|
NEWSLETTER NO 2
The Kennel Club Ltd held their 2nd HPR 2 day Championship Stake at the Swinton Estate in November 2014. Judges were Steve Kimberley and Tony Russell. This was the second HPR Championship to be held in 17 years. 
Photo courtesy of Penny Simpson
WINNER OF THE HPR CHAMPIONSHIP 2014 Howard Kirby with German Longhaired Pointer dog Wamilanghaar Tash 
2nd place Jane Herbert's German Shorthaired Pointer bitch Peersofdale’s Highlander CONGRATULATIONS FROM THE HPRFTA |
|
Congratulations also to the 23 dogs entered, of which 22 ran, in the 13th HPR Championships. Breeds represented were 1 Slovakian Roughaired Pointer, 9 German Shorthaired Pointers, 3 German Longhaired Pointers (1 not running belonging to Judge Steve Kimberley), 3 Hungarian Vizslas,
1 Hungarian Wirehaired Vizsla, 1 Brittany, 5 German Wirehaired Pointers.
Weather: First day the weather was unkind as it started very cold and grey. When the rain came it gave everyone a soaking. Scenting conditions were poor and pointing was going to be an issue. 16 dogs made it to the second round, which gave everyone a new challenge, this time mist and fog. Many spectators enjoyed two days of sport. Only 8 dogs that went through. The event was sponsored by Skinners who provided a welcomed hot soup at the end of the day for all.
HPRFTA AGM: The AGM took place at the Grange Mews in Launton Bicester on the 8th February and was attended by only 4 club
representatives. Clubs represented were the BCGB, BWWGS, GWP and LM.
Officers elected were:
* John Anderson (rep:BCGB) was elected Chairman
* Peter Hobson (rep:LM) Vice Chairman
* Christine Carpenter (rep:BWWGS) Secretary and Treasurer).
Membership Subs: remain the same
HPRFTA Conference 2015:
This took place immediately after the AGM and ordinary meeting
Christine Carpenter addressed the Conference by thanking Jennifer Hurley for the generosity in allowing us to use the facility at Grange Mews.
The Association ran a conference 18 months ago and it was agreed by all at that time that it was worthwhile. It was fully booked and attended by 11A and 6B panel judges, 7 Non-panel and 10 competitors plus the HPRFTA representatives.
It was agreed the HPRFTA should continue to organise such events as there are always issues to discuss.
Christine informed the meeting: "For those of you who are new to or unfamiliar with the HPRFTA I’ll explain a bit of background to the Association. It was formed in 1982 with the key purposes of: providing a common forum for HPR Breed Societies/Clubs; offering triallers the opportunity to voice their opinions; participating in new initiatives; and running an HPR Championship, which it did for many years. The Championship ceased due to lack of qualified dogs. But we are pleased this has now turned around, but, of course, as many of you know the Championship is now run by the Kennel Club and they have run successfully for the past two years.
In 2007 the HPRFTA was the first to run the KC’s ‘Rules and Regulation Seminar’ together with a ‘Practical Judges Training Day’ which was aimed at non-panel judges to ensure all were singing from the same hymn sheet and allow prospective judges to get a feel for running a Field Trial and seeing different HPRs in action. These new judges were drawn from clubs affiliated to the Association and nominated by the clubs who ran Field Trails. Entry onto the B Panel list of judges now requires aspiring judges to attend seminars and pass an examination but still not A Panels. Many clubs have now taken this on board and provide their own arrangements.
When the Association started providing ‘The judges Practical Training Day’ it was to replace the now defunct system of ‘Carrying a Book’ at Field Trials. This was done to help aspiring judges gain the practical knowledge required, but the recent attempts to revive the ‘Practical Training Days’ have fallen by the wayside, as there appears to be little appetite among aspiring judges for taking part." This said the HPRFTA have agreed to arrange a day for 2015.
Congratulations also to the 23 dogs entered, of which 22 ran, in the 13th HPR Championships. Breeds represented were 1 Slovakian Roughaired Pointer, 9 German Shorthaired Pointers, 3 German Longhaired Pointers (1 not running belonging to Judge Steve Kimberley), 3 Hungarian Vizslas,
1 Hungarian Wirehaired Vizsla, 1 Brittany, 5 German Wirehaired Pointers.
Weather: First day the weather was unkind as it started very cold and grey. When the rain came it gave everyone a soaking. Scenting conditions were poor and pointing was going to be an issue. 16 dogs made it to the second round, which gave everyone a new challenge, this time mist and fog. Many spectators enjoyed two days of sport. Only 8 dogs that went through. The event was sponsored by Skinners who provided a welcomed hot soup at the end of the day for all.
HPRFTA AGM: The AGM took place at the Grange Mews in Launton Bicester on the 8th February and was attended by only 4 club
representatives. Clubs represented were the BCGB, BWWGS, GWP and LM.
Officers elected were:
* John Anderson (rep:BCGB) was elected Chairman
* Peter Hobson (rep:LM) Vice Chairman
* Christine Carpenter (rep:BWWGS) Secretary and Treasurer).
