|
| Author |
Messages |
|
Esdaysft
JH
Posts:20
 |
| 05/10/2008 8:05 PM |
|
I have recently read in the GSPCA board minutes (March/April 2008 Shorthair Jounal) that a motion has been passed to offer a certificate test to satisfy a portion of the field trial championship requirements.
I am opposed to satisfying the retrieving requirements for a field championship by offering a Retrieving Certification Test as an alternative way of fulfulling points needed.
This may seem a rather minor point, but for a breed which was developed for its utility working abilities, it is another step in the wrong direction. A field trialer who was helping me with retrieving a number a years ago said to me this is where we seperate the men from the boys.
In our area of Western New York we also lost public grounds, but the reason was for having horses, not because we could not kill birds. AND there is a huge difference between having a dog which is steady and retrieves several shot birds to only having to retrieve one shot bird and add exponentially to that difference when a dead bird is made available prior for a retrieve. All dogs do not have the correct qualities essential to be trained for this important task.
I can only assume at this time that the results from contacting other breeds about this problem will not benefit our breed. Especially since there are breeds such as the Brittany which completely removed this requirement already. Please talk to others about this and determine for yourself if this proposal benefits our breed.
This approval will be voted on only by the Board of Directors and their next meeting is scheduled on June 7, 2008!!!!
I will talk about this at our next club meeting and contact my regional GSPCA representative and others concerning this. I urge others to do also.
Richard J. Aronica
GSPC of WNY member
|
|
|
|
|
Almost Heaven GSP
Springfield, WV
MH
Posts:731
|
| 05/10/2008 10:00 PM |
|
| Permission to Crosspost?
Thanx Kindly and Have A Great Day,
Bruce
Quoting esdaysft@aol.com:
> I have recently read in the GSPCA board minutes (March/April 2008
> Shorthair Jounal) that a motion has been passed to offer a
> certificate test to satisfy a portion of the field trial
> championship requirements.
>
> I am opposed to satisfying the retrieving requirements for a field
> championship by offering a Retrieving Certification Test as an
> alternative way of fulfulling points needed.?
>
> This may seem?a rather minor point, but for a breed which was
> developed for its utility working abilities, it is another step in
> the wrong direction. A field trialer who was helping me with
> retrieving?a number a years ago said to me?this is where we seperate
> the men from the boys.
>
> In our area?of Western New York we also lost public?grounds, but the
> reason was for having horses, not because we could not?kill birds.
> AND there is a huge difference between having a dog which is steady
> and retrieves several shot birds to only having to retrieve one shot
> bird and add exponentially to that difference when?a dead bird is
> made available prior for a retrieve.??All dogs do not have the
> correct qualities essential to be trained for this important task.
>
> I can only assume at this time that the results from contacting
> other breeds about this problem will not benefit our breed.
> Especially since there are breeds such as the Brittany which
> completely removed this requirement already. Please talk to others
> about this and determine for yourself if this proposal?benefits our
> breed.?
>
> This approval will be voted on only by the?Board of Directors and
> their next meeting is scheduled on June 7, 2008!!!!
>
> I will?talk about this at our next club meeting and contact my
> regional GSPCA representative and others concerning this. I
> urge?others to do also.
>
> Richard J. Aronica
>
> GSPC of WNY member
>
>
> ?
>
|
|
Money will buy a fine dog, but only kindness will make him wag his tail.
Bruce Shaffer
Almost Heaven GSP's
|
|
|
Esdaysft
JH
Posts:20
|
| 05/11/2008 6:07 AM |
|
Yes, By all means, permission to crosspost. Thankyou.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Shaffer
To: gsp-l@web.whc.net
Sent: Sat, 10 May 2008 11:48 pm
Subject: Re: [gsp-l] Field Trial Retrieving Certificate
Permission to Crosspost?
Thanx Kindly and Have A Great Day,
Bruce
Quoting esdaysft@aol.com:
> I have recently read in the GSPCA board minutes (March/April 2008 > Shorthair Jounal) that a motion has been passed to offer a > certificate test to satisfy a portion of the field trial > championship requirements.
>
> I am opposed to satisfying the retrieving requirements for a field > championship by offering a Retrieving Certification Test as an > alternative way of fulfulling points needed.?
>
> This may seem?a rather minor point, but for a breed which was > developed for its utility working abilities, it is another step in > the wrong direction. A field trialer who was helping me with > retrieving?a number a years ago said to me?this is where we seperate > the men from the boys.
>
> In our area?of Western New York we also lost public?grounds, but the > reason was for having horses, not because we could not?kill birds. > AND there is a huge difference between having a dog which is steady > and retrieves several shot birds to only having to retrieve one shot > bird and add exponentially to that difference when?a dead bird is > made available prior for a retrieve.??All dogs do not have the > correct qualities essential to be trained for this important task.
>
> I can only assume at this time that the results from contacting > other breeds about this problem will not benefit our breed. > Especially since there are breeds such as the Brittany which > completely removed this requirement already. Please talk to others > about this and determine for yourself if this proposal?benefits our > breed.?
>
> This approval will be voted on only by the?Board of Directors and > their next meeting is scheduled on June 7, 2008!!!!
>
> I will?talk about this at our next club meeting and contact my > regional GSPCA representative and others concerning this. I > urge?others to do also.
>
> Richard J. Aronica
>
> GSPC of WNY member
>
>
> ?
