Problems with Regionals

[TotallyTerry]

 

For all the people that proposed revisiting the regionals, I wonder how many have really weighed the problems that regionals versus points would incur with sheep, labor , time and money?

 

1. One of the major hurdles in putting on the Finals is locating a decent , uniform and large flock of sheep.

Even assuming that you have 5 Regionals and the Finals, you will need to find 6 large flocks of sheep versus 1.

 

2. The cost of putting on a regional will be between $20,000 to $30,000 in excess of entries. Sheep will cost between

$10,000 and $15.000 easily. Judges, spotters. insurance. sheep feed easily add another $10,000.

(If you think that these fees are excessive, check the expenses of the big trials. ) Since this is a Regional, it would

be unfair to rerun sheep in each trial. You will probably be paying more for judges and spotters. Where anyone would

get the idea that there would be extra money to help send Regionals finalists to the finals is beyond my

comprehension ! You will need to be raising extra money. (May be a little hard to do in a recession!) Raising

money takes time. Ask the Bluegrass group how many benefit trials they have to have during the course of a year

and they have some subtancial sponsors.

 

3. The labor and time factor would be considerable. How many of the handlers after taking off 4-5 days for the Regionals

will be able to take off another 4-5 days for the Finals?

 

4. With gas being so expensive, let's penalize our best dog handler/teams and make them pay more. Not only will they

have to get to the Regionals but they can pay again for the Finals trip.

 

5. How will Regionals effect bidding on the Finals? Will the people in each state want to bid on the Finals after helping out

with the Regionals? It would be nice to have more Finals bids and not fewer to chose from.

 

6. What happens if no one in your region will put on a Regional Trial? You have a great dog, won big trials and really

want to go to the Finals? Tough luck?

 

7. Are Regionals fair to the districts that have the brunt of the good handlers? I once tabulated 4 years of the top 17

Finalists. 75% of them came from one district. Now Ralph Pulfer has passed away and Alasdaiar has moved away

but it still has a bunch. The 12th best dog in a district could be better than best dog in another district.

 

8. Finally, I am assuming (bad thing to do), that there will be two runs at the Regionals. What if you or your dog are sick

or lame, etc. You can no longer go the Finals. The nice thing about points is that you can earn them at your

convienence. (It is not a trailer race, it takes only points from 5 trials.) A good placing at one large trial, will earn you

enough points to qualify for most the finals.

 

Please accept my apology for the length of this post. Go ahead boil me in oil.

 

I understand that the Western States have a great Regionals and I salute them.

 

In the Midwest, there was a Regional comprised of 2 districts. It died after a few years because no one want to put it on and not many ever entered.

 

P.S. I can't activate my spell check. Spelling has never been my forte.

[bcollie]

Yes we do have a good regionals that has gone on since 2000 in district 1. We take the top 50 dogs which means that the trial is no harder to put on than a regular trial in terms of sheep, set up, etc. It does involve more fundraising and promotion but with the title of Western States Regional Championship, it is easier to raise money and to promote it than for a local trial.

 

With 50 dogs you only need 250 sheep. Our sheep cost has run around $1500 to $2000 and 250 head are not that hard to find. The costs are pretty similar to a regular dog trial with the exception of a bigger purse. Entry fees are also higher. Ours are usually about $150 so you have more money to work with to start with. A program, souvenirs, gate and a bit of sponsorship add to the purse.

 

If each region has its own regionals, than everyone each year has the opportunity to attend a finals of sorts, no matter where the Nationals are held. With high gas prices this system actually makes more sense. The regionals is no farther to drive to than a regular trial and is only a 3 day trial. Each region already has a big trial or two. Just make one of them a regionals each year. As far as the one not making it in the midwest, if we had a regional qualifying system, than the regionals would be well attended.

 

I look at it a bit like the system in the UK. Our regionals would be like their nationals and our nationals would be like their international. People still go to their nationals to qualify for the international and then go to the international if they qualify. I don't think people gripe about going to two big trials or about having to do well at one trial in order to make it to the international. They qualify in regular trials for their national just like we would qualify in regular trials for our regionals and then their nationals (our regionals) qualify the dogs to go on to the main event.

 

Just my opinion but my opinion is based on co-hosting 2 regionals, 3 nationals and in helping with 6 other regionals.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I, in my vastly influential novice opinion, have always been in favor of a regionals system. Instead of working against areas that are heavy in the top handlers, it would, I believe, actually help people in those areas who aren't as well known, shine. Say it's the top 20% of the regionals - wouldn't you work harder to get in? The result, I think, can only be improved handling and quality of dogs.

 

Likewise areas without lots of representation can get a chance to put forward their best each year.

