American Field Ariticle

Post by **Greg Jennings** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 9:02 am

No one is debating the author's *right* to have an opinion.

He, however, has no *right* to have it published. The Field is a magazine in the private sector. Every word in it is subject to their editorial policy.

Having edited professional journals, I can tell you that it is commonplace that even "letters to the editor", much less articles of any kind, are screened for content and sometimes rejected or edited based on it.

To use an extreme example, do you think that The Field would have required changes in the article if it had used white supremacist speech? Of course, it would have been.

The editor was not on his toes, IMHO.

Mike Clutter · Post by **Mike Clutter** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 9:25 am

I'm just a dumb kid from Iowa, and the only Latin I know is from 8 years of catholic school. (that's for Greg).
But.....As a publication in the private sector isn't it their right to print what they will so to speak? I see editorials that are way more one sided and inflammatory in a daily newspaper. Do you not pay for or subscribe to them also. Does anyone complain when say for example the NRA magazines complain about the anti crazies calling peta a bunch of wackos.(which they are) But as opinions how are they different. what makes one ok and the other not. because you run NSTRA?
please expand

Duane M · Post by **Duane M** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 9:29 am

The real kicker is that had this not been trotted out NO ONE outside AF subscribers would have ever seen it. Reason is because unlike some who said they sent emails stating such the Field is not sold on news stands or book stores, only by subscription. Seems to me the ones who started these threads merely did so to bash the AF, The Field and the writer no more.

Post by **kninebirddog** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 9:39 am

had the article not dwelled on the blood bath and the Mis-truthes about a venue which the Writer has No real idea of how the format is run that article wouldn't have had the bitter beer face reaction

and as for NSTRA people ...I run NSTRA and I repeatedly say that ALL trailers need to band together to save OUR SPORT

I appreciate a HB dog but also understand that a good breeding program should produce a dog that will run a HB trial a walking format or what ever the Owner would like to do with their dog as for AA there are very few true ll age dogs compared to how many dogs that are being put on the ground...and even more truth very few dogs in relation to how many litters are bred go to trialers ...trialers make up a small part of what our BIRD DOGS are bred for

So no problems with opinions...but the bashing of another formats is a juvenile mentality which we really need to grow up out of and all of us have room to do some growing up.

I will continue to support and cheer on my friends No matter what Trail format that THEY CHOSE TO ENJOY if their format gets threatened I also right or email to help give them an extra voice cause

Like a deck of cards they are played on a table that same deck of cards can be played many different ways

Duane M · Post by **Duane M** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 9:50 am

Much agreed Arlette but what you said needs to be remembered by some who do take jabs at traditional trials on these websites at any oppurtunity. Ya know it goes on in several forms from the judging to the run to the lack of retrieve.

I am still curious what the reason was this article was posted on a couple of websites dominated by NSTRA people, as I said had it not been posted no one outside Field subscribers would have read it. Can someone justify that for me, whether the article was right or wrong why trot it out unless to try and demean the publication and the writer. Especially this one after the counter points had been published by the Field. Just stirring the proverbial pasture patty is all this one did.

Post by **kninebirddog** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:03 am

it will take a while for some to get over the my sand box is better then yours syndrome

and that is from both sides hopefully if there is enough of us that keep that we can get more people to see this...

and as for why ...it still is a sore point as there are a good handful of us that were pretty upset at the split in the first place

So at least Yes they printed the rebuttal glad they did that...So I say time to lt it drop and lets get on with bigger and better things...how about another food post

Sorry couldn't ressit that one...I will go back to my sandbox now

Don · Post by **Don** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:11 am

I think it was Dave Quint that wrote this:

"Maybe but I highly doubt it. They allowed that to go to print for a reason."

Many years ago I did write a very long letter to Amer Fld about the number of dogs that were running themselves to death. I could not believe that the AF trialers were glorifying dogs that didn't have the sense not to do that. I was appalled that the dogs had owners/handlers that would allow it. Guess what, AF did publish the letter in it's entireity. No, many of the readers did not like it. I still think the same way today. But then I have run both AKC and NSTRA and I can find plenty of faults in both of them too, and have been vocal about it. I was not the NW field Trial council's favorite son and I quit NSTRA after a heated argument with Jeanne Rader over firearms safty. by the way, NSTRA never printed my complaints anywhere nor would they address them.

In the end, who really cares what someone in another venue thinks of yours? It simply doesn't matter. The different venues don't need to stick together to survive, they simply have to have a good program that appeals to people and run it with all the integrity they can muster. One of the glaring problems with me when I was in NSTRA was the the trials were open to anyone that wished to attend, activeist or otherwise, and some of the gun handling left much to be desired. So did the waste of birds I saw years ago. I would come home from most trials with 100+ birds.

scott townsend · Post by **scott townsend** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:23 am

Greg Jennings wrote:No one is debating the author's *right* to have an opinion.

He, however, has no *right* to have it published. The Field is a magazine in the private sector. Every word in it is subject to their editorial policy.

Having edited professional journals, I can tell you that it is commonplace that even "letters to the editor", much less articles of any kind, are screened for content and sometimes rejected or edited based on it.

