In this Issue!
1.
Meet
the President
2.
Club
News
3.
Judging
Clinics Update
4.
Member
Input re Use of DFTs
Wow! A month goes by quickly. It seems as if we just sent out the last
issue and I’m already working on the next.
One suggestion submitted by one of our members was that we ask for
concerns from judges addressing issues that come up in trials that they feel
are not covered well (.or at all) in the rulebook. So how about it judges (or any member for that matter), what
situations or interpretations would you like clarified? Perhaps we can put these questions to those
individuals who will be conducting the NAHRA judges clinics.
Also
as promised in this issue of the NEWS we are featuring some of the email
responses that the Board has received regarding the use of DFTs. The responses
are unedited and are reflective of the major concerns that have been
identified. The BOD is taking all of
this into consideration as they look towards the reprint of a new rulebook.
Meet the President
Dave
Cannings is the current president of NAHRA. I asked Dave to respond to a few
questions to help give you a better sense of who he is. Here’s what Dave has to say…
Q1: What do you do outside of NAHRA?
For 23
years I have been the managing director of Oilco Services & Supply Ltd.
This company was started out of the back of my pick up truck and has grown to
operating out of a 14,000 square foot shop in central Alberta. Oilco employ’s
26 people. We specialize in Well Control equipment remanufacturing and
manufacturing as well as elastomer product sales catering to the Oil and Gas
operators in Canada, U.S and the international market. Sixteen months ago I
purchased one of our suppliers which specializes in elastomer manufacturing.
There is a tremendous amount of synergy between the two companies and I was
fortunate to be offered the purchase option. My days are spent in supporting
the operations managers of both companies. In conjunction with these two
individuals I am responsible for short and long term planning and the financial
viability of both companies.
My hobbies
include as much waterfowl hunting as possible in the fall, and up until
the
present I have maintained my roots in hockey, playing with my alumni team in
throughout the winter. My summer is spent working with my three dogs (with one
retired). Training, running NAHRA tests and judging take up much of the rest of
my free time.
Q2. What have you accomplished with your own dogs. What future training challenges present
themselves?
Two of my
dogs have had some success in the field testing program. Delta, my 7 year old
Yellow female lab ( SR, WR, MHR, GMHR) has approx 640 senior points. Raider my
8 year old black male lab (SR, WR, MHR, GMHR) has 1000 senior points and to my
knowledge was the first dog in Canada to accomplish this. Early in my exposure
to dog training I had the opportunity to meet Dan Hosford from Spokane Wash. I
took the time and Dan had the patience to teach me the principals of gun dog
training. Through this association and my own interest in this hobby my abilities
grew. At now I know which end of the
whistle to blow and how humbling it is to handle these great animals. I have a
future challenge in an 8 month old black male named Hunter. We’ve just finished
the table work and from my observation during our Started test a week ago I
have some holes to fill. Raider was the sire of this guy and I see so many
traits similar to his father. He is going to be lots of fun to work with.
Q3. How long have you been a member of NAHRA? How did you become a member?
I believe
it has been nine years since I became a NAHRA member. Thanks to some local
enthusiasts and Mary Kelso the breeder of my first Lab, I was introduced to
this venue and got hooked immediately. It started with meeting for some
training sessions as a group and progressed to affiliating with NAHRA. Not only
has the experience been rewarding and the socialization with some great people
has been great for me and my family.
Q4.
Where do you see NAHRA 10 years from now?
NAHRA is
arguably the best Retriever testing game available. Our rule book allows us
this distinction. I don't see any changes to this concept over the next 10
years.
What I do see, is the present Board working towards building a sound foundation
for the future. Developing and implementing a solid business plan that allows
this organization to grow with a purpose. I believe I can speak on behalf of
all the Board members when I say that it is not important to us to be the
biggest retriever testing game available however it is important for us to
maintain and build upon our status as the best.
Q5. Is there anything else you want people to know about
you?
The only
thing I would like to tell everyone is that I put my pants on one leg at a
time just
like they do. I along with the other Board members got involved because
we believe
we can help the organization not because we think we have all the answers. I
got involved with this program about 9 years ago and I have personally gotten a
lot out of what it offered. ( Learned how to train a hunting dog, met and still
meet good people) This is my way of giving back.
Club News
Two new clubs have affiliated with
NAHRA. Welcome to the Skunk River
Hunting Retriever Association(Midwest Region) as the Salt River Hunting
Retriever Club(Northwest Region). The
contact information for each of these clubs is as follows:
Skunk River Hunting Retriever Association
Bonnie
Moothart, 1899 290th St., Washington, IA
52353, 319-653-5323.
