Great job on the new website!! Carl it looks super and I could see its set up with the future in mind as far as features for growth and expansion.
An idea a about the consistency awards....Something I would really like to see that I feel would truly be a better way to measure the most consistent dogs in the federation is a BLANKET qualifying of ALL the clubs trial.
So yearly the club pays a recording fee and ALL the results for all the advertised trials the club has it gets included in the consistency awards....with the new website for tabulation of points and the ease of input for the results this would allow us to really see the dogs level on consistency. I think this would great simplify the process and provide more incentive for people to run for the award ..if you know before hand that any trial both licensed and sanctioned that takes place in the federation will be counted as a qualifier and gain points towards the consistency award there is no reason not to go....
Purchase your Tri-Tronics products in our store
2
22 replies to this topic
#1 OFFLINE
-
- Pedigree Members
-
- 307 posts
Advanced Member
-
Real Name:
Jimmy Fowles -
City or County:
Greenville -
State or Province:
New York -
Kennel Name:
JD'S Roundhills Beagles
Posted 31 October 2011 - 04:18 PM
#2 OFFLINE
-
- Administrators
-
- 295 posts
Administrator
-
Real Name:
Carl Post -
City or County:
Marlboro -
State or Province:
New York
Posted 31 October 2011 - 05:15 PM
Jim thanks for the compliment. I am a big supporter of the idea that the way we collect fees on NEBGF trials should change. With the change passed in the BY-laws to article 11
we could simply make all trials on the schedule NEBGF trials. The present method of 50 cents per entree requires clubs to cut a check for each trial, generally for about $10-$20. That twenty dollar check requires the club FTS figure out the proper amount, contact the club treasurer to have them create the check, get it back to the FTS who then send it to Donna Anderson with results, who used to have to confirm the trial had been advertised in a magazine and deposit the check. It would be so much simpler if it was a flat fee per year for up to two licensed, two sanctioned and two derby trials per club. One check per club saves the FTS, club treasurer and Federation treasurer time. Presently the FTS et all do a lot of work for the $1400 raised each year. That breaks down to only $25 per club (1400/55)
There does need to be something that forces a club to report their annual results in a timely fashion. If a person attends the trial, he deserves the points. If a club refuses to do their due diligence and report results, the next year their trials should not be allowed to count or be listed as qualifiers.
Quote
D. A qualifying trial must be advertised as such in at least one monthly beagle periodical or posted on N.E.B.G.F website yearly calendar of events.
There does need to be something that forces a club to report their annual results in a timely fashion. If a person attends the trial, he deserves the points. If a club refuses to do their due diligence and report results, the next year their trials should not be allowed to count or be listed as qualifiers.
#3 OFFLINE
-
- Pedigree Members
-
- 307 posts
Advanced Member
-
Real Name:
Jimmy Fowles -
City or County:
Greenville -
State or Province:
New York -
Kennel Name:
JD'S Roundhills Beagles
Posted 31 October 2011 - 06:07 PM
Amen Carl, a flat fee of 25 bucks sounds reasonable....and then ALL the trials are blanket qualifiers and included in the consistency awards.
This is a no brain er if you ask me.....BTW isnt this they way it is in the IBGA? Seems to work easy enough....
This is a no brain er if you ask me.....BTW isnt this they way it is in the IBGA? Seems to work easy enough....
#4 OFFLINE
-
- Pedigree Members
-
- 65 posts
Advanced Member
-
Real Name:
Shawn D Snow -
City or County:
Binghamton -
State or Province:
New York -
Kennel Name:
Snotop beagles
Posted 31 October 2011 - 07:10 PM
sounds like a fabulous idea to me.... very well thought out
#5 OFFLINE
-
- Pedigree Members
-
- 99 posts
Advanced Member
-
Real Name:
Dan Lang -
City or County:
Milford -
State or Province:
New York -
Kennel Name:
Langs Little Beagles
Posted 02 November 2011 - 01:55 PM
..you forgot that only ONE trial per club counts as a qualifier.........which makes things a little more complicated.........so you can make your lic trials a qualifier or hold an all age.....so unless you make every trial a qualifier....you will never get an overall consistency result..........