To use an extreme example, do you think that The Field would have required changes in the article if it had used white supremacist speech? Of course, it would have been.

The editor was not on his toes, IMHO.

Greg, well put.

It has never bothered me what MacKenzie thinks,he is entitled to his opinion.Its pathetic that he couldn't research the format enough to at least be able to write intellegently/truthfully about.

What bothers me is the Field willingly published it. I don't think for a second that the editor missed this or was not on his toes.That is the AF managment (not there participants) attitude toward every other venue out there. It is a slap in the face to the people that run in these other venues and pay AF to register their dogs and litters.

Post by **ezzy333** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:29 am

Duane M wrote:Much agreed Arlette but what you said needs to be remembered by some who do take jabs at traditional trials on these websites at any oppurtunity. Ya know it goes on in several forms from the judging to the run to the lack of retrieve.

I am still curious what the reason was this article was posted on a couple of websites dominated by NSTRA people, as I said had it not been posted no one outside Field subscribers would have read it. Can someone justify that for me, whether the article was right or wrong why trot it out unless to try and demean the publication and the writer. Especially this one after the counter points had been published by the Field. Just stirring the proverbial pasture patty is all this one did.

There is a rather large difference in you expressing your opinion to an individual or a small group as compared to an article in a magazine.

Surely you can understand why it was posted for NSTRA people tp see. If I took a shot at GSP's in a Brit magazine you can be sure it would get out so thew GSP people could see what someone is saying about their dogs. It happens everyday. And when an article is printwed for mass consumption why wouldn't you trot it out for everyone to see. That is why it was published. And the publisher is just as responsible as the writer unless they print a disclaimer and even then they retain some responsibility.

Lets hope it stirred the pasture patty and enough people complain so that the Field will know they made a mistake and won't repeat it. Thats how we learn as long as we don't get too defensive. For all of us that agree with the article hopefully you can see it was a mistake to print it and for those of us that disagree with the article make your feeling known to the publisher and then move on. But either way surely everyone can see that the article did not improve our trialing community and I am sure it did not make trialing anymore attractive to people who have never tried it.

romeo212000 · Post by **romeo212000** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:38 am

scott townsend wrote:
Greg Jennings wrote:No one is debating the author's *right* to have an opinion.

He, however, has no *right* to have it published. The Field is a magazine in the private sector. Every word in it is subject to their editorial policy.

Having edited professional journals, I can tell you that it is commonplace that even "letters to the editor", much less articles of any kind, are screened for content and sometimes rejected or edited based on it.

To use an extreme example, do you think that The Field would have required changes in the article if it had used white supremacist speech? Of course, it would have been.

The editor was not on his toes, IMHO.

Greg, well put.

It has never bothered me what MacKenzie thinks,he is entitled to his opinion.Its pathetic that he couldn't research the format enough to at least be able to write intellegently/truthfully about.

What bothers me is the Field willingly published it. I don't think for a second that the editor missed this or was not on his toes.That is the AF managment (not there participants) attitude toward every other venue out there. It is a slap in the face to the people that run in these other venues and pay AF to register their dogs and litters.

Scott and Greg pretty much nailed my feelings on the thing. Mr. Mckenzie is allowed to his opinion but if he is going to slam another venue , and not even have the correct facts while doing so I am going to call him on it, and did. Yes the magazine has a right to print whatever they want regardless of how low class it is, and I have the right to choose to not read their magazine because of it. As someone else said you would never see an article of this nature in a NSTRA magazine. The attitude Mr. Mckenzie displayed is held by a large number of AF trialers. Now not all are like that. I have met many great guys that trial AF. I have also met many that have the attitude that if your dog trials NSTRA regardless of if he his a 2x champion he ain't worth spit. AF let this go to print for a reason and knew they had the a$$ in a sling a printed the rebuttal because of it.

Ditch__Parrot · Post by **Ditch__Parrot** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:44 am

At the request of kninebirdog a little copy and paste from one of my first posts, with some editing for relavance.

Sadie__Marie wrote:I will tell you as an average Joe foot hunter all the trials have a way to go towards regaining legitimacy. It is a common topic on most of the hunting trips with various groups that i've been on. It is always a question in peoples minds rather a dog that is bred for a specific game(trial) is going to be worth a hoot in the real field. All of the bickering over a benign question of what are the differences between NSTRA and other trials will not help anybody untill you can discuss improvements in a constructive fashion.

So why don't you take some of that excess energy and put it into typing out some recipes for the recipe thread I started

http://www.gundogforum.com/forum/viewto ... 69&t=14627

Dave Quindt · Post by **Dave Quindt** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 10:49 am

kninebirddog wrote:had the article not dwelled on the blood bath and the Mis-truthes about a venue which the Writer has No real idea of how the format is run that article wouldn't have had the bitter beer face reaction

Once again, the article didn't "dwell" on it at all. It was a fairly small part of the that particular installment of the overall article, which came in 3 pieces. The other two installments didn't mention NSTRA.

Don wrote:

I think it was Dave Quint that wrote this:

"Maybe but I highly doubt it. They allowed that to go to print for a reason."

