# Should Field Trials Continue to Hold Amateur Stakes?



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Discussion on a variety of threads has focused on what makes a person a Pro or an Amateur.

I thought it might be useful to look at the bottom line.

Do you believe FT should continue to hold an Amateur Stake?
If so, why?
If not, why not?

Ted


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Webster defines "amateur" as "a person who does something for the pleasure of it rather than for money"

while I could debate that sometimes field trials are anything but pleasurable, I would never ever do this for money

therefore the Amateur stake is essential

someone has to do the work, someone has to pay the bills

and those who choose to profit from it (training and running dogs in competition) are professionals


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

What Ed said....

kg


----------



## W Knight (Sep 2, 2003)

Ted 

If you want to cut out a stake

Eliminate the OPEN

Verdell


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

I think any dog with more points than mine, should have to run the Open only.

This is a dynamic rule and will be updated, hopefully, frequently.

Shayne


----------



## KJB (Jul 1, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> I think any dog with more points than mine, should have to run the Open only.
> 
> This is a dynamic rule and will be updated, hopefully, frequently.
> 
> Shayne


Hah. I think any "am" who has won a National (Open or Am) shouldn't be able to run in the Amateur.  Or maybe Shayne and I will compile a list of amateur threats to be banned. :twisted: 

But seriously, we need the amateur, cuz we'd would lose a lot of folks if they knew they had to always run against the pros.
Tina


----------



## Janice Gunn (Jan 3, 2005)

*Should Field Trials continue to hold Amateur Stakes?*

YES we believe that field trials should always hold amateur stakes!

If we took away the amateur stakes, it is quite possible that a number of amateurs would no longer continue to run their dogs. By not running their own dogs, what can happen is they may no longer attend the trials, work at the trials, train their own dogs, and would have a lesser ability to judge.
I think some would just sit back and let the pro do all the training and
trialing, and the amateur would loose interest in being involved.
Really, they wouldn't have to attend the trial at all if their pro was
running both stakes.

And is it not the Amateurs that do most the work behind the scenes?

We think it would be a big detriment to the sport to have double
open stakes.

Another point.....
John is competitive in either stake........
However, I am a greener amateur, and my chances of competing
with the pro's is going to be more difficult. NOT that Amateur stakes
are easy by any means or even necessarily smaller
but it can give me a better chance of being called back to the next
series, and keep my interest in the sport alive.
Encouraging callbacks and getting more amateurs thru each series
for respectable work should be a judges goal. The more experience and time a competitior gets to stand "on the line" and run each series is
what encourages us to enter the next trial.

A dog with both an FC and AFC to me is most impressive.

What would happen to our Amateur National?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

W Knight said:


> Ted
> 
> If you want to cut out a stake
> 
> ...


Verdell

You don't get away that easy.

Why eliminate the Open?
Why hold an Amateur?
What makes an Amateur an Amateur?
What makes a Pro a Pro?

Ted


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Verdell
> 
> You don't get away that easy.
> 
> ...


Because he thinks you should have to be 100 years old, retired, and be able to train your dogs full time in order to play this game.

Shayne


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Ted Shih said:
> 
> 
> > Verdell
> ...


Here we go again. :lol: 

This goes along with the point I was trying to make. How would taking a gift or even some cash for helping to train a buddies dog give a guy that works 40+ hours per week in a completely different profession give the advantage over someone who is retired, independently rich, dependently supported or whatever that has time 24-7 to train and handle dogs?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Russ

Here are the questions for you.

Do you think there should be an Amateur?
If so, why?
What to you is the difference between an Amateur and a Pro?

It is easy enough to pick examples of things that you think are unfair.
It is tough to say this is what I believe an Amateur is.

What is an Amateur to you?
If you can't say ... why not eliminate the Amateur stake entirely?

Ted


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

I think this is an excellent poll. 

Like it or not, the FT community is going to HAVE to clarify the definition of "Amateur" for ITSELF, and have solid reasons in support of that definition, or else AKC will do it for us. And we won't be happy with the result.

Of that, I have no doubt.

Lisa - thinks the influx of "big money" in the show world will buggar it up for everyone


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

So far, 25 people have said that there should be an Amateur stake.

No one has said that there should be no Amateur stake.

Only Ed has offered a definition of what he believes is an amateur.
And only Janice has offered an explanation of why she believes there should be an Amateur stake.

Ok, Russ, Shayne, and others

Why do you want an Amateur stake?
And how are you going to define the difference between an Amateur and a Pro?


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

I think the best definition of an Amateur is someone who has a full-time, non-dog training, job. If they work 40 and train 50, fine, they are an AM and want it more than i do. But ff they are retired and train everyday, they have an advantage over me - Russ' scenario.

Shayne


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Wow Ted, you expect me to come up with the answers to a question that people a whole lot smarter than me have been unable to do for several years? :lol: 

Heck I'll give it a try.
Yes, there should be an am. Because I don't want my only stake to be against people with 10-20 dogs on their truck. 
Difference between the two. I suppose we should define pro(in my opinion) a true pro would be one that makes an income large enough to at least somewhat support his/her lifestyle(yeah I know its open but you asked) by training RETRIEVERS in for hunt tests, hunting, and/or field trials. I'm not even sure that I would consider a basic obedience trainer a pro for field trials. Still not sure how teaching a dog sit, heal, and here becomes a big advantage.

I suppose then that an am would be everyone else. :wink: 
I've got to leave the office for a while, I will try to add more later.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> I think the best definition of an Amateur is someone who has a full-time, non-dog training, job. If they work 40 and train 50, fine, they are an AM and want it more than i do. But ff they are retired and train everyday, they have an advantage over me - Russ' scenario.
> 
> Shayne


Shayne

What is the difference between an Amateur and a Pro?
And how does your definition reflect that difference?
Are you saying that if Verdell is retired and trains all day, he is a Pro?

Ted


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

No offence, but you guys keep putting the emphasis on the wrong sy-LA-ble.

The definition should not be drawn on who has the better chance of winning. 

It should be drawn on who should judge, and who should not.

Lisa


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

achiro said:


> Difference between the two. I suppose we should define pro(in my opinion) a true pro would be one that makes an income large enough to at least somewhat support his/her lifestyle(yeah I know its open but you asked) by training RETRIEVERS in for hunt tests, hunting, and/or field trials.
> 
> I'm not even sure that I would consider a basic obedience trainer a pro for field trials. Still not sure how teaching a dog sit, heal, and here becomes a big advantage.


Russ

This question is not about how long you have been in the game
This question is about what you - and others - believe is the difference between a pro and an amateur.

I read two different factors in your post

1) Making an income of some presently undetermined level
2) Having a competitive advantage through training

Here are the tough questions

1) Why does making money make a difference to you?
2) What kind of "competitive advantage" are you concerned about and why?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Lisa Van Loo said:


> No offence, but you guys keep putting the emphasis on the wrong sy-LA-ble.
> 
> The definition should not be drawn on who has the better chance of winning.
> 
> ...


Lisa

Why do you believe that we should focus on judging?

I think it is important that you elaborate on this thrust.

Ted


----------



## thunderdan (Oct 14, 2003)

In my opinion an amatuer is someone who trains thier retriever for the fun of it, for the pleasure and as a hobby type activity. A pro is someone who gets monetarily compensated for thier time training and handling other people's dogs. 

I believe that eliminating the amatuer stake would be a barrier to entry for new blood in the sport. I can tel lyou that there are several people I know :wink: that would not have gotten into this sport if I had to always run my dog against a pro's truck in the Open. Maybe after I get alot of experience handling a dog my perspective maybe different.

Regardless of if I determine to have my dog trained by a pro or not, I would want to be able to run my dog against other non-pro's. If you are fortunate enough to be retired and have the health and ability to train your own dogs 24/7, all the power to you and I will see you in the Am stakes.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

thunderdan said:


> In my opinion an amatuer is someone who trains thier retriever for the fun of it, for the pleasure and as a hobby type activity. A pro is someone who gets monetarily compensated for thier time training and handling other people's dogs.


Thanks Dan

But why does the fact that one person is making money and another is not make a difference?

Put another way, why should we care?

Ted


----------



## KJB (Jul 1, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Here are the tough questions
> 
> 1) Why does making money make a difference to you?
> 2) What kind of "competitive advantage" are you concerned about and why?


Tough questions indeed. I know I personally don't give a rip about the money-making part _per se_. It seems to me that the money-making definition is a somewhat crude but relatively effective dividing line. I'm not so much concerned about the competitive advantage - time will take care of that :wink: 
Lisa's judges explanation makes a lot of sense to me. But I do have this question: what about the folks who sell right many started dogs but are still amateurs? Do they not have a vested interest in seeing those dogs do well? Let's face it - there are a few "amateurs" who make right much $$$ selling started dogs, often that they bred (no, I don't think breeders should be considered pros) and planned to sell from the get-go. Should they be judging? Should the definition of pro be revised (ok, that's rhetorical, most seem to agree the definition needs some tweaking, we just disagree about how).
Tina


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

> Why do you believe that we should focus on judging?
> 
> I think it is important that you elaborate on this thrust.


I'll try. 

Judges really drive this sport. Their test design drives how we train, and to what level. Their selections for placements and wins determine which dogs receive the titles. Those titles, in turn, drive our breeding programs.

This is a tremendous responsibility, and one founded wholly on TRUST. We TRUST the judges to set up challenging tests that fall within the broad confines of the rules. We TRUST that these tests will not harm our dogs physically in any way. We TRUST that every dog will have a fair shake when it goes to the line, and we TRUST that at the end of the day, the BEST dog gets the blue.

This is, I feel, the main reason why He Who Must Not Be Named got a 10-year suspension from judging. By lying about and hiding his professional status, he broke everyone's TRUST. His judging may have been (probably WAS) perfectly OK. But the question is now there at the back of peoples' minds. 

We, as a collective, need to ensure that nothing happens to erode this TRUST. If that means redefining Amateur in the brave new world of prize money, cross-discipline training, and corporate sponsorships, then redefine we must. 

Lisa 

PS, I know that there are always going to be people who have more time, more money, more talent, and better dogs than me. This does not mean they should have their Amateur status taken away from them. At least not before I get a chance to judge with some of them, so I can learn!

L.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Delete


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Keep the Amateur stakes until, somewhere, someplace, the following:

To me it is an easy decision, if you put your hand in front of a dog and take ANY money ,even $1. (dollar) youare a Professional Dog Trainer.......Period. NO what if's, seminars, coaching handlers, first right of refusals (train the dog then sell it back to me) , selling a trained dog any level, writing books, having expenses paid (gas, oil, lodging , mileage, food,human and dog type. Buying season tickets to your favorite sports teams, gifts, I don't know anything missed?

You handled a dog, physical control for USC $$ you are a Pro. My two cents. 

Once the above is done then we can move on . Put it in writting AKC.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Keep the Amateur stakes until, somewhere, someplace, the following:

To me it is an easy decision, if you put your hand in front of a dog and take ANY money ,even $1. (dollar) youare a Professional Dog Trainer.......Period. NO what if's, seminars, coaching handlers, first right of refusals (train the dog then sell it back to me) , selling a trained dog any level, writing books, having expenses paid (gas, oil, lodging , mileage, food,human and dog type. Buying season tickets to your favorite sports teams, gifts, I don't know anything missed?

You handled a dog, physical control for USC $$ you are a Pro. My two cents. 

Once the above is done then we can move on . Put it in writting AKC.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Another duplicate.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Must be my OCD acting up!


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Yes, of course we should always have an Amateur. In fact, if there were only one stake, it should be the Amateur. If there were no Amateurs, there would be no interest in Field Trials and no one to work them. Do all Amateur have the same advantage? Of course not, nothing in life is fair!!! Life isn't fair from the time one comes out of the womb!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Criquetpas said:


> To me it is an easy decision, if you put your hand in front of a dog and take ANY money ,even $1. (dollar) youare a Professional Dog Trainer.......Period. NO what if's, seminars, coaching handlers, first right of refusals (train the dog then sell it back to me) , selling a trained dog any level, writing books, having expenses paid (gas, oil, lodging , mileage, food,human and dog type. Buying season tickets to your favorite sports teams, gifts, I don't know anything missed?
> 
> You handled a dog, physical control for USC $$ you are a Pro. My two cents.


Earl,

I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

Are you saying that any money received in connection with the training or handling of dogs makes one a pro?

And to clarify ...

Suppose I decide to sell one of my dogs - which is pro trained - and receive money in return ... am I under your definition, a pro?

And, again for purposes of understanding, if I got the thrust of your post correctly

Why does the receipt of money - for any reason - warrant the status of pro?

This goes to Tina also - 

Why do you care if someone got paid?
What is the underlying beef?

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Lisa

In an earlier post, you spoke about conflict of interest issues as they relate to judging.

Does this underlie - for you - the distinction between Amateur and Pro?

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> Yes, of course we should always have an Amateur. In fact, if there were only one stake, it should be the Amateur. If there were no Amateurs, there would be no interest in Field Trials and no one to work them. Do all Amateur have the same advantage? Of course not, nothing in life is fair!!! Life isn't fair from the time one comes out of the womb!


Everyone who has voted agrees with you, Booty. 

We should have an Amateur.

But, the tough question is What makes an Amateur an Amateur? And correspondingly, What makes a Pro a Pro?

What do you think about these questions?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Money, money, money

A number of people have focused on money

Why do we care if someone gets paid for running or training a dog?

Is it because:

a) Webster defines someone who gets paid as an Amateur (Dr. Ed)
b) It creates issues of conflict of interest (Lisa Van Loo)
c) It creates an unfair advantage
d) It just isn't right
e) Something else entirely


----------



## Mitch Patterson (Feb 20, 2003)

Ed Aycock said:


> Webster defines "amateur" as "a person who does something for the pleasure of it rather than for money"
> 
> while I could debate that sometimes field trials are anything but pleasurable, I would never ever do this for money
> 
> ...


YEA ED, I agree!!! 

Want to eliminate something??? Eliminate the non-workers, the takers, the people who think that entry fees are "giving back" to the game. The people that think that their dogs semen is "giving back to the game." Let those people compete in the Open, where the "takers" can hang out...