>
|
|
|
|
|
cloverhillgsp
JH
Posts:27
|
| 05/11/2008 8:53 AM |
|
|
Thank you for saying it so well-this is just another move by the GSPCA Board like the removal of the water retrieve. Field Championship requirements absolutley should include the retrieve. And in fact the water retrieve should not have been eliminated years ago-
ELLEN & FRANK CAVALLA
CLOVER HILL GSP'S
On Sat May 10 21:54 , esdaysft@aol.com sent:
I have recently read in the GSPCA board minutes (March/April 2008 Shorthair Jounal) that a motion has been passed to offer a certificate test to satisfy a portion of the field trial championship requirements.
I am opposed to satisfying the retrieving requirements for a field championship by offering a Retrieving Certification Test as an alternative way of fulfulling points needed.
This may seem a rather minor point, but for a breed which was developed for its utility working abilities, it is another step in the wrong direction. A field trialer who was helping me with retrieving a number a years ago said to me this is where we seperate the men from the boys.
In our area of Western New York we also lost public grounds, but the reason was for having horses, not because we could not kill birds. AND there is a huge difference between having a dog which is steady and retrieves several shot birds to only having to retrieve one shot bird and add exponentially to that difference when a dead bird is made available prior for a retrieve. All dogs do not have the correct qualities essential to be trained for this important task.
I can only assume at this time that the results from contacting other breeds about this problem will not benefit our breed. Especially since there are breeds such as the Brittany which completely removed this requirement already. Please talk to others about this and determine for yourself if this proposal benefits our breed.
This approval will be voted on only by the Board of Directors and their next meeting is scheduled on June 7, 2008!!!!
I will talk about this at our next club meeting and contact my regional GSPCA representative and others concerning this. I urge others to do also.
Richard J. Aronica
GSPC of WNY member
= |
|
|
|
|
tc
MH
Posts:117
|
| 05/11/2008 9:50 AM |
|
|
I have watched this "retrieving certificate" idea since
it's inception. It is being "promoted" by a group of field trialers in
Colorado.
Their reasoning is that they run on public grounds that do
not allow guns being fired. They say they have to go a long
way
to hold their callbacks.
Do not be foooled. This is the first step in getting rid of
our retrieve.
Their are people in our breed that believe that asking our
field dogs to do less makes them better. I do not happen to be
one
of those. Our GSP's are without a doubt the best gundogs in
the US. The AKC Pointing Dog Championships have proven that.
We have done this by asking our dogs to "do it all".
Retrieving is a big part of that.
Contact your Board members. Let them know your opinion on
this topic.
tc
Terry and Janet Chandler
Rugerheim Kennels
German Shorthaired
Pointers/Horses
Las Cruces, NM
575-382-5231
Quoting
esdaysft@aol.com: >
I have recently read in the GSPCA board minutes (March/April 2008 > Shorthair
Jounal) that a motion has been passed to offer a > certificate test to
satisfy a portion of the field trial > championship
requirements. > > I am opposed to satisfying the
retrieving requirements for a field > championship by offering a Retrieving
Certification Test as an > alternative way of fulfulling points
needed.? > > This may seem?a rather minor point, but for
a breed which was > developed for its utility working abilities, it is
another step in > the wrong direction. A field trialer who was helping me
with > retrieving?a number a years ago said to me?this is where we seperate
> the men from the boys. > > In our area?of Western
New York we also lost public?grounds, but the > reason was for having horses,
not because we could not?kill birds. > AND there is a huge difference between
having a dog which is steady > and retrieves several shot birds to only
having to retrieve one shot > bird and add exponentially to that difference
when?a dead bird is > made available prior for a retrieve.??All dogs do not
have the > correct qualities essential to be trained for this important
task. > > I can only assume at this time that the
results from contacting > other breeds about this problem will not benefit
our breed. > Especially since there are breeds such as the Brittany which
> completely removed this requirement already. Please talk to others >
about this and determine for yourself if this proposal?benefits our >
breed.? > > This approval will be voted on only by
the?Board of Directors and > their next meeting is scheduled on June 7,
2008!!!! > > I will?talk about this at our next club
meeting and contact my > regional GSPCA representative and others concerning
this. I > urge?others to do also. > > Richard J.
Aronica > > GSPC of WNY
member > > >
? >
|
|
|
|
|
cloverhillgsp
JH
Posts:27
|
| 05/11/2008 9:58 AM |
|
|
AMEN-TERRY!!!! DITTO DITTO DITTO
Please let your voices to the Board be heard on this one!
DO NOT ALLOW OUR FIELD CHAMPIONSHIPS TO BE CHEAPENED!-JMHO!
ELLEN & FRANK CAVALLA
CLOVER HILL GSP'S
On Sun May 11 11:38 , 'Rugerheim' sent:
I have watched this "retrieving certificate" idea since it's inception. It is being "promoted" by a group of field trialers in Colorado.
Their reasoning is that they run on public grounds that do not allow guns being fired. They say they have to go a long way
to hold their callbacks.
Do not be foooled. This is the first step in getting rid of our retrieve.
Their are people in our breed that believe that asking our field dogs to do less makes them better. I do not happen to be one
of those. Our GSP's are without a doubt the best gundogs in the US. The AKC Pointing Dog Championships have proven that.
We have done this by asking our dogs to "do it all". Retrieving is a big part of that.
Contact your Board members. Let them know your opinion on this topic.
tc
Terry and Janet Chandler
Rugerheim Kennels
German Shorthaired Pointers/Horses
Las Cruces, NM
575-382-5231
Quoting [script removed]esdaysft@aol.com:
> I have recently read in the GSPCA board minutes (March/April 2008 > Shorthair Jounal) that a motion has been passed to offer a > certificate test to satisfy a portion of the field trial > championship requirements.