#6 OFFLINE
-
- Pedigree Members
-
- 307 posts
Advanced Member
-
Real Name:
Jimmy Fowles -
City or County:
Greenville -
State or Province:
New York -
Kennel Name:
JD'S Roundhills Beagles
Posted 02 November 2011 - 02:30 PM
Dan Lang, on 02 November 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:
..you forgot that only ONE trial per club counts as a qualifier.........which makes things a little more complicated.........so you can make your lic trials a qualifier or hold an all age.....so unless you make every trial a qualifier....you will never get an overall consistency result..........
Danny I didn't know that a club could only hold one NEBGF qualifier per year, so your point is well taken. And my idea becomes even stronger. Don't we want as many dogs as possible qualified to run in our run offs? All if your going to REALLY look at consistency of dogs then you need to count all the trials in the federation.
A good example is a club maybe have up to two licensed trials and on sanctioned all age trial, and one derby trial. So a total of four trials for the year. With the website for input of results and fixed per club recording fee I think that even with the increase in qualified dog it will still be easier then our current system.
#7 OFFLINE
-
- Pedigree Members
-
- 99 posts
Advanced Member
-
Real Name:
Dan Lang -
City or County:
Milford -
State or Province:
New York -
Kennel Name:
Langs Little Beagles
Posted 03 November 2011 - 07:12 AM
....there is a reason we went to one trial, and John correct me if I am wrong, at one time the NEBGF gave out some nice awards for the winner. I recall getting one ton of dog feed for winning a consistency. Some clubs decided to have several qualifiers to get in on the action. This was prior to the 2 lic. trial going into effect, so we had some clubs holding multiple qualifing trials. Then they didint advertise the trial, and we had some questions. They were basically having club level trials and turning them in for consistency points.
..I agree there needs to be some changes to the system. This should be incorporated into my other suggestions. I suggest that we eliminate the need to have a qualifing trial in order to have a vote. I dont see the sense in that and never did, it was a way to make clubs hold a qualififer. I think all clubs should have a vote and all voting should be electronic for all to see.,either on this website for the NEBGF's.
..in the advanced information age we are in these days, it makes no sense to drag people for hundres of miles to sit at a meeting, corporate america figured that out years ago, I guess the beageling public is a little slow. .....................................
..I agree there needs to be some changes to the system. This should be incorporated into my other suggestions. I suggest that we eliminate the need to have a qualifing trial in order to have a vote. I dont see the sense in that and never did, it was a way to make clubs hold a qualififer. I think all clubs should have a vote and all voting should be electronic for all to see.,either on this website for the NEBGF's.
..in the advanced information age we are in these days, it makes no sense to drag people for hundres of miles to sit at a meeting, corporate america figured that out years ago, I guess the beageling public is a little slow. .....................................
#8 OFFLINE
-
- Administrators
-
- 295 posts
Administrator
-
Real Name:
Carl Post -
City or County:
Marlboro -
State or Province:
New York
Posted 03 November 2011 - 07:47 AM
Dan, one licensed, two all-age and one derby are allowed per calendar year towards the NEBGF consistency. I posted above about using two licensed, but think using only one is better. Rule should be further specified that if it isn't advertised on the site by a certain number of days prior to the trial it will not count. What would be a good number 45, 60?
#9 OFFLINE
-
- Pedigree Members
-
- 99 posts
Advanced Member
-
Real Name:
Dan Lang -
City or County:
Milford -
State or Province:
New York -
Kennel Name:
Langs Little Beagles
Posted 03 November 2011 - 09:38 AM
CARL...i must have missed the meeting that changed this, anyway. Its a good question, how many do we count. ?..This is interesting subject, the folks that scream about 2 lic trials, should be questioning this. ...some clubs dont hold 2 lic trials, so do we penalize them. I will go back to what I have been saying for years, due to the weather here in NE YORK state we cant possibly hold as many trials as they can in souththern PA...which puts us at a disadvantage...........
good question, but I dont know the answer....I will tell you thius they way we do it now is not good...after every trial we got checks going one way..results another..orso it seems...things get hosed up........
I alspo think if we did a blanket consistecny and raised the fees for every club, say to 100 bucks a club, covers all the trials, a bunch would drop out, !,,,I have to tell you when we sit at the meeting after the trial and explain why we send a boat load of cash to the AKC and then the NEBGF gets a peice.....I get questioned .....this is one of those things we have to tread very lightly on....
.
good question, but I dont know the answer....I will tell you thius they way we do it now is not good...after every trial we got checks going one way..results another..orso it seems...things get hosed up........