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Criquetpas said:


> Keep the Amateur stakes until, somewhere, someplace, the following:
> 
> To me it is an easy decision, if you put your hand in front of a dog and take ANY money ,even $1. (dollar) youare a Professional Dog Trainer.......Period. NO what if's, seminars, coaching handlers, first right of refusals (train the dog then sell it back to me) , selling a trained dog any level, writing books, having expenses paid (gas, oil, lodging , mileage, food,human and dog type. Buying season tickets to your favorite sports teams, gifts, I don't know anything missed?
> 
> ...


Said like a true amateur Earl. You missed puppy trainer which can be "housebreaking and obedience" turned into FF or CC and puppy marks (exercise). I'm not sure I agree with writing a book, a video, or coaching handlers because that becomes too gray of a line. Who hasn't given advice but that doesn't make the advice correct or equilvalent to professional advice. Anyone can write a book or make a video and not know diddily (sp). If you put a hand on a dog and required/accepted money and/or compensation, to facilitate advancing a dog in his training in the field, and that would include obedience, you would be considered a pro for the sake of running an Amateur or judging. If you ran a dog for your buddy that would not count if you did not advance the training other than familarizing the dog to your handling. If you sold a dog you trained because he didn't work out, whether you did the training yourself or paid someone to do the training, was the intent to make money or recoup your losses? If you make a practice of buying dogs to train and resell that goes to intent to make a profit.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

I don't know exactly where you are going with this Ted but how bout this.....

Your question is why does someone recieving money for training/handling a dog make a difference in amatuer vs. pro status.

It's simple, when you take money do something, you are a professional at what you do.

I recieved money to play the game of baseball. I was a professional. I could no longer participate in an amatuer status. Period.

Why does this matter, once you are a pro at something, you are probably good at what you do. Is this what your getting at Ted?

There are many amatuers that can do the job (handling and/or training) as good as any pro or sometimes better. But in our game, amatuer stakes allow for an even playing field per say. At least thats what some folks get out of it.


----------



## wutadog (Oct 21, 2003)

> No offence, but you guys keep putting the emphasis on the wrong sy-LA-ble.
> 
> The definition should not be drawn on who has the better chance of winning.
> 
> It should be drawn on who should judge, and who should not.


Ted, not to change the thrust of your post.....but this point is worth discussing.
I am not opposed to having professionals judge a stake each year (don flamesuit now)....here's why: The professional understands *bird placement*, which "should" (could) translate to better tests. I realize it is probably unworkable, from a loss of income standpoint, but I wouldn't mind seeing pros (paired with an Amateur) judging one trial each year.

As for the Amateur stake.....yes, we should keep it. Perhaps the AKC, or NARC needs to clarify compensation & prize money, but the stake itself has a lot of merit for those who train/ trial their own dogs. I for one, do not relish my chances competing against a pro with 18 dogs in a stake when I have only one bullet in my gun. There are some great Amateur handlers, some great dogs running the Amateur, but not a lot of Ams running that many dogs in one stake.
As for Amateur status, what if a fellow has never, ever "trained" his dog. He sends the pup off to a "puppy pro", moves it to a "young dog pro", advances it to an "all-age pro", then runs and WINS the WRC. Is he now a pro??
Janice brought up a great point....who'll work the trial without the Ams??
It is vital to keep the stake.....my 2 cents.
Dave


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Yes, for me, the money aspects that define the difference between Pro and Amateur exist to eliminate conflicts of interest inasmuch as that is possible, and to promote fairness. We work on the "honor system". Once that system starts to crumble, then we leave things wide open for harsh criticism.

Keith G. Said it best: this is a blood sport. By definition, blood sports have never borne up well under close scrutiny. We owe it to ourselves to keep things as much on the up-and-up as possible. If that means refining the definition of "amateur" so that it is abundantly clear to the majority, and that definition serves the purpose of field trials, then we will have succeeded.

The times, they are a changin'. All people are human first, Pro or Amateur second. We are all susceptible to the lure of lucre. Big prizes, free dog food, free advertising (wonder how much the inside front cover of the Gazette cocts?), these all can tip otherwise honest folks into the abyss. 

Like I said in the other thread, AKC is looking HARD at these issues and how they affect otherwise sane judges. I expect the Conflict of Interest Committee will come down with some recommendations some time this year. Those recommendations could have "knock on" effect for field trialers.

Lisa


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

This post seems like such a total waste of BANDWIDTH (which we frequently run short of ) that I am not even going to comment.

WAH This whole thing is borderline GDG/BS for 1 person.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

To cloud things up a bit here's my opinion on a few things:
Puppy raising for money-am
Non-breed specific boarding- am
person that trains a buddies dog and gets a gift-am
writes a training book-am
puts on a training seminar-am
puts on a judging seminar-am
breeder-am
trains and sells "started" dogs-am
non breed specific basic ob trainer-am
bird dog trainer-am(bet I'll get comments here)
hound dog trainer-am


The pro that has 20 dogs to take to the line that gets paid to train day in and day out-pro


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

The rest of my post(geez this is driving me crazy not to be able to post it all at once!)

I'd like to hear the history again as to why the decision was made to start the am in the first place but I seem to recall it being about "fairness" or "advantage" somewhat. The bird dog trainer for instance, yes he/she is absolutly a pro trainer but what does that mean from an advantage standpoint if they own one or two retrievers that may even be trained by a different pro? I don't really care if that person is at the line in front of me. 

So I guess what it boils down to Ted is that I really don't care if a person makes money in the dog world. I guess when push comes to shove the only difference to me is the number of retrievers a person runs everyday and in particular how many does that person have at a given trial? I know that if Danny only had 2 dogs at any trial that he would still be a huge threat but I have to wonder how much more than Judy, Charlie H, Dubose, etc, etc.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> The rest of my post(geez this is driving me crazy not to be able to post it all at once!)


 :shock: 
Thats BS we all know that you are trying to catch up with ShaYne :lol: :wink:


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Ted I guess what I am saying, and I have sold my share of trained dogs, that ANY monetary compensation ie; gifts, gratuity, etc for the actual act of handling at an event or physicaly under the control of of dog trainer/handler is a Professional Trainer. My problem with the present rules it is far too vague. As a member of the Board of Directors of one of my clubs, we have placed judgement on what is a pro and what isn't a pro. In our area there are many dual memberships and we have dual workng members. One club allowed the training of two dogs or less , not a Pro and the other club zero (the one I sit on the Board) We have dealt with "association with a pro", a live in? a spouse? Too much ambiguity exists at the various club's levels as far as determing an amateur status for field trials. The AKC has to clarify it or the National Clubs must take a 
"hard core stance" .

It's kinda like this, many years ago I was a Professional Dog Trainer for several years. I paid my taxes as a Professional Dog Trainer and that WAS my occupation. No question I was a Pro.....Period. The problem that we have now with Retriever Field Trials is the so called gentleman's sport is win! win! So my solution ,not sour grapes, in fact I enjoy running against the pros, WHAT KILLS ME AS AN AMATEUR, is running against
sucessful "multi-owned dogs by the same handler, is make it black and white, you are or you aren't! If you get a dollar or a box of candy for running/training a dog you are a pro. AKC take notice.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> But, the tough question is What makes an Amateur an Amateur? And correspondingly, What makes a Pro a Pro?
> 
> What do you think about these questions?


I have no problem with the way the rules are currently written. I feel that the current ruling on what constitutes an Amateur is clear. Are the rules perfect? I don't know of any rules or laws that are perfect. Do some folks push the envelope? Of course they do, this is a very competitive venue. Maybe the rules don't need to be rewritten and we just need to enforce the rules already on the books. And, when such violations are determined, the suspensions should be for a longer period of time. Make the penalties tough enough to discourage their abuse.


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

Delete-I thought it was a good question  

M


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

I feel that the rule, as it stands, is pretty good. I would only alter the wording somewhat from "livelihood" to "compensation". If you receive direct compensation for training or handling a dog for retriever trials, HT, or hunting, you are a Pro.

Why I say "compensation" rather than "livelihood" is that rewards are not always monetary in nature, yet can have monetary value. Say I want Ed to train and run a dog for me. hey, he's a juge, he can't do that and receive any part of his "livelihood" from training/handling. No problem, Ed, I got it all worked out (nudge-nudge, wink-wink). Let's just let you send me your feed bill every month, and I'll settle that cocount for you, none the wiser. Cash payment? Nope. "Livelihood"? Unh-uh. "Compensation"? Without a doubt, and equal to paying Ed that amount of money directly. Note, I never, EVER send $ to Ed. I just pay his feed distributor directly. Flipside, Ed sends me a dog to train & handle (why he would do this, I have no clue, but it's MY fantasy!). In return, he gives me free veterinary service up to X amount of dollars. Compensation, yes, livelihood, no.

These sorts of "swap meets" go on right now. If people ever get caught, there is all that "livelihood" gray area that makes for a convenient loophole. Tighten the loophole, and you are there.

Lisa


----------



## KJB (Jul 1, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> [
> Why does the receipt of money - for any reason - warrant the status of pro?
> 
> This goes to Tina also -
> ...


Ted,
I don't care if someone gets paid, don't have a beef with it. I think the current rule is quite clear. But it is a tad arbitrary. Person gets paid to train or handle as per the AKC rules, person is a pro. Everybody else is an "amateur" by default. I don't know what the answer is. There are enough "what if's" and "how bout's" to sink a battleship. I think where I get hung up/confused is in thinking that the pro/am delineation is about leveling the playing field for even the littlest of the little guys. But I'm beginning to see that it isn't, and never really was. It's about what Lisa describes (conflict of interest, judging, etc) and about not having to run your 1 or 2 dogs against a pro's entire string, as best I can tell. Any and all other inequalities (real and perceived) are merely the grist for RTF discussion, unless and until they reach some critical mass.
Tina


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Sorry Nancy I am not an amateur's amateur. In fact I have been accused of the other way and been called a amateur pro, whatever the heck that is. Our buddy and my training partner Dick D. is a true amateur's amateur though and we have lots of fun going around and around with our differences. Competing against, Mike, Wayne and Andy from April through October with three or four National titled dogs, is OK, because they are only dogs. Competing against Win, Lynn, Mac, Charlies (both) in the Amateur is harder in my view because of the "numbers" they throw at you AND they are great amateur handlers! So I compete against the teams not the dogs as you see more in the Open. 

Earl


----------



## KJB (Jul 1, 2003)

Well, shoot. I wrote a response to Ted's question, and it vanished into cyberspace. Let me try again....

No, wait, there it is. This is bizarre....


----------



## thunderdan (Oct 14, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> thunderdan said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion an amatuer is someone who trains thier retriever for the fun of it, for the pleasure and as a hobby type activity. A pro is someone who gets monetarily compensated for thier time training and handling other people's dogs.
> ...


For me it is in the definition of a professional, one who recieves compensation for goods or services provided. Professional usually means that someone has had training or experience in thier field and who is now charging for thier time or service. The ability to charge and get paid for services usually means that they have a certian skill level.

Why should we care, I guess because the feeling is that a professional, who is being compensated for thier service may, MAY have a greater ability than an Amatuer.


----------



## thunderdan (Oct 14, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Money, money, money
> 
> A number of people have focused on money
> 
> ...


For me it is a,c,d


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Personally, I think the rules defining an Amateur are fine. What I find lacking is the ENFORCEMENT of those rules. But getting them enforced requires us to "rat" on people, which may not be all bad. It will create hard feelings but so what?

I feel confident that I'm aware of another person that is in fact a Pro in every aspect of the rules, yet still runs as an Amateur. Can I prove it? No.
Will I take the chance of a libel suit in the event that I'm wrong? No.

Damned if I do and damned if I don't.

Jerry


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Ohhhhhh, Jerry........now you will have the PM's flowing. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

At this point in time, those PM's will go unanswered. But one of these days, when I get old and grey, I'll post that information.

Jerry


----------



## KJB (Jul 1, 2003)

Jerry said:


> At this point in time, those PM's will go unanswered. But one of these days, when I get old and grey, I'll post that information.
> 
> Jerry


Well.....you could have Sweet Bride register under some made-up name down at the biggest Houston public library and let her spill the beans anonymously. 

Just kiddin'.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Criquetpas said:


> WHAT KILLS ME AS AN AMATEUR, is running against sucessful "multi-owned dogs by the same handler, is make it black and white, you are or you aren't! If you get a dollar or a box of candy for running/training a dog you are a pro. AKC take notice.


Earl

I am not sure what you are saying here.

Are you saying that certain handlers of multi-owned dogs are being compensated to do so?

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

If as Dr. Ed - and others have said - we need only look to the dictionary to determine what an amateur is ....

Amateur - person who does something for pleasure, not for money or as a profession

World Book Dictionary 1963

Then why wouldn't someone who won the $25,000 prize at the WRC not be a pro?

Ted


----------



## Guest (Jan 27, 2005)

Wow, is this a fun thread to read. 

I think that not only should the amateur stake remain in place, it should be stipulated that only amateur-trained dogs can participate. Otherwise, I don't see the point of having a seperate stake. Granted it's a team effort, but my experience leads me to believe that a fully-trained dog will hold it's own with an average handler, but an exceptional handler cannot turn an average dog into a great one. Could the concept of 'pro-trained' be enforced(?), probably not....

In other words, I think the purpose of the amateur is a level playing field.

Just a newbie's opinion,

-CZ


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

NO!! I am a "straight man" joker type person. Thats confusing to some who don't know me. Sent a mixed message. In my opinion the multiple dog owners (all-age dogs) are more concern to me, then how many Pros have how many dogs in the Open. If you judge enough you see the NFC's and NAFC'S do poorly at any given time. They are "only dogs".
Judged my share of NFC'S and NAFC's and on any given weekend they canbe as common as the next dog. I have competed against them and the same is true. Marking is super primary at the Nationals and some dogs who have won would have went home at a weekend trial with thier blindwork. You know that as well as anyone who has competed at the National level! Paranoia is creeping through on this thread. YOU would be more of a threat in the amateur to me, then say one NFC being run by a Pro in the open. Thats a compliment, you have multiple dogs and are a team. Sometimes you will watch a pro lose 6 , 8 or 10 dogs on a test, then finally figures the test out. If he has 26 or 18 or a dozen going into the trial you know he will have at least one or two going into the water marks. I had a National Open Finalist, BUT, never was even close to a double header because she couldn't hold it together double staked for a weekend. The double headers are won by the "teams" like yourself ! It is the best trained, most talented dog that wins on any given weekend, most of the time. The amateur when you are judging, are playing with the handler (team), in the open you are against the dog/numbers. You aren't going to "trick" too many pros. 

