Field Trials Liaison Council Minutes - Tuesday 10 June 2014



Mr D Anderson         Shropshire & Staffordshire Working Spaniel Society

                                    Yorkshire Sporting Spaniel Club

Mrs M Asbury            Dukeries (Notts) Gundog Club

                                    English Setter Club

Mr P Askew               East Anglian Labrador Retriever Club

                                    Eastern Counties Retriever Society

                                    Norfolk Gundog Club

Utility Gundog Society

Mrs C Bridgwater     Chiltern Gundog Society

                                    Essex Field Trial Society

                                    Meon Valley Working Spaniel Club

Mrs G Caldwell         Arfon Working Gundog Club

                                    Clwyd Retriever Club

                                    Welsh Kennel Club

Mr D Capel                Leicestershire Gundog Society

                                    Midland Gundog Society

Mr S Chant                Weimaraner Club of Great Britain

Mr D Chudley           Cocker Spaniel Club

                                    Midland Counties Field Trial Society

Mr R Clay                  Mid Wales Working Gundog Society

                                    United Gundog Breeders Association

Mr G E Cox                Arun and Downland Gundog Society

                                    Bristol and West Working Gundog Society

                                    (Golden Retriever Club of Wales)

Mr S Crookes            Northern Golden Retriever Association

                                    South Western Golden Retriever Club

(Eastern Counties Golden Retriever Club)

Mr K Doughty           Cambridgeshire Field Trial Society

                                    Suffolk Gundog Club

Mr G Ford                  English Springer Spaniel Club of Scotland

                                    Gamekeepers National Association

Mr J Gale                   Golden Retriever Club

                                    Yellow Labrador Club

                                    Southern Golden Retriever Society

Mr I Griffiths              Lancashire & Merseyside Field Trial Society

North West Labrador Retriever Club

Mrs D Harrison         Guildford Working Gundog Club

                                    South Eastern Gundog Society

Mrs J Hay                  Golden Retriever Club of Northumbria

                                    Yorkshire Golden Retriever Club

Mr A Hender             Norfolk & Suffolk HPR Field Trial Club

Mr P Highfield          Dove Valley Working Gundog Club

                                    East Midland Gundog Club          

Miss J Hurley            Hungarian Vizsla Society

Mrs S A Jenkins       West Dartmoor Working Gundog Club

                                    Westward Gundog Society

Mrs A Johnson         Italian Spinone Club of Great Britain

Mrs F Kirk                  International Gundog League (Pointer & Setter Society)

                                    Southern Pointer Club

Mrs W Knight            Eastern Counties Spaniel Society

                                    London Cocker Spaniel Society

                                    Mid Sussex Working Spaniel Club

Mrs S Kuban             German Longhaired Pointer Club

                                    German Shorthaired Pointer Club

Mr H W Lane             Cheshire, North Wales & Shropshire Retriever & Spaniel Society

                                    West Midland Field Trial Society

Mr J T Maclure          Grampian Gundog Club

                                    Labrador Club of Scotland

Mr R Major                 German Wirehaired Pointer Club

                                    Large Munsterlander Club

Mr V H McDevitt       English Springer Spaniel Club of Northern Ireland

Fermanagh Gundog Club

North West Ulster Spaniel Club                           

Mr G Murdock           Labrador Retriever Club of Northern Ireland

                                    Ulster Gundog League

                                    Ulster Retriever Club
Mr R Proctor              English Springer Spaniel Club

                                    Midland English Springer Spaniel Society

Mr A Rees                 Carmarthenshire Working Gundog Society

                                    Glamorgan Field Trial Society

Mrs T Salaman         Cornwall Field Trial Society

                                    West of England Labrador Retriever Club

Mr P Smith                Antrim & Down Springer Spaniel Club

                                    Mid Ulster Gundog Association

                                    Ulster Golden Retriever Club

Mrs H Smith              Mid Herts Gundog Club

                                    Pointer Club

Mr M Stanbury          Duchy Working Gundog Club

                                    North Devon Working Gundog Club

Mr G Stanley             Flatcoated Retriever Society

                                    Wiltshire Working Gundog Society

Mr J M Taylor            Tyne Tees & Tweed Field Trial Society

                                    Yorkshire Gundog Club

Mr P Turner               Craigavon Gundog Club

Northern Ireland Gundog, Field & Show Society

Mr P Wainwright      International Gundog League (Retriever Society)