 

The main reason I'm in favor of it is I'd like to see the increased exposure local genetics would get. It is odd that right now I can more easily find out about dogs in Wales, than in Utah, in my own country. The National Finals over there makes it relatively easy for people to follow the dogs from local trials right up to when they take their place on the Team. I'd love to see that here with Regionals.

 

I think regionals would make the sport more interesting and accessible to the backbone of our breed, the stockmen and women. Right now we have local trials that pop up here and there and seem to favor those who can take lots of time from their schedules to chase them around. Then there's the Finals that seem very remote. But the Regionals might be more interesting.

 

I believe it is time to really consider this possibility. If it's important enough, we won't let things like logistics get in the way. Several districts have already shown they can do it, and others support a large trial every year that draws from all over (we have the NC State finals, bless the Ousely family and all their helpers who make it possible every year).

 

I hope it will happen. I'll be a voting member again next year and I'm certainly going to do what I can to support it.

[Mark Billadeau]

First off let me say I believe there is no perfect system. I believe we have a good system where many of the best teams in North America come to compete against themselves and one another each year.

 

I find the way I improve at trialing is to compete at trials where the field is tougher, the sheep are tougher (not trial-wise sheep), and the competition is tougher. This can be done at the larger regional trials and the finals; the finals offering the widest selection of competitors. However, if I cannot afford to travel to these trials how can I improve my trialing skills? Regionals could offer a new (and more affordable vs. the finals) venue for handlers to compete against a wider selection of teams than what they will see at most of their regional trials. Improving the skills of the handler should lead to that handler looking more critically at their dogs, looking for better dogs leading to better breeding selection and improving the breed.

 

When the finals are in the east, more handlers compete at more trials looking for the opportunity (points) to get qualified for the finals that they can afford to attend. This means more people are reaching to improve their handling skills and the training on their dogs; I suspect that a regonial could motivate these same people (one who are not able/willing to travel 1500+ miles to the finals) in the same way as an east coast finals.

 

Mark

[Bill Fosher]

Finding 250 sheep might not be hard in the west, but it is sure a trick in New England.

[Mark Billadeau]

To put Bill's comment into perspective, below is a list from the 2002 Ag Census listing the number of farms with >200 "Ewes 1 Year Old or Older". Compare these to the same numbers for OR (124), ID (58), WY (200), and SD (270).

 

Mark

 

New England (ME, VT, NH, MA, CT, RI): 9

NY: 56

PA: 22

NJ: 0

OH: 31

WV: 9

MD: 9

DE: 0

VA: 17

KY: 6

TN: 0

NC: 3

AL: 2

GA: 4

SC: 0

FL: 1

[Debbie Meier]

Answered my own questions, duh...

[Mark Billadeau]

Debbie,

 

Here are the rest of the states east of the Mississippi River. I've added LA & MN since they do have some land east of the Mississippi.

 

Mark

 

WI: 25

MI: 28

IL: 7

IN: 9

MS: 0

LA: 2

MN: 70

 

Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture Volume 1 State Level Data

[Debbie Meier]

Debbie,

 

Here are the rest of the states east of the Mississippi River. I've added LA since LA does have some land east of the Mississippi.

 

Mark

 

WI: 25

MI: 28

IL: 7

IN: 9

MS: 0

LA: 2

 

Source: 2002 Census of Agriculture Volume 1 State Level Data

 

Thanks, interesting reading other states, I heard that we had quite a few small flocks here in Iowa, did not expect to see 67 over 200 ewes.

 

Deb

[Pearse]

Yes we do have a good regionals that has gone on since 2000 in district 1. We take the top 50 dogs which means that the trial is no harder to put on than a regular trial in terms of sheep, set up, etc. It does involve more fundraising and promotion but with the title of Western States Regional Championship, it is easier to raise money and to promote it than for a local trial.

 

But Geri, your Western States Regional is mostly a District One Championship. If it was part of a Regional Qualifying System it would probably inlcude either District 10 or District 2. From Alberta or Western North Dakota, it's still 1000 miles to Klamath or vice versa. Likewise if Districts 5 and 3 get put together to make a region. It's a fair jaunt from Oklahoma to Wisconsin.

 

With 50 dogs you only need 250 sheep. Our sheep cost has run around $1500 to $2000 and 250 head are not that hard to find. The costs are pretty similar to a regular dog trial with the exception of a bigger purse. Entry fees are also higher. Ours are usually about $150 so you have more money to work with to start with. A program, souvenirs, gate and a bit of sponsorship add to the purse.