Long winded, but, wanted to clarify this with you. I just want whats best for the sport ! not whether I agree with it or not. I think at this time the rules are too vague and put the clubs in a bind when they ask people to judge! OR run the amateur! 

Earl


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Ted
Sorry Ted didn't do the quotations, last post by me was for you!

Earl


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

I am with you Earl.

I think the rules are just fine - but enforcement is nearly impossible until clubs get access to everyones bank records. :wink: :wink: 

I hold no grudge against Amatuers with unlimited resources, which normally mean unlimited time, which normally means bringing 3-4 good dogs to the line on Sunday.

Hell - If I was in their position, I would do the same thing. (Except I would probably want two AA dogs and one Derby dog).

This is America folks, where people are free to choose how they spend their life. I have relatives who raise their eyes at the amount of money and time I spend on dogs - and I am small potatoes.


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> If as Dr. Ed - and others have said - we need only look to the dictionary to determine what an amateur is ....
> 
> Amateur - person who does something for pleasure, not for money or as a profession
> 
> ...


Ted-
My other post was ignored, but maybe because I went off on a tangent (though it was applicable to the thread).

Here- I do have a strong opinion. Some of us who train our own dogs-before work-after work-weekends do it because we enjoy the time spent training because of the personal relationship involved. Some could afford to write a check & send the dog out, but don't because it's not just about winning or ribbons it's the teamwork day in & day out that gets you there. If the end result is a dog that outshines those who were sent to a pro how is that correlated into pro status because there was money at stake in winning the competition? 
M


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I think 

1) There is a need for an Amateur stake
2) Amateur ought to be defined as it is in the dictionary

Amateur - a person who does something for pleasure, not for money or as a profession World Book Dictionary 1963

By the way, in golf a pro can either be someone who competes for money or someone who is paid to teach others to play the sport

3) As Lisa mentioned payment should be broadly defined

4) I think the rule needs to be very black and white - any compensation means any compensation

And if the Rule were constructed along these lines, I think that a person who won the $25,000 WRC prize would be at risk of losing his/her Amateur status


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

There is still a place for the Amateur handled stake in AKC FTs.Maybe the title could be changed to AHFC to more accurrately reflect the award. As we have seen on other topics the determination of Amateur needs to be better defined and enforced.
IMHO the amat and open should not be required to be linked as they are in the present. This could allow clubs to split these stakes to differnet weekends, if they so desired,and hold 2 day events. The AKC could allow such a split provided a club holds an equal number of opens and amateurs in a given calander year.

Tim


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Miriam wrote



> If the end result is a dog that outshines those who were sent to a pro how is that correlated into pro status because there was money at stake in winning the competition?


Because an Amateur is defined as



> Amateur - a person who does something for pleasure, not for money or as a profession World Book Dictionary 1963



If it were simply that 



> Some of us who train our own dogs-before work-after work-weekends do it because we enjoy the time spent training because of the personal relationship involved


Then you and others should have no problem announcing in advance that the proceeds - if you should win - will go to your favorite charity

If you want to keep the option of keeping the coin for yourself, then it isn't simply that you "enjoy the time spent training."

Ted


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Ted, come clean. What are you getting at here.


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Miriam wrote
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ted-

Sorry-RTF is giving me trouble, so I can't cut & paste & make this as succinct as I'd like.

It seems if I'm reading your post correctly-which is most likely your interpretation of the rules as opposed to a personal viewpoint-that the amateur/owner/handler is penalized in competitions like WRC. I am also in need of shifting gears from a hunt test mentality to a field trial/competition mentality.

Still-I fail to see how an owner/handler/trainer who trains & competes *for pleasure* finds that negated due to the fact that he enters a competition that has a purse. It's certainly plausible that his/her only goal is finding it pleasurable through the efforts of having trained their own dog to have the best dog in the field be they pro or am trained.

Bottom line? To delegate someone to pro status for winning a competion makes no sense to me.

M


----------



## thunderdan (Oct 14, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> If as Dr. Ed - and others have said - we need only look to the dictionary to determine what an amateur is ....
> 
> Amateur - person who does something for pleasure, not for money or as a profession
> 
> ...


In my eyes it is because that person who is handling thier own dog does not have any guarentee that they will be winning the prize, or being compensated. A pro is going to be paid to train or handle that dog regardless of the outcome.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Ken

I don't have a direction that I am trying to lead this discussion.

In fact, if you were to look at previous posts on Amateur status, you would see that my position on the issue has changed.

I have been thinking about the issue more because of the WRC discussions.

I have been trying to get people to talk about what they think the difference between Amateurs and Pros, because I want to get at the underlying reasons people think there is a difference, before we get into splitting hairs about how the rule should be applied ... or how silly it is in a certain situation

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Dan and Miriam

If you believe that an Amateur 



> is a person who does something for pleasure, not for money or as a profession, World Book Dictionary 1963


And if a person goes to a competition with the hope of making money from the running of a dog ...

And if that person wins the money and does not - in advance - announce that the money is going to some organization, foundation or charity

Then I believe the person is doing something for money

Consider this

Golf pros enter a tournament
Most of them are not paid to show up
They only get paid if they win or place

Poker pros pay an entry fee
Most of them are not paid to show up
They only get paid if they win or place

Isn't that the same here?

Let's be real, how many of the WRC entrants are motivated by the $25,000?

Are those entrants paying the $500 entry fee for the simple pleasure of competing in the games?

If they are competing for the money ... and if they win the money ... and if you believe that an Amateur is a person who does something for pleasure, not for money or as a profession ... then the winner is a pro.

Look, you don't have to accept that 



> Amateur - a person who does something for pleasure, not for money or as a profession, World Book Dictionary 1963


But, if you do, I think you're stuck.

Alternatively, you need to tell me that you:

(a) don't think there should be a distinction made between Amateur and Pro

or

(b) give me an alternative definition for Amateur

Ted


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> And if the Rule were constructed along these lines, I think that a person who won the $25,000 WRC prize would be at risk of losing his/her Amateur status


I beleive this issue was brought up on the initial WRC thread and at other times.

I think that Keith G's take on the AKC Rules is on the money(pun intended). It is a prize! 

There is no guarentee that you are going to win this compensation. 

Accepting a fee for handling or training is a definite. Win or lose there is compensation.

What about folks that breed? Would they now be a Pro because they sold a high-profiled litter for $25,000.00?


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> Accepting a fee for handling or training is a definite. Win or lose there is compensation.


So then a pro who charges ONLY for every pass or finish is technically an amateur? No training fees, no handling fees... just $200 per pass.

Shayne


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Mr Booty said:
> 
> 
> > Accepting a fee for handling or training is a definite. Win or lose there is compensation.
> ...


So what are you saying Shayne, if you win WRC you are a pro?


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> So then a pro
> 
> Shayne


No, because he is a Pro!


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Shayne Mehringer said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Booty said:
> ...


Hell i don't know. I just threw that out there. I think the guy making profits from sponsor dollars is more of a pro than the guy who wins it.

Shayne


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

Ted-

I define prO as someone paid


> to train


 dogs. An amateur/owner/t*rainer*/handler who chooses to enter his dog in a trial/test with a purse does not redefine himself as a pro based on that entry-win or lose.

M

By the way the rules about golf in terms of defining pros & ams are different than how they are defined in retriever trials. Bobby Jones was adamant about spending his entire career as an amateur because of only wanting to play for love of the game.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Booty, Shayne, Ken

This is not about what the Rules are currently.
This is about what you think the Rules should be.
If you think that an Amateur is



> is a person who does something for pleasure, not for money or as a profession, World Book Dictionary 1963


The winner is a pro.
Look, are you going to tell me that people lay down $500 bucks without consideration of the $25,000.

If you don't like defining an Amateur as 



> is a person who does something for pleasure, not for money or as a profession, World Book Dictionary 1963


Give me an alternative definition.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Miriam

Do you really believe that people are dropping $500 for the love of the sport - or the shot at $25,000

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

And Miriam

The question is not whether the person who wins is a Pro under the current rules.

The question is what should be an Amateur

If you believe an Amateur



> is a person who does something for pleasure, not for money or as a profession, World Book Dictionary 1963


You are never going to convince me that the people who pay $500 to participate in the WRC are not doing it - in part or in whole - for the money.

If they didn't care about the money, they could renounce the purse in advance.

I don't see anyone jumping up to do so.

Ted


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

deleted


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Right now we put down maybe $130, plus motels, gas, etc., for the chance at a $1.50 ribbon. That ribbon, depending on the color, may very well lead to much more in the future than $25,000. Does that make one a Pro???

Jerry


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

delete


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

I'm not sure that the $25,000.00 is the big draw to the folks that have entered. How many folks that are entered REALLY think that they will win the purse? 

I think a lot of folks will be going because of the event and maybe to be a part of history. If this becomes an annual event, 15 years from now, somefolks will be able to say that they were a competitor at the first ever WRC. They'll laugh about the first event's $25,000 prize. Who knows, in 15 years it might be $30,000! :wink: 

If being an Amateur is to be defined by doing something PLEASURABLE, then I think most folks would find much pleasure in bring home $25,000.00 cash.


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Let's be real, how many of the WRC entrants are motivated by the $25,000?
> 
> Are those entrants paying the $500 entry fee for the simple pleasure of competing in the games?
> 
> ...


One will never know how many are specifically driven by the money.

But?

I expect someone could enter that event using that dictionary meaning and still be an amateur. Amateurs enter events for bragging rights (pleasure). That is the nature of amateur competition. This is billed as a World Championship event. The bragging rights of being the World Champ would in many cases far exceed the value of the $25,000.00. While the money would be an outstanding ancillary benefit to accompany the title of World Champ, it may be just that.

Joe Miano


----------



## thunderdan (Oct 14, 2003)

Ted,

To me the there are a few distinctions, the poker player and golfer are doing there jobs, one that they are being compensated for, maybe not that event, but that is how they make a living.

As far as the WRC to me I think that it helps the Amatuer who wins does so with thier own dog, kind of like the owner/handler stakes.


----------



## Jiggy (Apr 14, 2003)

Just my .02.

When I showed quarter horses competitively, I did so as an amateur. I was able to enter competitions that gave out prize money and was still deemed an amateur under the AQHA rules. Even amateur classes gave out money from time to time. We also won blankets, saddles, etc. I don't think that made me a pro.
Interestingly enough, the Cutting Horse Association used to allow amatuers to train horses as long as they weren't cutting horses specifically. They changed the rules a few years back so that one who trains ANY horses in any shape or form is a pro. If this has changed again, I don't know about it since I left the sport.
Retrieverdom should decide what works best for them. Does me training tracking dogs for a living make be a better retriever trainer? (I don't by the way-just an example) I don't know, I'm sort of ambivilent on this. I would think it gave me an edge on dogs in general, but I don't think it'd help me in the 4th series of an Amateur OR an Open.
Last year was my first year of field trialling, and I only ran some Derbies and quals. I can't comment with authority on something I haven't competed in yet. But what if this dog I have now washes? And I sell her? Does that make me a pro?? I don't think so. Just like me selling my show horse to get a better one didn't make me a pro in that organization either. 
It's always a fine line and there is always someone who pushes the envelope.
Marcy


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> If being an Amateur is to be defined by doing something PLEASURABLE...


Which reminds me of some things i do for pleasure, but consider myself a "pro" at.

Shayne


----------



## thunderdan (Oct 14, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Mr Booty said:
> 
> 
> > If being an Amateur is to be defined by doing something PLEASURABLE...
> ...


The difference is that YOU consider YOURSELF a pro, I wonder what others would consider those things you do... :wink: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

thunderdan said:


> Shayne Mehringer said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Booty said:
> ...


rookie


----------



## thunderdan (Oct 14, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> thunderdan said:
> 
> 
> > Shayne Mehringer said:
> ...


Rookie at what????

That is the nicest thing I have been called so far this week.... :wink: :lol:


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

I meant others may consider me a rookie.

Shayne


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Who are the 2 people that voted to eliminate the Amateur.

Shayne


----------



## thunderdan (Oct 14, 2003)

Gotcha, as you can tell I have been called alot of real nice things this week, and it is only Wend.... :wink:


----------



## thunderdan (Oct 14, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Who are the 2 people that voted to eliminate the Amateur.
> 
> Shayne


The owner/handler/amatuer/pro/WRC winner


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

I'm not sure any human sports--golf, tennis, figure-skating, olympic sports, poker, whatever--are a good metaphor here, because the owner of the athlete IS the athlete. So I've been thinking.

In thoroughbred horse racing everyone who deals with the horses gets paid, because the people who can afford to own the horses are not the same people who have the talent to train and ride the horses, and most often vice versa--so professional versus amateur is a non-issue. Other horse sports, this isn't so true, but I really don't know how they work and if there are "amateur" designations (marcy, just now saw your post--interesting).

While I think horse racing's kind of cool, unless I find 500 other people to go in on a horse with me, I won't be owning a thoroughbred, and there's certainly no way I'll be training or riding one! 

So I'm thinking, shouldn't the definition of amateur, whatever that is (and regardless of whether there are also pro-friendly venues in the sport), have at its heart the idea that the person who owns the dog can also have some personal hand in making that dog do its job/exhibit its skill? 

Otherwise I would think that, however cool (like thoroughbred racing), the sport as a whole would have lost some element essential to the spirit of teamwork between human and animal in which it was created.

--greta ode (absolute hunt-test rookie, but one can dream about retirement, right?)


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

An Amateur Handler:
A person who receives no monetary or any form of material compensation for the training,handling or performance of any dog in any natural or contrived venue. The only exceptions to include receiving stud fees, and the TOTAL sale of a dog. 

Tim


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Miriam, Dan, Others

*First*, I don?t think the argument of the guarantee holds up. Many people enter competitions without a guarantee of money. For example, most golfers on the professional golf tour only get paid if they win or place. Many lawyers take cases on contingency fees - they only make money if they win. Yet, we say that they are professionals. Why? Because they are pursuing an endeavor in hopes of making money. The golfer may love the sport of golf. The lawyer may love the thrill of the courtroom. But, because part of their motivation is to make money, we call them professionals.

*Second*, any time you make the test an intent test, you are asking for trouble. Is this person doing it for love? Is that person doing it for money?
I don't want to be on the Field Trial Committee that has to make that decision. Do you?