                                    Southern & Western Counties Field Trial Society

Mr P Wilson              English Springer Spaniel Club of Wales

                                    Pembrokeshire Working Gundog Society

Mr F Wright               Labrador Retriever Club of Wales

                                    United Retriever Club

Usk Valley Working Gundog Club



IN ATTENDANCE: Miss V Buckwell       Specialist - Working Dog Activities Team

                                    Mr N Dear                  Field Trials Secretary

Miss D Deuchar       Manager - Canine Activities

Mrs C Maguire          Team Leader - Working Dog Activities Team

Mrs A Mitchell           Committee Secretary - Working Dog Activities Team


IN THE CHAIR:        Mr J M Taylor





  1. Apologies for absence were received from:


Mr J Anderson, Mr M Ashman, Mr J Bailey, Mr G Bowers, Mrs H Bradley, Miss C Calvert,

Mr J Castle, Mr D Dunn, Miss A Faulds, Mr P Heard, Mr J Kean, Ms P Pickstone, Mr S Russell, Mrs S Smith, Mr G Slater, Mrs J Venturi Rose, Miss S Whyte.





  1. The minutes from the meeting held on 9 May 2013 were signed by the Chairman as an accurate record.





  1. The Results of Recommendations document was noted by the Council.


  1. It was noted that the proposed amendment to Regulation J6.c.(3) - Qualifications for Judges Panels which had been submitted by the Golden Retriever Club of Northumbria was still under consideration.


  1. It was confirmed that the discussion item raised by Cambridgeshire Field Trial Society regarding novice draws was under review by the Field Trial Sub-Committee.


  1. There was some concern at delays between items being discussed by the Council and action being taken by the Kennel Club however, any issues submitted by the Council were dealt with as quickly as possible but it was accepted that it could sometimes be a lengthy process.


  1. The Council noted the resignation of Mr G Nixon who was the Council's HPR Representative on the Field Trials Sub-Committee, and nominations for a replacement were requested.  Mr S Chant was duly nominated.  There were no other nominations.





  1. The meeting noted the tabled report on the work of the Field Trials Sub-Committee during 2013.


  1. It was noted that of nine proposals put forward by the Council, only two had not been recommended.  It was hoped that this would reassure Council members that their views were taken into account by the Field Trials Sub-Committee and the General Committee.


  1. In response to a query, the office confirmed that very few applications for addition to the Panel Judges lists were rejected by the Field Trials Sub-Committee.  The Council requested that for its future meetings more detail be provided on the number of applications received, accepted, and rejected. The office noted the request and agreed to provide this information if possible.  However it would not be possible to provide details on how many judges had passed or failed the Requirements of a Field Trial Judges examination as this information was not within the public domain.


  1. It was acknowledged that due to publishing deadlines and the dates of General Committee meetings, there was sometimes an unavoidable delay in lists of approved judges appearing in the Field Trial newsletter.


  1. It was noted that two incident reports were considered by the Field Trials Sub-Committee during 2013.  It was not possible for further information to be provided on these reports as matters considered by the Field Trials Sub-Committee were private and confidential, but the office advised that the reports may have related to breaches of Regulations or minor incidents rather than to serious incidents. These reports would have been considered separately to any objections lodged with the Kennel Club. However there was some concern among Council members at what was perceived to be a deteriorating standard of behaviour at Field Trials.





  1. The meeting received a presentation from Mr Lambert who outlined the requirements and recent developments of the Assured Breeder Scheme.




Proposed amendment to Regulation J5.f. - Abandonment or Cancellation


  1. Mr Rees introduced a proposal from Carmarthenshire Working Gundog Society and                                                                                           Glamorganshire Field Trial Society to amend the Regulations to allow for re-scheduling of a trial within 14 days of the original date in the event of a trial being abandoned or cancelled. The proposal was seconded by Mr D Anderson.


  1. Mr Rees cited the example of an Open qualifying stake which had been abandoned due to lack of game mid-morning on the day of the trial. The Society subsequently lost an opportunity to have a dog qualify for the Championship for that season.


  1. The Society was able to attain another ground and was invited to re run the stake however as the trial was abandoned rather than cancelled it was unable to hold the stake again within the season. It was felt that if a Society found itself in this situation and could attain ground and judges and was able to re-run the trial within 14 days, after consultation with the Kennel Club, that the trial should be re-run with the original card and draw applicable.


