USBCHA board discussing entry method change

[Guest herbertholmes]

There is a discussion amongst the BoD about changing the entry at sanctioned trials from totally open to 25% discretionary 75% totally open. By totally open I mean as it is now, anyone can try to enter and no one is given special consideration. Pro for the change is to allow the host the right to let all of their worker and volunteers that want to enter. Con is that it will lead to invitational only trials. The host individual or club could use up to 25% of their entry numbers as they see fit. Please give me some input, Herbert

[jomur]

Herbert

I suggest no change to present status.Hosts will use descretion on entries as they do now.Putting a % on it will not regulate anything as it can't be "policed".

[Denise Wall]

"There is a discussion amongst the BoD about changing the entry at sanctioned trials from totally open to 25% discretionary 75% totally open."

 

I am *very* opposed to this. It significantly biases a fair chance for everyone for points for the finals.

 

Denise

[Shoofly]

I'm against it too. And if trials like the Bluegrass stop being "points trials", do we really want to lose these large, quality trials as qualifiers?

[debp]

"There is a discussion amongst the BoD about changing the entry at sanctioned trials from totally open to 25% discretionary 75% totally open."

 

I am *very* opposed to this. It significantly biases a fair chance for everyone for points for the finals.

 

Denise

 

I am not an OPEN handler (yet ) , but if you want my opinion, I think allowing this change would be against what the "HANDLERS" association is all about. ALL OPEN handlers should have the same fair chance at getting into trials and competing for Finals points. Open draws are fair. To allow certain handlers an unfair advantage over others to get into large trials (and I'm assuming that is what is really prompting this discussion amongst the BOD), will indeed affect the outcome of finals points.

I find it very disturbing that this change has even come up for serious discussion on the BOD. If this change is implemented, you can count me out of becoming a member of the USBCHA when and if I do become an OPEN handler.... if anyone cares The finals would become meaningless.

[stockdogranch]

Definitely NOT a good idea for all of the above reasons,

Anna

[Pipedream Farm]

I'm against this change, too, for the reasons posted above by jomur, Robin, and Denise.

 

Mark

[ccnnc]

I'm against this change, too, for the reasons posted above by jomur, Robin, and Denise.

 

Mark

 

 

Me, too...

 

Colin

[Deacon Dog]

Against it for the same reasons.

 

Since the issue seems to arise on a regular basis, maybe the BOD should consider providing guidance regarding what constitues a sanctioned open versus an unsactioned invitational trial and how entries should be handled for a sanctioned event. Seems to me the abuses that could occur under a 25% rule could be occuring now since there's no policy.

[Belleview]

Absolutely opposed.

 

How would the handlers' association envision enforcing this rule change? Maybe they could subpoena the entries and all other relevant trial paperwork from the trial host, require some sort of "proof" of volunteer status, then do the math for the required percentages before approving sanctioning?

 

Pardon the sarcasm, but to entertain a rule that is completely unenforceable is silly.

 

It seems some version of this discussion comes up whenever there's a long waiting list at a coveted trial. I second the sentiment above that it's disappointing to hear that this is a subject of BOD meetings.

 

Lori Cunningham

[Pearse]

Absolutely opposed.

 

How would the handlers' association envision enforcing this rule change? Maybe they could subpoena the entries and all other relevant trial paperwork from the trial host, require some sort of "proof" of volunteer status, then do the math for the required percentages before approving sanctioning?

 

But that is not what's being discussed. What is being discussed is giving trial hosts carte blanche to allocate 25% of all Open and/or Nursery spots (since those are the only two sanctioned classes) to whomever they want to give them to.

 

Those spots may be given to volunteers but they could just as easily be given to last year's winner or to other teams who could increase the draw or prestige of the event. The "think of the volunteers" approach is a less controversial way of broaching the subject I suspect.

 

You are right that such a change would be impossible to police. As it stands now, there is no rule that prevents trial hosts from doing what is proposed other than the tradition of an open trial being open equally to all entrants, and that tradition in maintained by the honour system. It seems to work just fine.

 

If trials are having a hard time getting volunteers to help run the event, they could require that all entrants "volunteer" to help out for some specified period as a condition of entering the trial or pay higher entry fees to allow help to be hired.

 

If it's really about making sure the best of the best is running on Sunday, a trial host could opt to reserve 25% of the spots in the double lift final for last year's winner or the National Champion etc... I suspect that other competitors may not like the idea but the DL at most trials is non-sanctioned so the HA would not need to be involved.

 

What makes this proposal controversial is that sanctioned trials are the means by which teams qualify for the National Finals. At a big trial (say one with 130 entries) the winner, each day, gets 26 points; usually enough to qualify for the National Finals. In total at such a trial, there are 700 points up for grabs over the two runs and it would be unfair to give some entrants a better chance at earning those points than others, whether that's because they helped run the trial or because they are one of the top teams in the country.

 

So, I guess that means I'm opposed to the proposed change.

 

Pearse

[juliepoudrier]

Count me opposed too, for all the reasons already mentioned.

 

Julie

[Bill Fosher]

I would be opposed to this change _unless_ the points system for qualifying for the national finals was replaced with a regional team system. To my mind the fact that the outcome of a single trial can put a dog into the finals (or keep it out) is a problem in and of itself that warrants discussion.

[Belleview]

But that is not what's being discussed. What is being discussed is giving trial hosts carte blanche to allocate 25% of all Open and/or Nursery spots (since those are the only two sanctioned classes) to whomever they want to give them to.}

 

We're making the same point. It's impossible to enforce any stated percent limit, regardless of the reason for selecting that percentage, without the HA requiring some kind of proof that the ratio of allowable, truly "open" spots to "discretionary" spots falls within their allowable percentage.