Membership Subs: remain the same
HPRFTA Conference 2015:
This took place immediately after the AGM and ordinary meeting
Christine Carpenter addressed the Conference by thanking Jennifer Hurley for the generosity in allowing us to use the facility at Grange Mews.
The Association ran a conference 18 months ago and it was agreed by all at that time that it was worthwhile. It was fully booked and attended by 11A and 6B panel judges, 7 Non-panel and 10 competitors plus the HPRFTA representatives.
It was agreed the HPRFTA should continue to organise such events as there are always issues to discuss.
Christine informed the meeting: "For those of you who are new to or unfamiliar with the HPRFTA I’ll explain a bit of background to the Association. It was formed in 1982 with the key purposes of: providing a common forum for HPR Breed Societies/Clubs; offering triallers the opportunity to voice their opinions; participating in new initiatives; and running an HPR Championship, which it did for many years. The Championship ceased due to lack of qualified dogs. But we are pleased this has now turned around, but, of course, as many of you know the Championship is now run by the Kennel Club and they have run successfully for the past two years.
In 2007 the HPRFTA was the first to run the KC’s ‘Rules and Regulation Seminar’ together with a ‘Practical Judges Training Day’ which was aimed at non-panel judges to ensure all were singing from the same hymn sheet and allow prospective judges to get a feel for running a Field Trial and seeing different HPRs in action. These new judges were drawn from clubs affiliated to the Association and nominated by the clubs who ran Field Trails. Entry onto the B Panel list of judges now requires aspiring judges to attend seminars and pass an examination but still not A Panels. Many clubs have now taken this on board and provide their own arrangements.
When the Association started providing ‘The judges Practical Training Day’ it was to replace the now defunct system of ‘Carrying a Book’ at Field Trials. This was done to help aspiring judges gain the practical knowledge required, but the recent attempts to revive the ‘Practical Training Days’ have fallen by the wayside, as there appears to be little appetite among aspiring judges for taking part." This said the HPRFTA have agreed to arrange a day for 2015.
Conference: Chaired by John Anderson:
Items Discussed
1. Withholding of Awards at Field Trials: presented by Jean Robertson - HPRs withheld far more awards than any other sub group as shown by recent figures. This is not just referring to 1st places or any particular stake. Are some judges only awarding if a dog achieves 2 hunt/point/retrieves on the day? Do Judges judge to the conditions of the day? Nobody should expect an award if they have not reached a standard. Most judges try to award dogs that reach a good standard. However, the judging standard appears too varied as some judges always require a dog to point, while some others do not. 'If there is not a lot of game maybe they don't need to be pointed, but if there is a lot of game then you will get points'. If handlers and dogs are not of a good enough standard in Novice, should there be a pre-novice certificate of proficiency? Understandable if handlers came to Novice trials with expectations which maybe wrong, competitors need education. Have they read and understood the rules? The meeting agreed that trials were to a standard, therefore withholding was not unreasonable if the dogs lacked merit.
2. Consistency of Judging: judges attended a seminar/passed exam - Judges on the A panel list prior to 2007 will probably not have attended a seminar or taken the exam. 'For the old boys and girls, time will weed them out ' - but this can lead to inconsistency in the meantime with judges not ' singing from the same hymn sheet'. B or Non-panel Judges can be at odds with their A- Panel co-judge. Co-judges can find it hard to challenge the A Panel judge on decisions. Scripts should be available to all - including competitors. Rules are there to be adhered to, not made up as you go along. Judges report form -would gradings on the A panel report form be useful? KC would like to see A-Panels write more on their co-Judge and would like more to complete the forms and forward them to the KC.
3. Choosing Championship Judges - the response from KC HPR FT LC sub-committee was they were picked fairly randomly. Are we different from other groups? Spaniel judges are chosen by ballot, they have to be on the A-Panel for 5 years. Clubs that hold Open stakes put nominations forward. Suggested that delegates ask their clubs to raise this at the KC Liaison Council.
4. Championship Grounds: presented by Di Arrowsmith (Di was unable to attend so no presentation). - It was agreed by one of the officiating judges that it was a hard, testing ground. 'Pointer and Setter people would not want to work it'! The KC review the ground annually. If anyone has a ground the KC would welcome suggestions.
5. Do we need more Open Field Trials? - 'Novice dogs clogging up an Open stake when they may not be good enough'. Two wins in Novice used to be the rule and we did discuss it 2 years ago, the answer was we could not go backwards. This item was then carried over into item 6.
6. Qualifications for Open: presented by Jennifer Hurley - 20 Open and 19 All Aged stakes were held in 13/14 (and 14/15). We do not necessarily need more Open stakes. Better for novice dogs to run in an All Aged and achieve better qualification in order to get to a better standard in Open. We as a group are not promoting All Aged stakes sufficiently to get better qualifications and higher standards in Open. The meeting agreed we need to get a proposed rule change on preference in draws to the KCLC meeting. Delegates were asked to take the suggestion to their clubs, to agree the wording, and get a seconder from another club. Precise wording needs to be agreed.