>
> I am opposed to satisfying the retrieving requirements for a field > championship by offering a Retrieving Certification Test as an > alternative way of fulfulling points needed.?
>
> This may seem?a rather minor point, but for a breed which was > developed for its utility working abilities, it is another step in > the wrong direction. A field trialer who was helping me with > retrieving?a number a years ago said to me?this is where we seperate > the men from the boys.
>
> In our area?of Western New York we also lost public?grounds, but the > reason was for having horses, not because we could not?kill birds. > AND there is a huge difference between having a dog which is steady > and retrieves several shot birds to only having to retrieve one shot > bird and add exponentially to that difference when?a dead bird is > made available prior for a retrieve.??All dogs do not have the > correct qualities essential to be trained for this important task.
>
> I can only assume at this time that the results from contacting > other breeds about this problem will not benefit our breed. > Especially since there are breeds such as the Brittany which > completely removed this requirement already. Please talk to others > about this and determine for yourself if this proposal?benefits our > breed.?
>
> This approval will be voted on only by the?Board of Directors and > their next meeting is scheduled on June 7, 2008!!!!
>
> I will?talk about this at our next club meeting and contact my > regional GSPCA representative and others concerning this. I > urge?others to do also.
>
> Richard J. Aronica
>
> GSPC of WNY member
>
>
> ?
>
= |
|
|
|
|
Almost Heaven GSP
Springfield, WV
MH
Posts:731
|
| 05/11/2008 10:13 AM |
|
| Well said Terry.
Bruce, Jen, Raine & Storm Shaffer
Almost Heaven GSP's & Almost Heaven Kennels
Breeders, Trainers & Handlers
"In Search of the Perfect German Shorthair"
http://www.almostheavengsps.netkennel.com
Quoting Rugerheim :
> I have watched this "retrieving certificate" idea since it's inception. It
> is being "promoted" by a group of field trialers in Colorado.
> Their reasoning is that they run on public grounds that do not allow guns
> being fired. They say they have to go a long way
> to hold their callbacks.
>
> Do not be foooled. This is the first step in getting rid of our retrieve.
>
> Their are people in our breed that believe that asking our field dogs to do
> less makes them better. I do not happen to be one
> of those. Our GSP's are without a doubt the best gundogs in the US. The AKC
> Pointing Dog Championships have proven that.
> We have done this by asking our dogs to "do it all". Retrieving is a big
> part of that.
>
> Contact your Board members. Let them know your opinion on this topic.
>
> tc
>
> Terry and Janet Chandler
> Rugerheim Kennels
> German Shorthaired Pointers/Horses
> Las Cruces, NM
> 575-382-5231
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Shaffer
> To: gsp-l@web.whc.net
> Sent: Sat, 10 May 2008 11:48 pm
> Subject: Re: [gsp-l] Field Trial Retrieving Certificate
>
>
>
> Quoting esdaysft@aol.com:
>
>> I have recently read in the GSPCA board minutes (March/April 2008 >
> Shorthair Jounal) that a motion has been passed to offer a > certificate
> test to satisfy a portion of the field trial > championship requirements.
>>
>> I am opposed to satisfying the retrieving requirements for a field >
> championship by offering a Retrieving Certification Test as an > alternative
> way of fulfulling points needed.?
>>
>> This may seem?a rather minor point, but for a breed which was > developed
> for its utility working abilities, it is another step in > the wrong
> direction. A field trialer who was helping me with > retrieving?a number a
> years ago said to me?this is where we seperate > the men from the boys.
>>
>> In our area?of Western New York we also lost public?grounds, but the >
> reason was for having horses, not because we could not?kill birds. > AND
> there is a huge difference between having a dog which is steady > and
> retrieves several shot birds to only having to retrieve one shot > bird and
> add exponentially to that difference when?a dead bird is > made available
> prior for a retrieve.??All dogs do not have the > correct qualities
> essential to be trained for this important task.
>>
>> I can only assume at this time that the results from contacting > other
> breeds about this problem will not benefit our breed. > Especially since
> there are breeds such as the Brittany which > completely removed this
> requirement already. Please talk to others > about this and determine for
> yourself if this proposal?benefits our > breed.?
>>
>> This approval will be voted on only by the?Board of Directors and > their
> next meeting is scheduled on June 7, 2008!!!!
>>
>> I will?talk about this at our next club meeting and contact my > regional
> GSPCA representative and others concerning this. I > urge?others to do also.
>
>>
>> Richard J. Aronica
>>
>> GSPC of WNY member
>>
>>
>> ?
>>
>
>
> _____
>
> Plan your next roadtrip with MapQuest.com
> : America's #1 Mapping
> Site.
>
|
|
Money will buy a fine dog, but only kindness will make him wag his tail.
Bruce Shaffer
Almost Heaven GSP's
|
|
|
stoneygsp
SH
Posts:51
|
| 05/11/2008 1:16 PM |
|
Well said Terry.
A Brittany friend and I were discussing the amount of Duals
& FC they have in the breed. I asked if she thought there would be the same
number if they had to retrieve and she said most likely not.
We don't run in field trials, but I for one am VERY against this
proposal.
Lesli Smith
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 9:38 AM
Subject: RE: [gsp-l] Field Trial
Retrieving Certificate
I have watched this "retrieving certificate" idea since
it's inception. It is being "promoted" by a group of field trialers in
Colorado.
Their reasoning is that they run on public grounds that
do not allow guns being fired. They say they have to go a long
way
to hold their callbacks.
Do not be foooled. This is the first step in getting rid
of our retrieve.
