08/01/2006
In an effort to get a meaningful dialog
regarding
the Gun Program the FEC is presenting the following outline of the
historical
rationale for developing a cocker gun program and its various points
open
for discussion and evaluation. It would be helpful if everyone
considers
what they value in cocker field trial guns and gun captains and develop
ideas for the program based on those values.
1. In 2004 it was suggested by several AKC
representatives
that eventually the AKC would establish a gun program for all field
events
that didn’t already have something in place.
2. The FEC felt that the Cockers should begin
to
develop our own Gunning program rather than having the AKC mandate one
that may or may not meet our needs.
3. The ESSFTA gun program had been in action
for
several years. Many points from the ESSFTA program could be
adapted
from their program but many had to be modified to fit our
circumstances.
4. Having a formula in place for individuals
interested
in becoming active gunners would/could be beneficial.
5. From a liability standpoint, we need an
education
program that is sound and objective.
6. Was the FEC a qualified body to approve
potential
“Gunner Applications” as it is possible the FEC can be comprised of
“non-shooting”
people by the current election process. Therefore, should a
separate
committee be established? How would membership of
that
committee be organized? Creation of the CGAC.
Listed below are suggestions and comments
voiced
by others since the development of the Cocker Gun Program:
1. New gunners can be tested on rules,
procedures,
and conduct before being selected as a gun in training. Gunners in
training
would then be mentored by guns and gun captains in the field. A gunner
in training should be continually reviewed by a mentor and should not
become
a gun until successfully serving some defined term as a gun in training.
2. Gunning is a job and every job has a
job description.
The job description has rules
and procedures. It would be very useful for
some
of our top gunners to put into
writing what they do and why. Sometimes
describing
what we do is not an easy task and it may take several attempts before
it becomes an accurate description.
A job description can lay down the foundation
for
training and mentoring new guns. They must first have some guidelines
on
rules and procedures and their conduct in the field.
3. Questions 1 through 5 and question 8 of
the Gunning
Questionnaire are appropriate and are the relevant questions to
determine
eligibility as a Cocker Gun. Eligibility for Gun Captain or gun team
member
status could be established based upon the number of Cocker Field
Trials
(number to be established) at which a gun has officiated as a gun
captain
or participated as a gun team member or by a “grandfathering” process
for
existing Cocker Gun Captains and gun team members.
4. The approved mentor should be the one
to determine
when a gun “is ready.” Someone who has significant experience in
shooting
over spaniels and who has worked extensively with his mentor may well
be
ready prior to shooting an arbitrarily arrived at number of
events.
Our observation is that a potential gun member should have
satisfactorily
demonstrated their capabilities well before shooting 15 events.
5. The ECSCA does officially recognize
differences
between English Springer Spaniel and Cocker Field trials. To
quote
from The ECSCA Guide to the Conduct and Judging of Cocker Spaniel Field
Trials, (preface pg. 2), "...In many instances the guide is a
duplication
of what is found in the ESSFTA's publication the Conduct and Judging of
Spaniel Field Trials. Much of this duplication should be expected
since the two breeds operate under the same AKC rules and indeed share
similar qualities in the field. The new reader should be aware,
however,
that this guide has been developed specifically for cocker spaniel
field
trials for English Cocker and American cocker spaniels, and therefore
differs
in some important areas of interpretation and emphasis from all other
breed
guidelines." In many cases, it is these "differences" that create
different shooting situations, conditions or unique gunner interactions
with judges.
6. A Captain should be an active voice on
the field
trial committee, not just get the shells and call the people to
shoot!
Improving safety needs to be a group effort.
7. Could we start with an easier program
and gradually
make it more stringent in future? If we made it too easy, would
this
jeopardize gun safety?
8. Should there be “Grand-fathered” Cocker
Guns
based on ESSFTA? If not, what other criteria? What about
our
loyal Cocker Gun’s that were not ESSFTA qualified?
9. Did we need to modify that attendance
so as not
to exclude someone qualified if the seminar was not available in their
area. i.e. take a test.
10. Is there a possibility of
developing one
spaniel gun program for both springers and cockers?
Listed here are additional concerns shared
with
the FEC since the development of the Cocker Gun Program:
1. Most Cocker Field Trials do not have
entries
which compare to our Springer counterparts. Breaking even financially
can
be difficult, if not sometimes impossible. Not only do our guns give of
their own free time to shoot for us, in many instances they also absorb
all of their travel and accommodation expenses. A burdensome
qualification
process may be “the straw that breaks the camel’s back.”
2. The open book review and questionnaire
was too
long.
3. The questionnaire had questions not
relevant
to gunning.
4. Should there be a distinction between
shooting
springer trials versus shooting cocker trials?
5. The time frame established was too
tight for
all gun teams to meet the new requirements.
6. The field trial clubs were not fully
informed
or involved with the development process of the Gunning Criteria.
Thank you all for your input!
Respectfully submitted,
Bethann Roettger
FEC Chairperson
|