  1. There was some sympathy for clubs who found themselves in the position of having to reschedule a trial for any reason.  It was acknowledged that it was not always easy to ascertain beforehand whether there would be sufficient game for a trial to be completed.


  1. It was noted that in the event of a trial being cancelled before its commencement due to, for example, adverse weather conditions, the trial could be rescheduled within a 14-day period using the same grounds, judges, and draw subject to consultation with the office. 


  1. However an abandoned trial referred to one which had already commenced.  There was a concern at the possible situation where a trial had commenced and a dog (or dogs) had already been eliminated from the trial; should the trial be rescheduled, it would then seem unfair to other handlers should such dogs be allowed to compete giving them in effect a second chance.  The Council agreed not to recommend the proposed amendment.


Proposed amendment to Regulation J7.g - Entries

  1. On behalf of Tyne, Tees and Tweed Field Trial Association, Mr Taylor outlined a proposal for an amendment to the Regulations which would allow societies, if they wished, when running two or more trials of the same denomination, to give preference in the draw to members who were not successful in the previous draw/s.  The Tyne Tees and Tweed Field Trial Association was of the view that the proposed amendment would provide clubs with the discretion to increase the opportunity of a run to more of a society's members.  The proposal was seconded by Mr G Ford.


  1. The following amendment to Regulation J7.g. - Entries was proposed:



Societies must ensure that all eligible owners are given the opportunity of having their preferred dog entered into the ballot providing it is appropriately qualified.Societies may have discretion, when running two or more trials of the same denomination, to give preference in the draw to members who were not successful in the previous draw/s.  This must be clearly stated on all relevant schedules.  They may, or may not, after such an entry has been accepted, allow an applicant to substitute a dog before a Trial with another dog owned by him: the dog must, however, be eligible and, where a preferential draw is held, it must have the necessary qualifications.  Societies, if allowing substitution, must show this clearly on the schedule.  Societies may also have discretion to confine the handling of dogs to one dog per owner.

(See also J9.b.(6))

(Insertion underlined)


  1. It was acknowledged that situations did arise where one handler would get three runs but another handler did not get a run at all, but that current Regulations stated that all dogs must go into the draw.


  1. It was noted that Regulation J7.h. would apply in the situation of a society running two Open Stakes in a season.  In such instances the society may ask a handler who had been successful in both draws which of the Stakes he or she wished to run in, provided that this was clearly stated on the schedule/s.


  1. There was some concern that in the case of a society running a number of trials, handlers may select what they perceived to be the 'better' trials leaving secretaries with the issue of filling the cards for less popular events.  However, it was acknowledged that the proposed amendment would give societies discretion to give preference in the draw to members who had not been successful in the previous draw/s, but did not require them to do so.  There was also a concern that some societies may wish to retain more than one nomination fee whilst allowing a dog only one run. It was noted that some societies did not levy nomination fees at all.  The Council was advised that the issue of nomination fees was currently under consideration by the Field Trials Sub-Committee.


  1. It was clarified that should a reserve handler in the first draw be called in, he or she would lose their run in the second stake.


  1. The Council agreed that the proposed amendment addressed the issue of fairness to handlers. It therefore supported the principle and recommended it for approval subject to the proviso that the precise wording of the Regulation amendment should be considered by the Field Trials Sub-Committee.


Proposed amendment to Regulation J(F)7. a. - Show Gundog Working Certificate

  1. Mr Capel, on behalf of the Labrador Retriever Club, outlined the view that the current requirements for the Show Gundog Working Certificate were too open for interpretation by judges and that although it was appreciated that precise rules could not be implemented there was room for making the standard required on the day more uniform. It was felt that some dogs would not demonstrate that they are 'gun-shy' whilst on the lead. 


  1. The Labrador Retriever Club proposed an amendment to Regulations which would provide clarity regarding the 'steadiness' aspect of the standard required for the granting of the Show Gundog Working Certificate.  The proposal was seconded by Mr J Gale.


Regulation J(F)7. a. - Show Gundog Working Certificate


7. Before signing a Certificate the Judges must be satisfied that the dog fulfilled the following requirements:-

  1. The dog has been tested in lineon and off the lead

(Insertion underlined)


  1. The Council was of the view that a dog could not be properly assessed for steadiness whilst on a lead. It also considered that the Regulation stating that 'absolute steadiness is not essential' was unhelpful and did not provide clear guidance for those assessing dogs.  It accepted that the dog could be on lead for parts of the test but that the lead should be removed at least part of the time.  It supported the amendment and recommended it for approval.