Their are people in our breed that believe that asking
our field dogs to do less makes them better. I do not happen to be
one
of those. Our GSP's are without a doubt the best gundogs
in the US. The AKC Pointing Dog Championships have proven
that.
We have done this by asking our dogs to "do it all".
Retrieving is a big part of that.
Contact your Board members. Let them know your opinion on
this topic.
tc
Terry and Janet Chandler
Rugerheim Kennels
German Shorthaired
Pointers/Horses
Las Cruces, NM
575-382-5231
Quoting
esdaysft@aol.com: > I
have recently read in the GSPCA board minutes (March/April 2008 > Shorthair
Jounal) that a motion has been passed to offer a > certificate test to
satisfy a portion of the field trial > championship
requirements. > > I am opposed to satisfying the
retrieving requirements for a field > championship by offering a Retrieving
Certification Test as an > alternative way of fulfulling points
needed.? > > This may seem?a rather minor point, but
for a breed which was > developed for its utility working abilities, it is
another step in > the wrong direction. A field trialer who was helping me
with > retrieving?a number a years ago said to me?this is where we seperate
> the men from the boys. > > In our area?of Western
New York we also lost public?grounds, but the > reason was for having
horses, not because we could not?kill birds. > AND there is a huge
difference between having a dog which is steady > and retrieves several
shot birds to only having to retrieve one shot > bird and add exponentially
to that difference when?a dead bird is > made available prior for a
retrieve.??All dogs do not have the > correct qualities essential to be
trained for this important task. > > I can only assume
at this time that the results from contacting > other breeds about this
problem will not benefit our breed. > Especially since there are breeds
such as the Brittany which > completely removed this requirement already.
Please talk to others > about this and determine for yourself if this
proposal?benefits our > breed.? > > This approval
will be voted on only by the?Board of Directors and > their next meeting is
scheduled on June 7, 2008!!!! > > I will?talk about
this at our next club meeting and contact my > regional GSPCA
representative and others concerning this. I > urge?others to do
also. > > Richard J.
Aronica > > GSPC of WNY
member > > >
? >
|
|
|
|
|
NMK1GSP
SH
Posts:58
|
| 05/11/2008 4:59 PM |
|
|
I sincerely hope
that the GSPCA membership takes a moment to read what Terry Chandler posted on
this topic. I can not stress loudly enough my agreement with Terry, or
plea with the membership strongly enough how very important this is to EVERY GSP
owner. This effects our whole breed, people, don't fall for the excuses
this time.
For the water
retrieve it was no place to hold the water retrieves??
Well, how in the
heck does every state in the country hold Retriever Field Trials???? They
HAVE TO have water to even run a trial???
Another
"excuse" we bought and the GSP lost!!!!
Please contact your
board members to vote NO on the thinly veiled attempt to cheapen our Gun Dogs
yet again!!!!! Gun Dogs retrieve!!!!!
GSP's do it all!!!!!
Carol Chadwick
Northwood Mountain
Kennels
916-681-7077
www.nmk1gsp.net
"It is easy to make a dog...but
hard to make a
difference!!"
|
|
|
|
|
karen_conrey
JH
Posts:21
|
| 05/11/2008 5:10 PM |
|
I called Hiram Stanfill who is on the Board and participates in Field Trails. I asked the rationale behind the decision related to the retrieve certificate and the primary reason is actually related to holding events and getting insurance (read money). More and more clubs are having difficulty in getting "live fire" coverage of events and when they do, the fees associated are seeing huge increases then years past. So, in response to the difficulty, the optional certificate was presented. In my opinion, this is a very valid concern which needs to be addressed. Every year, we are seeing more and more anti-gun and anti-dog fancier legislation passing that results directly in our ability to participate in the events with our dogs as we believe is the correct manner. Terry brought up a good point about the public grounds not allowing "live fire" as well. I agree that this is a problem. Why are clubs going to the public grounds instead of
private grounds.... renting property or even finding the land is the reason. Again... money. I do not think that there is a purposeful effort to do away with the retrieve altogether and those that are behind the move are evil and wanting to ruin the breed, only a response to a real problem that needs to be addressed. The answer in having the certificate as an alternative may very well not be the best answer, but please do not just go off and say no without offering an alternative solution.
For those that think this certificate undermines what the FC means and want to see Field events continue, then I recommend that you support the clubs that hold them as they stand under the rules as they are now. The fact is that many clubs are struggling financially to hold their events with drops in entries, increased judge and horse expenses. If you add in the increased insurance premiums to the "live fire" need, then losses can amount to hundreds of dollars for
each event... maybe even over a thousand for small events and thousands for the larger one. Please do not get started on the "party" concerns.... I am really talking only about the straight money related to the event itself. This will eventually translate to the Hunting Tests in the end as well is predicted to be a problem very soon. Soooooo, if you really want to see the bird work sport continue as they are now, I strongly urge you to take your dogs and enter the field and hunting tests or make donations to the clubs so they can continue. If you have a real alternative to address these concerns... I am all for hearing them and will do my best to get them supported. I strongly want to see our GSPs maintained.... bred for correct structure and type, healthy, and able to perform in a varriety of venues which includes hunting/field work that requires the retrieve in the more advanced levels as we now have.
