FOREST AND STREAM. 



tJAU^B, 1894. 



HOPS (Salter's Mike— Salter's Romp). 



ing the fish in proper condition nntil they could be taken to 

 market. 



Mr. Church said that a chance catch of 200 or 300 barrels 

 of food fish would not long remain fit for marketing, but as a 

 rule they did not make those catches; and such catches were 

 matters of accident; in the twenty or more years of their 

 being in the business, and the millions on millions of barrels 

 of menhaden that they had taken, he did not think they had 

 put into the market more than half a dozen times. We do 

 not catch food fish because we want them. In 1SS1 sque- 

 teague were as plenty as they have been this year, millions 

 and millisns of them, and they could hardly be sold for 

 enough to cover freight, barrels, and other incidental ex- 

 penses. One of our captains this year caught 60 barrels in 

 Narragansett Bay, and thought he had a prize. I said "Don't 

 do it." 



fennel. 



POINTS AND FLUSHES. 



[By a Staff Correspondent.} 

 Clubs and Handlers. 



The interests of a field trial club member in his capacity 

 as such are entirely different from the interests of a profes- 

 sional handler, yet many field trial clubs accept field trial 

 handlers into their membership. In their anxiety to get a 

 membership and a revenue, tbey do not consider that they 

 are accepting members whose interest in connection with the 

 club's affairs is not the club's interest. 



A handler who is a competitor has his own personal busi- 

 ness interest to consider as a handler, and his bread aud 

 butter or his business advancement will be always of more 

 importance to him than the club's interests. In his partici- 

 pation in the club's affairs his voice will not be tuned, in all 

 probability, in full harmony with the club's best advance- 

 ment. There is always a po'ssibility that he may have some 

 personal advantage in what he advocates. 



All handlers might not do so, in fact, I know some whom 

 I firmly believe would not. But whether they would or not, 

 the principle is wrong. It is an injustice to other handlers, 

 who are not club members, to compete with a handler who 

 is a club member. The handler-member has a voice in all 

 the club affairs. He can be heard on the amount and con- 

 ditions of the purses, the time and place where the trials will 

 be held, the rules under which they will be run, the stakes, 

 who will be judges, etc. Other handlers, who are not mem- 

 bers, of course have no voice in such matters. Thus there is 

 the incongruity of a competitor in a public stake competing 

 under conditions which he had a part in arranging, while 

 other competitors had no such part. That is not just in 

 principle. Members who are interested from love of sport 

 are thus brought in contact with members who are inter- 

 ested for business r*e.asons. 



It is the same old professionalism appearing in another 

 form. Among club members, whose interest is in promoting 



sport, it is sure to be as disastrous in the end as it is to the 

 amateur in competition. The best business interests of the 

 handler in his capacity as a competitor for the club's prizes 

 are not the club's best interests as a promotor and supporter 

 of sport and the best advancement of the dog. 



I have heard a handler denounce in unmeasured terms the 

 judgment of the judge who was not so favorable to one or 

 two of said handler's dogs as said handler thought he ought 



I am not writing against handlers as handler*. There are 

 some whom I know and esteem highly for their gentlemanly 

 qualities and love and observance of fair play. It is only of 

 those to whom these remarks are applicable that I write/and 

 of abuses which are growing stronger and more harmful If, 

 on calling the roll, there are none to whom these apply I will 

 admit error. 



The Unpleasantness of Judging. 



In this connection a few words in respect to clubs, judges 

 and handlers may not be amiss. 



It is constantly becoming more and more difficult to secure 

 judges. The invitation of a club is not accepted now with 

 the pleasure and promptness of a few years ago, It requires 

 the pressure of personal influence or the prospect of a liberal 

 money payment, in most instances, to secure desirable 

 judges. 



Why is it so? I believe that it is due largely to the offen- 

 siveness of some handlers aud some owners. Some handlers 

 are blatant, obtrusive and malicious "kickers." They make 

 offensive remarks, regardless of time or place, if the judges' 

 decisions do not fit their own ideas of what is just and proper 

 in respect to the merits of their own dogs. Some "kick" out 

 of pure, chronic ill-temper. They delight to make remarks 

 which will be offensive enough to excite the applause or 

 wonder of their admirers. Some will scold and rant within 

 earshot of the judges purposely, so that their remarks will 

 be overheard. Once in a while one will interview the 

 judges, sometimes honestly to get information in regard to 

 his dog's performance, oftener to get an opportunity for argu- 

 ment and a vent to his resentment, afterward recounting the 

 details of his insolence under the mistaken idea that he had 

 been commendably courageous. 



