more circuit to become a Gr Ch. What also occurred was that anyone could, if they had the time and inclination, travel the country and accumulate the 1000 points without ever being given an In Group or In Show award. In a lot of competitors eyes this has greatly reduced the prestige of a dog being awarded the Gr Ch title.

With this in mind I believe that we should look at awarding the title Gr Ch retrospectively in Retrieving. There are dogs out there who have managed to accumulate 120 points and would not have the opportunity it would be unreasonable to expect them come out, compete and win more points to become a Gr Ch as was the case with the Show dogs. Our dogs have worked hard and when retired have done so usually because they have achieved everything we have asked of them and injury and age have caught up with them, if they qualify (however that is to be determined) and the supporting documentation can be provided let’s recognise them.

With regard to qualification I agree with Bob that 120 points should be the minimum being 10 times the points required to be a Rt Ch. What I would like to see however is that within the 120 there be a win in a State Championship and a placing (to 5th) in a National. The reasoning for the additional qualifier of the National is to show that the dogs that are awarded the title of Gr Ch can compete and excel at the most elite level of competition.

At present within Australia we have no consistency with the manner in which State Championships are run. The rule book Rule 38 states “ a Championship Stake shall consist of not less than four retrieves etc etc. A minimum of 8 bona fide exhibits and at least 6 different owners to compete before the event can be recognised as a Championship. If you look at State Championships over the past few years some are held over one day and only four runs with the bare minimum of entries and others five runs over two days with entries over 30. There are a number of “Cups” run in some states that only carry 6 Championship points that are held over more runs and days than the State Championships and it hardly seems reasonable that dogs winning in events like these are doing more than dogs that can compete in Championships and thereby could qualify for the title of Gr Ch.

Maybe we should be looking at making the level of State Championships equal nationally, say 5 runs and if people are uncomfortable with my thoughts of placing in a National make it 24 points in a Championship including winning a Championship.

My thoughts only, it’s not likely that I’ll ever get a dog to Gr Ch in Retrieving and I chose not to chase the points to make Pax (my Flatcoat) a Gr Ch in Showing even though she has her Champion title and was on the way to 1000 points.

Cheers

Kate

[Gareth Tawton]

Kate,


I agree that some of our state championship are similar to some of the so called major all ages around the country. I would like to see all championships a minimum of 6 runs and a cap put on all ages of 4 runs. This would prevent any all age from "outdoing" a state title.

I think having a retrospective Gr Ch opens to big a can of worms. Some would then want all titles NRD RRD etc retrospective. Given past history in that those titles were not retrospective I think we should follow suit. I think unlike the show ring it would be very hard for a retired dog to come back and compete. Maybe 12 points need to be earned after the introduction of the GR Title.

Given how difficult it is to win any championship I would prefer to see a mimimum of 12 points gained in championship events as part of the requirement. 3rd 4th and 5th in a national do not come with any ch point so I wouls disregard these.

Just a thought

[Kerry Webster]

Hello Rob,

Rob, I thought your solution to running eliminated dogs who had received a "No Score", by including your suggested sentence to the Judges Guide, a very reasonable one.

Whilst some judges and clubs willingly allow all dogs to attempt each run, time permitting, there are others who are adamant that they will not. If it is included in the Guide as a suggestion, then each, have the option of permiting dogs and handlers to attempt subsequent runs, even after receiving a No Score.

I also agree, as per my previous post, with your views on Two bird retrieves. I think the majority of All Age handlers are well used to blinds and doublerises being the first part of the retrieve, and with the absence of the critical words, "a mark", after "first game is cast", in Rule 15, then this loophole has allowed this.

Also,as you have said, there would be an outcry over a change to the doublefall rule, as it now stands, to omitting the words "cast as a mark", and I am pretty sure there would be little if any support for this proposal, from W.A.

I must admit, I cannot remember ever getting a doublerise before a doublefall. From conversations with several judges, it appears that doublefalls are, along with wounded game retrieves, one of the most difficult runs to set, because of the necessity to provide the opportunity for each competing dog to mark, or hear the fall of the game. From a competitors point of view, I agree with them wholeheartedly.

Kerry

[Kate Eltringham]

Hi Gareth,

Thanks for your comments. My reasoning for awarding retrospective Grand Champion titles is suggested because it was SO EASY for the dogs in the show ring to achieve the title after retirement and this would not be the case for retrieving retirees. It would only apply for those dogs eligible for the Gr Ch title so I do not believe it would be an issue for the lesser titles because as long as you have the proof you can obtain your NRD etc any time after you've qualified.

Because of previous inequality in the manner that State Championships have been run and won in the past was the reason for my qualifiers in awarding such a title. Some dogs will never have competed in State Championships with more than 4 runs and others in nothing less than 5 or 6 which is the reason for the suggestion that a win should account for at least 1/2 of the points suggested of 24. You could have a dog that only ever places 2nd in a Championship being awarded the Gr Ch title when other dogs may have won a Championship but not got to the magic say 120 and not receiving the title.

Lets hope some others can think outside the square and come up with some suggestions.

Kate

[Robert Tawton]

Kate,

As Gareth has suggested the issue of retrospectivity is complex. It would appear that there are three basic options;

a) Wipe the slate clean and only points won after the effective date (1 Jan 2005) shall apply.
b) Recognise the all points won by any dog with no time constraint, recognising that this would inevitably lead to posthumous awards, or
c) Recognise achievements to date, but require a specified number of points to be awarded after the effective date.

It is suggested that options a) and b) are too extreme and that option c) represents the middle ground; it is fair and reasonable and follows the precedent set by the Show world when it introduced its Grand Champion title. Whether the specified number of points to be won after the effective date is 6, 12, 24 or some other number is a matter for majority decision. Personally I favour 6 points, the equivalent of one All Age win or 2nd in a Championship.

It would also be difficult to support your suggestion that a prerequisite to awarding the title of Grand Champion includes 3rd, 4th or 5th Place in a National since these achievements do not carry Championship points and linking the title to expressly to success in the National has the potential to disadvantage competitors who are unable to contest this event, due to employment obligations and/or financial limitations. Your counter proposal of mandating that included within the total of 120 points, 24 of them must be won in Championship Stakes and in addition must include a win in a State Championship also appears excessive. Personally, I could support either one win in a Championship or two 2nd Places in Championships, but it would be fair to say I favour the later over the former.

Regards, RWT