 

I'd agree with Bill here. It cost $15,000 for 625 sheep for the Gettysburg Finals. For 250 sheep, it would be close to $6000, none of which comes out of the HA sheep fund. For 50 dogs that's about $110/entry. Judges (assuming 2) would be another $3000 or $60/entry. So expenses are over $170/entry before you even begin thinking of the other logistical expenses. And, it would be more expensive in the northeast from what I hear. Sure you can raise money better with a Regional Championshio name but you still need to work hard to raise the money.

 

If each region has its own regionals, than everyone each year has the opportunity to attend a finals of sorts, no matter where the Nationals are held. With high gas prices this system actually makes more sense. The regionals is no farther to drive to than a regular trial and is only a 3 day trial. Each region already has a big trial or two. Just make one of them a regionals each year. As far as the one not making it in the midwest, if we had a regional qualifying system, than the regionals would be well attended.

 

If you restrict it to 50 dogs in each of 5 regions, you accept 250 entries. The 250th entry right now in the standings has 17 points, more than it will likely take to qualify for the finals this year. In areas of the northeast, the cutoff might be closer to 20 points. So you would need as many, or more, points to qualify for the Regionals as you would for the Finals. And once you make the Regional Final the qualifier for the National Final, the pressure will be on to increase the entries to 100 dogs, increasing the costs.

 

You could use some of the big trials (Meeker, Bluegrass, Edgeworth) as regionals, if the organizers were willing, but then those trials become invitationals instead of open trials so no qualifying points. Look at the qualifiers in any given year and a lot of handlers get many of their qualifying points at the big trials (26 points for winning a round of the Bluegrass and you're qualified, same for Meeker, Kingston). Otherwise you need to organize another trial.

 

I look at it a bit like the system in the UK. Our regionals would be like their nationals and our nationals would be like their international. People still go to their nationals to qualify for the international and then go to the international if they qualify. I don't think people gripe about going to two big trials or about having to do well at one trial in order to make it to the international. They qualify in regular trials for their national just like we would qualify in regular trials for our regionals and then their nationals (our regionals) qualify the dogs to go on to the main event.

 

Except that it's different here than there. The UK is 700 odd miles from the north tip of Scotland to southern England and 300 miles west to east at the widest. They have easy access to undogged sheep. They often can run in two qualifying trials in a weekend within 50 miles of home. They don't need to stop trialling for six months of the year because it's either too hot or there's too much snow. They're guaranteed to fill the venue for the National trials. Enthusiasts can get to all four National trials plus the International and not need to take a day off work or travel more than 400 miles most years (not including the ferry ride to Ireland). Look at Wales this year. The Welsh Nationals, the International, and the World Trial, all within a half day's drive for anyone in Wales or western England.

 

Just my opinion but my opinion is based on co-hosting 2 regionals, 3 nationals and in helping with 6 other regionals.

 

And I'm just playing devil's advocate here having experience with co-hosting 0 regionals, 0 finals, and helping with 0

 

I'm not against the idea entirely. I do think that it won't solve the key issues for people which seem to be travel expenses and (I think a greater impediment) time off to trial, nor does it make getting to the National Finals easier or less expensive as currently proposed. My guess is that to make the Regionals idea work, one would need to completely rework the entire qualifying process and I haven't yet seen a comprehensive plan to do that that makes economic and practical sense.

 

Pearse

[bcollie]

I wouldn't have only 5 regions. I would do it by district and award slots in the finals on a percentage basis by number of members per district. That way the regionals is geographically close to most members and a region with 138 members would get on a percentage basis the same percent of slots as a region with 40 members.

 

We had two judges the first year but went to one judge after that and the judge cannot live in the region. Our judge cost runs about $1500 including their transportation.

 

I can't answer to the cost of sheep out east. How do you put on any trials at all with that kind of expense or do you re-run sheep?

 

Gate, souvenirs, ads and sponsorship make the event possible. The clubs in the district (OSDS, ISDA, NCWSA, SJVBCA) all contribute $250 each which helps too. We have found someone every year so far to host the event and some of the events have even made a bit of money.

 

If a region could not or would not host a regionals, than they could elect to use a point system within their district to select their team. When we count points for our regionals, we only count point earned in the district so as to level the playing field.

 

Not a perfect answer, I know, but I think that a regional system would give more people an opportunity to compete at a championship trial, increase membership in the USBCHA as people would be more likely to join every year, not just the years that the finals is close enough and build more drama (translated into easier to get sponsorships) into the priocess with the buildup at first the district level and then the national level.

 

Geri

[Mark Billadeau]

Geri,

 

Most trials here (PA, MD, VA, NC) re-run sheep at least once per day often more than once per day. There is only 1 farm trial we attend that does not re-run sheep during a day. It's a special occasion for us to trial on lightly dogged sheep.