 

Hey...how about this: If trial hosts may be permitted to include a certain percentage of discretionary entries, they could also be permitted to EXCLUDE a certain percentage. Carte blanche, of course.

 

If the HA feels like it may be OK to alter the rules on allowing a fair shake everyone at earning points, may as well allow hosts to eliminate the entrants who annoy them...or who win too much. Discretion is a funny thing.

 

 

Lori Cunningham

[Carson Crazies]

Another opposed for the above mentioned reasons. I'm not an open handler (yet) but I am a member of the USBCHA.

[Sue R]

Like Laura, I am also a member of USBCHA and I am a Novice handler at best. I would not like to see this change for the many reasons stated above. Plus, if trial hosts want to make their trial invitational or selective and non-sanctioned, then that's what the hosts should choose to do.

 

This, to me, is the crux of the matter -

 

anyone can try to enter and no one is given special consideration

 

As for providing slots for volunteers, there are folks who volunteer when and where they can, whether or not they run. A volunteer is someone who gives without expectation of a return (except for the experience and the enjoyment of being there and helping). I understand that some folks might not be able to take the days to go to trials where they can run and to others where they can't run, just to volunteer. If a trial host would need to raise fees to cover costs for staffing (or for non-competing volunteers' travel costs), then maybe that's just what might have to happen to ensure enough help.

 

I notice that, at the trials I've been fortunate enough to attend, there are those that help often, and those that never do anything but come and compete, socialize, and head home again. I don't think changing the rules (and not for the better) would necessarily help with this. There are those that help and those that don't. And, maybe there are those that haven't yet but will in the future (and even the rankest novice can help in some ways), or those that have paid their dues by helping in the past and no longer do so or no longer can. I'm afraid there are those that never have volunteered to help and never will, as well, and that's a shame. They are missing out on a great opportunity to help this aspect of the world of working Border Collies and trial hosts everywhere.

 

I don't think this is reason to change the egalitarian aspect of trial entry and acceptance of dog/handler teams. Just a very novice opinion.

[abcollie]

I would be opposed to this change _unless_ the points system for qualifying for the national finals was replaced with a regional team system. To my mind the fact that the outcome of a single trial can put a dog into the finals (or keep it out) is a problem in and of itself that warrants discussion.

 

Isn't that precisely what a Regional trial does? One bad run and you don't make it to the Finals for that year? However, like you said ... different discussion :~)

 

Anyway, I think EVERYONE should earn their way into a National Final trial - not be given "favors". I thought we were looking for the "best dogs" not which person worked the hardest at the trial? I think the majority of the people attending trials have "one way or another" given something back to the sport.

 

Candy Kennedy

[NancyO]

I would also be oppposed for the reasons given above.

 

As a realtively novice Open handler (3rd year running Open) I don't have the history with the USBCHA that alot of people do. But at least when I get in a trial or step onto the field, I feel that the playing field is pretty equal.

 

Nancy O

[Bill Fosher]

Candy,

 

There are lots of ways of selecting a regional team other than a single trial. But you're right: that's a different discussion.

 

Lori,

 

I sort of like the idea of being able to exclude anyone you don't want. Saves having to lie about entries lost in the mail, etc. Of course, we could also use that to the same effect: just keep excluding people until the "right ones" percolate to the top of the waiting list and then magically slip into the running order.

 

-----------------

 

Pearse, since you seem to be the one who has the head for numbers here, am I right in my seat-of-the-pants judgment that this rule would make big-deal trials like the Bluegrass even bigger deals? As the number of slots inceases, so does the trial host's discretionary allotment. I figure that the Bluegrass would have 64 or 66 invitational slots (depending on how rounding is handled) to play with. Compare that with a weekend farm trial with 45 slots per day, which would have just 22 or 24 slots at the host's discretion over the weekend. So at the big trials, more slots are available to the big names that would help the gate or prestige of the trial _and_ more points are on the line.

 

Seems to take a system that is already inherently skewed toward those who can travel and participate in the trailer race and skew it even farther toward them. Maybe I'm just an old pinko, but this seems rife with the stink of "them that has gets."

[NancyO]

Bill,

 

No head for numbers, but at 25% discretionary, in a trial of 130 dogs, wouldn't 32 dogs be at the discretion of the trial host. In a trial of 44 dogs, 11 dogs would be discretionary.

 

Nancy O

[Bill Fosher]

Nancy, you're right. I was figuring the number of discretionary slots over two trials.

[Valhalla]

It seems some version of this discussion comes up whenever there's a long waiting list at a coveted trial. I second the sentiment above that it's disappointing to hear that this is a subject of BOD meetings.

 

Lori Cunningham

 

I am opposed as well. And Lori is right... this topic comes up whenever there is a waiting list to a big trial. I have given this some thought and considered the option that perhaps it would be good to give the previous year's winner an automatic entry, but that would again make that trial invitational and not a true open trial. The point here is the definition of "open".

Christine

[DeltaBluez Tess]

I am opposed to this too....this could be seen as a "good ole boys club" .......

 

and if it implemented, this can lead to abuse by people....by letting in favored folks or excluding someone they don't want in....

 

 

I sure the BOD takes this to heart that people who have posted are NOT in FAVOR of this

 

diane

[Bill Fosher]

I'd like to thank Herbert for making the effort to seek feedback on this proposal.

[Deacon Dog]

"If the HA feels like it may be OK to alter the rules on allowing a fair shake everyone at earning points..."

 

The point I was trying to make in my previous post is there are no rules. As far as I can tell currently nothing other than tradition prevents sanctioning invitational trials.

 

Enforceability shouldn't be an issue. Like most organizations of its type the HA has very limited ability to enforce any of its rules and must rely on its members good faith to follow them or report serious infractions.