7. Novice Stakes preference to members additional rule - Conference agreed no rule change was needed as clubs put preferences in their Standing instructions.
8. Touching Dogs: - Noted that some handlers were giving their dogs guidance on retrieves through touching. This is not acceptable. Some handlers seem to think this is ok, however. The meeting felt that judges should give clear guidance. Conference agreed no rule change is needed.
9. Water: Annual test; in line with other sub-groups; insurance liability - Insurances have to be carried by a club, they are not available for a 'random group of people coming together for a water test'. The suggestion of an Annual test was thrown out by the KC as they can't agree on it. Other groups only need to do water for the title of Field Trial Champion. Should we think again about a 'proficiently test' and certificate?
10. Shooting Game whilst on a retrieve: JA4b. refers - there is an inconsistancy between the requirement at Open and Championship stakes and that at a Novice stake. No action agreed.
11. Online Field Trial entries: presentation by Nigel Dear from the Kennel Club - The presentation was well received.
Conference closed at 3.55
Items Discussed
1. Withholding of Awards at Field Trials: presented by Jean Robertson - HPRs withheld far more awards than any other sub group as shown by recent figures. This is not just referring to 1st places or any particular stake. Are some judges only awarding if a dog achieves 2 hunt/point/retrieves on the day? Do Judges judge to the conditions of the day? Nobody should expect an award if they have not reached a standard. Most judges try to award dogs that reach a good standard. However, the judging standard appears too varied as some judges always require a dog to point, while some others do not. 'If there is not a lot of game maybe they don't need to be pointed, but if there is a lot of game then you will get points'. If handlers and dogs are not of a good enough standard in Novice, should there be a pre-novice certificate of proficiency? Understandable if handlers came to Novice trials with expectations which maybe wrong, competitors need education. Have they read and understood the rules? The meeting agreed that trials were to a standard, therefore withholding was not unreasonable if the dogs lacked merit.
2. Consistency of Judging: judges attended a seminar/passed exam - Judges on the A panel list prior to 2007 will probably not have attended a seminar or taken the exam. 'For the old boys and girls, time will weed them out ' - but this can lead to inconsistency in the meantime with judges not ' singing from the same hymn sheet'. B or Non-panel Judges can be at odds with their A- Panel co-judge. Co-judges can find it hard to challenge the A Panel judge on decisions. Scripts should be available to all - including competitors. Rules are there to be adhered to, not made up as you go along. Judges report form -would gradings on the A panel report form be useful? KC would like to see A-Panels write more on their co-Judge and would like more to complete the forms and forward them to the KC.
3. Choosing Championship Judges - the response from KC HPR FT LC sub-committee was they were picked fairly randomly. Are we different from other groups? Spaniel judges are chosen by ballot, they have to be on the A-Panel for 5 years. Clubs that hold Open stakes put nominations forward. Suggested that delegates ask their clubs to raise this at the KC Liaison Council.
4. Championship Grounds: presented by Di Arrowsmith (Di was unable to attend so no presentation). - It was agreed by one of the officiating judges that it was a hard, testing ground. 'Pointer and Setter people would not want to work it'! The KC review the ground annually. If anyone has a ground the KC would welcome suggestions.
5. Do we need more Open Field Trials? - 'Novice dogs clogging up an Open stake when they may not be good enough'. Two wins in Novice used to be the rule and we did discuss it 2 years ago, the answer was we could not go backwards. This item was then carried over into item 6.
6. Qualifications for Open: presented by Jennifer Hurley - 20 Open and 19 All Aged stakes were held in 13/14 (and 14/15). We do not necessarily need more Open stakes. Better for novice dogs to run in an All Aged and achieve better qualification in order to get to a better standard in Open. We as a group are not promoting All Aged stakes sufficiently to get better qualifications and higher standards in Open. The meeting agreed we need to get a proposed rule change on preference in draws to the KCLC meeting. Delegates were asked to take the suggestion to their clubs, to agree the wording, and get a seconder from another club. Precise wording needs to be agreed.
7. Novice Stakes preference to members additional rule - Conference agreed no rule change was needed as clubs put preferences in their Standing instructions.
8. Touching Dogs: - Noted that some handlers were giving their dogs guidance on retrieves through touching. This is not acceptable. Some handlers seem to think this is ok, however. The meeting felt that judges should give clear guidance. Conference agreed no rule change is needed.
9. Water: Annual test; in line with other sub-groups; insurance liability - Insurances have to be carried by a club, they are not available for a 'random group of people coming together for a water test'. The suggestion of an Annual test was thrown out by the KC as they can't agree on it. Other groups only need to do water for the title of Field Trial Champion. Should we think again about a 'proficiently test' and certificate?
10. Shooting Game whilst on a retrieve: JA4b. refers - there is an inconsistancy between the requirement at Open and Championship stakes and that at a Novice stake. No action agreed.
11. Online Field Trial entries: presentation by Nigel Dear from the Kennel Club - The presentation was well received.
Conference closed at 3.55
Christine Carpenter Editor