*Third*, I don?t - personally - want a sport where prize money is handed out for places. If we are to follow your logic, there is nothing wrong with a Rule Change that would permit clubs to reward those people who place in a Field Trial at the Open, Am, Qual, and Derby levels cash prizes - instead of ribbons and plaques.

If it doesn?t matter to you, then at least you are being consistent.
If it does matter to you, then you need to ask yourself why?

*Fourth,* I think that hunting/field competitions for money are going to increase in number. Right now, there are people who make a very lucrative living bass fishing. The day may come when dog handlers can do the same. I think any Rule that you throw out for consideration about what is an Amateur and what is a Pro needs to keep that in consideration.

*Fifth*, if we really wanted to see how many people entered the WRC for love or money ... ask Chris to change the Rules to say that the winner gets to pick the charity that gets the $25,000 and see who stays in the game


----------



## thunderdan (Oct 14, 2003)

It is something that really needs alot of thouht, I can see your points. What do you think makes an amatuer an amatuer, and a pro a pro. What are your definitions of each.


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

Jerry said:


> Right now we put down maybe $130, plus motels, gas, etc., for the chance at a $1.50 ribbon. That ribbon, depending on the color, may very well lead to much more in the future than $25,000. Does that make one a Pro???
> 
> Jerry


Ted-

Jerry is thinking somewhat along the lines that I am-with the exception of that ribbon & title leading to "much more". I know folks-myself included-who never ran a dog until after it was spayed or neutered. One of these folks has a QAA/MH bitch. Spayed at 6 months. No chance at ever recouping what went into those titles.

If I had a dog that could compete at the WRC-I would plunk down the $ in a heartbeat & compete & it would have nothing-I swear-to do with the $. Nice to win? You bet? Be happy about the $? Again-you bet! But the philosophy is the same one that's behind _most _100% amateur trainers-it's about having your dog on line & a feeling you can't describe to someone who didn't do it all 100%-just you & the dog. It honestly isn't about $-it's about pride in your dog.

I feel like Jimmy Stewart in "It's a Wonderful Life" trying to explain something similar to Mr. Potter who can only equate money & profit to something that is absolutely intangible & can't be bought & sold, but that's how it is for some of us.

The same dog that gets an MH or QAA or AFC is the same dog that shares the duck blind & lays next to the bed & under the dining room table. When he's no longer able to compete-his value doesn't diminish because it was never about monetary value in the first place.

M


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

I think I'm gonna enter and I'll state, here and now, that if I win, I will donate the 25K to the Sweet Bride's Husband Fund!!!!

Dang that makes me feel good.   

Jerry


----------



## W Knight (Sep 2, 2003)

Shayhe wrote:



> Because he thinks you should have to be 100 years old, retired, and be able to train your dogs full time in order to play this game.


Damn, I take of for 8 hours to work on my tractor and Shayhe sneaks in with his usual hit on people over 35 years old.

Here's my reasoning Shayhe If we only had a Amateur to run you could hire a Pro to train your dog. Then you would compete against all the other Amateurs. There would be no Pro handled dogs. But there could be Pro trained dogs.

I understang that some people *Can't* - Won't - Don't have time to train their dogs. Hire a Pro.

And Im not retired

Verdell


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

One solution to the _*Hidden Pro *_problem would be:
(a) the offering of *prize money *in all stakes *except *the _Amateur _, and 
(b) let _Pros_ as well as _Amateurs_ judge.

In the _Open , Derby , and Qual _only _*Pros*_ are eligible for the cash, Amateur must settle for just getting the _Ribbon_
Those who place in the Amateur Stake must again settle for just getting the _Ribbon_, and the bragging rights of course.

The original question's answer is quite simple,

In addition to the above, *Keep* the _Amateur_ stake for the handlers not_______ (you fill in the blank)enough to compete with the _Pros_, but discontinue giving _Titles_ to the_ Dog _ (or not if we must)and give them to the _Handler_.

Think about it,... isn't that the real distinction, since *a dog winning enough points to get it's FC gets it's AFC by default, if handled by an Amateur *while garnering the points.

For those for whom it is about _The Dogs _, _The Money _or _Both_ run the Open, Qual, or the Derby.
For those who are about Themselves :wink: run the Amateur.
john


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

If pro earned prize money with a win maybe they would pay me to run my dog if I had a good one :lol: I'm thinking around $500 a trial would be cool. :wink:


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Miriam said



> If I had a dog that could compete at the WRC-I would plunk down the $ in a heartbeat & compete & it would have nothing-I swear-to do with the $. Nice to win? You bet? Be happy about the $? Again-you bet! .... It honestly isn't about $-it's about pride in your dog.


Miriam

Two immediate thoughts

First, if the dividing line between Amateur and Pro is love for and pride in the dogs, you are going to lose a lot of Pros.

I believe my pro does it for the love of the dogs, not money. She labors night and day, seven days a week, because she loves the challenge of training the dogs. Under your *love* test, she is not a pro. I don't think she is alone. 

I have spent tons of time with Bobby George and I don't think he does it for the money, either. And Bobby comes close to tears when he talks about some of the old warrions buried on Blackwater Property. Bobby and Cherylon are not the only pros who train and run dogs for love, pride and all the intangibles you cherish

So, you and everyone else can talk about how people do it for love ... pride and the like ....

But, that ain't going to cut it as a dividing line between Amateur and Pro

Seocnd, if the prize money were no matter at all to the contestants, they could simply renounce it. You never address this issue. Why not? 

Is it because you think that if they won, they deserved to get the money?
That they earned it? Doesn't that sound just a tiny, weeny bit like working for the money? Doing it for the money?

Look, you don't have to buy my definition of Amateur.

But, if you don't like it, you need to provide an alternative.

Ted


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

I'm running WRC to support Chris and Justin. But if there wasn't $25K at stake, i would stay home and run a trial an hour from my house. I have no problem admitting that.

Shayne


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

An alternate defination is a person that is: one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science.
That does not discribe you Ted but it Might discribes a lot of us :wink:
john


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

Ted wrote:



> First, if the dividing line between Amateur and Pro is love for and pride in the dogs, you are going to lose a lot of Pros.


Ted-I'm not saying that at all. You're putting words in my mouth. I also don't think that owners who send their dogs to pros love them any less beacuse of that.



> So, you and everyone else can talk about how people do it for love ... pride and the like ....


Actually-it seems this is a point we are in agreement on. You cited Cherylon & Bobby George. I cited owner/trainers. 



> But, that ain't going to cut it as a dividing line between Amateur and Pro


Ted-

I know what the dividing line is. The Am trains & runs their own dog. The Pro is paid to train & run a client's dog. Simple. Both have their place & respective venues.



> Seocnd, if the prize money were no matter at all to the contestants, they could simply renounce it. You never address this issue. Why not?


I'll address it & I'm speaking ONLY about the WRC type events-not field trials. I just don't see why an amatuer/owner/handler should be penalized by being asked to forfeit somethinmg that he deserves every bit as much as any one else who submits an entry. He's there to showcase his dog & if that dog outshines every other dog-why doesn't he deserve that without being labeled a pro. He never took a dime to train anyone's dog. 



> Is it because you think that if they won, they deserved to get the money?
> 
> Yes!!
> 
> ...


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Seems like to some, a Pro is defined as : Anybody whose dogs are better trained, better handled or more talented than mine. An Amateur is: Anybody whose dogs are not as well trained, not as well handled, or not as talented as mine.

The definition needs to hinge on money, PERIOD. And as Ted alludes to in his Five Points, the money situation stands to change, considerably. We need to refine the definition of "livelihood", and up the enforcement, as others have mentioned. PROVING the case against "hidden Pros" is hard, but people who win large purses or corporate sponsorships are easy to spot.

AKC did not see this situation coming with dogs shows. Because some shows now offer a purse to the breeder of Best in Show as well as the owner, some who have been considered "amateur" are now making good money simply by virtue of having bred a good dog (which they no longer, in many cases, even own). Not a problem, unless the breeder is also a judge, who utilizes that position to promote their dog among other judges. 

Conflict of interest. It's being looked at HARD, and we in the retriever games need to be prepared to defend OUR definition of Pro/Amateur, lest AKC does it for us. And we don't want that. It would be virtually impossible to find judges if AKC applied the same rules to FT judges as they do to conformation judges RIGHT NOW, and things only stand to get tightened up further in the next couple of years.

Lisa


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Who are the 2 people that voted to eliminate the Amateur.
> 
> Shayne


Barbra Boxer and .... Kerry (who voted for it before he voted against it)


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

WAH said:


> Shayne Mehringer said:
> 
> 
> > Who are the 2 people that voted to eliminate the Amateur.
> ...


 :rofl:


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

The _Amateur Stake _was ,at its inception,started for the very reason my alternate definition describes, as most if not all dogs were trained and handled by _Pros _in the _Open AA_.
The _Amateur_ was started to give the less _talented than the Pro __Owner_ a place to Play on a given weekend.
At that time Money was not the controling factor in the Amateur.
john


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

> The Amateur Stake was ,at its inception,started for the very reason my alternate definition describes, as most if not all dogs were trained and handled by Pros in the Open AA.
> The Amateur was started to give the less talented than the Pro Owner a place to Play on a given weekend.
> At that time Money was not the controling factor in the Amateur.


John, you are correct!

Wish Jack would surf into this discussion. He probably knows when the definition became one of financial gain, and whether it was made close in time to the ruling that cash prizes could no longer be offered.

I bet there was a scandal involved somewhere...

hehehehe

Lisa


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I am off to put my nose to the grindstone to make some money to support my ?pleasures.?

But, here are my parting thoughts on the issue of Amateur status.

If you believe that there should be an Amateur stake - and people overwhelmingly do - then you have to ask yourself the really tough question

What is an Amateur?

And after answering that question, you have to find a way to express your definition of an Amateur in a way that people can understand and readily apply in very difficult situations.

There are some universal truths about rules and laws. 

The more black and white the rule

(a)	The smaller the amount of discretion;
(b)	The easier it is for people to understand and apply; and
(c)	The greater the likelihood that there will be injustice in certain factual situations.

Conversely, the more gray in your rule

(a)	The greater the amount of discretion;
(b)	The more difficult the rule is to apply; and
(c)	The greater the potential for political abuse.

This debate is currently being played out in discussions of the Federal Mandatory Sentencing Guidelines. The legislators say - we are tired of you judges handing out sentences willy - nilly, we are going to force you to sentence people according to a formula. The judges say - your rigid formula make no sense in certain situations - and imposes tremendous injustice on some people.

So, if it were up to you, 

What would your definition of Amateur be? 

*and*

How black and white or gray would you make your rule about Amateur status?


Ted

And Miriam, you said 



> The Am trains & runs their own dog. The Pro is paid to train & run a client's dog. Simple. Both have their place & respective venues.


What are you going to do about the people who do not train, but do run their dogs?


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

> From Chapter 7, Section 1:
> 
> Persons connected with any publication in the capacity of solicitor for kennel advertisements, persons connected with dog food, dog remedy or kennel supply companies in the capacity of solicitor or salesman, persons who buy, sell and in any way trade in or traffic in dogs as a means of livelihood in whole or in part, professional show superintendents and their employees, and persons who show dogs for others will not be approved if still engaged in such activities.
> 
> ...


Here?s an example of how complicated things can get when the matter of ?Pro? or ?Amateur? is not part of the judging criterion. AKC show judges may make their living from boarding, training, etc. Some judges even make a living off of being judges. There are a handful who earn $1000 or more for each show they judge. 

When selection of judges does not hinge on a simple yes/no livelihood criterion, a whole boatload of gray area exists. Then, as Ted mentions, there will be those who mine the gray areas to their own advantage. This then leads to ?We need to make a rule against that activity? knee-jerk reaction. Which in turn leads to a patchwork of baffling rules, regulation, and ?guidelines? that make one?s head swim.

Also, they conflict one with another. In the first paragraph of the quote, ?persons who show dogs for others may not be approved?. In Section 14, it says ?or take any dog belonging to another person into the ring at any show at which he is officiating.? Well, which is it? Never show for another, or does this apply only at shows where one is judging, but it?s OK any other time?

More later. Yes, it gets more convoluted and goes downhill from here.

Lisa


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

You are now on page 8 :!: 
To access page 7, simply press the number 7 in the lower right hand corner  
to return then to page 8 requires membership in the Mensa Society 8)
john


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

John Fallon wrote:



> to return then to page 8 requires membership in the Mensa Society


Hot dog!! Mama would be so proud to know that I'm a card carrying member of the Mensa Society!!

M


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Miriam Wade said:


> John Fallon wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You could simply return to the lower right corner and press :roll: 8.
john


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Dang!

And just when I learned the secret handshake...

Lisa


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Personally I don't think the current criteria hits anywhere close. For example, a new guy in our local club who has started training with us calls me and asks if I can watch his dog for the weekend. I say yes, and I let him know that I'll take his dog with me this weekend to train as well. Bonus for him, gets to take the wife to the casino and get his dog trained to boot. On Monday he picks up his dog and says, here's $20 bucks for watching my dog, I won a $5000 bonus at blackjack this weekend. If I take it, I become a pro. Amateur status lost. What a crock. I believe that a pro is someone who makes enough financial gain/loss that he submits it to the IRS at the end of the year and spends a majority of time working with people/dogs. My holding the end of a leash for someone else does not make me a pro. Since I work 50+ hours a week in the computer software industry and rely on that for my livelihood, I don't believe I should lose amateur status over such trivial amount of cash as $20 bucks. But under current rules, I could...


/Paul


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I don't believe I should lose amateur status over such trivial amount of cash as $20 bucks. But under current rules, I could...
> 
> 
> /Paul


He didn't ask you to train his dog, he asked you to board his dog. Boarding fee=$20. It all comes down to intent.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> Gun_Dog2002 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe I should lose amateur status over such trivial amount of cash as $20 bucks. But under current rules, I could...
> ...


And this is where the grey area comes as Ted explains.


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

:?: :?: Now check the lower left. On my screen it says "Page 9 of 8"

Jerry


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Question for the 5% who voted the other way:

If you remove the distinction between Amateur and Pro, then who do you feel should judge?

If the answer is "anybody", then what restrictions should be placed on judges (as in, who may they judge, who may they never judge, and so forth).

Lisa


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> Gun_Dog2002 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't believe I should lose amateur status over such trivial amount of cash as $20 bucks. But under current rules, I could...
> ...