Salt Creek Hunting Retriever Club
Rob
Barlow, 16595 Beck Rd., Dallas, OR 97338,
503-831-0592
Judging Clinics Update
As
announced in the NAHRA NEWS five individuals (4 are already chosen) will be
appointed to conduct official NAHRA Judges clinics. In early fall this group will be meeting with the Board of
Directors to establish the format and structure of the clinics. To date the
following individuals have been approved,
Dan Collier, Dan Hosford, Jack Jagoda and Paul Young.
Member Input re DFTs
The
remainder of this issue is dedicated to sharing some of the feedback that NAHRA
has received with response to the use of DFT (Deadfowl Trainers). Thanks to all who took the time to respond.
------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
Fwd: feedback
Date:
Tue, 11 Jun 2002 17:13:09 -0400 (EDT)
From:
Ppbollenbacher@aol.com
To:
feedback@nahra.org
I
thank you for the opportunity to contact the board and give opinion.
Having
been a school superintendent, I understand the dilemma of wanting
input,
but knowing every time the phone rings, someone may be there to take a
piece
of your backside. After a while, one
begins to twitch when the
Pavlovian
bell rings.
As you have stated in the first
"More," NAHRA members are passionate about
their
organization. I became interested in this hunt test process at its
inception.
I was a member of NAHRA about the second year of its existence. I
was
a charter member of the HRC but quit after one year finding that its
membership
strength and interest was nearer to Saint Louis than Philadelphia.
I
remained a member of NAHRA even though my job made it impossible to train
and
enter a dog up until three years ago. I was, however, a semi active
member
of a dog club in the Philadelphia area, training and working my dogs
in
an effort to have them ready for my hunting needs.
Over
the years, as an outside observer I have seen the national organization
grow
in membership and strength. Unfortunately, I had no hand in it, as I was
trying
to get the children of my various districts to read and write. In the
recent
past, I have found my organization, painfully go through some growing
pains.
Again, as an outside observer, I had no hand in any of it. I have just
watched
and sent in my dues.
Since
I have retired, I now have time to own more dogs and actually
participate
in hunt tests. I now have membership in the Southwestern
Pennsylvania
HRC as well as the Greater Pittsburgh Labrador Retriever Club,
The
Golden Retriever Club of Greater Pittsburgh (Yes, it isn't just male
black
labs that can find the bird), The High Flyers HRC (the farthest east
HRC
affiliated club), and the Buckeye RC.
I
own seven retrievers. Three are from England. So yes, I am passionate
about:
first my dogs, second my love for the gift of hunting given to me by
my
father, third my love of working with my dogs, and forth NAHRA. Yes,
NAHRA,
but I am not sure I would send in $200 yet for a jacket. But that is
another
issue for some other time, "keep it kind."
It
is commendable for the board to have a set of goals. It is commendable for
the
board to want to send out a financial summary statement. It is commendable for
the board to review the rule book. And it is even more than
commendable
for Jim VanderGiessen to be the first board member to step up to
the
plate to speak. The only problem will be, as human nature would tell us,
Jim,
being first, will be the one people will want to take a shot at. God bless you
Jim.
Please,
now allow me..... (yes, honest, but kind)
1)
Communications is a two way street. In the "More" you ask for input,
but
then
on page 4 you write "The decision to allow for the use of Deadfowl
Trainers
has been finalized. The board is not seeking input on this decision". Does
not this statement give the concept of communications a big kick in
the
butt? How many members are going to take the time to actually give you
feedback,
especially considering recent club history, after that one sentence. The style
of communications used in the past seems, from my outside
world,
to be going in one direction. That sentence says to members that that
is
still the communication style of NAHRA.
2)
This style of communications shows that the club, whether it is or not, is
using
a management style akin to what Rensus Likert would term "Level One"
management
style, dictatorial. When you say you want to be a "Level Four", by
communicating
and seeking input. You are sending mixed messages to the
thousands
of people who are "voting" for the club each week by sending in
entrance
fees for our tests. Votes by the way that seem to be going down. One
indicator
to you could be, "How many $200 jackets have we sold lately?"
3)
By advocating "Deadfowl Trainers", the national organization is
unilaterally
recommending a single product. Sponsoring if you will, the use
of
one product for all its clubs. This unilateral, endorsement, will cause
all
members and clubs to go to one manufacturer for a product they must all
train
on and with because, down the road our dogs will meet this product and
must
be able to find it and retrieve it. Questions that should be added to
the
list of, "Some of the types of questions and issues being discussed
include:"
(page 4), should be: a) What financial connection does NAHRA have
with
Dokken, b) Will Dokken sell us the ducks at cost? c) Does this
constitute
a monopoly?
4)
This is still a question, but it is so large, it needs to stand alone. Is
the
use of Deadfowl Trainers, handing us over to the Animal Rights People,
without
even a fight? Forget Avian virus. Forget Pitman. And number 3 and 4
on
your/our list are the responsibility of individual clubs. Shame on them if
they
can't plan ahead and find descent birds, let alone have sinking ducks.