It hurts me to see the "field" people disreagrd the "correct-type" and structure part as much as it hurts to see the "show" people to disregard the bird work elements of the breed. If we cannot start coming together pretty soon on maintaining a GSP that is as easily successful in all venues as in only one end of the spectrum or the other, then we will lose the "true" GSP altogether IMHO. It is sad to see a person out there breeding a GSP that has a horrible bite, a humped up top-line that is better suited for a greyhound than a GSP and could have a bulldog stand under the front end as it is so wide and hollowed out just because it can run so far and fast there has to be three scouts to keep the dog in site (is this really what GSPs were bred to work???) as it is to see a GSP that wins BOB that is so big and heavy that it is impossible to believe it would last a half an hour in the field working, and could not find a bird to
save its life. Sorry for my rant, but I am a bit disappointed right now and really worried about our breed as a whole as I see that there are two factions solidly emerging and frustrated that people just poo poo something based on bias and not rational decisions. I wish there was a way that we could all put out the problems that we have and we all work together to solve the issues... such as the insurance/money problem and land access which allows the "live fire" that seems to be the driver for the retireve certificate and not just imply that those behind the move for the certificate are evil individuals out there trying to ruin the breed. A bit niave of my I know... but dreamer that I am... I thought I would try. Restpectfully submitted, Karen
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
|
|
|
|
|
BarChar
Posts:10
|
| 05/11/2008 5:14 PM |
|
I am a Wire owner and I would definitely not want to see this go through,
because it would promote the last two breeds to follow as they did with
collaring. The water certification was another one but we the
wires and wiems kept that ( with a fight). I truly believe that the GSP's
should get the water back into the program and if this pushes forward then I
would reintroduce the WATER RATING and put in a LAND RETRIEVING portion
comparable to the RD water test. But this would be only as a last resort.
The part of losing grounds because of anything is not just out west, we
here in the east are also losing grounds and finding it more difficult to run
these kinds of events, some because of horses and some because of live
ammo.
Fight for it guys
CK
In a message dated 5/11/2008 10:42:28 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
cloverhillgsp@patmedia.net writes:
Thank you for saying it so well-this is just another move by the GSPCA
Board like the removal of the water retrieve. Field Championship
requirements absolutley should include the retrieve. And in fact the
water retrieve should not have been eliminated years ago-
ELLEN
& FRANK CAVALLA
CLOVER HILL GSP'S
On Sat May 10 21:54 ,
esdaysft@aol.com sent:
I
have recently read in the GSPCA board minutes (March/April 2008 Shorthair
Jounal) that a motion has been passed to offer a certificate test to satisfy
a portion of the field trial championship requirements.
I am opposed
to satisfying the retrieving requirements for a field championship by
offering a Retrieving Certification Test as an alternative way of fulfulling
points needed.
This may seem a rather minor point, but
for a breed which was developed for its utility working abilities, it is
another step in the wrong direction. A field trialer who was helping me with
retrieving a number a years ago said to me this is where we
seperate the men from the boys.
In our area of Western New York
we also lost public grounds, but the reason was for having horses, not
because we could not kill birds. AND there is a huge difference between
having a dog which is steady and retrieves several shot birds to only having
to retrieve one shot bird and add exponentially to that difference
when a dead bird is made available prior for a retrieve. All
dogs do not have the correct qualities essential to be trained for this
important task.
I can only assume at this time that the results from
contacting other breeds about this problem will not benefit our breed.
Especially since there are breeds such as the Brittany which completely
removed this requirement already. Please talk to others about this and
determine for yourself if this proposal benefits our
breed.
This approval will be voted on only by the Board of
Directors and their next meeting is scheduled on June 7, 2008!!!!
I
will talk about this at our next club meeting and contact my regional
GSPCA representative and others concerning this. I urge others to do
also.
Richard J. Aronica
GSPC of WNY member
=
|
|
|
|
|
cloverhillgsp
JH
Posts:27
|
| 05/11/2008 5:29 PM |
|
|
Way to go Carol, come on people let's not allow the GSPCA Board to get away with this one like the water retrieve-
please keep our breed doing what it was bred to do, be the upland gentleman's hunting dog!!! I agree about the poo poo reasons for the removal of the water retrieve, the GWP's must still pass it in order to become a Master Hunter-come on folks let your disapproval ring out-
Please have your local clubs send letters to the GSPCA Board-
ELLEN & FRANK CAVALLA
CLOVER HILL GSP'S
On Sun May 11 19:47 , NMK1GSP@aol.com sent:
I sincerely hope that the GSPCA membership takes a moment to read what Terry Chandler posted on this topic. I can not stress loudly enough my agreement with Terry, or plea with the membership strongly enough how very important this is to EVERY GSP owner. This effects our whole breed, people, don't fall for the excuses this time.
For the water retrieve it was no place to hold the water retrieves??
Well, how in the heck does every state in the country hold Retriever Field Trials???? They HAVE TO have water to even run a trial???
Another "excuse" we bought and the GSP lost!!!!
Please contact your board members to vote NO on the thinly veiled attempt to cheapen our Gun Dogs yet again!!!!! Gun Dogs retrieve!!!!!
GSP's do it all!!!!!
Carol Chadwick
Northwood Mountain Kennels
916-681-7077
www.nmk1gsp.net
"It is easy to make a dog...but hard to make a difference!!"
= |
|
|
|
|
NMK1GSP
SH
Posts:58
|
| 05/11/2008 5:31 PM |
|
|
Gee, Terry...what
would it take to bring back the water retrieve for FC's????? The retriever
folks seem to find plenty of water nationwide to run their field trials
at?????
Just a thought &
question???
CC
|
|
|
|
|
BarChar
Posts:10
|
| 05/11/2008 5:43 PM |
|
Karen, again I am a wire owner and I do not want to see this happen. I also
know about the $$$ problems of a club, but this is where AKC has to step in and
try to help by keeping down the insurance cost down. One other way if you can't
win this fight would be to agree if the trial dog would get at least one leg on
a MH or SH at least that way the dog will have to run in brace and show more
manners. Just a thought and I am practicing for when we start with this, because
I know we will.