Wasn't me; not sure I completely agree with it. The criticisisms of NSTRA in that article are nothing new, and have been brought up in lots of different places, including here. The Field/FDSB's opinion of NSTRA was made perfectly clear when they stopped the FDSB sanctioning of those events. That ship had sailed long ago.

Scott Townsend wrote:

That is the AF managment (not there participants) attitude toward every other venue out there.

Couldn't disagree more; and the AF/AFC agreement is a perfect example. In order for an AKC event to be dual registered with the AF, the agreement was that the AKC rules would take precident. The AF could have taken a "my way or the highway" approach, but they didn't.

The AF is an umbrella organization that covers individual field trial venues of many, many "flavors". No other registry/organization accepts and sanctions such a huge variety of events and formats as does the AF.

JMO,
Dave

PntrRookie · Post by **PntrRookie** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:09 am

Duane M wrote:I am still curious what the reason was this article was posted on a couple of websites dominated by NSTRA people, as I said had it not been posted no one outside Field subscribers would have read it. Can someone justify that for me, whether the article was right or wrong why trot it out unless to try and demean the publication and the writer.

Duane, I am the person, who had part of the article at my disposal, and decided to post it. I did NOT begin this thread, but since people were responding without ever reading the article, I felt it was OK to post. If you read the bottom of my original post, I only find a couple of factual mistakes, and do not have an issue with the article. - I am a current NSTRA member, past board member, past judge, CH dog, Regional CH dog, etc...AND have a AF setter as well.

The purpose of his article was the demise of weekend trials. How about us debating that and not his opinions. I actual believe there are facts to show that NSTRA is one of the fastest growing weekend formats...we/they should be proud of that and try to boast about looking at the AF folks in the rear view mirror. The weekend NSTRA trials are NOT in demise.

Yes...facts are wrong, should have been corrected (at least by the editor). Yes he has a right to his opinion and that is what it was. And yes, the editor probably knew what was written and published it anyway...their choice. PERIOD...get over it and let's play our games and have fun. There is a lot I like and dislike about both venues...NSTRA and AF - and most boil down to the actual people not the rules/venues themselves (hence why, I am a PAST board member and PAST judge).

gunner · Post by **gunner** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:30 am

Romeo wrote: " I let them know I will never subscribe or buy off the news rack and will do everything I can to dissuade others from doing so for letting such trash get published."
You should surely know that the Field is sold by subscription only, never at a newsstand or bookstore

Ezzy wrote: " when an article is printwed for mass consumption why wouldn't you trot it out for everyone to see. "
It's obvious from a number of posts here many don't know that much about the Field. .The American Field is certainly not a magazine for mass consumption. It is focused toward the knowledgeable pointing dog owner. As pointed out above it is sold only by subscription. Ezzy do you subscribe to it and did you read the previous two installments of the letter?

DuaneM wrote: "I am still curious what the reason was this article was posted on a couple of websites dominated by NSTRA people, as I said had it not been posted no one outside Field subscribers would have read it. Can someone justify that for me, whether the article was right or wrong why trot it out unless to try and demean the publication and the writer. Especially this one after the counter points had been published by the Field. Just stirring the proverbial pasture patty is all this one did."
Duane you hit the nail on the head. I noticed on the other bulletin boards and also on private messages the concerted effort by some of the NSTRA cheerleaders to anger their troops and leaders to show their vengeance by engaging the Field. As seen here as well, most of the readers of this thread are not even subscribers to the Field, and had never seen the two earlier published parts of the article. The intent of the original posters of thread here and elsewhere is obvious to those that have watched the goings on since the split.
Like most of my bird hunting buddies and fellow field trialers we didn't think the two organizations were compatible in the first place.
Duane, I agree with what you and others wrote. McKenzie was spot on with most of his assessment. There are also folks in the sporting dog community that think his bloodbath word may not have been strong enough.

scott townsend · Post by **scott townsend** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:43 am

The AF is an umbrella organization that covers individual field trial venues of many, many "flavors". No other registry/organization accepts and sanctions such a huge variety of events and formats as does the AF.

JMO,
Dave[/quote]

Dave you would have to name off those varieties for me, from what little I know of it . Again this is MY opinion.Going way back to where AF sanctioned NSTRA. Bernie was happy, until NSTRA started reducing the advertising money that the AF charged NSTRA. When the money was cut Berni came up with the liability excuse.I was part of the meetings ,listened to the whole deal. Based on what I have seen, Berni sanctions trials for one reason, Berni Bucks.
And really that is too bad.Even with all that going on I still think it is a great format.That produces good dogs.
I quess these are problems you get when one individual owns the AF.

romeo212000 · Post by **romeo212000** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:51 am

gunner wrote:Romeo wrote: " I let them know I will never subscribe or buy off the news rack and will do everything I can to dissuade others from doing so for letting such trash get published."
You should surely know that the Field is sold by subscription only, never at a newsstand or bookstore

Ezzy wrote: " when an article is printwed for mass consumption why wouldn't you trot it out for everyone to see. "
It's obvious from a number of posts here many don't know that much about the Field. .The American Field is certainly not a magazine for mass consumption. It is focused toward the knowledgeable pointing dog owner. As pointed out above it is sold only by subscription. Ezzy do you subscribe to it and did you read the previous two installments of the letter?

