Gallery Greetings 6 |
by Ken McCartney, an avid Field Trialer
DAY SIX: The last thirteen dogs in the fifth did not do much better than the day before on the triple. Only 42 back surprised most of us. I did not hear any one complaining about any one dog, just the over all numbers were talked about. The consensous seemed to be that through five there should have been about 9.5 x 5 = 47.5 or a cut to about 63. The judges are about 15 % ahead of schedule if you consider 10 finalists, ideal. Now we look at the top half of the best, it is getting exciting.
The test dogs did well on the sixth series land blind. It appeared short, and close to the middle mark with obvious trouble to the left in the critical middle of the blind. Heavy sage up front and some out at the end gave the test a beginning, a middle and an end = a good blind. Man dogs did well. No surprise. Gruesome Glenda’s blind planters continued to hustle and smile.
John Cavanaugh (55,76) had what appears to be a good count on the handles back to the sixth series land blind. Some in the first, most in the fifth. Eight the way he figured: 2, 29, 30, 38,47,68,93, and 99. There could be more or less as his totals do not count. Dog 38 and 52 got pretty far left in the first half of the running dogs.
Quotes for the day:
“You have to be lying to me, please!” John Pampy (2) when Chairman Bleazard told him dog number 1 scratched.
Last year the NARC adopted a rotation policy to control for years to come. Dog number one, then the dog at 25%, the dog at 50%, then 75% and then back to the first contestant after 1, count five and start with the sixth dog, then that dog plus six and so on. It works. It is a god idea to check with the marshal after the fourth started series. Confusion was the word as the mid day move occurred. You count the dog that ran in the last series making the five skip rule work. No less than three handlers were convinced that they ran first before John Thomas (24) got the chance in the seventh. Sorry Jack and Sal.
“This certainly has been an experience well worth the money. I’d recommend it!” Ken Erikson (31) one of two FC AFC Chesapeake Males in the trial and the last to be dropped. Also a rookie.
“The people have impressed me. There is a shared comoradori here that I did not expect given the level of competition involved. And this place is beautiful.” George Francis (53) “George is a terror on the east coast.” Mac Dubose (8,19). George has been changing his underwear often this week.” Linda Patterson (60). Its nice to have friends. That is my last mention of under garments this entire week, promise.
We suffered our first mid day move today. From a land blind to a water blind—not a hard as from a mark to a mark in terms of people and equipment in the field. The crew were up to it and it came off fairly smoothly.
We drove an extra three miles at 3 miles an hour to keep the dust down in order to inter the seventh from the south. Off to the east was a perfect gravel parking lot only a half mile from pavement from the north. Turns out that the easy route had been nested upon by a pair of bald eagles. His majesty circled for the test dogs and was nothing short of spectacular. The field trial chairman noticed the birds when the marshals terrier became an object of flightee attention during set up. In response to his request the alternate route in was purchased by the club—few bucks to the neighbor to the south toward the quell the dust by oiling fund and we saved the eagle the stress of people. Personally I wish the game and fish man had ridden over the dusty trail at three miles an hour in my dog truck with my Jack Russell Terrier. We may have reallocated the stress had he joined JD Terrier.
The dogs were doing the seventh series water blind when I went for Mexican food about 6:30 PM. Gone are the days when judges could count on a water blind separating the field for them. Dog 24 had a tough ending but the next eight dogs were all through it without serious fault. A few will fall, but I suspect some serious marks are in store for the field over the next two days. I love it! The extra drops may come in handy for the judges here.
A pre trial aside:
The Retriever Advisory meeting held just before the NARC membership Meeting on Saturday generated much interest this year. This board reports proposed rule changes to the Standard for discussion to the NARC and in the past for voting to the NRC in the fall. From now on the member clubs will vote by mail-in ballot that should go out in July. KEEP YOUR CLUB’S ADDRESS CURRENT WITH THE AKC and the RFTNews for that matter. Many years the changes are slight. This year there committee has been active and makes nine suggestions. Three of which seem to be controversial. Your club secretary will have the whole list.