CK
In a message dated 5/11/2008 6:58:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
karen_conrey@yahoo.com writes:
I called Hiram Stanfill who is on the Board and participates in Field
Trails. I asked the rationale behind the decision related to the retrieve
certificate and the primary reason is actually related to holding events and
getting insurance (read money). More and more clubs are having difficulty in
getting "live fire" coverage of events and when they do, the fees associated
are seeing huge increases then years past. So, in response to the difficulty,
the optional certificate was presented. In my opinion, this is a very valid
concern which needs to be addressed. Every year, we are seeing more and more
anti-gun and anti-dog fancier legislation passing that results directly in our
ability to participate in the events with our dogs as we believe is the
correct manner.
Terry brought up a good point about the public grounds not allowing "live
fire" as well. I agree that this is a problem. Why are clubs going to the
public grounds instead of private grounds.... renting property or even finding
the land is the reason. Again... money. I do not think that there is a
purposeful effort to do away with the retrieve altogether and those that are
behind the move are evil and wanting to ruin the breed, only a response to a
real problem that needs to be addressed. The answer in having the certificate
as an alternative may very well not be the best answer, but please do not just
go off and say no without offering an alternative solution.
For those that think this certificate undermines what the FC means and
want to see Field events continue, then I recommend that you support the clubs
that hold them as they stand under the rules as they are now. The fact is that
many clubs are struggling financially to hold their events with drops in
entries, increased judge and horse expenses. If you add in the increased
insurance premiums to the "live fire" need, then losses can amount to hundreds
of dollars for each event... maybe even over a thousand for small events and
thousands for the larger one. Please do not get started on the "party"
concerns.... I am really talking only about the straight money related to the
event itself. This will eventually translate to the Hunting Tests in the
end as well is predicted to be a problem very soon.
Soooooo, if you really want to see the bird work sport continue as they
are now, I strongly urge you to take your dogs and enter the field and
hunting tests or make donations to the clubs so they can continue. If you
have a real alternative to address these concerns... I am all for hearing them
and will do my best to get them supported. I strongly want to see our GSPs
maintained.... bred for correct structure and type, healthy, and able to
perform in a varriety of venues which includes hunting/field work that
requires the retrieve in the more advanced levels as we now have.
It hurts me to see the "field" people disreagrd the "correct-type" and
structure part as much as it hurts to see the "show" people to disregard the
bird work elements of the breed.
If we cannot start coming together pretty soon on maintaining a GSP that
is as easily successful in all venues as in only one end of the spectrum or
the other, then we will lose the "true" GSP altogether IMHO. It is sad to see
a person out there breeding a GSP that has a horrible bite, a humped up
top-line that is better suited for a greyhound than a GSP and could
have a bulldog stand under the front end as it is so wide and hollowed
out just because it can run so far and fast there has to be three scouts
to keep the dog in site (is this really what GSPs were bred to work???) as it
is to see a GSP that wins BOB that is so big and heavy that it is impossible
to believe it would last a half an hour in the field working, and could not
find a bird to save its life.
Sorry for my rant, but I am a bit disappointed right now and really
worried about our breed as a whole as I see that there are two factions
solidly emerging and frustrated that people just poo poo something based on
bias and not rational decisions. I wish there was a way that we could all put
out the problems that we have and we all work together to solve the issues...
such as the insurance/money problem and land access which allows the "live
fire" that seems to be the driver for the retireve certificate and not just
imply that those behind the move for the certificate are evil individuals out
there trying to ruin the breed. A bit niave of my I know... but dreamer that I
am... I thought I would try.
Restpectfully submitted, Karen
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
it now.
|
|
|
|
|
karen_conrey
JH
Posts:21
|
| 05/11/2008 5:56 PM |
|
That is an intersting thought about the MH or SH leg.... it would also support the hunting tests as well. I would think the MH would be more appropriate to ask. Other thoughts????
BarChar@aol.com wrote: Karen, again I am a wire owner and I do not want to see this happen. I also know about the $$$ problems of a club, but this is where AKC has to step in and try to help by keeping down the insurance cost down. One other way if you can't win this fight would be to agree if the trial dog would get at least one leg on a MH or SH at least that way the dog will have to run in brace and show more manners. Just a thought and I am practicing for when we start with this, because I know we will. CK
In a message dated 5/11/2008 6:58:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, karen_conrey@yahoo.com writes: I called Hiram Stanfill who is on the Board and participates in Field Trails. I asked the rationale behind the decision related to the retrieve certificate and the primary reason is actually related to holding events and getting insurance (read money). More and more clubs are having difficulty in getting "live fire" coverage of events and when they do, the fees associated are seeing huge increases then years past. So, in response to the difficulty, the optional certificate was presented. In my opinion, this is a very valid concern which needs to be addressed. Every year, we are seeing more and more anti-gun and anti-dog fancier
legislation passing that results directly in our ability to participate in the events with our dogs as we believe is the correct manner. Terry brought up a good point about the public grounds not allowing "live fire" as well. I agree that this is a problem. Why are clubs going to the public grounds instead of private grounds.... renting property or even finding the land is the reason. Again... money. I do not think that there is a purposeful effort to do away with the retrieve altogether and those that are behind the move are evil and wanting to ruin the breed, only a response to a real problem that needs to be addressed. The answer in having the certificate as an alternative may very well not be the best answer, but please do not just go off and say no without offering an alternative solution.
