Hunt Test Rules and Retriever Council

[Bonnie]

Until we can make it very clear to the Board of Directors of CKC that the Retriever Council can not and does not serve Hunt Tests well, we will continue to have questionable and incomplete Hunt Test Rules. The Retriever Council’s primary representative membership, interests and focus are the development and promotion of Field Trials. Hunt Tests need a Council, independent of field trial interests, that will focus on the interests of hunt tests, their rules, participants, promotion and judging. A new Council that will establish ways to involve the widest range of hunt test judges and participants in developing recommendations to the CKC Board for hunt tests. As a fully qualified hunt test judge, I am, like everyone else, trying to interpret the new changes. It seems extraordinary that we, who judge, now will be asked to interpret and enforce the new rules when we had no opportunity for input into them. How rich our hunt tests could be if we who are actively involved and participating could also influence the directions and rules. CKC Members should contact the CKC representative and make our needs clear.

Bonnie

[Misty Marsh]

I would agree! The only thing that I wonder is if the hunt test program has enough passonate people that would get involved at this level? I would like to see hunt test people have a say in thier stake/sport, not leave it up to others who may, or may not have the same interests or ideas. But I do agree that the HT program needs to be nutured/embraced by all if either the hunt test or field trial programs will continue to be strong in this ant-hunting, tree hugging world.

[rleclair]

Hi Bonnie,

I have run Hunt Tests in both CKC and HRC/UKC - I have also a judged in both organizations.

Now before I get everyone excited, I only want to make a comparison so that we may learn from each other - not to knock one down over the other.

In my dealings with HRC/UKC they definitely have an easier time as they only have to worry about Hunt Tests (there are no field trials, and no Working Certificate tests). I feel this streamlines things quite a bit - as I believe you are not feeling particularly well served having the FT people involved in the same Council.

Let me explain the HRC/UKC process for rule changes and judging requirements.

Rule Changes in HRC/UKC:

1. Rulebook changes are completed and implemented every two years.

2. Rules changes are voted upon at the National Meeting which is held annually.

3. Rule changes are brought forth by the Running Rules Reps from each region in consultation with the Field Reps from each region (there are 18 regions).

4. Field Reps are responsible to make it out to a certain number of Hunt Tests in their region each year. They actually grade each Hunt Test with a scorecard (Pass/Fail type of thing). The idea is to create a consistency for Hunt Tests within a region and nationally. Field Reps are each club's voice at the National level. In addition to the Field Reps input, each club president has a vote at the National Meeting.

5. Field Reps, Running Rules Reps, PR Committe Reps, and the National Executive contact information (address, phone number, and e-mail) is available on the HRC website and is listed in the monthly magazine.

As you can imagine, a rule is thoroughly discussed by the Running Rules Committee and the Field Reps Committee (among others) even before it hits the floor of the National Meeting.

HRC/UKC Judging Requirements and Education:

1. All judges are required to complete an open book on-line test during the year that the new rulebook is issued.

2. All judges are required to attend the Judges/Handlers Seminar once every three years. This seminar is administered at the National level by an Education Committee. The seminar is held once annually in each region (some regions hold more than one). There is a workbook and a somewhat interactive course that takes a full day to complete. Again the idea here is to create a consistent message across all regions.

3. All judges must have run a dog and passed the level they are judging.

4. Judges must be "sponsored" by their local club and one of the club executive must sign off on the Sponsor Form.

5. Ongoing Education - the monthly magazine and the HRC website have a "Judges Corner" which expose judges to various real-life scenarios - and then explain the correct way in handling the situation. In addition, there is also a Judges Forum as a part of the HRC Forum Discussion Board.

6. Apprenticeship - at each level of judging, a new judge must complete two "Apprentice" assignments under an "AA" (Apprentice Approved) judge. The AA judge must complete an evaluation form on the Apprentice after each assignment. A judge is "licenced" but may not take on an apprentice on the third judging assignment. On the forth judging assignment, the judge will become an "AA" judge. All judges must start in the lowest category (Started) and may not move up to another category until they are at least licenced in the lower category. (This is the nutshell version - there are a few other minor items in becoming an HRC/UKC judge).