1. A proposal to describe what to do and not to do with holding blinds is included. The verbiage is not perfect even with the proposed change, but it will call the attention of judge’s to an issue that common sense does not seem to covering well enough. The vote will be close. There is language requiring lots of interpretation in the proposal: “more the guns the shortest distance possible.”(?!?) The committee did request that no votes be accompanied by suggestions and or reasons and promised to take every good comment into consideration. Something needs to be done with deceptive or distracting retirements since half the birds in most trials are now being retired. The NARC judges have been great this week with minimal movement and well camouflaged hiding places. It can be done. Please take pride in your weekend retirements!
2. Probably the most interest at our meeting centered on language intended to guide judges when a handler runs one of multiple dogs out of order. I have come close to that where the effect of rotation causes more than normal confusion. The committee intended a simple rule giving judges choices depending on their perception of the handler’s intent—throw out the cheaters, ignore the dummies. The current rule says “run in order” but provides no solutions if it does not happen. Arguments were made for an absolute rule to pressure the problem out of existence—“if the penalty is elimination the problem will go away, we need this for the integrity of the sport.“ Countered ably by “this is supposes to be fun. Why club a red faced contestant who just made an honest mistake over the head and steal his $55.00?” If the rule passes as written there will not be many penalties assessed, in my opinion because it will require a judge to call the contestant a cheater or let it occur as innocent with out penalty. I see the latter as the politically acceptable choice for an already over burdened judge. Who wants to call anyone a cheater if it can be avoided?
3. A proposal that a professional’s clients avoid judging their pro’s dogs, while having all the well intended merit in the world, will not pass without some no votes. The idea makes sense for amateur training groups as well. Finding NRC judges could become practically impossible with this in the book even written as non mandatory suggestion as it is. Most clubs struggle mightily just filling a slate for their trials. This adds more pressure. In a perfect world most contestants agree it is a good idea to avoid the consternation potentially involved. But it is a good idea to have good local judges every week too and there are only so many bodies out there. I like the idea of two judges (or three) solving this would be problem better than a new standard.
The test dogs did well on the sixth series land blind. It appeared short, and close to the middle mark with obvious trouble to the left in the critical middle of the blind. Heavy sage up front and some out at the end gave the test a beginning, a middle and an end = a good blind. Man dogs did well. No surprise. Gruesome Glenda’s blind planters continued to hustle and smile.
John Cavanaugh (55,76) had what appears to be a good count on the handles back to the sixth series land blind. Some in the first, most in the fifth. Eight the way he figured: 2, 29, 30, 38,47,68,93, and 99. There could be more or less as his totals do not count. Dog 38 and 52 got pretty far left in the first half of the running dogs.
Quotes for the day:
“You have to be lying to me, please!” John Pampy (2) when Chairman Bleazard told him dog number 1 scratched.
Last year the NARC adopted a rotation policy to control for years to come. Dog number one, then the dog at 25%, the dog at 50%, then 75% and then back to the first contestant after 1, count five and start with the sixth dog, then that dog plus six and so on. It works. It is a god idea to check with the marshal after the fourth started series. Confusion was the word as the mid day move occurred. You count the dog that ran in the last series making the five skip rule work. No less than three handlers were convinced that they ran first before John Thomas (24) got the chance in the seventh. Sorry Jack and Sal.
“This certainly has been an experience well worth the money. I’d recommend it!” Ken Erikson (31) one of two FC AFC Chesapeake Males in the trial and the last to be dropped. Also a rookie.
“The people have impressed me. There is a shared comoradori here that I did not expect given the level of competition involved. And this place is beautiful.” George Francis (53) “George is a terror on the east coast.” Mac Dubose (8,19). George has been changing his underwear often this week.” Linda Patterson (60). Its nice to have friends. That is my last mention of under garments this entire week, promise.