I alspo think if we did a blanket consistecny and raised the fees for every club, say to 100 bucks a club, covers all the trials, a bunch would drop out, !,,,I have to tell you when we sit at the meeting after the trial and explain why we send a boat load of cash to the AKC and then the NEBGF gets a peice.....I get questioned .....this is one of those things we have to tread very lightly on....
.
#10 OFFLINE
-
- Pedigree Members
-
- 307 posts
Advanced Member
-
Real Name:
Jimmy Fowles -
City or County:
Greenville -
State or Province:
New York -
Kennel Name:
JD'S Roundhills Beagles
Posted 03 November 2011 - 11:39 AM
First of all we were looking at a number of about 1400 in per capita fees....thats about 25 a club. Secondly by limiting the number of trials you defeat the purpuse that of blanketing all ADVERTISED trials that are held by NEBGF clubs...If its advertised online or in magazine everyone has the same opportunity to attend, and If members know beforehand that the ALL advertised trials count towards the consistency then they can be assured to receive points.
One Licensed trial makes no sense if your looking to tabulate consistency points....So for example my dog won both of Broomes licensed 13 male class, why should not they both count? But two sanctioned trials would count from the same club? whats the point in that? Also I am not sure if you the AKC already has limit on the number of sanctioned trials that a club may hold in the year, if so its not even an issue.
Just looked it up, doesn't seem to be limit on sanctioned trials, however the application is sent to the akc from the associations or federation....so there is no reason they couldn't put a limit on the number that a member club can hold.
2 licensed trials, 2 sanctioned trials and a derby trial will cover 99% of out club.....and then you would be have real consistency award, a flat 25 fee....easy input of the results on line with a place in the form that the FTC states were the trials was advertised....simple easy and fair.
One Licensed trial makes no sense if your looking to tabulate consistency points....So for example my dog won both of Broomes licensed 13 male class, why should not they both count? But two sanctioned trials would count from the same club? whats the point in that? Also I am not sure if you the AKC already has limit on the number of sanctioned trials that a club may hold in the year, if so its not even an issue.
Just looked it up, doesn't seem to be limit on sanctioned trials, however the application is sent to the akc from the associations or federation....so there is no reason they couldn't put a limit on the number that a member club can hold.
2 licensed trials, 2 sanctioned trials and a derby trial will cover 99% of out club.....and then you would be have real consistency award, a flat 25 fee....easy input of the results on line with a place in the form that the FTC states were the trials was advertised....simple easy and fair.
#11 OFFLINE
-
- Members
-
- 80 posts
Advanced Member
-
Real Name:
John Gibble -
City or County:
Lancaster -
State or Province:
Pennsylvania
Posted 03 November 2011 - 02:17 PM
There's always more than one way to skin a cat. One thing I've always tried to keep in mind as we grow is "what's in it for the clubs?" If we can do something more simply and less costly, while still maintaining the Federation's level of service, I'm all for it. Let's remember that such changes entail a by-laws change and need to be introduced at the next meeting. I encourage all of us here to continue this discussion to flesh out such changes.
Some of the issues being brought up in this thread reflect old conditions and old attitudes...for instance: One Licensed trial makes no sense if your looking to tabulate consistency points....So for example my dog won both of Broomes licensed 13 male class, why should not they both count? But two sanctioned trials would count from the same club? whats the point in that? Also I am not sure if you the AKC already has limit on the number of sanctioned trials that a club may hold in the year, if so its not even an issue.
As I recall the Federation, at the time this was passed, didn't want to encourage clubs to hold a second licensed trial by allowing the second trial to be a qualifier. Times change, so do needs and attitudes. There shouldn't be any reason that the NEBGF can't change along with them.
My own opinion is that I like the per capita fee. 50 cents per dog isn't all that much and its like a flat tax rather than a graduated scale. I'm a bit concerned that if you go to an annual "membership" fee, we will lose a number of our clubs that don't participate now and income will suffer. I don't think the Federaion needs to be sitting on a pile of money. We have no use for a large treasury. I do believe that the consistencies and awards need to be sustained at current levels or even increased to encourage greater participation at the club and Federation level. With that in mind, we would need to assure that income remains steady or increases slightly. JMO
Some of the issues being brought up in this thread reflect old conditions and old attitudes...for instance: One Licensed trial makes no sense if your looking to tabulate consistency points....So for example my dog won both of Broomes licensed 13 male class, why should not they both count? But two sanctioned trials would count from the same club? whats the point in that? Also I am not sure if you the AKC already has limit on the number of sanctioned trials that a club may hold in the year, if so its not even an issue.