Well, thats one opinion, and frankly my opinion. But I have been told by FT's here locally that this scenario makes me a pro and if I was to enter an amature I could be up for discipline. Others have said no it does not make me a pro. Either way, I don't want to risk it, and since I've only run derby/Q in the past it hasn't been an issue. But since my paycheck still says Symantec on it, I don't consider myself a pro.

/Paul


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I buy 2 puppies from the same litter both males. 1 sits around the house, eats and poops. The other gets many hours of training and is campaigned until he gets his AFC. I put an add out that I have 2 dogs at stud and the couch hound does not get any action and the AFC has plenty of girlfriends in at 1000.00 each. Being the upstanding citizen that I am I report all my dogs earnings to the IRS with the box of receipts to get him there and I am 10.00 bucks ahead. Ya freakin hoo. Does that mean that I am a pro because I made money off training a dog. There is a reason other than bragging for running the AM the same reason studs get more money as titled dogs than poo eaters. BTW I would take the 25K if I won and if they have it next year my amateur self will be there baby


----------



## KJB (Jul 1, 2003)

Ya know, if you did win, and you did lose am status, it's not like you'd lose am status FOREVER.... 

unless you just kept winning every year, in which case, you don't need to be running no amateur anyway.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Steve Amrein said:


> Being the upstanding citizen that I am I report all my dogs earnings to the IRS with the box of receipts to get him there and I am 10.00 bucks ahead. Ya freakin hoo. Does that mean that I am a pro because I made money off training a dog.


You made money on a service (stud), not on training, because training is not a requirement to make money by offering a dog at stud. As far as the IRS is concerned, unless you were to go into stud services to make a profit and quit your day job, it's just a hobby that you were honest enough to report. I bet most people don't.


----------



## W Knight (Sep 2, 2003)

Mensa Society 

John, *all* of my dogs belong to that club.

White Knight 8) 8) 8) 

*Im going to draw my sword and find Ted the Lawyer.*


----------



## W Knight (Sep 2, 2003)

Mensa Society 

John, *all* of my dogs belong to that club.

White Knight 8) 8) 8) 

*Im going to draw my sword and find Ted the Lawyer.*


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

There's a whole lot of staring at trees, and avoiding the forests here.

What's the bottom line?

What is an Amateur?

What is the test that you want to implement for defining Amateur status?

Those are the tough questions.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

I believe removing the straight-up Amateur stake, or the Owner/Handler version from field trials would be a dagger through the heart of the game, ultimately. It's hard enough for anyone without deep enough pockets to have their dog pro trained to be competitive as it is now. I think there simply must be a class in which participants don't have to compete against pros.

Now for the hard part. Life isn't fair. This sport won't end up perfect, any more than any other sport. There are some compromises we must be willing to accept to maintain a standard.

*If a person receives remuneration for training and/or handling a dog they are a professional.*

Facts I believe cannot be allowed to matter if the above is to remain in place:

1. It cannot matter if someone fits Amateur criteria and happens to be in a position to own several dogs.

2. It cannot matter if someone has enough resources to have any or all of those dogs trained by a pro, as long as they are handled by an Amateur in that stake.

3. It cannot matter if someone is in a position to do nothing but train and travel, so long as they are not remunerated for training and/ or handling. someone else's dog (s).

10. It cannot matter if someone has all those advantages, and that we feel jealous of them and what they are able to do because of it.

It's still a far better set of compormises than a sport in which no stake is free from professional competition.

*Disclaimer: I am one opinionated dude!!!

Evan


----------



## Guest (Jan 28, 2005)

What Evan said :!: :!: :!: 
8) 8)


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Ed says



> Webster defines "amateur" as "a person who does something for the pleasure of it rather than for money"


Evan says



> If a person receives remuneration for training and/or handling a dog they are a professional.


Miriam says



> I know what the dividing line is. The Am trains & runs their own dog. The Pro is paid to train & run a client's dog. Simple


John Fallon says



> Keep the Amateur stake for the handlers not_______ (you fill in the blank)enough to compete with the Pros, but discontinue giving Titles to the Dog (or not if we must)and give them to the Handler.


Anyone else want to take a shot of the *tough* question of how to define what an Amateur is?

Ted


----------



## Craig Bauer (Feb 4, 2003)

An amateur is one who trains and performs without searching for or accepting personal financial reward or material benefit in connection with his or her sports participation.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Craig wrote



> An amateur is one who trains and performs without searching for or accepting personal financial reward or material benefit in connection with his or her sports participation.


Craig

Do you view this as fundamentally different than what Ed or Evan wrote, or as an elaboration, or variant of their definitions?

Ted


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

An amatuer is defined as....

Someone who does not recieve compensation for a particular action, task, or activity.

When one does accept compensation for a particular action, task, or activity, this person now becomes a professional.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

As far as I can tell, we have three different approaches as to what is an Amateur

First, an approach based on compensation

For example

Ed



> Webster defines "amateur" as "a person who does something for the pleasure of it rather than for money"


Evan



> If a person receives remuneration for training and/or handling a dog they are a professional.


Craig



> An amateur is one who trains and performs without searching for or accepting personal financial reward or material benefit in connection with his or her sports participation.


Ken



> An amatuer is defined as.... Someone who does not recieve compensation for a particular action, task, or activity. When one does accept compensation for a particular action, task, or activity, this person now becomes a professional.


Second, an approach based on the relationship between dog and handler.

For example, Miriam wrote



> I know what the dividing line is. The Am trains & runs their own dog. The Pro is paid to train & run a client's dog. Simple


Finally, an approach based on conceptions of competitive advantage

For example, John Fallon wrote



> Keep the Amateur stake for the handlers not_______ (you fill in the blank)enough to compete with the Pros, but discontinue giving Titles to the Dog (or not if we must)and give them to the Handler.



Any other broad approaches to defining Amateur status that people want to promote?

Ted


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Craig wrote
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The "fairest" definition is anyone will a full-time, non retriever related, job.

Shayne


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I posted a method that would almost guarantee that only the most ardent Amateur would remain one.
It involves giving prize money to _ALL_,
Well almost _All_, the _Amateur_ would still only get_ Ribbons_
It's on page 7 if you missed it.
john


----------



## drbobsd (Feb 21, 2004)

I feel this link has great definition of an amateur. I believe it has held up in court.

http://www.nchacutting.com/ncha_application.shtml


----------



## Bryan Agnew (Mar 17, 2004)

I think it is important to keep the amatuer stake for all the non-pro handlers to compete in. Without an amatuer stake I doubt that the sport would continue to grow because of lost interest by those that support and grow the sport. 

In my opinion it is less important to know the definition of an amatuer than it is to know the definition of a pro and I agree with the definition of a pro is someone who makes the decision to accept money for training and/or handling retrievers as hunting dogs, competitors or hunt testers. Given that you are either a pro or an amatuer, if you don't accept money for any of the above mentioned you are an amatuer by default. The status is contingent on the persons decision. Much like the example Ken Guthrie explained about baseball, you can choose to accept money for your service or use of your abilities then you are a pro at what you do. The status implies a certain skill level but does not actually demand it, the market does that. 

In the case of the WRC, winning 25k won't change your status. You are not being compensated or earning part of your livelihood from the training or handling of your dog. Just like winning the lottery wouldn't make me a professional lotto player. There is a difference between winning a prize and earning your livelihood nor are you being compensated for providing a service, you simply won money instead of a ribbon. I go to the casino a couple times a year. Sometimes I lose, somtimes I win and on rare occasions I win big, that doesn't make me a professional blackjack player. I've won money and prizes playing golf and I'm not a pro. I don't think that the dog sports are any different. What makes the difference is the C-H-O-I-C-E to put yourself out there as a pro and accept money for your services.


----------



## drbobsd (Feb 21, 2004)

I think if Shayne wins the WRC twice he should have to play with the big boys. Or if you titled two dogs in open you should stay there. Its obvious you can compete at that level. Then maybe few more Amatuers would title and everyone would be happy. :roll:


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

drbobsd said:


> I feel this link has great definition of an amateur. I believe it has held up in court.
> 
> http://www.nchacutting.com/ncha_application.shtml


Like the fishing tournaments, a Lie detector test could be used!!!!


----------



## drbobsd (Feb 21, 2004)

Jerry,

I think in cutting Amat horse application you have to agree to lie detector test if needed.


----------



## W Knight (Sep 2, 2003)

I feel a lot better after reading the 9 above pages.

*I am a Amateur*

Life is good

Thank you all for confirming the fact.

Thankfully yours,
I remain 
The 8) White 8) Knight 8)


----------



## drbobsd (Feb 21, 2004)

> W Knight Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2005 10:44 pm Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...



*Me Too 8) 8) 8) *


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

drbobsd said:


> I feel this link has great definition of an amateur. I believe it has held up in court.
> 
> http://www.nchacutting.com/ncha_application.shtml


I know a couple of field trialers that do cutting horses and they say the judging is fairer than FT and notice they can win up to $50K and still be amateur. One even qualified for the world (I think BIG buckle) tournament with their points but they do win money.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Bryan said



> In the case of the WRC, winning 25k won't change your status. You are not being compensated or earning part of your livelihood from the training or handling of your dog. Just like winning the lottery wouldn't make me a professional lotto player. There is a difference between winning a prize and earning your livelihood nor are you being compensated for providing a service, you simply won money instead of a ribbon


Bryan

Several thoughts come to mind.

First, for purposes of this thread, the question is how would *YOU* define amateur? There really isn't a right or wrong answer. We're just coming up with ideas - brainstorming.

Second, winning the WRC or winning at poker is *different* than winning the lottery. Whether one wins the lottery is a pure function of luck. Winning the WRC or at poker requires some element of skill.

Third, at the end of the day, the winner of the WRC is going to receive a check and a 1099. You may not view the winnings as part of your financial livelihood, but I guarantee the IRS will.

Finally, if you think Amateur status is determined by some sort of *compensation* test, as Lisa previously stated - how would you want compensation to be defined?

Ted


----------



## Bryan Agnew (Mar 17, 2004)

Ted wrote


> First, for purposes of this thread, the question is how would YOU define amateur? There really isn't a right or wrong answer. We're just coming up with ideas - brainstorming


My definition of an amateur is someone who does not qualify for pro status, I'm really not trying to avoid the question but thats how I think it would be best to define an amateur. As a non-pro, an amateur would be someone who does not choose to accept compensation for training or handling retrievers for hunting or field trial competition. I also think that the definition of an amateur should not be able to accept sponsors. 



> Second, winning the WRC or winning at poker is different than winning the lottery. Whether one wins the lottery is a pure function of luck. Winning the WRC or at poker requires some element of skill.
> 
> Third, at the end of the day, the winner of the WRC is going to receive a check and a 1099. You may not view the winnings as part of your financial livelihood, but I guarantee the IRS will.


I agree with you on both points, but disagree with the idea that winning changes status. Per my definition and that of AKC of an amateur, winning the WRC does not make the winner or someone who places a pro. They are recieving part of their livelihood for *winning* and not for training or handling.



> Finally, if you think Amateur status is determined by some sort of compensation test, as Lisa previously stated - how would you want compensation to be defined?


I'm not sure that I could define all of the specifics of compensation, but I do believe that it should be defined very broad. Maybe break it down into any and all forms of direct and indirect forms of compensation or just state the definition of compensation as any and all forms of direct and indirect forms of renumeration. This would cover all the obvious and allow AKC to error to the side of caution.


----------



## Polock (Jan 6, 2003)

Never be afraid to try something new, AMATEURS built the ARK............
PROFESSIONALS built the TITANIC.................. :shock:


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

*Amateur*

I voted to retain the amateur stake!!!! 

I AM an amateur. I do not train dogs for money. I do not handle dogs for money---or any other form of non-monetary compensation!

I believe a professional is one who receives compensation for training or handling dogs in field trials, hunt tests, or for the sport of hunting. I believe that an additional aspect of professional is that it is a person who SEEKS to obtain compensation for these acts. It has nothing to do with how successful this person is or may be. 

I do not think prize money should be awarded for retriever events. Money is usually the motivation that causes most of the problems in the first place. I put my convictions to the test---I will not enter these competitions that offer prize money like the World Retriever Championship. I do not believe they have the best interest of the sport in mind when they use large purses/prize money motivators to get people to enter competitions. I apologize in advance if this offends anyone who is participating. In my humble opinion, it is WRONG.

Professionals should not be allowed to judge field trials. They have a well-documented conflict of interest: they would be required to pass judgment on the work of dogs--dogs they may train; may have trained in the past; or dogs they are seeking to train in the future for compensation!!!!! I don't care how much they know about bird placement or setting up tests. I don't care how friendly they are or how unfriendly they may be.

I think the problem with the amateur status determination lies not in the definition in the rules, but with the enforcement of the rule by the individual clubs. Too much discretion is allowed. You either are, or you are not in compliance with the rule. As far as the buddy helping a buddy, why not just forget the money part--you both know its not allowed.

For the record, I also do not handle other people's dogs in field trials. Don't care how good a friend they might be--I just don't do it! I don't co-own any dogs for whom I do not have a continuing financial obligation for feeding, care, training, etc. My co-ownership extends to my life partner, Dave. I've never thought co-ownership was a good thing anyway.

If I'm not capable of competing at the level it takes these days, I'll find something else to do. If that means sending my dogs to a pro, then I will do so if I can afford it. If I can't, then I will find a way to train if I still choose to try to compete with my limited time availability while I am still working full time. The fact that my skills as a trainer are not up to par with a pro-trained dog has no bearing on my amateur status, or someone else's who uses a pro.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Bump!

A good Read.

john


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

John - Thank You for bumping this thread - I find the opinions interesting - 



Lisa Van Loo said:


> This is a tremendous responsibility, and one founded wholly on TRUST. We TRUST the judges to set up challenging tests that fall within the broad confines of the rules. We TRUST that these tests will not harm our dogs physically in any way. We TRUST that every dog will have a fair shake when it goes to the line, and we TRUST that at the end of the day, the BEST dog gets the blue.
> 
> We, as a collective, need to ensure that nothing happens to erode this TRUST. If that means redefining Amateur in the brave new world of prize money, cross-discipline training, and corporate sponsorships, then redefine we must. Lisa


Well said - it is about trust - but a framework needs to be in place to deal with situations where TRUST & SPORTSMANSHIP have fell by the wayside.