DuaneM wrote: "I am still curious what the reason was this article was posted on a couple of websites dominated by NSTRA people, as I said had it not been posted no one outside Field subscribers would have read it. Can someone justify that for me, whether the article was right or wrong why trot it out unless to try and demean the publication and the writer. Especially this one after the counter points had been published by the Field. Just stirring the proverbial pasture patty is all this one did."
Duane you hit the nail on the head. I noticed on the other bulletin boards and also on private messages the concerted effort by some of the NSTRA cheerleaders to anger their troops and leaders to show their vengeance by engaging the Field. As seen here as well, most of the readers of this thread are not even subscribers to the Field, and had never seen the two earlier published parts of the article. The intent of the original posters of thread here and elsewhere is obvious to those that have watched the goings on since the split.
Like most of my bird hunting buddies and fellow field trialers we didn't think the two organizations were compatible in the first place.
Duane, I agree with what you and others wrote. McKenzie was spot on with most of his assessment. There are also folks in the sporting dog community that think his bloodbath word may not have been strong enough.

Demeaning me for not knowing the magazine is only sold through subscription does not prove your point any better, in fact it really detracts from me being willing listen to what you have to say as objective. Even if I did not know it was not sold on newstands, my point is still valid is it not? Not sure what the point of your little comment was if not to take a swipe at me.

shorthairguy · Post by **shorthairguy** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 11:59 am

I am the guy that started the thread, and as I stated the article rubbed me the wrong way. I posted here so I could discuss it with other dog people, Is there a problem with that? I thought thats what these forums were for.
I am fairly new to nstra and came in after the so called "split". So I have no hard feelings what so ever about it. And another I have no clue how many nstra guys are on here except for Scott since his name is his handle.

Post by **Greg Jennings** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:22 pm

Mike Clutter wrote:I'm just a dumb kid from Iowa, and the only Latin I know is from 8 years of catholic school. (that's for Greg).
But.....As a publication in the private sector isn't it their right to print what they will so to speak? I see editorials that are way more one sided and inflammatory in a daily newspaper. Do you not pay for or subscribe to them also. Does anyone complain when say for example the NRA magazines complain about the anti crazies calling peta a bunch of wackos.(which they are) But as opinions how are they different. what makes one ok and the other not. because you run NSTRA?
please expand

Since I'm just a country kid from Mt. Juliet, TN., I assumed that people that don't know the vocabulary will take the opportunity to Google it. "Ad hominum", "ad baculum", "ad populum" (didn't use that, but that fallacious argument pattern is here in this thread, too) are all common phrases from debate. That's what we, at least the less hotheaded among us, are trying to have: a rational dabate.

Greg Jennings wrote: Keep in mind when you read this that I, myself, do not run NSTRA. I also don't, personally, enjoy competing in the format.

Posted in one of my earlier posts... It's rather obvious that me playing NSTRA doesn't have anything to do with my stance here. My stake in this is rather simple. I'm a moderator and I have extensive debate and facilitation experience. I'm simply trying to nudge this into an open and productive debate.

As to what is the difference you mentioned...

First, I subscribe and will continue to subscribe to The Field and nowhere did I say that I, or anyone else, should boycot them. Their choice, but I didn't advocate.

What I did say is that the editor was not on his toes. I think the flare up here is prima facie (there's some more Latin...without the advantages of a parochial school education ) evidence that it was ill considered.

The difference, in straight language, is rather obvious. When a magazine or newspaper publishes something controversial, it's doing it to sell copy and generate ad revenue. When inflammatory language is used by The NRA magazine, it is attempting, at least, to motivate its constituency; to "rally the troops" to its cause. Conversely, with its editorial slip, The Field created dissension in the field sports community and alienated some people that would normally be at least somewhat supportive of its main mission.

While I'm at it, the way this has been blown up and picked at and over, by NSTRA folks isn't helping either. This is getting way, way out of hand and serves NO ONE.

Bottom line, from my perspective, people win friends and influence people with honey, not with vinegar. We, in the field sports, need friends and "unit cohesion", not dissension and outright internal strife.

Duane M · Post by **Duane M** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 1:36 pm

Bottom line, from my perspective, people win friends and influence people with honey, not with vinegar. We, in the field sports, need friends and "unit cohesion", not dissension and outright internal strife.

Exactly Greg but everywhere this little nugget has been posted the result, whether intended by the thread starter or not, has been dissension. That alone is why I questioned the motive of the thread starter.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 1:43 pm

While I'm at it, the way this has been blown up and picked at and over, by NSTRA folks isn't helping either. This is getting way, way out of hand and serves NO ONE.

I agree with this 100%. In my mind it just fuels the fire and gets the piece more attention. And my position all along has been that it is fodder for the anti-groups of the world. If I am PETA, I quote this everywhere. "See...here is a member of their own so-called sport calling it a bloodbath himself..."

Just my .02.

Rob

Post by **Greg Jennings** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 1:46 pm

Hi Duane,

The original poster posted above that he's pretty new and doesn't know about the split and the concomitant acrimony.