For those that think this certificate undermines what the FC means and want to see Field events continue, then I recommend that
you support the clubs that hold them as they stand under the rules as they are now. The fact is that many clubs are struggling financially to hold their events with drops in entries, increased judge and horse expenses. If you add in the increased insurance premiums to the "live fire" need, then losses can amount to hundreds of dollars for each event... maybe even over a thousand for small events and thousands for the larger one. Please do not get started on the "party" concerns.... I am really talking only about the straight money related to the event itself. This will eventually translate to the Hunting Tests in the end as well is predicted to be a problem very soon. Soooooo, if you really want to see the bird work sport continue as they are now, I strongly urge you to take your dogs and enter the field and hunting tests or make donations to the clubs so they can continue. If you have a real alternative to address these
concerns... I am all for hearing them and will do my best to get them supported. I strongly want to see our GSPs maintained.... bred for correct structure and type, healthy, and able to perform in a varriety of venues which includes hunting/field work that requires the retrieve in the more advanced levels as we now have. It hurts me to see the "field" people disreagrd the "correct-type" and structure part as much as it hurts to see the "show" people to disregard the bird work elements of the breed. If we cannot start coming together pretty soon on maintaining a GSP that is as easily successful in all venues as in only one end of the spectrum or the other, then we will lose the "true" GSP altogether IMHO. It is sad to see a person out there breeding a GSP that has a horrible bite, a humped up top-line that is better suited for a greyhound than a GSP and could have a bulldog stand under the front end as it is so wide and
hollowed out just because it can run so far and fast there has to be three scouts to keep the dog in site (is this really what GSPs were bred to work???) as it is to see a GSP that wins BOB that is so big and heavy that it is impossible to believe it would last a half an hour in the field working, and could not find a bird to save its life. Sorry for my rant, but I am a bit disappointed right now and really worried about our breed as a whole as I see that there are two factions solidly emerging and frustrated that people just poo poo something based on bias and not rational decisions. I wish there was a way that we could all put out the problems that we have and we all work together to solve the issues... such as the insurance/money problem and land access which allows the "live fire" that seems to be the driver for the retireve certificate and not just imply that those behind the move for the certificate are evil individuals out there
trying to ruin the breed. A bit niave of my I know... but dreamer that I am... I thought I would try. Restpectfully submitted, Karen
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
|
|
|
|
|
BarChar
Posts:10
|
| 05/12/2008 5:59 AM |
|
Karen, I would also think the MH leg would be the best because they have to
stand until sent for the retrieve.
CK
In a message dated 5/11/2008 7:44:41 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
karen_conrey@yahoo.com writes:
That is
an intersting thought about the MH or SH leg.... it would also support the
hunting tests as well. I would think the MH would be more appropriate to ask.
Other thoughts????
BarChar@aol.com wrote:
Karen, again I am a wire owner and I do not want to see this happen. I
also know about the $$$ problems of a club, but this is where AKC has to
step in and try to help by keeping down the insurance cost down. One other
way if you can't win this fight would be to agree if the trial dog would get
at least one leg on a MH or SH at least that way the dog will have to run in
brace and show more manners. Just a thought and I am practicing for when we
start with this, because I know we will.
CK
In a message dated 5/11/2008 6:58:48 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
karen_conrey@yahoo.com writes:
I called Hiram Stanfill who is on the Board and participates in Field
Trails. I asked the rationale behind the decision related to the retrieve
certificate and the primary reason is actually related to holding events
and getting insurance (read money). More and more clubs are having
difficulty in getting "live fire" coverage of events and when they do, the
fees associated are seeing huge increases then years past. So, in response
to the difficulty, the optional certificate was presented. In my opinion,
this is a very valid concern which needs to be addressed. Every year, we
are seeing more and more anti-gun and anti-dog fancier legislation passing
that results directly in our ability to participate in the events with our
dogs as we believe is the correct manner.
Terry brought up a good point about the public grounds not allowing
"live fire" as well. I agree that this is a problem. Why are clubs going
to the public grounds instead of private grounds.... renting property or
even finding the land is the reason. Again... money. I do not think that
there is a purposeful effort to do away with the retrieve altogether and
those that are behind the move are evil and wanting to ruin the breed,
only a response to a real problem that needs to be addressed. The answer
in having the certificate as an alternative may very well not be the best
answer, but please do not just go off and say no without offering an
alternative solution.
For those that think this certificate undermines what the FC means
and want to see Field events continue, then I recommend that you support
the clubs that hold them as they stand under the rules as they are now.
The fact is that many clubs are struggling financially to hold their
events with drops in entries, increased judge and horse expenses. If you
add in the increased insurance premiums to the "live fire" need, then
losses can amount to hundreds of dollars for each event... maybe even over
a thousand for small events and thousands for the larger one. Please do
not get started on the "party" concerns.... I am really talking only about
the straight money related to the event itself. This will eventually
translate to the Hunting Tests in the end as well is predicted to be a
problem very soon.
Soooooo, if you really want to see the bird work sport continue as
they are now, I strongly urge you to take your dogs and enter the
field and hunting tests or make donations to the clubs so they can
continue. If you have a real alternative to address these concerns... I am
all for hearing them and will do my best to get them supported. I strongly
want to see our GSPs maintained.... bred for correct structure and type,
healthy, and able to perform in a varriety of venues which includes
hunting/field work that requires the retrieve in the more advanced levels
as we now have.
It hurts me to see the "field" people disreagrd the "correct-type"
and structure part as much as it hurts to see the "show" people to
disregard the bird work elements of the breed.
If we cannot start coming together pretty soon on maintaining a GSP
that is as easily successful in all venues as in only one end of the
spectrum or the other, then we will lose the "true" GSP altogether IMHO.