And
God forbid we kill too many ducks and do not have common sense to wrap
them
up and put them in the freezer for our next fun weekend event. I fear,
as
a hunter of 55 years, as a life time member of the NRA, as a person that
rode
on his Dad's back at age 2 just to go hunting and be with his Dad, that
if
we voluntarily go to a "rubber ducky," the fight is already lost and
we
just
don't know it yet. But, you already
made up your unilateral mind, did
you
not? And you want to communicate, do you not? This "Deadfowl Trainer"
is
not
about a hunt test. I submit, lady and gentlemen, it is about my and your
right
to own a un neutered dog, hunt, and own a firearm. The Animal Rights
People
will see this (and yes, they are watching) as a chink in our armor.
Please,
please think about it in that light. Think about England, Canada and
Australia
and what has happened there not the rubber ducky.
Thank
You for your time in this matter. I hope this was kind enough. My words
have
been changed by my computer to protect the innocent.
P.
Phillip Bollenbacher, D. Ed.
----------------------------------------------
Subject:
DFT Discussion
Date:
Mon, 27 May 2002 16:52:03 -0400 (EDT)
From:
WADIN@webtv.net (Miriam Wade)
To:
feedback@nahra.org
Jim's
post (which was very well written -I don't care who typed it!) asked that no
e-mails be sent to him, but I'm assuming I'm directing this to the proper
parties. I've only belonged to NAHRA for 3 years. If I don't renew my
membership NAHRA will go on & not even notice I'm gone!
I
find virtue in what Jim said about DFTs serving the purpose for marking for our
dogs. The ONLY issues I have are 1) Opening the door for animal rights
activists to see us set a precedent for non-bird tests & proceed to use
that to mandate that test be held this way 2) It would gall me to no end to see
some people (sorry, but I'll target some conformation folks here) title there dogs
having never handled a bird. I just don't want to see cheap titles.
The
suggestion to take this issue up w/ our individual clubs is sound advice.
Hope
you all weather the storm.
Miriam Wade
----------------------------------------------
Subject:
DFT JUDGING ASSESSMENTS
Date:
Wed, 05 Jun 2002 08:01:53 -0500
From:
The Steenhovens <labsrus@dtgnet.com>
To:
feedback@nahra.org
It is my opinion that DFTs are a necessary change that will
help to secure the future of this organization in an ever changing world, and
that; hard mouthing can be easily assessed by a trained eye whether the dog is
retrieving a live bird, dead bird, bumper or DFT. Having not used DFTs to any degree, I can not attest as to the
life cycle of these products. As with
dead birds, the more "chewed up" it becomes, the harder it becomes to assess whether there is a hard
mouthing effect. However, I do believe
that a "qualified" set of judges can easily determine the degree of
hard mouthing that a dog is demonstrating.
Final analysis; this is not an issue.
The authorized use of DFTs combined with real birds could
be effective in situations such as the quarter to flush. As is sometimes the case when we run in Canada, the birds are
released from a trap, and are allowed to fly-off. Hence, a live homing pigeon could be used for this purpose. The
dogs quartering, and steadiness can still be assessed. If the judges were adamant about seeing a
retrieve, a DFT could be used from the release trap, or the bird allowed to fly
off, and then a DFT could be immediately thrown, with a shot fired. This could also be the case with the trail
test. Either a "well" scented
DFT, or a live bird (ducks are best)
could be dragged for the trail. If the avian diseases are of concern, a DFT or
pile of DFTs could be the reward at the end of a trail. Hence, the dog does not have to come into
contact with the diseased bird. Final
analysis; DFTs can be effectively used in conjunction with real birds in both
the trail and quarter tests.
Thank you for an opportunity to submit comments. Our future depends on open communication and
an effective decision making process.
In the words of Hank Williams Junior; I think that what they've done was
well worth doing, and they are doing it the best way that they can, and you are
the only one that you are screwing, when you put down what you don’t
understand.
Rick Steenhoven
North country kennels
Parker, SD
----------------------------------------------
Subject:
DFT Usage at NAHRA Tests
Date:
Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:37:50 +0000
From:
kbutts@att.net
To:
Feedback@nahra.org
I'm
fairly new to NAHRA, and retrievers in general, about four years now. I was
particularly drawn to the Field Test philosophy of NAHRA. I have enjoyed
participating in a number of tests, and my wife and I have helped our two dogs
earn their Started Retriever titles.
My
membership renewal to NAHRA is sitting on my desk at home. When I heard that
you were going to allow Deadfowl Trainers (DFT) in NAHRA sanctioned tests, I
decided that NAHRA no longer promotes the philosophy that drew me to join.