I think everyone needs to take a chill pill and look at the other parts of the article.

There are some very good points there about making field trialing, specifically, and sporting dogs in general more accessible to the average person.

I don't think anyone will disagree that that goal is laudable and would be good for all of us.

Mike Clutter · Post by **Mike Clutter** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 2:09 pm

Greg,
I meant no disrespect, my thesaurus, and dictionary are sitting prominently on the computer desk as we speak. I was only trying to lighten the mood. I did read the entire article as I do subscribe to the field(and will continue to do so) and in no way was trying to start an argument. Since I was a member of nstra and was working on judging certification I have been to many of their events. I don't, but I could see how the first time observer of said events could see them as a "blood bath". For example, at a trial with two fields going you would have sixteen braces a day on each field, sixty four total for the weekend. On average four birds per man, per brace for a total of 512 birds a weekend. Then take into consideration the rate of speed at which the participants are traveling to the unsaavy eyes of a first timer. You can imagine how some people could view this. Now add the visual of the buckets of "spent birds" next to the scoring table,You get the picture.
Now would this paragraph help this thread? No. Do the antis need to see a post like this? No. Do I think Nstra is a bad organization? No. My point was to each his own. That is one man's opinion after one trial. It was barely a paragraph out of a three issue article.
My problem with the whole ordeal is that this guy is getting killed online, I mean, come on, calling his house. It was not in the mainstream. settle down. Do you call and harass every person that disagrees with hunting?
I was only asking what the difference was to enlighten myself to the situation. Not to be a smartie.
This really is no different than the GSP/DK, POINTER/SETTER, FORD/CHEVY, TASTES GREAT/LESS FILLING BS that people get caught up in.
Think about it this way.... two brothers fighting all the time, they're still from the same family. Now say something about their mom or sister, they are united. Look out!
It might be oversimplifying it a bit, but, simple is good.

Mike Clutter
"bird dog guy"
Bird hunter in a free country(for now)

ACooper · Post by **ACooper** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 2:49 pm

Anyone who condones the use of the words "Blood bath" regarding any event involving sportsmen and working dogs is only giving the "antis" more ammunition. If you do not believe that divide and conquer idea works, look at what took place in England.

Mike Clutter · Post by **Mike Clutter** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:11 pm

Those were Mr. McKenzies words not mine thus the quotes. This is going nowhere by the way.
done

lvrgsp · Post by **lvrgsp** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:46 pm

Enlighten me on this will you, the NSTRA folks do you consider the NBDCA and Pheasant Hunters Unlimited organizations to be considered as a NSTRA Assoc? Have any of you attended one of these events?

Scott some of the organizations under the AF Umbrella are
U.S. Complete shooting dog assoc.
National Bird Hunters assoc
American Bird Hunters assoc. ( not sure if there still running )
NGSPA, NGPDA
Red Setter
National Vizsla
Britts, almost all the national breed clubs have an AF sanctioned org.
all the coverdog trials
and all 450 plus here under the aftca
http://www.aftca.org/clubs/clubs_list.p ... &value=500

Thanks,
Chip

Post by **ezzy333** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:52 pm

The Brit clubs are not sanctioned by AF but are AKC clubs. We do have many of our trials sanctioned under both organizations.

Ezzy

lvrgsp · Post by **lvrgsp** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:56 pm

Thanks Ezzy, I stand corrected. Thats what I should have said, many breed clubs are sanctioned by AKC, AF, both or individually.

Chip

huntindog · Post by **huntindog** » Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:12 pm

[quote="

OFF TOPIC HERE.
One thing I think NSTRA could do better is the final use of the birds. Many of the trials use up the birds for dinners or folks take some home but I have seen many other times when they have not. It seems to me that we could clean the birds and give them to a soup kitchen or something. (I would think the NSTRA officials should address this and make a policy). In Canadian NSTRA, when I attend those trials or even at our NAVHDA events, I have cleaned the birds my self for snacking at the event.[/quote]

This at first seems like a great idea but, many (all?) of the commercial feeds for pen raised gamebirds have antibiotics in them. I have always been under the impession that is why the birds should not be eaten. Perhaps it is another ingredient. At any rate, these feeds have warnings on them that birds fed these feeds should not be consumed by humans.

gunner · Post by **gunner** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 8:32 am

Of interest to this thread and some of the postings within is that the Field has published in it's issue of December 13 a two page response from Mr. McKenzie, and a sidebar entitled The Real Purpose of Field Trials originally written by the late William Brown in his "Field Trials-History, Management and Judging Standards."

I don't have the ability to make available a copy of the article, but some points stood out as I read it pertaining to some of the postings here. One point that Mckenzie brought up at the very beginning of his article was the number of complimentary letters, emails and phone messages. He writes "the one negative (phone) call came from an NSTRA member who failed to identify himself. It was not at all complimentary; in fact, it was confrontational, profane and abusive. Nevertheless, I respect that individual's right to express his opinion. Much of his tirade involved questioning my credentials for passing on what he described as "trash" insofar as my perception of NSTRA."

McKenzie writes considerably on his thoughts and experience with upland game conservation. It is quite different than the view of NSTRA's president Ted Dewey's feelings in regard to the game birds that escape the bird fields.
There is apparently as big a difference in the philosophies in regard to game conservation between NSTRA and traditional field trial venues. Indeed.

McKenzie continues to elaborate on points that he made in his original 3 issue article.

RayGubernat · Post by **RayGubernat** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:43 am

After reading all of the articles, ther is no question in my mind that Mr. McKenzie was rather uncomplimentary regarding NSTRA competitions, perhaps unnecessarily so. He certainly is quite passionate, opinionated and not at all bashful about expressing his views. Admittedly, his lack of expertise with the details regarding proper conduct of a NSTRA event showed through and that was unfortunate because it detracted from his message.

His dissatisfaction with the relative rise of NSTRA trials in his geographic area and the relative demise of field trials of all types in that same area may very well color his attitudes and opinions. If I were a professional trainer with a lifetime invested in training dogs for horseback field trials, I might well be more than a little upset that my chosen way of life is being supplanted by another form of competition. It would be hard not to let this color my message as well as my opinions.

That being said, I do think that field trials and NSTRA competitions serve different groups of sportsmen and women. It seems that the fundamental focus of the two forms of competition is rather different and this leads to the "development" of dogs that excel in different aspects of that which one might expect of a bird dog.

As a horseback and occasionally a walking field trialer, I must say that I have a decided preference for my particular form of the sport. However, one has to be blind, deaf and dumb not to realize that many different forces are at work which are causing the ranks of horseback field trialers to thin. Some of those same forces obviously are at work to cause a rise in the atraction of NSTRA type events.

RayG

romeo212000 · Post by **romeo212000** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:02 am

RayGubernat wrote:After reading all of the articles, ther is no question in my mind that Mr. McKenzie was rather uncomplimentary regarding NSTRA competitions, perhaps unnecessarily so. He certainly is quite passionate, opinionated and not at all bashful about expressing his views. Admittedly, his lack of expertise with the details regarding proper conduct of a NSTRA event showed through and that was unfortunate because it detracted from his message.

His dissatisfaction with the relative rise of NSTRA trials in his geographic area and the relative demise of field trials of all types in that same area may very well color his attitudes and opinions. If I were a professional trainer with a lifetime invested in training dogs for horseback field trials, I might well be more than a little upset that my chosen way of life is being supplanted by another form of competition. It would be hard not to let this color my message as well as my opinions.

That being said, I do think that field trials and NSTRA competitions serve different groups of sportsmen and women. It seems that the fundamental focus of the two forms of competition is rather different and this leads to the "development" of dogs that excel in different aspects of that which one might expect of a bird dog.

As a horseback and occasionally a walking field trialer, I must say that I have a decided preference for my particular form of the sport. However, one has to be blind, deaf and dumb not to realize that many different forces are at work which are causing the ranks of horseback field trialers to thin. Some of those same forces obviously are at work to cause a rise in the atraction of NSTRA type events.

RayG

Excellent post Ray. You pretty much hit the nail on the head.
As far as what Mr. Mackenzie says regarding the huge number of letters and calls praising him for his article, and only one profane NSTRA member, I know a great number of people who wrote and called in regards to his article that were not at all pleased about it. Mr. MacKenzie again bends the truth so that it is not truth at all and perpetuates the image he has created for himself as an inaccurate and untruthful writer. There is no question in my mind that Mr. MacKenzie is writing out of sour grapes.

Post by **kninebirddog** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 11:29 am

well I know for fact that he got plenty of letters and emails which were not foul as he claims but they sure didn't agree with his section of negative

it is very sad how there is so much distasteful Bias in some what are supposed to be information and stories and trial reports for Our dogs that do well

Oh well let him dwell in his own miserable little world ....as it takes an unhappy person to be like that. I feel sorry for them. Hope they find peace with in themselves.

gunner · Post by **gunner** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:14 pm

You need to re-read the article. He described the one caller, and most of us that have read this thread know who that caller was.
That poster has a long past of posting here and on other sites where one doesn't need to read very far into his posts to understand what McKenzie was driving at in the first paragraph in his Dec. 13th article.

If you don't subscribe to the Field and missed the quote above, here's what McKenzie wrote of that poster..."the one negative (phone) call came from an NSTRA member who failed to identify himself. It was not at all complimentary; in fact, it was confrontational, profane and abusive. Nevertheless, I respect that individual's right to express his opinion. Much of his tirade involved questioning my credentials for passing on what he described as "trash" insofar as my perception of NSTRA."

Post by **Greg Jennings** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:33 pm

Quoting Paul...
And when the brokenhearted people living in the world agree
There will be an answer, let it be

For though they may be parted, there is still a chance that they will see
There will be an answer, let it be

Greg says:

Let it be, ladies and gentlemen. Please let it be.

snips · Post by **snips** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:52 pm

If he is talking about Scott, who came on this Forum and said he talked to him, I will tell you that I would believe Scott WAY above anything this this guy has to say. Scott has never been anything but a class act on dealing with issues.

shorthairguy · Post by **shorthairguy** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 5:54 pm

I would agree 100%.

snips wrote:If he is talking about Scott, who came on this Forum and said he talked to him, I will tell you that I would believe Scott WAY above anything this this guy has to say. Scott has never been anything but a class act on dealing with issues.

Post by **Sharon** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:08 pm

I think Greg said, "Let it be."

This year marks the end of AF Walking trials in Region13 - Ontario. Breaks my heart but those are the times. Entry level stakes are being eliminated due to a lack of participants and a lack of interest from the leadership who choose the stakes.

Yawallac · Post by **Yawallac** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 6:19 pm

This year marks the end of AF Walking trials in Region13 - Ontario. Breaks my heart but those are the times. Entry level stakes are being eliminated.

That's the real issue.

scott townsend · Post by **scott townsend** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 8:14 pm

It is me that he is speaking of , and yes it was negetive,yes I questioned his experience on writing an article about NSTRA with only watching one trial and never reading the rule book.At no time did I raise my voice or use profanity. After talking with him a bit I did refer to his article as trash. Thats as harsh as I got with the man. The only profanity in the conversation came out of his mouth.( I quoted his exact words earlier in this thread.)The reason I never told him who I was is because he hung up on me directly after his threat.
I have nothing to hide or fear from this man or any other.
I am a total supporter of the AF, great organization, but it is sad day when they allow that or any person to openly belittle another bird dog format in their magazine.

If Mr MaKenzie was really concerned about the demise of the weekend trial he should address the real issues instead of pointing the finger at a completly different organization/format. He does not know enough about NSTRA to even speak intelligently about it.I am not a NASCAR fan at all. If I watch one race maybe I can write an article and get in printed in a NASCAR mag.What I don't know I could make up the rest.

Post by **slistoe** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 8:35 pm

scott townsend wrote:I am not a NASCAR fan at all. If I watch one race maybe I can write an article and get in printed in a NASCAR mag.What I don't know I could make up the rest.

No, but you could probably write something about HB AF trials and get it published in a NSTRA magazine.

Post by **slistoe** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 8:51 pm

Sharon wrote:I think Greg said, "Let it be."

This year marks the end of AF Walking trials in Region13 - Ontario. Breaks my heart but those are the times. Entry level stakes are being eliminated due to a lack of participants and a lack of interest from the leadership who choose the stakes.

Are there/ were there any AF Horseback trials?

How is the interest in bringing the folks in the CKC clubs back into field trailing from the "Ribbon for Everyone for Anything" games?

Post by **Sharon** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 9:26 pm

With our 4 Ontario Clubs there are lots of Horseback trials, lots of participants. Still have 3 big Championships a year.
The CKC ( Canadian kennel Club ) has no interest in trials. Even their Hunt Tests ( ribbon for everyone who meets the standard, no competition), are hurting.

People seldom start trialing at the Open Shooting Dog Horseback level. If entry level stakes and walking stakes are not encouraged ( because the Horseback folks are happy with their situation), they will regret it as there will be no new people who have come up through the ranks, entering their stakes.

Post by **slistoe** » Thu Dec 18, 2008 10:14 pm

The century old tradition of Horseback Trialing did not depend on Walking Trials to feed their ranks. Walking trials are a recent innovation to the established game.

The clubs exist. Get the people out who want to have a walking trial to enter the club and run a trial. Why is it incumbent on the folks who are setting up and running the HB stakes to provide means and entertainment for the ones who want to run Walking? If you want it, make it happen. If you don't want to make it happen, then work with what those who will make things happen will provide.

The only people who are to blame for a lack of Walking Trials are the folks who want a walking trial and won't organize one.

Anyway, too bad about the CKC crowd. I can't figure out what is going on there. There are folks who want to compete with their dogs, but I guess they find it easier to just move down south where someone else will do the organizing and all they have to do is pay to play. If they wanted to run at home they would have to work at it. But I suppose they are symptomatic of the "something for nothing" crowd and if the tests are even losing workers to hold events then I guess the thinking has become expressed to the extreme.

Drifter Saver · Post by **Drifter Saver** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 5:06 am

slistoe wrote:No, but you could probably write something about HB AF trials and get it published in a NSTRA magazine.

Scott is an extremely well respected trainer and handler within the national NSTRA crowd. For that reason alone, I am sure that he could push an article like that. However, I doubt that NSTRA would waste their effort and paperspace to print something like that. More importantly, Scott would never do anything like that as he understands the importance of multiple venues (sorry to put words in your mouth Scott, but I think that I know you well enough to know where you stand on subjects like that).

What everyone needs to remember is the foundation dogs for almost all trial events go back to the same animals. It is the training that takes them from there. It certainly doesn't make sense to only play the AA game in Northern Michigan where you primarily hunt rough grouse in tight woods. Opposite to that, you wouldn't generally fair well with a heavier built NAVHDA dog hunting quail on the large tracks of land in Texas.

Plain and simple, a poor taste in writing by an unprofessional author. He is probably the same guy that complains about anything that he doesn't like, yet never offers any ways of improvement.

Wa Chukar Hunter · Post by **Wa Chukar Hunter** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:39 am

You know how many guys started in NSTRA and progressed up to AF shooting dog stakes and even All Age handlers - I know of at least one guy besides myself - and there are probably alot more.

Through this whole process I have participated in NSTRA, Akc Hunt tests/field trials - and walking and horseback trials - I have come to prefer the horseback stuff - but still participate in walking trials occasionally - but I don't enjoy it as much as horseback trialling - walking every brace of the trial and handling a dog through it all is pretty tiring.

The split will continue to grow - and sooner or later one or both camps will fall - it is inevitable and there is nothing you can really do about it - it is human nature - whether it is religion, politics, vegan vs traditional diets - people will always believe that what they have is the truth and that what they do is better than everyone else.

Keith Hickam Sr.

ElhewPointer · Post by **ElhewPointer** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 7:51 am

Greg Jennings wrote:IMHO, need to take "Conservation" off the conversation table.

For the overwhelming part, game bird conservation is about habitat. Habitat in the large, not habitat in the small.

Pen birds liberated at AKC/AF FT events are, for the overwhelming part, predator/scavenger food within a couple of days if not hours. They do not know how to escape predators nor do they even know how to forage for food.

I would have to disagree with this Greg. At our grounds(Branched Oak), there are a ton of birds released throughout the field trial season. When the last trial ends(Late Oct.) the grounds are open to hunting. Last week to friends and I went out and did a little bird hunting. We shot 9 quail, of which 6 had leg bands still on there legs. They flew like wild birds, where grouped up with wild birds, and have overcome some single digit temps. Also, I was down at Conway, AR for the Arkansas Championship(Which I won

) and those birds are released in Sept. and there were birds everywhere. I don't disagree that a lot of birds don't make it, but it can happen.

Vagas

BrettBryan · Post by **BrettBryan** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 8:13 am

I take the Field. I look forward to getting the magazine every week actually. Why? I feel it's because of my love for bird dogs and everything they are involved in.

I started running in NSTRA about 5 years ago or so. The article did kind of rubbed me the wrong way. But, hey, that's one man's opinion. And you know what they say about opinions. I did email the AF back about the article. I wasn't ugly at all. I just told them I felt it best if field trial organizations support each other. Because some of the folks running in NSTRA today, may be interested in running AF trials a little later in life. If someone bad mouths what they are doing now, do you think they will want to join that organization one day down the road? This will just give them a reason not to ever run in that venue.

Other than this, I just let it go. Hey, I know what I enjoy right now. And that's spending time in the fields with my dogs. I do what I can, when I can. It's as simple as that. Some folks say NSTRA isn't a field trial, it's a competition. Well, whatever you want to call it, I enjoy it. I have me a lot of nice folks that seem to enjoy it too. Saying this, I have met many nice folks who run in AF horseback stakes. I will be joining Doug Arthur here and there on the weekends to run a young dog I have off of horseback. He's got a couple of dogs with Steve Hurdle right now. He's got a real nice bitch named Thunder Snowy. I think she won the AF Quail Futurity last year.

Anyway, people will choose what they want to run their dogs in. I just hope field trials are around when my kids get to an age they might want to try them.

Post by **Greg Jennings** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:02 am

ElhewPointer wrote:
Greg Jennings wrote:IMHO, need to take "Conservation" off the conversation table.

For the overwhelming part, game bird conservation is about habitat. Habitat in the large, not habitat in the small.

Pen birds liberated at AKC/AF FT events are, for the overwhelming part, predator/scavenger food within a couple of days if not hours. They do not know how to escape predators nor do they even know how to forage for food.
I would have to disagree with this Greg. At our grounds(Branched Oak), there are a ton of birds released throughout the field trial season. When the last trial ends(Late Oct.) the grounds are open to hunting. Last week to friends and I went out and did a little bird hunting. We shot 9 quail, of which 6 had leg bands still on there legs. They flew like wild birds, where grouped up with wild birds, and have overcome some single digit temps. Also, I was down at Conway, AR for the Arkansas Championship(Which I won ) and those birds are released in Sept. and there were birds everywhere. I don't disagree that a lot of birds don't make it, but it can happen.

Vagas

Note the "for the overwhelming part" qualification in my statement. I also didn't mean early libs onto areas managed for quail habitat.

I'm quoting pretty much verbatim out of University of Tennessee (who manages Ames) and Auburn University (Albany Area Quail Management Project) literature.

Habitat is the answer. Release of pen birds is not. Simple as that.

Post by **Greg Jennings** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 9:07 am

Wa Chukar Hunter wrote:it is human nature - whether it is religion, politics, vegan vs traditional diets - people will always believe that what they have is the truth and that what they do is better than everyone else.

Keith Hickam Sr.

I disagree. I don't think it's human nature. I think it's ignorance.

Post by **slistoe** » Fri Dec 19, 2008 11:15 am

I happen to believe that there is merit to both types of trial organizations, but in this interaction both sides have given their version of the truth and the only things we can be sure are true from those accounts is that Mr. Townsend did not immediately identify himself when he called and he intended/gave Mr. Mckenzie a piece of his mind regarding the article.