In the evening it is not an uncommon sight to see a large 

 circle of handlers discussing in the most public manner all 

 the peculiaritiee of the judges, their mistakes, their charac- 

 ters, their histories, all with more or less acrimony, vituper- 

 ation or censure. Their integrity is questioned, their judg- 

 ment condemned, and their merits - are generally bandied 

 about till there is little left of them to discuss. The noisiest 

 and most offensive generally conclude with the assurance 

 that they will never agaiu appear at those trials or under 

 such and such a judge; yet there they are as big as life when 

 the cycle of time has brought the trials and judges around 

 again. 



IVIeum et Tuum. 



I have always believed that it would be better for sports- 

 manship and field trials if such discordant elements would 

 really fulfil their threats and stay away. The little support 

 they give in the way of entry fees is trifling in comparison 

 tothe harm they do by their malevolence. 



I have often, too, been surprised at the cheerfully stupid 



JINGO (Mainspring — Queen II,). 



to be, thus fomenting a most unseemly quarrel, one which 

 nearly disrupted the club, the handler at the same time being 

 a member of the club for which said judge was acting. The 

 handler also was a competitor for the club's prizes. 



The judge was under the club's protection, and courtesy 

 and respect were due him from every member, but the said 

 handler's private interests entirely obliterated all nis mem- 

 bership responsibilities and courtesy, although from any 

 point of view there was nothing to justify the conduct. 



MAID OF KENT (King of Kent— Hops). 



manner these same men will thus quarrel with their bread 

 and butter. The bombastic threat to injure the sporting 

 world by remaining away from it means only direct injury 

 to themselves. When a handler or owner sends his entry 

 fees to a clnb with the threat that unless such or such a 

 judge is dismissed or some other one appointed, or that he 

 will never run again under such a club, as has been done 

 several times, he is losing in the long r . in, though he may 

 have some idea of immediate advantage. Clubs have per- 

 mitted themselves to be sandbagged too much by this threat 

 to withhold support or influence. 



This agaiu brings up the question why a man will quarrel 

 with his bread and butter. _ If a handler succeeded in de- 

 stroying a club against which he had a grievance, and an- 

 other handler succeeded in destroying another club, etc., 

 there wouldn't be a club left in existence. If every judge 

 against whom there was an alleged grievance or grievances 

 were rejected there would be no judges available. Who 

 would be the loser? The gentlemen who paid certain dues 

 every year to maintain the club and its competition, who 

 made themselves responsible for debts of deficits, that is, 

 the members, would not be harmed, for they are in it from 

 love of sport. They, from a purely economic standpoint, 

 would be gainers in time, peace of mind and money. There- 

 fore, to do anything tending to destroy the organization, 

 even if it wholly destroys it, works no material loss to the" 

 members. 



But to the handlers it is a loss, a serious loss. It means 

 that a large sum of prize money will not again be theirs — 

 money distributed by men of whom they never gave a 

 thought of commendation. It means less advertising of the 

 merits of their dogs in the reports of the details of the com- 

 petition. It means less sales because they are cut off from 

 meeting the assemblage of sportsmen who attend field trials 

 often with a view to make purchases, and it means a falling 

 off in general interest and a decline in prices. It means that 

 they have had a quarrel with some inoffensive bread and 

 butter and were victorious. It means that pure sport can 

 take care of itself, while pure business as a sport can not, It 

 means, too, that if handlers do not show more civility and 

 appreciation they will accomplish these results Gentleman 

 get wearied of banding together, putting up 81, 000 or 83,000 

 in prizes, inducing a judge to act, and in return suffer round 

 abuse from those directly participating. Abuse of a judge is 

 directly abusing the club which he represents. He. is the 

 embodiment of the club's confidence; he is acting by the 

 club's appointment — insult to him is insult to the club. 



I remember, last month, while at a field trial, observing 

 two gentlemen, residents of the town at which a field trial 