We suffered our first mid day move today. From a land blind to a water blind—not a hard as from a mark to a mark in terms of people and equipment in the field. The crew were up to it and it came off fairly smoothly.
We drove an extra three miles at 3 miles an hour to keep the dust down in order to inter the seventh from the south. Off to the east was a perfect gravel parking lot only a half mile from pavement from the north. Turns out that the easy route had been nested upon by a pair of bald eagles. His majesty circled for the test dogs and was nothing short of spectacular. The field trial chairman noticed the birds when the marshals terrier became an object of flightee attention during set up. In response to his request the alternate route in was purchased by the club—few bucks to the neighbor to the south toward the quell the dust by oiling fund and we saved the eagle the stress of people. Personally I wish the game and fish man had ridden over the dusty trail at three miles an hour in my dog truck with my Jack Russell Terrier. We may have reallocated the stress had he joined JD Terrier.
The dogs were doing the seventh series water blind when I went for Mexican food about 6:30 PM. Gone are the days when judges could count on a water blind separating the field for them. Dog 24 had a tough ending but the next eight dogs were all through it without serious fault. A few will fall, but I suspect some serious marks are in store for the field over the next two days. I love it! The extra drops may come in handy for the judges here.
A pre trial aside:
The Retriever Advisory meeting held just before the NARC membership Meeting on Saturday generated much interest this year. This board reports proposed rule changes to the Standard for discussion to the NARC and in the past for voting to the NRC in the fall. From now on the member clubs will vote by mail-in ballot that should go out in July. KEEP YOUR CLUB’S ADDRESS CURRENT WITH THE AKC and the RFTNews for that matter. Many years the changes are slight. This year there committee has been active and makes nine suggestions. Three of which seem to be controversial. Your club secretary will have the whole list.
1. A proposal to describe what to do and not to do with holding blinds is included. The verbiage is not perfect even with the proposed change, but it will call the attention of judge’s to an issue that common sense does not seem to covering well enough. The vote will be close. There is language requiring lots of interpretation in the proposal: “more the guns the shortest distance possible.”(?!?) The committee did request that no votes be accompanied by suggestions and or reasons and promised to take every good comment into consideration. Something needs to be done with deceptive or distracting retirements since half the birds in most trials are now being retired. The NARC judges have been great this week with minimal movement and well camouflaged hiding places. It can be done. Please take pride in your weekend retirements!
2. Probably the most interest at our meeting centered on language intended to guide judges when a handler runs one of multiple dogs out of order. I have come close to that where the effect of rotation causes more than normal confusion. The committee intended a simple rule giving judges choices depending on their perception of the handler’s intent—throw out the cheaters, ignore the dummies. The current rule says “run in order” but provides no solutions if it does not happen. Arguments were made for an absolute rule to pressure the problem out of existence—“if the penalty is elimination the problem will go away, we need this for the integrity of the sport.“ Countered ably by “this is supposes to be fun. Why club a red faced contestant who just made an honest mistake over the head and steal his $55.00?” If the rule passes as written there will not be many penalties assessed, in my opinion because it will require a judge to call the contestant a cheater or let it occur as innocent with out penalty. I see the latter as the politically acceptable choice for an already over burdened judge. Who wants to call anyone a cheater if it can be avoided?
3. A proposal that a professional’s clients avoid judging their pro’s dogs, while having all the well intended merit in the world, will not pass without some no votes. The idea makes sense for amateur training groups as well. Finding NRC judges could become practically impossible with this in the book even written as non mandatory suggestion as it is. Most clubs struggle mightily just filling a slate for their trials. This adds more pressure. In a perfect world most contestants agree it is a good idea to avoid the consternation potentially involved. But it is a good idea to have good local judges every week too and there are only so many bodies out there. I like the idea of two judges (or three) solving this would be problem better than a new standard.