It is sad to see a person out there breeding a GSP that has a horrible
bite, a humped up top-line that is better suited for a greyhound than a
GSP and could have a bulldog stand under the front end as it is so
wide and hollowed out just because it can run so far and fast there
has to be three scouts to keep the dog in site (is this really what GSPs
were bred to work???) as it is to see a GSP that wins BOB that is so big
and heavy that it is impossible to believe it would last a half an hour in
the field working, and could not find a bird to save its life.
Sorry for my rant, but I am a bit disappointed right now and really
worried about our breed as a whole as I see that there are two factions
solidly emerging and frustrated that people just poo poo something based
on bias and not rational decisions. I wish there was a way that we could
all put out the problems that we have and we all work together to solve
the issues... such as the insurance/money problem and land access which
allows the "live fire" that seems to be the driver for the retireve
certificate and not just imply that those behind the move for the
certificate are evil individuals out there trying to ruin the breed. A bit
niave of my I know... but dreamer that I am... I thought I would try.
Restpectfully submitted, Karen
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
it now.
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
it now.
|
|
|
|
|
WhiteslineGSP
JH
Posts:37
|
| 05/12/2008 7:23 AM |
|
|
Hi All,
Let me first say I do not agree with proposal but a thought for a
solution.
I am a little confused. How are Hunt Tests conducted in these areas if no
live birds are killed, my dogs totally ignore a bird that is cold.
Part of retrieving is to scent find a bird, a wounded bird
may run, this is all part of it.
The titles a dog has attached to their name should reflect the
accomplishments of that dog (there is a difference between a MH and a FC). Food
for thought, instead of changing the requirements for a title, change the title.
For instance RFC would mean a FC with retrieving points( this could also apply
to the other hunting breeds).
Agility has numerous titles, shouldn't that apply to other
venues as well. When you start taking away requirements it cheapens the title.
Not to open another can of worms but IMO we should already have
separate walking and horse back FC titles to better
describe the running nature of that particular dog.
Carol White
Whitesline GSP's
|
|
|
|
|
StonesRiverGSPs
JH
Posts:20
|
| 05/12/2008 7:42 AM |
|
|
There is nothing wrong with the retrieving requirements as they are now.
1. What public grounds have been lost due to live shooting alone.
2. What is the increase in insurance, prices rise due to other cost.
3. The original reasons were lack of opportunities for retrieving
stakes....don't think so.
4. Retrieving points are awarded to dogs that receive championship points,
to do so by any other means is to lower the GSP standards and should not be a
board decision.
|
|
|
|
|
CRYSTALKENNELS
MH
Posts:78
|
| 05/12/2008 7:54 AM |
|
In a message dated 5/12/2008 7:13:37 AM Central Standard Time, WhiteslineGSP@aol.com writes:
For instance RFC would mean a FC with retrieving points.............
Well if we are going to do this.. we could aways have Master Hunter retrieve (MHR) and Non-retrieving MH......... Crazy? Absolutely! How about SH retrieve and non-retrieve? IMO this is crazy. My dogs will pick up a cold dead bird because they are hunting dogs and they have the love of the retrieve bred into them. We may be Grouse hunting in January here and wound a Grouse that a dog could find an hour later..... laying dead in snow....cold. They better want to pick it up and bring it in.
If a FC title means that much to someone then they should be willing to travel to where birds can be shot and killed. We all travel far and wide (at great expense) to get the titles that are important to us and our breeding programs. To dump the retrieve requirements further cheapens the FC title.
Judy Zeigler
www.crystalkennels.com
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they went.
Will Rogers, 1897-1935
**************
Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
|
|
|
|
|
NMK1GSP
SH
Posts:58
|
| 05/12/2008 8:09 AM |
|
| I guess I too would like to know how Colorado manages to hold any hunt
tests if killing of birds is so hard??? Our club has their insurance
through AKC...thought every FT Club did??????
Carol Chadwick
Northwood Mountain Kennels
-----Original Message-----
From: CRYSTALKENNELS@aol.com
To: gsp-l@web.whc.net
Sent: Mon, 12 May 2008 6:42 am
Subject: Re: [gsp-l] Field Trial Retrieving Certificate
In a message dated 5/12/2008 7:13:37 AM Central Standard Time,
WhiteslineGSP@aol.com writes:
For instance RFC would mean a FC with retrieving points.............
Well if we are going to do this.. we could aways have Master Hunter
retrieve (MHR) and Non-retrieving MH......... Crazy? Absolutely! How
about SH retrieve and non-retrieve? IMO this is crazy. My dogs will
pick up a cold dead bird because they are hunting dogs and they have
the love of the retrieve bred into them. We may be Grouse hunting in
January here and wound a Grouse that a dog could find an hour
later..... laying dead in snow....cold. They better want to pick it up
and bring it in.
If a FC title means that much to someone then they should be willing to
travel to where birds can be shot and killed. We all travel far and
wide (at great expense) to get the titles that are important to us and
our breeding programs. To dump the retrieve requirements further
cheapens the FC title.
Judy Zeigler
www.crystalkennels.com
If there are no dogs in Heaven, then when I die I want to go where they
went.
Will Rogers, 1897-1935
**************
Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites
at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) |
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
You must be logged in to use this module.
|
 |
Membership: |
 |
Latest:
CliffBaill |
 |
New Today:
0 |
 |
New Yesterday:
0 |
 |
Overall:
3204 |
 |
People Online: |
 |
Visitors:
122 |
 |
Members:
0 |
 |
Total:
122 |
Online Now:
|
|
|
|
|