Ted Shih said:


> Suppose I decide to sell one of my dogs - which is pro trained - and receive money in return ... am I under your definition, a pro? Ted


If anyone commits to selling a dog for hunting &/or trialing they should comply with the Standing Recommendations, 3 (a), (b) & (c). Each consequent sale of a dog should have a longer time line with a point where there is no going back to be an Amateur. We also do not want to forget the breeders who allow their status as breeders to color their decisions as a judge. 



Mr Booty said:


> I have no problem with the way the rules are currently written. I feel that the current ruling on what constitutes an Amateur is clear. Are the rules perfect? I don't know of any rules or laws that are perfect. Do some folks push the envelope? Of course they do, this is a very competitive venue. Maybe the rules don't need to be rewritten and we just need to enforce the rules already on the books. And, when such violations are determined, the suspensions should be for a longer period of time. Make the penalties tough enough to discourage their abuse.


The rules on the books are adequate to a point - though I believe there needs to be a serious look at improvement in those rules - 



Evan said:


> Life isn't fair.
> 
> 1. It cannot matter if someone fits Amateur criteria and happens to be in a position to own several dogs.
> 
> ...


They come & they go - there is a faster burnout rate for those who campaign too many dogs - or like some they survive as that is their main commitment of time.

We have to remember why we got into the sport - all I wanted was a well trained hunting dog, which I now generally have. Some dogs are better than others - my main interest is how well do they hunt. For me this is a hobby - I don't envy the person with all the dogs - It's a little like having a wife & a couple of babes on the side - the juggling would have to get old after a while - but some can do it!!!

This was actually a very good thread - some strong thought put into the opinions - 

BTW - Those who would be suspect can be easily ID'd from the ftretrieverjudge.net database - Serial Co-Owners, Had many dogs & have sold several of them, Kennel owners, dog breeders - a majority of the successful Amateurs who participate in the sport have owned less than 10 dogs during their 35-45 years in the sport. & I only data'd those who were still active in the AKC Judges Registry.


----------



## ducktrickster (Feb 19, 2007)

I keep reading and seeing over and over again that the am. should be retained for recruitement. New blood is going to figure it out real quick that the majority of the "amateur" entrants are stepping off a pro's truck to run or are handled and trained by people who have unlimited time, money, and experience that may be equal to most pro's. What's the point? Keep the Am because that's the way its always been and the way that it will remain. No one can change it. No one.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Why not scrap the Amateur and have two Open stakes at the weekend trial. Change the criteria around to qualify for the FC and the AFC titles.15 points with a win gives you the FC and 10 points with a win gives you your AFC. You still have your pro and Amateur status to distinguish between the two types of competitors. A pro can only run or enter one dog in either stake while a Amateur can enter his or her dog in both.

Pro's having the edge strictly by the numbers would be more on a level playing field as the rest of the Amateurs if we had two Opens each weekend. Have a draw and split the numbers of each stake. I don't mind running against the pro's but I do mind running against the numbers that they bring to the table. At some trials it's almost embarrassing the number of pro dogs at the Open, with a hand full of Amateurs. At least this way Joe Pro has 20 dogs maybe he runs 12 in one and 8 in the other, or however the draw plays out. This could also take the running at the primo time out of the works, and it also means that they have to run two different test as opposed to one. The Amateurs could still run both stakes the pro would be limited to running just his string between the two events.

As far as I'm concerned I don't care if you take a beer and a sandwich, dinner out, paid gas, helped me with my dog, gave me some flier ducks, took my dog to the trial and ran him because I was sick or had to work and could not make it YOUR STILL AN AMATEUR !!! 

Everyone in the game knows what the rule states it is just not clear to the ones that try to circumvent it. There for we need a clearer distinction of what constitutes an Amateur, other than Websters own. Of course with Websters, all others would constitute a pro. 

AKC I would like to believe would do the right thing as far as rule changes goes, but I think it all depends on how good or bad the RAC, SOR presents their position. It seems that the RAC, SOR are the main cohorts here and they don't want to ruffle the pros feathers according to their stance against the Amateurs of the sport as written in the June 08 edition of the Ret News on limited entries. Not that limited entries is the answer, but it's a start of something that should not be set aside and ignored. The option of running two Opens is a sure way of lowering the entry problem by spreading the dogs equally between the two stakes.


----------



## meat hunter (Oct 4, 2007)

Maybe we should be looking at the dogs. Maybe if the dog is trained by a pro he should not be allowed to run the am no matter who is running him? Would only am trained dogs be a true am stake. Just asking. Ed


----------



## Legacy 6 (Jul 2, 2008)

KJB said:


> Hah. I think any "am" who has won a National (Open or Am) shouldn't be able to run in the Amateur.  Or maybe Shayne and I will compile a list of amateur threats to be banned. :twisted:
> 
> But seriously, we need the amateur, cuz we would lose a lot of folks if they knew they had to always run against the pros.
> Tina


I agree with Tina on this one. This is how many other public competitive sports are also run. Sno-Cross for example makes is very difficult for you to NOT move up in Class if you have won in the Amateur Class. But in that sport, you can also move up in class voluntarily. They go with Amateur, Semi-Pro, and Pro.

Let's face it, if there were no Am class, many young trainers would never have the ability to test their methods. Where is the next Mike Lardy going to come from? It might come from his facility, but it might also come from some guy out in the middle of the US who gets into the sport for the challenge of it, and the prestige of running against / with the Professionals.

I'll draw a line of comparison: Where would Major League Baseball be without HS Baseball, College Ball, and all those Minor Leagues...? There would be NO sport.

I wouldn't ever talk about shutting a class down, but further diversifying the Classes: Am, Semi-, and Pro.

Richard
Legacy 6


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Legacy 6 said:


> I agree with Tina on this one. This is how many other public competitive sports are also run. Sno-Cross for example makes is very difficult for you to NOT move up in Class if you have won in the Amateur Class. But in that sport, you can also move up in class voluntarily. They go with Amateur, Semi-Pro, and Pro.
> 
> Let's face it, if there were no Am class, many young trainers would never have the ability to test their methods. Where is the next Mike Lardy going to come from? It might come from his facility, but it might also come from some guy out in the middle of the US who gets into the sport for the challenge of it, and the prestige of running against / with the Professionals.
> 
> ...


I really don't think this is a very good analogy. In sports everyone, if talented enough signs a contract and becomes a pro some for big bucks and some for all the bucks. Those that don't go to work in the real world for hen scratch, and pay to watch what it is that they liked doing as a child growing up.

The dog world is a hobby that has grown into an after work extra curricular activity. Just like in the business world some have seen a nitch and capitalized on it. They happen to be the Pro trainer. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with someone making a living doing something that people in the sport see as a effective tool to have their dog trained and still be able to run their dog in trials and have a place to go and train your dog under the supervision of someone whom you deem is the guru with the most to offer.

The thing that I see going in the wrong direction is what money has done to our sport. Amateurs never used to run four and five dogs. Most only ran one maybe two. Pros had smaller strings of dogs and there were not as many in the past as there are now. It seems to have become a growing business. If one pro couldn't take your second dog because he didn't have the room it didn't take long for another to pop up and take up the slack, and take in two new dogs. 

There has been the ever growing popularity of High Point Open, Amateur, and Derby dogs which has contributed to the ever increasing influx of dogs which in turn has put more money in the pockets of competitors and pro's alike which does nothing for the game except increase the numbers and demise the integrity of the sport. In my opinion the want to achieve notoriety for the year end title of the top dog on the block has also lead to more dogs running alot more trials than in the past. We are now starting to see advertising on trucks people using certain products etc. Is all this being done without anything being given in return. I don't know just asking? but it sends the wrong message. 

The game just has not been able to keep up with the influx dogs and the lose of workers which as I see it is a run away train on a crash course. The lose of workers is mostly due to age and these people now have dogs with pros which allows for the influx in dogs. They don't hardly show up unless its for the day to watch fiddo and the handler run. You can't blame them they started it all for you and me in most instances. The problem is that the rules have not kept up with the times or the influx of dogs.

Oh, and by the way I think Ted may be on to something having to do with the WRC. If one choses to get into a high stakes poker tournament doesn't your presents make you a professional even though you work for a living as a firefighter or high tech executive? Don't know, just a thought.


----------



## Legacy 6 (Jul 2, 2008)

Barry,

You missed the point of the comparison completely. My point was MLB wouldn't have the talent is has (with or without a paycheck).

Maybe you'll like the comparison better between HS and College baseball?? There woudn't be rising talent in the higher echelons if it werent for the lower echelons.

We can't all go from the Sandlot to the Majors. Even the Pros have to earn their oats in the minors.

Ask Lardy is he just all of a sudden found himself in the Pros, or did he have to work and work and work in Amateur before he finally gained the recognition to get that paycheck.

Richard
Legacy 6


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

I would not like to see the Amateur stake dropped. All seem to feel that an FC means more, don't disagree, an Open is harder to win.

But, I value a dog more that has both titles, an AFC means a lot to me when selecting a dog to breed to, or get a pup from.

To me, an AFC means that dog ran for his owner, an amateur handler, not just a professional. It says something about the trainibility and personality type of the dog.

All that think it's so easy to show up on the weekend, pull the dog off a pro truck, and run it, try it sometime.

A dog that can do that, it says a lot, and is something to consider in breeding choices.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

cakaiser said:


> All that think it's so easy to show up on the weekend, pull the dog off a pro truck, and run it, try it sometime.


Most of the dogs sitting on whatever Pro's truck did not usually start there - they came from elsewhere. 



Criquetpas said:


> To me it is an easy decision, if you put your hand in front of a dog and take ANY money ,even $1. (dollar) youare a Professional Dog Trainer.......Period. NO what if's, seminars, coaching handlers, first right of refusals (train the dog then sell it back to me) , selling a trained dog any level, writing books, having expenses paid (gas, oil, lodging , mileage, food,human and dog type. Buying season tickets to your favorite sports teams, gifts, I don't know anything missed?
> 
> You handled a dog, physical control for USC $$ you are a Pro.





Vicki Worthington said:


> I believe a professional is one who receives compensation for training or handling dogs in field trials, hunt tests, or for the sport of hunting. I believe that an additional aspect of professional is that it is a person who SEEKS to obtain compensation for these acts. It has nothing to do with how successful this person is or may be.
> 
> I do not think prize money should be awarded for retriever events. Money is usually the motivation that causes most of the problems in the first place. I put my convictions to the test---I will not enter these competitions that offer prize money like the World Retriever Championship. I do not believe they have the best interest of the sport in mind when they use large purses/prize money motivators to get people to enter competitions. I apologize in advance if this offends anyone who is participating. In my humble opinion, it is WRONG.
> 
> ...





Barry said:


> As far as I'm concerned I don't care if you take a beer and a sandwich, dinner out, paid gas, helped me with my dog, gave me some flier ducks, took my dog to the trial and ran him because I was sick or had to work and could not make it YOUR STILL AN AMATEUR !!!


IMO - Earl & Vicki have stated very well what an Amateur is - but I'll try to relate a little story - Guy goes into a bar & orders a drink - as he's sitting there an attractive member of the opposite gender sits on the stool next to him - after a while they strike up a conversation - one thing leads to another & the guy offers the member of the opposite gender $10K to spend the night in his room - when the offer is accepted he counters with an offer of nothing - The comment is "what do you think I am?" - his counter "that has been established, I am now trying to negotiate the price". 




Barry said:


> Everyone in the game knows what the rule states it is just not clear to the ones that try to circumvent it.


A lot of people are incarcerated who operate under that same philosophy - the sport just needs to police itself better.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Legacy 6 said:


> Barry,
> 
> You missed the point of the comparison completely. My point was MLB wouldn't have the talent is has (with or without a paycheck).
> 
> ...


I kinda get what your saying but I think you give the pro to much credit. They have a business and if they are good at PR work and a good at training dogs than they usually have a successful business. Don't forget they are nothing at their business without you and me and our dogs.

As far as Lardy goes, I don't know if he had to work, work, work all that much before he turned pro. Not knowing the guy I know of his business sense and his structure as a salesman and he's pretty good at it, buy what I've seen. I would like to know how many of the dogs that he has trained he took through the basics and finished as well, and how many of the dogs he's had in the past that came from someone else? These are facts that are hard to distinguish without knowing the man. He was a hot item there for a while But he's seemed to have cooled off a little. In the pro business I've noticed that their is not much loyalty it's all about now, not tomorrow. People leave one and jump on the next hot one with the drop of a hat. Their business is feast or famine. Produce or we are out of hear. 

One more thing don't ever forget that training a dog isn't rocket science, and there is not just a select few that know how to train. Most of these pros came from the Amateur ranks found a nitch and went on to train pro. I know of a lot more good Amateur trainers than I know of good pro trainers, only reason you don't here of them is that they train what they now have at the time which at times is a lesser quality animal then what they have had in the past but for the time being it keeps them in the game until something better comes along. And thats not a dig at the pro it's a kudo for the Amateur trainer. The reason most pros are so hard to beat isn't because they are that good, it's because they have the best of our dogs and lots of them. They don't play with a dog unless they think it's a good one in most instances. 

Let's face it if you are studious enough to learn to be a competent trainer- handler one wouldn't think that someone is that much better than they. To me that's the big difference. How many people really spend the time to learn to train and handle dogs. To most it's an after work or weekend affair, and I'm sorry that just doesn't cut it in today's FT. You have to study your dog and know him like the back of your hand, prepare a well rounded approach to your training, be part of a good training group, and you have to study the test being thrown at you at trials, and know what your going to do before you do it. The pros have the numbers, they have our dogs that's their biggest advantage.

Sorry about the long windage. There he went again.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Barry said:


> I know of a lot more good Amateur trainers than I know of good pro trainers, only reason you don't here of them is that they train what they now have at the time which at times is a lesser quality animal then what they have had in the past but for the time being it keeps them in the game until something better comes along.


Barry, with all due respect, can you give me/us some sort of reference point as to your history/involvement with the training and/or running of _competitive_ retrievers? The reason I ask is that in trying to interpret the point you are trying to make in the sentence above (which may actually BE the longest run-on sentence I've ever read in my LIFE...), it seems like you may NOT be looking at the overall BIG PICTURE of _competitive_ dog training but rather a microcosm defined by your own personal experience.

;-)..............

kg


----------



## captdan (Jan 25, 2004)

I have not waded through all 17 pages of this thread, so if I'm plagiarizing forgive me. 