Even with all of this, the system is not perfect (as I am sure some will point out) BUT I believe it is definitely going in the right direction.

Again, I am not trying to create a stink here, but I believe the CKC could learn from some of this. I believe someone else (Drew?) in another post pointed out the process that the AKC follows - again some great ideas.

Some of the furstration with these CKC rule changes seem to stem from the lack of communication or knowledge of the process. I for one have never understood how the CKC made their Hunt Test rule changes but I have learned quite a bit from reading posts on this Discussion Board. If it wasn't for this Discussion Board, I am not sure where I would find the information - other than hearing it in passing at local club functions.

In summary - a monthly magazine, websites (with Discussion Boards), Judges Seminars, and having public committees (Field Reps and Running Rule Reps) are great ways to improve the communication and knowledge of judges IMHO.

Randy

[Kevin Hannah]

I would only add a few things to your comments about the rule changes Randy.

The proposed rule changes are discussed and a decision is made as to which will be looked at and voted on. These changes are sent out to each club and voted on at the club level and then the board of director (president) of the club can go to the national meeting and vote himself or send the vote (proxy) to the meeting with anyone he chooses, in most cases the local field rep since they are there anyway but it can be anyone.

The executive commitee are there working for the members of the BOD's which is made up of every club president, over 120.

Proposed rule changes are then tabled at the meeting and the Board of directors vote on the rule change and it is decided on which pass or fail. The executive commitee has no real control over this process so no one persons views or beliefs can sway the direction the organization wants to go with rule changes.

When you say "Field Reps are each club's voice at the National level" I agree and disagree as well. The BOD are the members voice at the national meeting, the only people allowed to speak up at the meeting are members of the BOD or anyone carrying a BOD proxy vote. The club presidents have all the say and NEED to make sure the clubs views are presented. Sometimes these views differ from the views of the field rep which is why the proxy vote can be sent by the president with anyone attending the national meeting.

Kevin

[Misty Marsh]

That is all well and fine, but I have never been asked to vote on a proposed rule change, or topic up for review by my club president or CKC field rep regarding any hunt test issue, and to my knowledge neither have any of the serious hunt test people in this province who really care aboout thier sport. My personal situation is that I'm in a club that has a FT playing executive that does not offer it's membership a vote, and a CKC field rep who's one of the executive players, a FT guy too:icon1_lol: . So as you can see there is potiential for a mayjor breakdown in the current system in my opinion.

[Bonnie]

I believe there is great interest to be involved in the West. I have tried to work with the Council in the past and have been generally ignored by them. I have continued to stress the need for a Classification of Faults for the Hunt Test Rules. It is such a great tool to both Judges and participants in introducing and understanding expectations of a test and can be used to help competitors understand judging decisions.

I judge hunt tests under AKC rules in the States and truly appreciate the opportunity to use their effective Classification of Faults. I also judge the CKC WC series using their Classification of Faults as well. The CKC Field Trial rules has, for a large number of years, had a Classification of Faults.

I think, if you note in the new 2008 HT rules, we still don't have them. I can think of no better example of the limited effort and concern we receive from the Retriever Council than the fact that we are now facing an additional number of years before the rules will be reviewed and we can try once again to have a Classification of faults included.

Until there is a Council where hunt tests are a primary responsibility, interest and concern, we will continue to be ill served. Interested people need to talk to their CKC representatives and urge them to support a separate Council.

Last year, 26% of all dogs registered with CKC were from breeds eligible to compete in hunt tests. The Board needs to recognize the potential of hunt tests and support its interests.

Bonnie

[rleclair]

Kevin - thanks for giving the "finer" details of the HRC - I am aware of these but was trying to avoid making my post longer than it already was - BUT you are correct in your points. Thank you for clarifying.

In regards to the Field Reps comment - I guess I was not trying to "supercede" the powers of the HRC club presidents (which I know you are one). My only point was that there are several avenues for which members can voice their views, concerns, rule changes, learn, etc in HRC. The club presidents are definitely the most direct way in HRC (given the voting power), but also the Field Reps, the Running Rules Reps, and the National Executive of HRC are all other avenues in which a member of HRC can comment. I only mention the Field Reps in particular as they are the most visible and it is my understanding they meeting regularly via conference call. My point is that all (some?) of these lines of communication appear to be missing from the CKC at the moment.

