Open Plans

[Dennis Green]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

I have read with despair some of the comments put on this thread.

I attended the open with Sue as a representative of the Northern. The Club paid for three of us to attend but in the end only two of us went.

Prior to going, I listened to the views of many of our members one of whom let me have his comments in note form. Where appropriate, Sue and I put the views of our members to the meeting and, as it happened voted as the members wished. Had I been persuaded by argument to vote otherwise I may well have done so but I would have been prepared to justify the change to the members.

On Sunday 14th of November, Sue & I issued a note to all members attending that days racing summarising the discussions at the talk in.

I don't know where Judy got the idea that only a total of 10 members voted on the seeding issue. My count showed that 14 voted for the seeding of dogs and 7 against. How many reps abstained I do not know because, as stated earlier, some attendees may not have been able to vote. This was not a decision making meeting but with twice as many reps voting for seeding as voted against is it suprising that the WRCA acted on to the proposal?

If reps didn't ask for their members opinions or ignored those opinions it is up to the members to find out why; not to slag off the WCRA who have implemented the wishes of the peceived majority. With such an emotive issue, why didn't more club members ask their reps what went on at the meeting instead of waiting two months before moaning on this thread.

Although a majority of voters wanted a reduction in the number of Opens, it was pointed out that the WRCA had no control over the Whippet News and as long as they issued points for Open racers there was little chance of implementing a change.

Perhaps next year the reps will be better prepared.

 

[Judy]

I don't know where Judy got the idea that only a total of 10 members voted on the seeding issue. My count showed that 14 voted for the seeding of dogs and 7 against. How many reps abstained I do not know because, as stated earlier, some attendees may not have been able to vote. This was not a decision making meeting but with twice as many reps voting for seeding as voted against is it  suprising that the WRCA acted on to the proposal?
If reps didn't ask for their members opinions or ignored those opinions it is up to the members to find out why; not to slag off the WCRA who have implemented the wishes of the peceived majority. With such an emotive issue, why didn't more club members ask their reps what went on at the meeting instead of waiting two months before moaning on this thread.

I got this idea from the minutes of the meeting sent out by the WCRA. It stated that the vote was 7 for and 3 against. Seems to be some confusion here.

We are not blaming the WCRA for implementing the wishes of the percieved majority. We are just questioning whether it is in fact a real majority as not many people voted. I think it has been said a couple of times that the WCRA are only trying to do what they perceive as being wanted and that they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Can't blame them for that. This is not a personal thing. The question is more about the method of gauging opinion.

Most of us did ask our reps. what went on. This issue has only come up now because it has only recently been announced that seeding is indeed to be implemented.

 

[Nigel]

If reps didn't ask for their members opinions or ignored those opinions it is up to the members to find out why; not to slag off the WCRA who have implemented the wishes of the peceived majority. With such an emotive issue, why didn't more club members ask their reps what went on at the meeting instead of waiting two months before moaning on this thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I don't see anyone slagging off the WCRA. They have acted promtly on an issue raised by a perceived majority. The discussions here raise the question whether that is a genuine majority and whether the majority agree with the proposed solution. Any solution should be acceptable to the majority and the concerns expressed here highlight that at the moment it isn't clear whether the majority of racers do agree with this change. I think a lot more work needs to be done if this is going to be a welcomed change.

I don't think there has been any moaning on this thread, there has been discussion and different people putting a different point of view, but I don't see any moaning.

 

[Robin Sweet]

I have said before in an earlier post that I don't have a problem with the idea of seeding in principle. It just seems to me that the amount of rules that have been set out in or order to actually get a dog seeded are a bit long winded. It almost seems that the WCRA have made it so dificult to get a dog seeded in the hope that nobody will actually take them up on it.

I do think that a lot of people will try to get their dogs seeded though. And it will depend on which club you belong to, as to whether you are successful in getting your dog seeded. This is because the whole thing is down to interpretation of what is dangerous and what is not. It will be interesting to see how many seeded dogs come from each club.