As I recall the Federation, at the time this was passed, didn't want to encourage clubs to hold a second licensed trial by allowing the second trial to be a qualifier. Times change, so do needs and attitudes. There shouldn't be any reason that the NEBGF can't change along with them.
My own opinion is that I like the per capita fee. 50 cents per dog isn't all that much and its like a flat tax rather than a graduated scale. I'm a bit concerned that if you go to an annual "membership" fee, we will lose a number of our clubs that don't participate now and income will suffer. I don't think the Federaion needs to be sitting on a pile of money. We have no use for a large treasury. I do believe that the consistencies and awards need to be sustained at current levels or even increased to encourage greater participation at the club and Federation level. With that in mind, we would need to assure that income remains steady or increases slightly. JMO
#12 OFFLINE
-
- Administrators
-
- 295 posts
Administrator
-
Real Name:
Carl Post -
City or County:
Marlboro -
State or Province:
New York
Posted 04 November 2011 - 08:43 AM
We are presently at 1600 entries ($800) for the current 42 trials reported. There are 7 trials that have yet to happen or report. I don't have the Derby numbers, but don't believe at $1 an entry they add more than $400 per year. Say 50 trials are on this years annual all-age list. We have more NEBGF clubs than that number? Some clubs are on the list more than once. This means multiple clubs are not listing any trials as NEBGF qualifiers. Several clubs prefer not to list their licensed trials as a NEBGF trial due to the fact that is there largest entry of the year and do not want to pay .50 per dog, when they can do so on a 20 entry all-age instead. Again the per capita creates much more work for the volunteers in the chain to handle it than a simple annual fee. Collect two years the first year, then continue to collect it a year in advance and you will negate all the issues of a club listing their trials as a qualifier and not paying or reporting afterward. It need be, it is easier to track down results for an errant club, than to try to chase down both the money and results. Again if a $30 annual fee vs a per capita to the Federation causes clubs to leave, that says volumes about the Federations value to them. I for one am extremely tired of walking on eggshells over a few dollars one way or the other for this and almost all similar topics at the association and federation level. It amounts to less than $1 per member per club, and is basically revenue neutral to the present system that most clubs already contribute towards. Every trialer spends more in gas and entry fees entering one hound, one time, a year, than this fee would be to an/his/her entire club. Many of the decisions we make, from the personal level on up the organizational ladder, in this sport are penny wise and pound foolish.
#13 OFFLINE
-
- Administrators
-
- 295 posts
Administrator
-
Real Name:
Carl Post -
City or County:
Marlboro -
State or Province:
New York
Posted 04 November 2011 - 08:50 AM
Another point would be that some of the Mass, Vermont, NH, ME, VA, WV clubs that might not be able to get their whole association to join the Federation, may want to join and make there SPO trials qualifiers for $30 per year.
#14 OFFLINE
-
- Members
-
- 80 posts
Advanced Member
-
Real Name:
John Gibble -
City or County:
Lancaster -
State or Province:
Pennsylvania
Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:34 PM
Your points are well taken, Carl.
Question: Do we have a list of clubs that do NOT hold NEBGF qualifiers?
Question: Do we have a list of clubs that do NOT hold NEBGF qualifiers?
#15 OFFLINE
-
- Administrators
-
- 295 posts
Administrator
-
Real Name:
Carl Post -
City or County:
Marlboro -
State or Province:
New York
Posted 04 November 2011 - 02:49 PM
We do not. Give me a week and I should be able to have something that can be reused with multiple parameters.
#16 OFFLINE
-
- Pedigree Members
-
- 307 posts
Advanced Member
-
Real Name:
Jimmy Fowles -
City or County:
Greenville -
State or Province:
New York -
Kennel Name:
JD'S Roundhills Beagles
Posted 04 November 2011 - 04:25 PM
This would also solve another issue...the rule of no qualifier = no vote.
If you have a club that is having issues with game/ grounds and they are unable to hold a quality trial and decide to cancel it, currently the club can not vote at the annul meeting. I think this is extremely counter productive and detrimental to the federation, we need to keep clubs in the federation loop not alienate them further when they are having a hard time. A fixed fee fixes that...pay the fee you get a vote and voice...