Maybe the focus should be on the dog, not the trainer. An Amateur Stake could be defined as for "any dog that has been trained and handled by a person who has not taken money for training another person's dog(s)." 

BTW, I take umbrage at the suggestion that because I am retired after almost forty years of work and now have time to spend on training my dogs that I should be considered not to be an amateur.

Dan Rice


----------



## Kevin WI (Mar 14, 2003)

I think that field trial should continue to hold amateur stakes...however I also believe that the definition of amateur should mean *amateur trained and handled.*


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

Flowegboy, kinda throws a kink in the Amateur stake and it's original intentions, which was to provide owners of dogs with professionals the opportunity to run them in an AA stake, but not against the pros who train them.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Tim West said:


> Flowageboy, kinda throws a kink in the Amateur stake and it's original intentions, which was to provide owners of dogs with professionals the opportunity to run them in an AA stake, but not against the pros who train them.


You think amateurs are tough to police _now_? Just try _proving_ the "amateur trained and handled" requirement.........

NWIH regards, ;-)

kg


----------



## Kevin WI (Mar 14, 2003)

Tim West said:


> Flowegboy, kinda throws a kink in the Amateur stake and it's original intentions, which was to provide owners of dogs with professionals the opportunity to run them in an AA stake, but not against the pros who train them.


Then there should be an asterisk next the the AFC....like AFC* like they did with Barry Bonds Home run ball....


* - Professionally trained.  take that! bwwwahahahhaha


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

All those who feel that an Amateur stake should only be for dogs that are amateur trained, stop and think for a minute about what you are really suggesting.

You will be eliminating most amateurs from the game, many of whom are the reason why trials exist at all. If they can't run the Am, why show up at all?

There are too many if's, and's, and but's to inforce such a rule. What if, someone day trains with a pro, and gets advice from them? What if, a dog is sent off for basics, then trained to AA level by owner? What if, someone ever gets one word of training help from a pro. And on, and on, and on.

I can think of almost no amateurs that would not be affected by such a rule.

Is the trial committee going to sit down and review every single dog's history since they were born? Don't know about you, but I don't want to.

If you want to throw all of us so called non-amateurs out, because at one time we have had professional help, good luck, sure you will be willing to do all our jobs.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Barry,

Nevermind.

Your background and experience in the sport has been vouched for by someone whose opinion I trust implicitly.

Still....that was one heckuva run-on sentence..;-)..and I'm not sure I agree with your main point altogether, but if that's your viewpoint, then that's your viewpoint.

kg


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Flowageboy said:


> I think that field trial should continue to hold amateur stakes...however I also believe that the definition of amateur should mean *amateur trained and handled.*


So you are saying dumb the Am stake down? If that's the case just get rid of the Am.


----------



## Kevin WI (Mar 14, 2003)

> Is the trial committee going to sit down and review every single dog's history since they were born? Don't know about you, but I don't want to.


You don't sit down to review each entry to enforce it...you have people sign an affidavit swearing that in the past (x) months, they have not paid a professional to train the animal. if they lie...well, then you know what happens to people that lie to AKC and get eventually found out....they get banned for many years.


----------



## Kevin WI (Mar 14, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> So you are saying dumb the Am stake down? If that's the case just get rid of the Am.


Tell that to all the amateur handlers/trainers that have won a stake....the dumb dog won....you aren't dumbing it down...you're leveling the playing field.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Flowageboy said:


> .you aren't dumbing it down...you're leveling the playing field.


How is that leveling the playing field?


----------



## Kevin WI (Mar 14, 2003)

Tim West said:


> Flowegboy, kinda throws a kink in the Amateur stake and it's original intentions, which was to provide owners of dogs with professionals the opportunity to run them in an AA stake, but not against the pros who train them.





Patrick Johndrow said:


> How is that leveling the playing field?


As a handler, I wouldn't worry too much about running against a pro. It would be more of a concern about my dog running against a pro trained dog....but that's just me.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Flowageboy said:


> As a handler, I wouldn't worry too much about running against a pro. It would be more of a concern about my dog running against a pro trained dog....but that's just me.


How is the not watering or dumbing down the stake?

Why would you not want to run against a pro trained dog?


----------



## Kevin WI (Mar 14, 2003)

Isn't it obvious that a pro trained dog is more than likely to have been trained longer in a strict training regimen and thus more in a position to succeed than a dog that is amateur trained by someone squeezing in training between work and family obligations? 

Take two cloned labs...place one with your average Joe amateur FT trainer with a regular job and family...place the other with Mike lardy....after training progresses jolene amateur gets to run both dogs at the amateur trial....which dog do you feel has the better chance of winning? I rest my case.


----------



## bodang (Jun 30, 2008)

What would be wrong with having two amateur stakes and getting rid of the open? Give those who truly support and sustain the sport more opportunity for success! Does the game really need the pros to run the dogs? The only people you would lose are those who never run their dogs and those people are unlikely to be providing significant manual help. The game does need pros, but only for training; this would not eliminate that need. It would give the amateurs all (or most all) the glory. Is that wrong?


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

K G said:


> Barry,
> 
> Nevermind.
> 
> ...


Don't know who the voucher may be, but why was it that important to you? I am only expressing ones humble opinion. And I can be long winded as stated. I guess I find it hard to understand why you as a long time member of the sport would have trouble understanding where I am coming from. Did I say something wrong? I do know quite a few amateurs that have titled FC-AFC and who are very good trainers without the help of a pro. Don't you? These people are students of the game. There are some who train the hand that they are dealt until something of more promise comes along and then they are off and running. These people don't normally deal away dogs because they are not the next best thing since a nickel hamburger, they train as if their dog is the greatest and move on. Some times cashing in a time or two along the way. 

This sport was founded by amateurs for amateurs and run by amateurs. Can we at least agree on that point. Years ago there was a handful of pros, now there is a bunch. This sport is where most of pros have come from. The rest of the amateurs decided not to train dogs for a living they decided to remain amateurs. 

Like I stated this was not a dig at the pro trainer they know where they came from. The response was to a poster who thought that some pros did a lot of schooling, paid there dues before making the big time. I don't think that is particularly so. I think there is a lot of on the job training that goes on and it shows in some instances. The good pros get the good dogs and lots of them. That being said one on one, I'll take a good Amateur against a good pro anytime. The team work that has developed with the Amateur and his dog is a sight to behold. It is what it is. IMHO

Look at the 07 Open and AM National winners. He must have done something right, pro or no pro. Alan did one heck of a job teaching and training Ken, but who ran the dogs? Students of the game is what it's all about.

More wind, sorry


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

K G said:


> Barry, with all due respect, can you give me/us some sort of reference point as to your history/involvement with the training and/or running of _competitive_ retrievers? The reason I ask is that in trying to interpret the point you are trying to make in the sentence above (which may actually BE the longest run-on sentence I've ever read in my LIFE...), it seems like you may NOT be looking at the overall BIG PICTURE of _competitive_ dog training but rather a microcosm defined by your own personal experience.
> 
> ;-)..............
> 
> kg


I guess I should have put in a period, and then started another sentence. And I do try to look at the big picture but at times it's rather cloudy in which dirction we are going. We all know where it's been what's in store for the future and how are we going to get there?


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Flowageboy said:


> Isn't it obvious that a pro trained dog is more than likely to have been trained longer in a strict training regimen and thus more in a position to succeed than a dog that is amateur trained by someone squeezing in training between work and family obligations?
> 
> Take two cloned labs...place one with your average Joe amateur FT trainer with a regular job and family...place the other with Mike lardy....after training progresses jolene amateur gets to run both dogs at the amateur trial....which dog do you feel has the better chance of winning? I rest my case.



You are kind of proving my point on one hand but on the other doesn’t the guy that trains every day with his dog have an advantage over the guy that is the weekend daddy?

What about the Am that trains his own dog but is constantly training in a pro camp?

Then you have Ams that do nothing but train dogs…should they be excluded as well?


----------



## Kevin WI (Mar 14, 2003)

So you're ok with the only difference in an AFC dog and an FC title is the handler? I thought it was supposed to be about the dogs.
I watch peoples websites and classified ads selling pups...people are pretty proud of the fact when a dog is amateur trained and handled and they brag about it on their sites and classifieds(and it means something to the buyers too). Wouldn't it be great if the Amatuer FC title reflected that fact for them already?


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

I think that just because someone has a dog trained by a pro, it doesn't mean the handler was trained also. I also don't think an owner can go down for a week here and there and truly learn how to run the dog. The only way a handler can figure out this game is by playing it, and being allowed by the mentor to make mistakes if he/she is fortunate enough to have one, pro or AM. I think a good amateur either has tons of time and money to be able to learn and play from someone who either invested his/her time mentoring, or took the money as a pro. For me, the word "amateur" doesn't really mean anything to me because they scare the crap outta me just as much if not more than the very few pro's I have seen up here.

For me, and aspiring White Coat, I would like to see the AM stay the same, and I would like to actually finish one. I think after talking to others who have made the jump from HT to FT, that just the thought of running against a pro causes them to shake in their shoes. People are afraid to run a Q agains a pro, so they go to O/H and give it a whirl. I know this. 

I also had a revelation this year. Why the heck am I scared to run the Open? Why do I puke in the blind at the AM? I get to train with the same people who are in both, so I am going to just freaking go run it. Up here, it's the same exact dogs running both stakes with a couple of pro's thrown in at the OPen. But I still think, in the minds of many people (especially new ones), the AM is the natural goal... 

Up here, we will never have the large entries that you guys see, and my opinion is of no consequence. I was just thinking that it would be a shame to take away that stake from the amateur, pro trained dog or not...

And there ya have it from a beginning amateur in small town Alaska..


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2008)

Flowageboy said:


> So you're ok with the only difference in an AFC dog and an FC title is the handler?


Yep. (And there are more points required for the AFC title.)

Flowageboy, how many FCs or AFCs of any breed have you had a chance to watch run yet? It's a different game!

Melanie


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Flowageboy said:


> So you're ok with the only difference in an AFC dog and an FC title is the handler? I thought it was supposed to be about the dogs.
> I watch peoples websites and classified ads selling pups...people are pretty proud of the fact when a dog is amateur trained and handled and they brag about it on their sites and classifieds(and it means something to the buyers too). Wouldn't it be great if the Amatuer FC title reflected that fact for them already?


Are we talking about who TRAINED the dog or who is RUNNING the dog now?

I know some Ams that train that will NEVER place in a trial unless God intervenes because they are terrible handlers. I know of a handler that couldn’t run Lean Mac in a Qual and place.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2008)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Are we talking about who TRAINED the dog or who is RUNNING the dog now?


We are pretty much talking about someone who has ridden bulls.


----------



## Lynn Moore (May 30, 2005)

As Melanie says, the points difference is already built in, but you are also forgetting about the many many amateurs who put both titles on their dogs. You get one title competing against everyone, hence the term "open" and one, having to earn more points, competing against your peers. Not everyone has a pro running their dog, even if they have one!!!
Many amateurs have their dogs home part of the time, with their pro part of the time. Many send them off for basics, and enjoy training the rest of the dogs' careers. 
This part of the system ain't broken, what are you trying to fix here?
LM


----------



## Kevin WI (Mar 14, 2003)

so where was I going with all this???...oh yeah....doesn't really make no nevermind to me either way....just like blowing the wind up the skirt of FT'rs who get into such serious discussions....try to remember, it's supposed to be just a game. Don't forget to enjoy your hobby!!!

Sorry, just like playing devils advocate thanks for the debate.


----------



## GONEHUNTIN' (Sep 21, 2006)

Haven't read all 19 pages, but here's my take and it looks like almost everyone else's.

The AM was started so that they (Amatures) wouldn't have to compete with the pro's. It's still the same. That dog of the Am's may have been pro trained, but there is a hugh difference on who's running it. Many, many, amature trainers are horrible handlers on line; so bad it's unlikely that they could ever beat a pro trained dog with a pro handler. 

I think the amature's deserve their own day. It always seemed to me it was more relaxed around the AM without the big Pro Trucks being there. I think it'd be a pretty hard sell to eliminate one stake and to what avail? What would it be replaced with?


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I agree with the preceding poster, but why an AFC title on the Dog ?

This concept defies logic when everyone on here, with an ounce of wit, knows that the handler is the cornerstone for a dog to achieve the AFC. 

The way it was designed was for bragging rights for the handler, it was never intended to showcase the dog.At its inception that was done in the OPEN with all competent handlers mostly their Pros.

AA Amateur Handling title regards

john


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> I think the best definition of an Amateur is someone who has a full-time, non-dog training, job. If they work 40 and train 50, fine, they are an AM and want it more than i do. But ff they are retired and train everyday, they have an advantage over me - Russ' scenario.
> 
> Shayne


Okay Shayne, by your definition of an Amateur, a person who trains other people's dogs in obedience only, nothing to do with field work, then would not qualify to run their own dog in an Amateur? Way too general a definition I would think.

Arleen


----------



## captdan (Jan 25, 2004)

Maybe we should have a handicap system: one would get a minus being retired or have flexible hours (a fireman for instance), a demerit for knowing what one is doing at the line, another for watching and learning, an extra point or two for running a dog with little proven genetic background, two or three minuses if they bought a proven dog, a big bonus if they only train a hour a week, extra consideration if they can only afford to drive within one hundred miles of home, a bonus for using treats, a plus if they don't know a pro or have never talked to one, a demerit if they live in a blue state, and a minus if they have better than 20-20 vision, and a plus if they don't watch their dog or note where the birds have been landing And we could give extra points for not training with boats, decoys or layout blinds. . . . Feel free to add your own faves!!

Dan Rice


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Flowageboy said:


> Sorry, just like playing devils advocate thanks for the debate.


A Debate is where both sides contribute something - your contribution? - but if you want to do something for an Amateur requirement -

Require that an Amateur handler who enters their dog in the Amateur Stake be required to provide all transport, food, water. lodging & other necessities for the dog from the time the dog enters the trial grounds on the day of the trial until the dog exits from the trial grounds after it's runs were complete. This would mean that if the Amateur's dog was entered in the Open & the Amateur's Pro was running same the Amateur would be required to deliver the dog to the stake so said Pro could handle same.