I've
read the "official clarification" on the web page. I realize that birds are hard to get,
expensive etc. This reminds me of the old sayings: "Anything worth
doing
is worth doing well".
Using DFT's is
not doing it well.
Ken
Butts
--------
Original Message --------
Subject:
DFTs
Date:
Fri, 28 Jun 2002 10:48:25 -0600
From:
Mark Metheny <mmetheny@us.ibm.com>
To:
feedback@nahra.org
CC:
randy.anders@lmco.com, MPHRA@aol.com
NAHRA
National Board Members,
I
respect the difficulty of the DFT decision and national board member
contributions to date, however . . .
In
my opinion the use of Dead Fowl Trainers does not reflect a true hunt
test. They are suitable for certain club training
events like mark and blind drills. True, we cannot simulate the flight of ducks
with dead birds. But a live upland sit to flush is pretty real. And how do we simulate the scent-oriented
upland or trailing situations with a rubber duck? Put liquid scent on the duck?
Secondly,
a hunt test should require a dog to negotiate real bird scents, textures,
feathers, etc. of different game bird species.
Many dogs that will deliver DFT's won't deliver real birds or certain
species it has not yet encountered.
Dogs also need to learn to resist the temptation of scent queues when
visualizing marks and running blinds.
Finally,
using DFT's dilutes the test and title accomplishments made to date by NAHRA
members. "Did you get your GMHR
pre or post DFT?" There will
always
be challenges to hunt-like activities from animal rights groups, disease (big
game CWD), and gun control advocates. A
flippant comment, but tell those people to go visit a poultry farm before they
eat eggs or chicken again.
NAHRA
without real birds and guns may evolve into a productive activity, but it
should be called NADFTRA.
*************************
Mark
Metheny
----------------------------------------------
Subject:
Fw: NAHRA
Date:
Tue, 04 Jun 2002 06:49:02 -0400
From:
Mel McKnight <sprucemt@sover.net>
To:
feedback@nahra.org
CC:
Paul Stuart <northstarlabs@sympatico.ca>
The
exchange below should indicate to you that in the Lake Champlain
Retriever
Club, the founding site of NAHRA, there
is support for the
intentions
of the Board of Directors.
Mel
McKnight
From:Mel
McKnight <mailto:sprucemt@sover.net>
To:
Christopher Rice <mailto:chris@wilsonwhite.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, May 29, 2002 5:15 PM
Subject:
Re: NAHRA
Just
between us guys-- take a position on what? the right of the NAHRA
BOD
to evaluate the feasibility of using DFTs in a field test? In my
personal
view, the BOD would be negligent if it ignores the question and
DID
NOT do such an evaluation. Personally I
would like to know how the
results
will be evaluated, what are the criteria for satisfaction,
effectiveness,
etc? but that is an old researcher's
curiosity. And a
single
test, one place, one time, will not give a fair evaluation. Seems like they have wisely chosen to use a
Regional test for which the results mean nothing, that is no points toward
titles. But there should be more
evaluations.
DFTs
already have been used in a well publicized event and sooner or
later
NAHRA might well be pushed to the wall to HAVE to use them. I
agree
with Herb that is better to move out ahead and be pro-active than reactive.
Having
been, in my prior lives, both a researcher testing unpopular products and a manager of unpopular research
and development I have great sympathy
for the NAHRA BOD. The BOD has a job to
do and I see no need to ask the clubs
or individual members for opinions at this point. After feasibility tests are conducted and analyzed, it would be
appropriate to report those results and then invite comments.
I
have been in so many NAHRA tests where dogs were expected to pick up stinking,
rotten, maggot-infested birds on land or dig sunken birds out of the mud! Field tests are by definition SIMULATED
hunting tests and, although I have never been waterfowl hunting, I don't think
birds fall out of the sky in that condition.
Because the whole test is an imitation anyway, it makes more sense to me
to test the dog's ability to find and return imitation birds than
"compost" as one club member has described the birds he encountered.
Just my thoughts at the moment.
Mel
----------------------------------------------
Subject:
soft imitation birds
Date:
Thu, 13 Jun 2002 16:24:46 -0700
From:
Morrill Mr Bryan L <MORRILLBL@yuma.usmc.mil>
To:
"'feedback@nahra.org'" <feedback@nahra.org>
seems
fine to me, not a whole lot of problems for me. I been running tests
for
20 years or more. I have had my share of shot up dead birds, smelly,
dirty,
ants and worms... on Sundays the last day when the birds are going
...
I
would don't mind one or two fake birds at a test, not them all... maybe a
soft
rubber or plastic bird with real wings taped or tied on...
Some
problems of fake hunter and fake hunting dogs not picking up real
birds,
so I would like at lease half the bird be real if half are
imitation...
-Bryan
Morrill Yuma, Az morrillb@juno.com at home
----------------------------------------------