If you have a club that is having issues with game/ grounds and they are unable to hold a quality trial and decide to cancel it, currently the club can not vote at the annul meeting. I think this is extremely counter productive and detrimental to the federation, we need to keep clubs in the federation loop not alienate them further when they are having a hard time. A fixed fee fixes that...pay the fee you get a vote and voice...
#17 OFFLINE
-
- Administrators
-
- 295 posts
Administrator
-
Real Name:
Carl Post -
City or County:
Marlboro -
State or Province:
New York
Posted 04 November 2011 - 05:12 PM
Maybe a week was an over estimate. 
Assuming this list of clubs I have as NEBGF members in the database is a complete list of NEBGF Clubs, and it may not be, so please notify me of missing clubs
Berkshire Beagle Club
Blue Ridge Beagle Club
Broome County Beagle Club
Cayuga Lake Beagle Club
Corning Beagle Club
Easthampton Beagle Club
Enchanted Mountain Beagle Club
Fort Plain Beagle Club
Glendale Beagle Club
Java Village Beagle Club
Klipnockie Beagle Club
Neversink Beagle Club
New Scotland Beagle Club
Northern Chautauqua Beagle Club
Pine Hill Beagle Club
Pioneer Beagle Club
Susquehanna Valley Beagle Club
Towanda Beagle Club
Bay State Beagle Club
Cape Cod Beagle Club
Central Massachusetts Beagle Club
Eastern Connecticut Beagle Club
Merrimack Valley Beagle Club
New England Beagle Club
Plainville Beagle Club
Thornton Beagle Club
Tri-County Beagle Club
Bellwood Beagle Club
Breakneck Beagle Club
Cambria Beagle Club
Carlisle Beagle Club
Central Beagle Club
Conemaugh Valley Beagle Club
Eldred Beagle Club
Elizabethtown Beagle Club
Hilltop Beagle Club
Indiana County Beagle Club
Jacobus Beagle Club
Lebanon Beagle Club
Lycoming Beagle Club
Lykens Valley Beagle Club
Mason-Dixon Beagle Club
Monroe Beagle Club
Northern Lancaster County Beagle Club
Oil Creek Beagle Club
Pucketos Beagle Club
Rainbow Beagle Club
Rayburn Beagle Club
Shamokin Beagle Club
Sharpsville Beagle Club
Susquehanna Valley Beagle Club
Towanda Beagle Club
Tunkhannock Beagle Club
Webster Beagle Club
West Branch Beagle Club
York & Adams Beagle Club
These are the clubs that show not holding an NEBGF all-age or licensed trial
Broome County Beagle Club
Glendale Beagle Club
Klipnockie Beagle Club
Northern Chautauqua Beagle Club
Merrimack Valley Beagle Club
Cambria Beagle Club
Conemaugh Valley Beagle Club
Mason-Dixon Beagle Club
Sharpsville Beagle Club
Tunkhannock Beagle Club
Hilltop Beagle Club
I have not included Derby trials as they are not in the database yet. I may be able to break it down further into how many of each type a club held, but that will take longer.
Assuming this list of clubs I have as NEBGF members in the database is a complete list of NEBGF Clubs, and it may not be, so please notify me of missing clubs
Berkshire Beagle Club
Blue Ridge Beagle Club
Broome County Beagle Club
Cayuga Lake Beagle Club
Corning Beagle Club
Easthampton Beagle Club
Enchanted Mountain Beagle Club
Fort Plain Beagle Club
Glendale Beagle Club
Java Village Beagle Club
Klipnockie Beagle Club
Neversink Beagle Club
New Scotland Beagle Club
Northern Chautauqua Beagle Club
Pine Hill Beagle Club
Pioneer Beagle Club
Susquehanna Valley Beagle Club
Towanda Beagle Club
Bay State Beagle Club
Cape Cod Beagle Club
Central Massachusetts Beagle Club
Eastern Connecticut Beagle Club
Merrimack Valley Beagle Club
New England Beagle Club
Plainville Beagle Club
Thornton Beagle Club
Tri-County Beagle Club
Bellwood Beagle Club
Breakneck Beagle Club
Cambria Beagle Club
Carlisle Beagle Club
Central Beagle Club
Conemaugh Valley Beagle Club
Eldred Beagle Club
Elizabethtown Beagle Club
Hilltop Beagle Club
Indiana County Beagle Club
Jacobus Beagle Club
Lebanon Beagle Club
Lycoming Beagle Club
Lykens Valley Beagle Club
Mason-Dixon Beagle Club
Monroe Beagle Club
Northern Lancaster County Beagle Club
Oil Creek Beagle Club
Pucketos Beagle Club
Rainbow Beagle Club
Rayburn Beagle Club
Shamokin Beagle Club
Sharpsville Beagle Club
Susquehanna Valley Beagle Club
Towanda Beagle Club
Tunkhannock Beagle Club
Webster Beagle Club
West Branch Beagle Club
York & Adams Beagle Club
These are the clubs that show not holding an NEBGF all-age or licensed trial
Broome County Beagle Club
Glendale Beagle Club
Klipnockie Beagle Club
Northern Chautauqua Beagle Club
Merrimack Valley Beagle Club
Cambria Beagle Club
Conemaugh Valley Beagle Club
Mason-Dixon Beagle Club
Sharpsville Beagle Club
Tunkhannock Beagle Club
Hilltop Beagle Club
I have not included Derby trials as they are not in the database yet. I may be able to break it down further into how many of each type a club held, but that will take longer.