I also appreciate the fact that HRC has a pretty good magazine and website (with a Discussion Board) where all of the contacts are listed. Again - another line of communication to the members.

Details can always be worked out and not everything is perfect - my post was really meant as a way of suggesting some things that may work for the CKC Hunt Test group which may help ease their frustrations.

To Misty - I feel your frustration - I just wanted to point out that Kevin's post was clarifying some of the points I made on the "HRC" way of doing things. It was not referring to the CKC.

Randy

[Kevin Hannah]

Just so we are all clear Trent, Randy's post and my responce were both talking about the system used for the HRC program and was simply posted so others could understand how things are done with that organization. I have zero knowledge of how rule changes are handled in the CKC hunt test program but after reading some of the replies it doesn't sound like I am much different then the people involved in them.

Kevin

[Kevin Hannah]

I agree Randy and I think the point is that the power to change things does not lay in the hands of a small group of people. The HRC program and in this case the running rules are completely in the hands of the membership of the organization. Field reps are a really good avenue to get concerns heard but like anything else some field reps may let their own personel feelings cloud the issues (not saying this happens) the BOD have the ability to voice the club and memberships opinions directly on everything from policies, elections and running rules changes.

Could a system like this benifit the CKC (FT & HT) programs? Probably but the difficulty may be in prying the power away from the ones who have it right now and handing control to the people that deserve it........the membership.

[Misty Marsh]

Kevin, I figured that much after I summitted the post, but did'nt change it due to the fact that most of what I said still stands as it pertains to the CKC program. I have said it before and maintain that there is a small percentage of the people making the decisions for the majority and in the CKC program the retriever council is basically it! I'd love to see enough passionate hunt test people step up to the plate and get a say "I want a say in my sport" , will that happen, it's hard to say becuase like Kevin said it's nice to have the power and protect your interests/agendas.

[MHgoldk9]

I tend to agree with what both Trent and Bonnie have said about the way this game is managed by the CKC and the Retriever Council.We can voice our opinions to our respective rep's and hopefully our thoughts or rule change ideas will make it to council.Now in defence of the rep in our region ,I've been told to just write rule change ideas down and submit them to her ,they will make it to the council.
I think it's up to us and our club's to push for change,maybe with the help of the Master National Club which would give us a national voice.If the HRC could be used as a loose model for change at least that would be a starting point.This can only happen if there is support nationally,it can't be a regional thing.
Thank you Randy and Kevin for the info on the HRC program.

Tim :dog: :dog: :dog:

[luvmylabs]

Another way to get this across to the CKC is through the MemberVoice Feedback survey which I just filled out and sent. The question this month asks if
I am happy with the CKC communication. I said no and that the HT rule changes should be previewed and voted on by the membership before they went to the executive. It may not do any good, but if enough CKC HT members also put this into the survey the CKC may pay some attention to us.

Anne

[Misty Marsh]

Another way to get this across to the CKC is through the MemberVoice Feedback survey which I just filled out and sent. The question this month asks if
I am happy with the CKC communication I filled it out this afternoon and said the very same things as I have in this thread! The hunt test program needs to be represented by hunt test partcipants who know the issues and care about the game.

[MHgoldk9]

Just filled it out and sent it in myself!Hopefully if enough of us do it they might take notice!

Tim:dog: :dog: :dog: :dog:

[rleclair]

I agree Randy and I think the point is that the power to change things does not lay in the hands of a small group of people. The HRC program and in this case the running rules are completely in the hands of the membership of the organization. Field reps are a really good avenue to get concerns heard but like anything else some field reps may let their own personel feelings cloud the issues (not saying this happens) the BOD have the ability to voice the club and memberships opinions directly on everything from policies, elections and running rules changes.

Could a system like this benifit the CKC (FT & HT) programs? Probably but the difficulty may be in prying the power away from the ones who have it right now and handing control to the people that deserve it........the membership.

Amen, brother!! :spoton: :spoton: :spoton: :amen: