Report to Northeast Beagle Gundog Federation on AKC Beagle Advisory Committee

 

Submitted by John Gibble, BAC Delegate

 

Date: December 13, 2002

 

1.      Several of you have asked for a report on what is going on with the BAC these days.  First, I’d like to explain what the BAC is and what we can get from it.  The Beagle Advisory Committee is comprised of delegates selected by the American Kennel Club from brace, gundog brace, large pack, and SPO factions of beagling.  Currently there are 14 delegates, one from the National Beagle Club; eight from brace; one from large pack; one from gundog brace; and three from SPO.  Back in the 1930’s the National Beagle Club was the parent club for the breed.  The National Beagle Club oversaw the development of running rules and assigned dates for trials.  These functions became too large for the National Beagle Club to handle and they transferred these responsibilities to AKC.  In return, the Beagle Advisory Committee was created to advise AKC on rule changes, and in the recent past, on trial dates.  AKC Staff now assigns trials dates and resolves scheduling conflicts. 

 

Rule changes through the BAC occur as follows:  A delegate makes a motion for the rule change (or addition or deletion to the rules).  It is voted to put the motion on the agenda for the next BAC meeting.  This allows the delegates to take the information back to their respective Federations for comment and discussion.  If the motion passes at the next BAC meeting, the rule change is recommended to the AKC delegates.  The AKC delegates are a large body of representatives of AKC Member Clubs (There are only a few beagle clubs that are “Member Clubs”) for all breeds.  Generally, if an item is recommended/passed by the Beagle Advisory Committee, the AKC delegates will approve it and the rule change will become effective.  There has only been one time in recent history when the AKC delegates did not approve a BAC recommendation.  There are other means by which a BAC recommendation can become derailed.  AKC staff may over-rule or veto a motion by the BAC based on legality or logistics. 

 

SPO delegates are somewhat limited in their effectiveness on the BAC.  Gundog Brace and Large Pack each have one delegate.  So pretty much, whatever their delegates bring to the table gets done, so long as it affects only their rules.  If a motion affects all factions, then the brace faction generally gets its way since it has the largest voting block (8).  SPO presently has three delegates, and we are sometimes divided on issues.  Often if there is a split vote it is the brace faction that weighs most heavily in the decision.  The delegate from the National Beagle Club generally votes with the SPO faction, giving us four voices.  This should give an idea that voting is highly political and that SPO is often unable to effect changes without support from the brace faction. 

 

2.      I am attaching the minutes from the last BAC meeting.  These were also published in the beagle magazines.  With regard to the business conducted at the last meeting, I will discuss the agenda items and the motions that were made, and provide you with the direction in which I voted, as your representative. 

 

1. Agenda Item:  Amend requirement for judges that have not taken a seminar or participated in any judging activity for 5 years or more, to require that such individuals be required to retake the judging seminar before they can be approved to judge licensed trials.  This item failed to pass and the vote was 10-2 against.  The discussion was such that with the number of trials being scheduled, anyone qualified to judge a licensed trial should be encouraged to do so.  There were several examples of someone being away from the sport due to illness or family commitments, and the majority of the BAC felt that it would be unnecessary to require additional restrictions.  I agreed with the majority of the BAC and voted against this amendment.  We discussed the amendment at the June NEBGF meeting and this was the vote I was directed to make.

 

2. Agenda Item: Revise the Small Pack Option competition to include the two-couple pack class.  AKC is proposing that a separate trial program for two-couple pack competition be created.  Pilot programs have been initiated in the Deep South and United Beagle Gundog Federations under guidance from AKC.  At our June NEBGF meeting this proposal was discussed.  I was not given clear direction on a vote, however I was directed to ask AKC why the NEBGF was not contacted regarding this new program and given an opportunity to participate.  There was concern at the NEBGF meeting that adding another trial format will create additional scheduling conflicts with existing licensed trials.  The motion was tabled until next year.  At this time I have still received no additional information regarding the proposed program, except that John Stuckwisch from the UBGF is finalizing the rules for this format. 

 

The address for Mr. Stuckwisch is in the attached AKC minutes.  As your advisor in relation to these matters, I have serious concerns about this new format.  First is conflicts with the existing AKC licensed trial formats.  There are already numerous scheduling conflicts for licensed trial dates and the competition for licensed trial entries has resulted in many clubs losing half or more of their support for a licensed trial.  Second, the NEBGF has not been consulted with regard to development of this format.  There have been no draft regulations presented to us, nor any invitation to comment.  Third, perhaps it is best that some of these formats be left to the Federations and Associations to sanction.  Already, the proliferation of licensed trials has led to a decline in the number of sanction trials and competition for dates with Association and Federation championships.  Finally, we must ask ourselves if creation of another licensed trial format will result in yet another “type” of beagle.  We already have pronounced divisions in our breed resulting from brace, gundog brace, SPO, and large pack competition, as well as regional divisions, related to running style.  Will another type of competition promote yet another type of beagle?  

3. Motion to Add to Agenda for 2003: Field Champion points for Beagles shall be awarded to the hounds placing and the NBQ hounds in licensed or member trials in Op[en Classes in which there were six or more starters.  1/5 point, for each starter, to the hound designated NBQ.  This item was placed on the agenda by the brace faction.  The original motion was to award additional points across the board.  For instance, if there were 50 hounds entered in a class, first place would receive 50 points, while the brace faction proposed that second place should receive 49 points, third place should receive 48 points, fourth place should receive 47 points, and NBQ should receive 46 points.  The reasoning was that the brace clubs are having a hard time drawing enough hounds to generate sufficient points to finish a hound.  They cited an instance of a 13-inch male having won 11 trials and still didn’t have enough points to finish.  This motion will be on the 2003 agenda.

 

I was the only delegate to vote against this amendment.  It was my opinion that because of the increased number of licensed trials and the decreased number of entries at most trials, we should be raising the standard by which we measure a field champion, not lowering it.  The basic principle in question here is whether we are competing to better our hounds or competing to give handlers more titles.  Further, if classes are so small now, will giving an extra 1/5 be of any real help in addressing the problem of finishing a hound?   For instance if a hound gets five NBQ in classes of 20, he would still only get 20 points toward finishing.  I don’t consider that to be a significant amount, especially if those classes are even smaller.  If that hound had 5 NBQ’s, should we be asking why they were NBQ’s and not wins or places?  There are several other considerations involved, and one of them may seem base; but why not keep the standard where it is at or even raise it, thereby keeping more hounds in competition, generating increased competition by keeping those hounds on the circuit a little longer, and possibly even maintaining or increasing the number of entries?

 

4. Motion to Add to Agenda for 2003: Chapter 9 Section 1, Paragraph 5: “…However if when the entries are closed it is found that there are fewer than six hounds of a sex eligible to compete in any class, that class may be combined and run with both sexes or sizes, but no classes shall be combined under any other circumstance…”.  Essentially this motion allows for 13” dogs to be run with 15” dogs, instead of running with 13” bitches, when fewer than 6 starters show up for a class.  As it is stated currently, if there are fewer than 6 starters in a class, that class must be run with the opposite sex, same size class at the trial, rather than the same sex and opposite size.  The choice would be made by the field trial committee.  The amendment would provide a choice to field trial committees, especially if the opposite sex class has already been run.  There are benefits to handlers, as well.  If a handler has a bitch in heat, he may be bumped out of the class, after travelling a considerable distance, if a male is running in the same class.  Also, if the someone travels a considerable distance and less than six starters show up, by running in the opposite size class, he may be able to run that hound that day, rather than having missed the opposite sex class or having to stay an extra day or two. 

 

The motion passed 8 to 5 with the SPO faction voting against it.  It was mentioned by the Chair, Mel Stewart, that this item had been placed on the agenda previously and was voted down.  There was also confusion, as the original AKC minutes noted that a sufficient majority had not been achieved (2/3’s) to place the item on next year’s agenda.  Later, Paul Sizemore, a brace delegate challenged the majority, saying that only a simply majority was required.  AKC determined that the item had passed and should be placed on the agenda. 

 

The primary difficulty with this motion is that in SPO and LPH we could have 13” hounds required to run with 15” hounds.  The brace folks reasoned that there is no difference in running speed or style amongst their size classes, so that this amendment would not cause them a problem.  In SPO or LPH the difference between sizes could cause a problem.  Furthermore, if we are going to assume that 13” and 15” hounds can run together without advantage, there may be a challenge to the size classes for the breed, later on. 

 

I voted with the other SPO delegates in opposing this motion.  I am not strongly in favor of the motion and will welcome direction from the NEBGF. 

 

3.      Items for Comment: 

 

1. Mel Stewart mentioned that AKC will be looking over the number of clubs represented by their respective Federations and revisiting the make-up of the BAC based on changes in numbers.  I expect that we will be seeing additional “gundog” oriented delegates, and perhaps the deletion of delegates from failing brace Federations.  The NEBGF should be in good shape.  We have over 50 member clubs, making us the second largest Federation in SPO beagling. 

 

2. I would like to discuss some of the numbers included in the attached AKC minutes.  First the table on beagle trials held in 2001 indicated that SPO trials were down 17.  This number reflects the separation of gundog brace from SPO, and separation of SP from SPO.  Overall, gundog trials increased.  Overall entries remained the same (actually down 223).  If the number of trials increased and the number of entries declined slightly, this tells us that on the average, entries at our trials are decreasing.  I’ve seen no acknowledgement of this trend from AKC, but we all realize it at our clubs.  This reduction in entries per trial will result in reduced revenues for clubs and reduced levels of competition.  We need to start making proposals to counteract this trend before we start losing viable clubs.  This trend has been significantly apparent ever since clubs were first allowed to hold two trials.  I expect next year the trend will be even more pronounced.  AKC attributed declines to competitors not wanting to travel or congregate because of terrorism and economy. 

 

3. This was the first BAC meeting where the voting of the delegates was recorded and published.  Previously, delegates could vote without being publicly responsible to their Federations.  I think this is a welcome change.  It is the responsibility of the BAC delegate to accurately reflect the directions given him by his constituent.  This change ensures that Federations know what their delegates are doing.

 

4.      Closing:  I know this report is rather lengthy, but it was important to me, and to several of the NEBGF officers to relay what we are doing at the BAC.  As BAC delegate, I am also available to resolve any difficulties individual clubs may be having with AKC, such as dates and technical problems.  If your club is having trouble resolving a problem, please feel free to call me.  It should be understood that the BAC delegate has little authority, and politics have eroded what little influence our delegate has.  Still, this delegation is important, especially when critical matters come up on the agenda.  We can look forward to a revised BAC make-up next year which will hopefully lend to our authority.  Again, if there are any questions regarding the BAC, please feel free to call at (717) 665-9448.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

John Gibble