#18 OFFLINE
-
- Pedigree Members
-
- 307 posts
Advanced Member
-
Real Name:
Jimmy Fowles -
City or County:
Greenville -
State or Province:
New York -
Kennel Name:
JD'S Roundhills Beagles
Posted 04 November 2011 - 06:34 PM
If clubs are using their derby trials as their only qualifier trial, and hence the only per capita being paid we could see a increase in revenues from a flat fee. Furthermore the list highlights the fact that many trials are probably not being counted towards the federation consistency awards which is shame as we could be seeing a whole another side of what dogs are actually placing consistently throughout the ENTIRE spectrum of the federations trials.
#19 OFFLINE
-
- Administrators
-
- 295 posts
Administrator
-
Real Name:
Carl Post -
City or County:
Marlboro -
State or Province:
New York
Posted 04 November 2011 - 10:48 PM
This is a breakdown of NEBGF qualifying trials for licensed and sanctioned trials by club for 2011. I do not have each clubs complete 2011 trial listing to compare vs. this report to see how many trials are held by NEBGF clubs that are not qualifying trials, but I bet the number is greater than the total of this list.
| clubName | Licensed | Sanctioned |
| Bay State Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Bellwood Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Berkshire Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Blue Ridge Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Breakneck Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Broome County Beagle Club | 0 | 0 |
| Cambria Beagle Club | 0 | 0 |
| Cape Cod Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Carlisle Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Cayuga Lake Beagle Club | 1 | 0 |
| Central Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Central Massachusetts Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Conemaugh Valley Beagle Club | 0 | 0 |
| Corning Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Eastern Connecticut Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Easthampton Beagle Club | 1 | 0 |
| Eldred Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Elizabethtown Beagle Club | 1 | 1 |
| Enchanted Mountain Beagle Club | 1 | 0 |
| Fort Plain Beagle Club | 1 | 0 |
| Glendale Beagle Club | 0 | 0 |
| Hilltop Beagle Club | 0 | 0 |
| Indiana County Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Iroquois Beagle Gundog Association | 0 | 0 |
| Jacobus Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Java Village Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Klipnockie Beagle Club | 0 | 0 |
| Lebanon Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Lycoming Beagle Club | 1 | 1 |
| Lykens Valley Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Mason-Dixon Beagle Club | 0 | 0 |
| Merrimack Valley Beagle Club | 0 | 0 |
| Monroe Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Neversink Beagle Club | 1 | 0 |
| New England Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| New Scotland Beagle Club | 1 | 0 |
| Northern Chautauqua Beagle Club | 0 | 0 |
| Northern Lancaster County Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Oil Creek Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Pine Hill Beagle Club | 1 | 0 |
| Pioneer Beagle Club | 1 | 1 |
| Plainville Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Pucketos Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Rainbow Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Rayburn Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Shamokin Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Sharpsville Beagle Club | 0 | 0 |
| Susquehanna Valley Beagle Club | 0 | 2 |
| Thornton Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Towanda Beagle Club | 1 | 1 |
| Tri-County Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| Tunkhannock Beagle Club | 0 | 0 |
| Webster Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| West Branch Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
| York & Adams Beagle Club | 0 | 1 |
#20 OFFLINE
-
- Members
-
- 80 posts
Advanced Member
-
Real Name:
John Gibble -
City or County:
Lancaster -
State or Province:
Pennsylvania
Posted 06 November 2011 - 06:08 PM
Thanks Carl. That's great information and bears some study.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