  1. A suggestion was also put forward that Regulation J(F)7.i. which stated 'That the dog has been under reasonable control, absolute steadiness is not essential' could be removed.  This suggestion was noted.


 Regulation J6.c.(5)

  1. A proposal to amend the above Regulation was presented by Mr Ford on behalf of the Gamekeepers National Association in order to clarify ambiguity over the meaning of '3 calendar years'.


  1. The meeting was advised that the Field Trials Sub-Committee  had recently discussed this issue and had recommended an amendment to Regulation J6.c.(5) s whereby references to '3 calendar years' would be replaced by '36 months' and references to '5 calendar years' would be replaced by '60 months'. The amendment had been approved by the General Committee and would come into effect in January 2015.


  1. No further action was therefore necessary.


Regulation J(A)3.g

  1. Mr Jim Gale, representing the Labrador Retriever Club, introduced a proposal to amend Regulation J(A)3.g. such that judges would give more consideration to the possible unfavourable outcome of sending a dog for a retrieve during a drive. 



g. Judges should ask the Steward of the Beat what the game position is likely to be and regulate the amount of work or number of retrieves for each dog accordingly. At driven Trials Judges should, after consultation with the Steward of the Beat, ensure that dogs sitting at a drive are positioned as to have the best opportunity to retrieve runners or wounded game during the driveonly when it is practical to do so(they should also, however, be mindful of Regulation J(A)4.b). They should moreover satisfy themselves that arrangements have been made for the collection of dead or wounded game not gathered by the competing dogs and where necessary its humane despatch.

(Insertion underlined.)


  1. The proposal was seconded by Mr D Capel.


  1. The proposal was supported by the Council but a suggestion was made that the proposed insertion should read 'so long as it is practical to do so'.


  1. The Council accepted that problems could occur where a lot of game was falling, and recommended the amendment for approval, subject to the decision of the Field Trials Sub-Committee in respect of the precise wording.





Handlers with two dogs in a drive

  1. Mr Wainwright introduced a discussion item from the Southern & Western Counties Field Trial Society.  Clarification was requested on a situation where a handler had two or more dogs off the lead in a drive, and a bird was shot and wounded, falling on bare ground and running off towards cover but that due to the handler having to put his other dog/s on a lead and handing them to a deputy, there was a delay in sending his current dog for the wounded game.  The bird was not recovered but the handler was still kept in as second dog down because of the delay.  The Council was requested to consider whether this practice was fair to the other competitors as they would not have a delay, and if unsuccessful would be first dog down.


  1. It was acknowledged that each case must be assessed on its own merits and that it was not possible to specify an exact time for defining second dog down. 


  1. It was also accepted that handing dogs to a deputy should not take long especially if the deputy was in reasonably close proximity and that there should not therefore be an undue delay in a dog being sent for the runner. The Council agreed that dogs competing at a trial should be trained to a sufficient standard such that the handlers' other dog/s should not run in even when the first dog was sent. It was also highlighted that a first dog down failure need not necessarily be eliminated.


  1. The Council was of the view that handlers should not attempt to cause a delay and that this practice should be strongly discouraged. 


Requirements of a Field Trial Judge examination

  1. Mr Wainwright, speaking on behalf of the Southern & Western Counties Field Trial Society, introduced a discussion item regarding the requirement for a judge to have passed an examination at the Kennel Club Field Trial Judges Seminar.  The Society was concerned that potential Panel judges were being lost because they were not academically minded and experienced difficulty in passing the examination following the Field Trial Judges Seminar. It was suggested that people may be considered for appointment as Panel judges who, in addition to the required number of satisfactory non-Panel judging appointments, could demonstrate their practical ability in working a dog by achieving the required wins and could produce a certificate to confirm that they had attended a seminar. The requirement to have passed the examination would be dropped.


  1. The Council accepted that some judges experienced practical difficulties in attending a seminar and that there was a risk that some potentially good judges were not getting on to the B panel for this reason.  However, it did not consider that the examination, which was in a simple multiple choice format, was of an unduly onerous standard and believed that passing it should be achievable for most people.  A potential judge who felt unable to cope with the pressure of taking the examination would probably also struggle with the pressure of judging at a trial. 


  1. A suggestion was put forward which would allow for judges to be accepted onto the B panel without having passed the examination with the proviso that they must not take up an appointment until such time as they had taken and passed the examination, but this was not supported.


