by Elio Colasimone » Wed 20 Jun 2012 4:51 pm
Hi all,
Good on you David for cranking up a bit of discussion in a sport some of us are passionate about !!
Utility Field Trialling – is definitely one of the gundog sports that for me, most closely resembles the type of day’s hunting that we can or used to be able to do, so if we can generate a bit more interest in it – great.
This discussion does raise a number of inter-related issues. In my view at least - except for Victoria - this sport is on ‘Life Support’ and barely hangs on by a thread. Even in Victoria – some have said – the participation rates are relatively low and newcomers are few. In competitions I judge, I keep seeing many of the same faces I saw 10, 20 even 30 years ago. Wonderful longevity and resilience, but what about the future!!
Unfortunately just to add more to the mix - this sport is self limiting. The need to find game holding grounds to develop and fine tune these dogs has always been a stumbling block. For retrieving trials I can do some basic stuff in the back yard, the park down the road, some kind farmer’s dams etc etc.
Not so for field dogs – you do need game holding localities.
ISSUE ONE: How far do we go to keep the sport alive?
The duck and quail hunting bans demanded a change in Qld.
After several years of hard lobbying the government for a return of seasons - with no success - something had to give. We had a choice of developing something we could work with and stay within the law or shut the sport down. We chose the former.
Trying to develop dogs competitively needs them to be involved in a handful of Novice/ Open Trials over the course of several years to allow them to progress. Before Non-shooting trials Qld handlers could choose to visit Victoria every few of years for some significant event but it has been out of the question for almost everyone to do it on a regular basis.
Furthermore, try telling newcomers to the sport that their only chance of testing their dogs is to travel to Victoria.
Of course as the years go by the older eligible dogs disappear and the younger dogs have no opportunity to accrue any points to enter big events - even if the handlers wanted to travel.
I’m sure folk are aware that while ‘Non – Shooting’ trials may seem odd to us, they are in fact common throughout the Field Trialling world under International FCI rules.
Basically, some of us felt we needed a reasonable field competition outlet for our Utility dogs within our own states.
ISSUE TWO: How to develop an acceptable format as closely linked as possible to traditional trials.
Some of the key players involved in this process in Qld. are quite experienced, having judged, competed and won multiple State and National Championships. None that I know is remotely interested in being awarded half-baked titles.
We decided on a slow and steady approach. After a Number of years of no trialling – we ran a couple of Novice Trials. This was followed last year by the first Open.
The process has had to be tweaked and will continue to be tweaked.
As is done at a traditional trial the dogs are drawn in braces. Handlers carry guns with blanks. Pointing dogs are expected to show a range of skills including quartering, use of breeze etc. Just as in the past solid pointing on feather or fur is mandatory and if game moves - maintaining contact. Backing dogs are expected to do it proficiently. The flush is expected to be efficient and steadiness is demanded always. The handler fires blanks at the flush.
In Open a hand held portable thrower is carried to cast a dead Jap Quail beyond the contact point at shooting distances for the dog with the find. The brace mate has to be nearby – off lead and under control during the retrieve.
Open also requires the handler to complete a significant blind retrieve in the field.
The water work etc is as per normal.
Obviously, all sorts of points/arguments can be fairly raised about the lack of challenge re: multiple distractions, falling birds, wounded birds, tracking etc. etc. vis a vis traditional trials.
Interestingly, recent experience has shown that it is hard for under done dogs or dogs with major flaws -( not backing/out of control/hard mouth) to get through and be competitive in Non-Shooing trials.
Clearly a dog that also handles poorly generally struggles to pick up a blind retrieve in moderate to heavy sub-tropical cover in the field.
Perfect it is not........but the alternative is a severe lack of or no trialling opportunities for those interested – which would ultimately lead to the disappearance of the sport from these states.
It seems to me that information sharing amongst each other about procedures used by states involved in Non-Shooting Trials would be helpful for everyone attempting to run acceptable and successful events.
ISSUE THREE: What Credits and Titles should be handed out ?
Some of the dogs that I have had the pleasure to work with or watch under this ‘ Non-Shooting’ regime certainly would stand up well in comparison to dogs I’ve worked with, seen or judged in the past. There is no issue in my mind of the awarding of points if merited.
Other dogs -however - as often happens in trials have not made the grade.
In effect we’ve had approx. 4 years of no trials and 4 years of limited Non- Shooting trials . In the latter four years only two dogs have titled in Qld – one picking up half the points in Vic and half in Qld and the other all points in Qld.
I’m certainly comfortable with that outcome which I believe is an accurate reflection of the capabilities of the dogs involved..
Thankfully there is a formal process in place to address most - if not all of the above issues especially ‘TITLE” distinctions.
The Utility Field Trial Rule Review kicks in this year.
This discussion re Titles has already been had at length in the past but I have no doubt the issue of what the ‘Title’ name should look like for dogs involved in different competitions will be raised gain. I’m sure state delegates will bring along the consensus view of participants from each state. One way or the other this will ultimately be ratified by a majority vote, hopefully to the majority’s satisfaction.
There is also another positive on the horizon.
Intense lobbying has begun in both Qld. and NSW for the return of duck and quail seasons – which if successful will change the format of the running of UFT over night in these states.
I’d advise everyone to lend a hand of support to those who are doing the hard legwork.
Cheers all,
Elio Colasimone