The Discussion about DFT’s

I have been reading the comments on NAHRA.Net with interest and would like to offer my views.

I find many of the posts thought provoking, others I find disheartening.

Lets avoid personal attacks in this forum. I find the harsh words directed at Herb Bittner particularly offensive. It has been my privilege to know Herb for about 10 years. I have seen him selflessly accept many judging assignments in many instances at the last minute to help clubs who had to replace judges or where additional judges were required. He like many others has taken the advancement of NAHRA for action, when it would have been far easier to say no, I was planning on running my dog. Those of you who have actively put tests together know the challenges of finding judges. Herb and all the others like him deserve our thanks not our scorn.

As for DFT’s I will not waste time reviewing Dave Cannings’ Memo, I believe it is clear.

The central debate appears to surround the animal rights issues. I have considered this part of the argument myself but frankly never found it compelling one way or the other. Like many of you I am a hunter, I typically get in about 30 days of duck hunting a year and perhaps 10-15 days a year in the uplands in pursuit of grouse and pheasant. In my role as a hunter I obviously enjoy the harvest. The evaluation of dogs as hunting companions and conservation animals is NAHRA’s core mission. While no artificial hunt can ever simulate a true day in the field, I feel NAHRA addresses those talents required of the retriever at their varying degrees of refinement. The fact remains it is not a hunt. As a handler, field test chairman a judge and a bird boy, I have never found that throwing a dead bird either by hand or mechanically really simulated a flock of birds as they make their last turn and commit to our decoys. Does the bird serve to evaluate our dogs ability to mark? Absolutely, thus it fills our aim. Does this bird need to be a pen raised mallard, pheasant etc…. Not for my dogs or me. Now for your dogs maybe so, and your clubs should be the deciding factor, not some guy in Alberta or Virginia or Nebraska. Your decision that’s all.

As a judge there have certainly been times when I wish I had an alternative to the under-feathered immature birds that sink upon being thrown into the water as the memory bird. Just this past weekend was an example of this. The pond at our disposal offered no location to throw the 1^st bird of our double onto anything dry. The birds were typical spring birds, in molt small and no oil in their feathers. One dog in 12 was able to complete the mark without being handled. While judges certainly have the ability to evaluate these factors, they certainly did not offer the opportunity for the dogs to do their best work. Would I have used a fake bird in that scenario, if I were convinced that all the dogs had seen them before, yes I probably would have.

So in closing Id like to say that I think there is plenty of room in NAHRA for all of us with differing opinions. This change is optional and if you don’t support it get involved with your club and make your opinion known. Clubs are after all the ones responsible for the conduct of their events.

I regret that I will not have the opportunity to discuss this with all of you individually. I will do my best to share my point of view from time to time in this forum. At present that’s a challenge as I’m one handed after performing some acrobatics at the recent Navesink Test. So please don’t send me a pile of emails, I really can’t type I had to presume upon others to type for me. Perhaps some one who was there would like to tell the tale to all of you on here. I am not able to manage the humor to tell it just yet.

In the very near future Ralph will be getting an electronic newsletter out. I am hopeful that will help improve our communications. But that’s another subject. Lets tackle that separately from this issue.

Good Training

Jim van der Giessen