  1. The Council was of the view that the requirement for passing the examination should not be dropped under any circumstances, and that doing so would undermine the credibility of the judges training scheme. All Panel judges should be required to demonstrate their understanding of the J Regulations.


  1. It was noted that dyslexic candidates could request either an additional 20 minutes to take the examination, or the assistance of an impartial reader who would read the questions and the answer choices to the candidate, but would offer no other assistance.


Open Retriever Field Trials

  1. A discussion item from Usk Valley Working Gundog Club was introduced by Mr Wright who outlined the view that Open Retriever Field Trials should all be open to Any Variety Retrievers as it was considered that this would enable all to enter Open trials and would prevent any perceived discrimination; it would create a level playing field for everyone, whilst ensuring the winning dog or bitch was of a suitable standard to gain accreditation towards their title, regardless of strain or colour.  A similar principle could also apply to Novice trials.


  1. It was noted that a similar issue had been addressed by the Kennel Club some years ago and that it had been agreed that the status quo should be retained for 'historical' breed clubs.


  1. The Council considered that it would not be a positive development for the Championship to take place without the possibility of a representative from each breed taking part.  Each dog taking part in the Championship had qualified on the basis that it was one of the best dogs of its breed.  The same rationale would also apply to the gaining of Field Trial Champion status where it was considered important for dogs to compete against others of the same breed.  It was also agreed that Stakes for specific breeds were instrumental in ensuring the furtherance of a breed and should be allowed to continue.


  1. The Council did not support the discussion item.


Membership of clubs running Open Qualifying Stakes

  1. Mrs Jenkins, representing West Dartmoor Working Gundog Club, requested that the Council discuss whether, when a club had been granted permission by the Kennel Club to hold an Open Qualifying Stake, it should no longer restrict membership for breed of retriever or colour.  Membership should be available for all breeds of retrievers. 


  1. However the Council was not aware of any clubs which restricted membership in this way; in fact many clubs were happy to accept membership applications with no dogs at all. 


  1. The suggestion was noted.


Show Gundog Working Certificate

  1. A discussion item on behalf of the Golden Retriever Club of Northumbria was introduced by Mrs Hay.  Last year Mrs Hay and Mr Crookes had judged their first Show Gundog Working Certificate on game and had been disappointed with some of the handlers questioning why more certificates had not been awarded. Mrs Hay and Mr Crookes were also criticised for not awarding certificates where dogs found game, mouthed the birds but would not deliver to hand. The Regulations stated that a Retriever must have 'retrieved tenderly'. The Council was requested to discuss whether this should state 'retrieved tenderlyto hand', and also how a dog could gain its award if birds were only retrieved from stubble when the Regulations stated that a Retriever must have 'faced cover.' It was also noted that some judges were awarding certificates when dogs have not entered water.


  1. There was a concern that some judges were being over sympathetic to handlers.  The objective of encouraging handlers to gain a Show Gundog Working Certificate was to provide credible proof of the natural working ability of a dog for the good of the breed. It was agreed that whilst judges should bear in mind that the dogs being assessed were not of a competition standard some caution should be demonstrated to avoid being over-lenient on sloppy retrieving or other faults which would not be beneficial to the aim of the Certificate.


  1. The discussion was noted.


Attendance at recognised events by prospective show judges

  1. Mr Crookes introduced a discussion item from the Northern Golden Retriever Association (NGRA) which wished to ask whether the Council would support the Golden Retriever Breed Council in asking the Kennel Club to add a Novice Field Trial to the list of recognised events that a prospective show judge must attend as part of their development.


  1. Currently candidates could only attend an Open Working Test or Open Field Trial as part of this process. The NGRA considered that a Novice Field Trial was more than equal to an Open Working Test. It would also give more opportunities for specialists in breeds such as Golden Retrievers to actually see a Golden Retriever working instead of trusting to luck that a Golden Retriever, in this case, or indeed any of the numerically smaller breeds had been successful in a draw and obtained a run.


  1. The Council was of the view that the standard of dog work at a Novice Field Trial should be more than equal to that at an Open Working Test, and therefore wished to support the suggestion that it would be acceptable for a prospective show judge to attend a Novice Field Trial as part of their development.


  1. The support of the Council was noted.


Dissemination of information from clubs and societies

  1. Mr Capel spoke on behalf of Leicestershire Gundog Society who wished the Council to consider the issue of the increasing decision by clubs and societies to only send out information to members via email or simply to put that information on a club's own website without any notice to members.