 

Mark

[TotallyTerry]

Mard.

 

Thanks for the information about flocks of more than 200 per state. Of the 28 flocks in Michigan with more than 200 head, because of extensive past involvement in the sheep industry, I know at least 20 of them. I can tell you that only one of the owners of these flocks would be the slightest bit interested in renting sheep to a Regionals. Bio-security would be a large concern of these owners, keeping the sheep unstressed at breeding time with hauling, etc. and the list goes on. I guess what I am saying is that even in the few flocks of over 200 head, you would be hard pressed to get any flock owner interested in providing sheep even for considerable $$$$ to the Regionals from Michigan.

 

The BlueGrass for years has had to rent lambs from Texas so each first run gets fresh sheep. I stepped down as the Treasurer a few years ago, at that time the cost for the 500 sheep was $12,000 which did not include sheep for the small field for the first two days! You can bet the price has only increased!

 

You can't just say 250 sheep would be half that price. A trailer holds 500 sheep. A trailer carrying 250 sheep can't travel for 1/2 the price of gas!

 

You will also need someone to "volunteer" to sit with the sheep and feed them for about a week prior to the trial. You can't have sheep stressed from a long haul and expect them to run in a trial right off the trailer. Not only will you be losing lots of sheep which will cost your more dollars if you are renting but sick , tired and sometimes dying sheep in a trial do not make a favorable impression on spectators and handlers.

 

Someone posted that we don't need to get into the logistics but without knowing some of them how can anyone endorse a Regionals as National Finals Qualifiers? Some quick questions that come to my mind:

 

1. How do dogs qualify for the Regionals? Will it take the same qualifications for each region?

 

2. If someone buys a dog qualified for a Regional but the new owner is not from that region, which Regional should (or could) the dog be run in?

 

3. How involved will the USBCHA Board members be in each Regional? Don't they have to approve the Finals field? Will they have to accept and approve bids for each region for uniformity and approve each Regional Field? Do they want that responsibility?

 

4. What happens if no group in the Region will host a trial, are all dogs in that region automatically eliminated from the Finals?

 

5. Which month will all of these Regionals be held? Assuming that it is July or August, it could be too hot to run a big field /double lift trial in many regions and probably impossible in the southern regions. (This may make it even harder to find flock owners to supply sheep)

 

6. How will Regions be apportioned? Will a region be bigger than a district? Who decides?

 

 

 

It has been stated that any of the existing big trials in the East, Midwest and Canada could become Regional Trials. Has anyone bothered to ask the groups hosting these trials if they wanted to be a Regional Trial? I am sure that you will find out that they have no desire to do it. They take pride in their trials and pride in the fact that Big Hats and Little Hats from all over North America come to compete in these trials.

 

Maybe my initial post did not make it clear, but I am pro-Regional just not pro Regional as qualifiers for the Finals. For everyone pro-Regionals, start up one in your area. See if it takes off. The good thing about it is if you start it now, you can make up your own Regional qualifications, etc.

 

For the defunct Midwest Regionals, Lyle and I had a benefit trial and raised $1000 as start up money for it for its first year.(We were the biggest financial contributors.) Marilyn Terpstra and I were officers of the Michigan Border Collie Assoc. at the time and the club purchased lots of big fancy ribbons for the trial. Kathy and Jack Knox provided the sheep at no cost and lots of P.R. and hard work. Still the Regional never took off (and at a time when other trials had draw outs. ) This Regional ceased to exist when no person or group apparently was willing to put the time into it.

 

So yes, it does make me skeptical as having Regionals as qualifiers.

 

I would love to hear anyone's opinion as to why they believe that Regionals are a fairer way to qualify through out North American than the point system and would get better dogs to the finals. I would gladly listen. Keeping an open mind is not as difficult for me as keeping my opinions to myself!

 

Why isn't the consistency of a dog over a year's time a better indicator than a two day Regional Trial?

[TotallyTerry]

Geri,

 

My speed reading leaves much to be desired. I didn't see your explanation of what would happen if a region couldn't or didn't have a Regional. Thanks for the explanation.

 

If out of region dogs/handlers qualify for your Regionals in your region's trials, can they run in it? What if I bought a dog that qualified for your Regionals? Could I run him in it?

 

 

Mark,

Sorry for mangling your name. Not only can I not download spellcheck but apparently don't proof well. Leave it to me to screw up a four letter name.

 

These type of posting problems are why I post so infrequently.....besides, lack of time. This week, I am house bound with pnemonia and am bored silly.

[Mark Billadeau]

No problem Terry; get well soon.

I too suspect only a small percentage of the large flocks (in any state) would be available for trials.

Mark