I understand that the object of seeding is to avoid dogs being injured by a dog which crosses hard left or right within the first six strides. So why is this only going to be done on straights? In bend racing there is usually about a 40 yard run up to the bend. Why do we think that the same dogs which cross on a straight are not going to cross at the start of a bend race? There are as many dogs that go right as there are that go left, in case anyone is thinking that the left seeded dogs would be at an advantage. The red box is not necessarily the best box for every dog, and I have two dogs which I would rather see in the black box. In greyhound racing there are as many wide seeded dogs as there are railers.

So are we to conclude that the WCRA are not concerned about dogs being injured at the start of bend races? There is no logical reason to have seeding for straights and not for bends.

 

[LJH]

Robin,I'm not sure that many would agree on the left or red box not being an advantage in bend racing. I seem to remember a comment made at the last bend champs that the majority of winners came from the red box. Sorry I don't have last years results with me to back up the argument, but I do remember people despairing at drawing anything other than red!!!

AS for seeding I guess we won't know how wellit works til we try it. And the debate on why it isn't being used on the bend, well who knows??

 

[Smiffy@VeronnaV]

Robin,I'm not sure that many would agree on the left or red box not being an advantage in bend racing. I seem to remember a comment made at the last bend champs that the majority of winners came from the red box. Sorry I don't have last years results with me to back up the argument, but I do remember people despairing at drawing anything other than red!!!AS for seeding I guess we won't know how wellit works til we try it. And the debate on why it isn't being used on the bend, well who knows??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

As the person who presented the seeding proposal at the WCRA talk-in, and as one of the people who had a vote on behalf of the club, these are my comments.

Even though we can't as a body of people have our vote counted, we can, as a body of people attend the meeting and instruct our rep on how we wish them to vote. How can a rep be instructed on how the club wishes them to vote, when they don't know what's actually being proposed?

There is NOTHING wrong with the principle of seeding dogs, but a GREAT DEAL wrong with ignoring the bad/unaviodable practice of a dog exiting the trap and taking a right or left hand route as it EXITS. Thus impeding the safe progress of dog/s to either side of it. I am supposing that the decision to state the limit of a dog (six strides) is because NEARLY EVERYONE in the room said they had a dog which crossed the track. And we don't, most of us do not have dogs who EXIT THE TRAP ON A DIAGONAL LINE. Only some of us do, but those of us that do constitute a real risk to the dogs in their line of fire, so to speak. And because there is nothing wrong in principle, then it must be right for us to endeavour to make the track a safer place. If you think it's a long winded way of doing it, then blame yourselves, because everyone said 'it can't be done. But no-one could come up with anything which was sufficiently 'formal' enough to give credibility to the principle of a dog needing to be recognised as a seed right or left without being long winded!!! Those of you associated with greyhounds will know that the principle of recognising a dog as seed right or left is taken very seriously - and is equally long winded.

I take Robin's point though, if we are serious about the seeding/safety issue, it should have been across the board, not just straight racing. But I imagine that the reason (if indeed it is just off straight racing), is to do with the sort of comment made on this board about the best/worst trap for advantage in bend racing. Either adopt it across the board, or ban known seeded dogs from entering championship racing. And if the propensity to go right or left is genetic then that would be no bad thing!!!

I reiterate what I said at the beginning, go to the meetings because how can you instruct your rep on how to vote unless you hear all the discussion??!!!! :luck:

 

[Nigel]

Even though we can't as a body of people have our vote counted, we can, as a body of people attend the meeting and instruct our rep on how we wish them to vote.  How can a rep be instructed on how the club wishes them to vote, when they don't know what's actually being proposed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I assume from this comment, Carmel, that the club members had time to discuss the proposal amongst themeselves and instruct their club representative how they wanted them to vote before the vote was taken. ..