  1. As a minimum the Society believed that clubs should email all their members with the information as an attachment to that email; for example Field Trial schedules, because at present the information/schedules were just simply being put on club websites without any notification to members.  People who were members of a large number of clubs were obliged to spend a considerable amount of time checking websites to ascertain whether the information they needed had been posted.


  1. The society suggested that one group email to all the club's members with an attachment or simply advising them that the information was available to view or download on its website would solve this problem. Clubs which did not have members' email addresses should continue to send out information by post until such time as email addresses were available.


  1. It was noted that although there was no Kennel Club remit to force clubs to follow this procedure, it could be recommended via the Field Trial newsletter as an example of good practice.  The item received broad support from the Council which considered that it would be helpful if clubs conformed to this procedure.


Refusal of entries

  1. Mr P Smith introduced a discussion item on behalf of the Mid-Ulster Gundog Association which requested the Council to consider the position where a club was granted a licence for a Field Trial but the host had informed the secretary of the club that a named individual was not welcome on the ground.


  1. It was accepted that it was essential for clubs to retain trial grounds and that therefore the wishes of the host must be taken into consideration. 


  1. It was confirmed that under Regulation J7.d. clubs had the right to refuse any entry for a Trial from any individual provided that the correct club Committee procedures were followed, details of which could be provided by the office upon request, and the Kennel Club informed of the reasons behind the decision. It was not a requirement that clubs had their own specific rule stating that entries could be refused although clubs must have included a statement to that effect on their schedule if they wished to make use of this, as per Regulation J.5.b(1)(x).  If the unwelcome individual turned up at the trial the removal of them from the ground would become a civil matter and the club or the host would need to take such action as it felt appropriate. Any incident of this type should be reported to the Kennel Club through the Incident Book and it would then be investigated as appropriate. It was acknowledged that field trials took place by the invitation of the host who had the right to state who may be present on his or her land.


  1. The office confirmed that there was no risk of the trial being declared void as the result of any individual being refused entry, providing that the correct procedures had been followed.


Relationship with the Field Trials Sub-Committee

  1. Mr Ford spoke on behalf of the Gamekeepers National Association who wished to ask the Council whether it considered that its views were being well represented at meetings of the Field Trials Sub-Committee since concerns were raised by the Council at its meeting of 2012.


  1. The Chairman reassured the Council that its views were taken seriously as was reflected in the statistic quoted earlier which was that of nine proposals submitted by the Council, only two had been rejected.


  1. It was noted however that some items submitted had not been included on the agenda as they were outside the remit of the Council and therefore could not be discussed.  The office confirmed that any club or individual submitting an item for the agenda would be advised if it was not eligible for inclusion and where possible an alternative route for dealing with the issue would be suggested.





Current practice at driven Retriever trials

  1. Mr Murdock, representing the Ulster Retriever Club, wished to raise the issue of some judges who, at driven trials, were in the habit of walking forward to find game themselves and then, while forward, used their stick to point out the position to the handler.  There was a concern that there was no necessity for doing so, and that standing clear of the immediate area and allowing the dog to work uninterrupted would allow for a much better assessment to be made of the dog's true ability.  A similar issue had been raised by Barton on Humber Gundog Club and the two items were considered together.


  1. It was accepted that on occasion it was necessary for a judge to indicate the location of a bird but that walking forward to do so was not good practice and should be avoided.  A concern of a similar nature was also raised in that some judges instructed dogs to remain in a specific area where the dog clearly wished to take a line, and that this could be frustrating to guns, keepers and landowners. It was accepted that dogs needed to be allowed to hunt for runners. 


  1. It was agreed that guidance on this issue would be provided in the Field Trial newsletter.


  1. There was a concern that some judges lacked the necessary fieldcraft to judge effectively and that it was up to clubs to give careful consideration to the experience and knowledge of an individual before inviting them to judge at a field trial or working test.


Kennel Club Gundog Working Test event

  1. The Council wished to record its gratitude to the Kennel Club staff who had contributed greatly to the success of the recent Gundog Working Test event held at Chatsworth.


Online entries to field trials

  1. The meeting received a presentation from Mr Dear regarding the system for online entries currently being developed by Fosse Data.


  1. The meeting closed at 14.45.
Copyright © The Kennel Club Limited 2019. The unauthorised reproduction of text and images is strictly prohibited.