Easily verifiable - just take a picture & present it to the FTC if there is a protest filed. No other input required.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> Require that an Amateur handler who enters their dog in the Amateur Stake be required to provide all transport, food, water. lodging & other necessities for the dog from the time the dog enters the trial grounds on the day of the trial until the dog exits from the trial grounds after it's runs were complete. This would mean that if the Amateur's dog was entered in the Open & the Amateur's Pro was running same the Amateur would be required to deliver the dog to the stake so said Pro could handle same.



Marvin...that is very interesting...I think I know where you are going with this but what does this accomplish?


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Marvin...that is very interesting...I think I know where you are going with this but what does this accomplish?


Nothing,,,, like usual......

Angie


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

GONEHUNTIN' said:


> The AM was started so that they (Amatures) wouldn't have to compete with the pro's.


The amateur was started to give the owner a chance to run their pro trained dogs.

History of FTs 1931-1941 pg. 53 ( the year 1936)

"Harriman visted Arden two days before the Long Island trial, and Briggs convinced him to try running his own dogs in the recently introduced Amateur Stake. 
.... Briggs explained to Harriman the tactic of sending a dog downwind...."

Unfortunately the Amatuer Stake was never about the dog.



Tim


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Marvin...that is very interesting...I think I know where you are going with this but what does this accomplish?


I think it would be entertaining to say the least to have some of these Saturday handlers go through the motions of actually working with their dog & having to provide for the dog's comfort, rather than walking up to the Pro's truck pulling out the dog, running it & then putting it back in the crate without providing for the dogs comfort. 

A few years back one of the better trainers was getting out of the game with a very nice 4 year old. I knew of 2 people who were very interested in the dog. When I approached the person on behalf of 1 of those individuals the potential seller said "Have you ever watched this person put a dog away after a tough set of swims on a water mark? If they do well the dog gets to shiver in the crowd before getting thrown in it's crate, if it does poorly the dog goes straight into the crate. No provision for comfort. Now, if you want to buy the dog I'll sell her to you because I've watched how you care for your dogs." End of story.

& it would also be of entertainment value to watch those Pro's lose control of their asset for the weekend & have to take the dog to the line just as the Amateur does. Can you imagine the excuses that would be forthcoming?

Plus it is verifiable without a lot of work on anyone's part but the person who files the protest.

Remember, most of us do our thing with our dog (when we have one competitive) every trial & seem to handle it just fine - sort of levels the playing field for all.

Just wanted "mr stir the pot" without adding any ingredients recognize that dog people can come up with some sort of answer for anything.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Angie B said:


> Nothing,,,,* like* usual......
> 
> Angie


Don't let me have to sic the grammar police on ya. ;-)

john


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> The amateur was started to give the owner a chance to run their pro trained dogs.
> 
> History of FTs 1931-1941 pg. 53 ( the year 1936)
> 
> ...


Finally, a person with a historically correct perspective on the Amateur Stake.
Given this information would those who voted yes reconsider ?

john


----------



## GONEHUNTIN' (Sep 21, 2006)

Tim Carrion said:


> The amateur was started to give the owner a chance to run their pro trained dogs.
> 
> History of FTs 1931-1941 pg. 53 ( the year 1936)
> 
> ...


Back in those days, the days virtually if not every dog was professionally trained. It was much like owning a race horse; you went there to watch it compete and to hopefully brag about the result.

As everyone knows, there are very few totally trained Amateur dog's running. Certainly not enough to ever support a field trial. As some point in most dog's lives, they've been under a pro. For force, collar conditioning, advanced work, etc., they've had some basic or problem elimination work.

Some also assume there is an advantage to an Amateur to run their dog from a pro truck. Many times there is not. Unless that AM trains religiously with that pro, he is probably at a disadvantage. The dog will simply not perform for him as it would for the pro and in fact, it is in all probability going to perform far below the level at which it was trained.

It is true, the Amateur Stake never was and never was intended to be, about the dog. It has always been about the handler and that's the way it should be. It's the only way that the game of Field Trialing can survive.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

GONEHUNTIN' said:


> > Back in those days, the days virtually if not every dog was professionally trained. It was much like owning a race horse; you went there to watch it compete and to hopefully brag about the result.
> 
> 
> Hence, where we have come from. Not where we have gone.
> ...


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

GONEHUNTIN' said:


> It is true, the Amateur Stake never was and never was intended to be, about the dog. It has always been about the handler and that's the way it should be. It's the only way that the game of Field Trialing can survive.


That our current system is the only way FTs can survive is pure speculation, because we have not tried an alternative. 
I would venture that imposing the same amateur definition to the dog that is currently used for the handler/judges would benefit FTs. Having a dog not in the hands of a pro for 2 years just as person must not have recieved any portion of their livelihood for that same time period would provide consistency in the term Amateur. Many have used the excuse that this system would be un-enforceable. The same is true for the applying our current definition to humans. It is has been based on a honor system. How many times has a FTC or the AKC investigated IRS records before appoving a judging slate?
The FT communnity is small. Very few dogs are on some truck somewhere without multiple people being aware of it.

JMO 

Tim


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Now that this thread, previously hashed and rehashed *3 1/2 YEARS AGO* (it got nowhere then either....), has been hashed and rehased here yet _*AGAIN*_......who's going to draw up a proposal (for whatever the point/points are that are trying to be made......find two clubs to sponsor "it," and send "it" to the RAC once and for all..........???

*Hmmmmmmm???????* Who's ready to put their *prose and postage* in the place of their *posts*????????????

kg


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

The only reason this is even a question is because people in today's society put winning so far above all else that they will allow themselves to look like idiots by whining when they get beaten. 

Should we have an amatuer stake, yes, we should, because people who are paid to train and handle dogs are certainly in a class by themselves (well, most of them), as they are in any sport where professionals are paid to perform. 

The definition of a pro is simple, if you get paid to train or handle dogs you're a pro and compete against the other pros (and the amatuers who have the literal and figurative cojones to come after you). I will add to this that if at any time you were paid to do those things you should still be considered a pro. 

There will always be people with more moentary and time based resources than you have in any amatuer competition. Being able to win against those people can only result from hard work and dedication as well as smart use of the resources and knowledge you have available.

If you are a person of limited means and unlimited desire, you can still win, even against the pros. Iv;e seen it done and I've only been around here a couple of years. 

I have met people like me who recently took up this sport and others whose families have been doing this for generations, and I will say one thing.... I have yet meet one of those more seasoned folks that wasn't there to help me, and nuture me along with knowledge and support. I dont' know what the personal motivations were for that but I don't really care. 

As long as this community treats me that way, I will be here.


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

We have only one pro running the Open up here so far this year, and he is local so it's of course much easier to get there. But we would welcome any of them to come up! Small trials, great people, C'MON UP!!! Of course, the AM's can come too!


----------



## GONEHUNTIN' (Sep 21, 2006)

Tim Carrion said:


> Having a dog not in the hands of a pro for 2 years just as person must not have received any portion of their livelihood for that same time period would provide consistency in the term Amateur.
> JMO
> 
> Tim


Here's the problem with that as I see it Tim. Many dog's are sent back to a pro for a "refresher" for maybe a month when the owner runs into a problem. That would mean another two years out out competition. A dog only runs competitively for about 10 years. Many people do not like starting a dog. If they put him on a pro truck for a year or two, the dog gets two years he can't run. Then he runs and needs a tune up. Another two years out.
A dog could spend more time out of the AM than in.

The second thing is, how do you handle the fact that many AM's train with the pro's on the week ends or follow them south for the winter? Even though they are giving them no money, their dog's are under a pro's supervision.

Next, it may seriously impact a pro's income. People may be very hesitant to put a dog with a pro when it will be two years before they can run it. It would eliminate many of the young FC'S that we've had. 

I know where you folks are coming from and to an extent I sympathize with your position. To me though, it sounds like "sour grapes". Take the pro training out of the equation, and I think you would also find the quality of the AM stake lowered substantially. It would be more like a Qualifying. Just my views, no animosity intended.


----------



## Karen McCullah (Feb 28, 2007)

Funny, some want to keep the Am to save them from the pros. Who's gonna save us from the Ams? 

I once heard a discussion on how to keep the pros "under control" among some top Amateur handlers. The answer was "we can control them with our judging." This comes from a group who ROUTINELY get each other to judge Am stakes and take turns on who is going to get placements based on what the others need. I got up and left.

I am trying my best to run my dog myself. I have one dog who went to a pro for basics through water work, and I have picked it up from there and am training myself. I work and can only train limited times. I am an Amateur. But it's frustrating to see the SAME people winning the AM over and over again. Kudos to them for having great dogs, pro trained or amateur trained. But the little guy/gal is the one who suffers. And no, I don't want the title "dumbed down", but you don't see great ball players staying in AAA their whole career do you?

I also did not trudge through all previous pages, but I for one wouldn't mind a "cap" on wins/placements in the Am. Just like the Q, if you've won X number of times, move on. Especially National winners. 
I don't wanna have to wait until someone else's dog retires or kicks it so I can move up and place somewheres!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> .............but I for one wouldn't mind a "cap" on wins/placements in the Am. Just like the Q, *if you've won X number of times, move on*. Especially National winners.


There ya go!!! 
What's wrong with that?

john


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

John and Wired,

The amateur is a major stake. It's the big kahuna. The amateur stake along with the open is the bigest it gets. 

I'm sorry you feel left out. But... either get another dog, or change your training so you can play at the top level.

I don't feel the amateur stake is broke. It gives a chance for the owners to compete with other owners.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Wired,
The people who you see routinely placing in amateurs today, are the same people who once stood in your shoes.

Very few start at the top.


----------



## Karen McCullah (Feb 28, 2007)

I don't mind training hard, I know my time will come. I've heard "every dog has it's day/test" and I know mine will come one day.

I MIND when people are blatantly cheating though. Using the Am to "get even" with the pros. And when the same people who run the club, are the FTC, and the judges, it's a bit difficult to do anything about it, except feel disgust.

Before anyone says anything, no, I don't participate in those clubs' events anymore either.  

Howard, I know you're a cool guy and your suggestion to get another dog is a good one, but like I said, I have limited funds and more than that, my dogs are my kids...I can't trade 'em in! I already have 3 and if I got another one, my husband would freak out! (insert crazy smiley in straight jacket here) haha!


----------



## GONEHUNTIN' (Sep 21, 2006)

Wiredlabz said:


> Funny, some want to keep the Am to save them from the pros. Who's gonna save us from the Ams?
> 
> I once heard a discussion on how to keep the pros "under control" among some top Amateur handlers. The answer was "we can control them with our judging." This comes from a group who ROUTINELY get each other to judge Am stakes and take turns on who is going to get placements based on what the others need. I got up and left.


This definitely happens; I've seen it many times. I've also seen judges place a dog in return for the other judge placing his dog in coming weeks so both would be qualified for the National. 

This argument, or complaint, has gone on for the 40 years I've been involved in the sport. It is valid. The only way I can see to eliminate this is to have paid professional judges, something many clubs can not afford. Then there's still no guarantee it would stop favoritism. 

Yes it happens, but not all that often. It's just that when it does it sure leaves a bad taste in your mouth. It happens in all the stakes, not just the Major's. It's a part of field trialing and it's too bad it exists. Thing is, these fellas are all Amateur's and unpaid. There's also the point that we owe them a lot of thanks for suffering through three days of judging away from home.




Wiredlabz said:


> I also did not trudge through all previous pages, but I for one wouldn't mind a "cap" on wins/placements in the Am. Just like the Q, if you've won X number of times, move on. Especially National winners.
> I don't wanna have to wait until someone else's dog retires or kicks it so I can move up and place somewheres!



Couple problems with that also. No more High Point Retrievers. How about coming up with National Qualifiers? If they were different dog's each year, the quality of the field, in my opinion, would diminish. Without having to beat the great dog's, more mediocre dog's would become titled.

If you're going to compete and play with the big boys, it takes an above average dog, an above average handler, and an above average commitment. It is not for everyone.


----------



## KatexAnnie (Feb 21, 2008)

K G said:


> What Ed said....
> 
> kg


I second that.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

Well, I read this whole thread last night. I have some opinions.  

The first one is......I think Ted is perfectly within his rights to criticize the validity of an opinion about amateur stakes from anyone who has not run field trials........even when the opinion is qualified by a statement professing a lack of credibility. Most would let it slide....recognizing it as an exercise in futility or knowing that "ya' can't fight every battle". A few will "make the call" and it may be blunt. Blunt.....means not mincing words. To dismiss getting called for a lack of credibility seems to be a common theme today.......as it has been forever. 

There are opinions on FF and CC from "trainers" who have never done either. There are opinions about hunt tests from owners and hunters with Labradors who have never run a single hunt test. On the Internet.........most readers are not aware of these
"credibility gaps". 

Maybe I should qualify myself. I train my own dogs......do FF, CC and go through transition (pretty much the works), run AKC and HRC hunt tests, titled a few dogs, ran three derbies and one QAA and have worked Amateur and Open field trials for my retriever club for the last several years. I have a 13 month old pup that wants to become at least QAA. 

Anyway.....this old story pretty much sums up my opinion. Every summer, when I was a child, we went to visit Uncle Dean in Iowa. He was a terrific farmer and a lot of fun. One summer it was decided that we'd take him bowling. He had never done that before in his whole life. Dean was strong and could throw that bowling ball twenty feet down the alley. Four bounces later it would smack into the pins. He got some strikes, too. 

During the third line (that's what each game is called), he was telling everyone what they were doing wrong. We were a close knit family and no one said a word. I was about seven years old then, but I still remember being a "little ticked off".


----------



## SMITTYSSGTUSMC (May 12, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> Earl,
> 
> I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.
> 
> ...


Ted 

I look at it this way I play sports for fun Basket ball, baseball, football I am by no means a superstar at any of these sports there for I don’t get paid to play. Those people that do get paid to play are call Professional athletes hence the "Pro" If you get paid to play this game you are a Pro cut and dry.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Howard N said:


> John and Wired,
> 
> I don't feel the amateur stake is broke. It gives a chance for the owners to compete with other owners.


You ought to know Howard...;-)


----------



## Lynn Moore (May 30, 2005)

Wiredlabz said:


> But the little guy/gal is the one who suffers. And no, I don't want the title "dumbed down", but you don't see great ball players staying in AAA their whole career do you?
> 
> I also did not trudge through all previous pages, but I for one wouldn't mind a "cap" on wins/placements in the Am. Just like the Q, if you've won X number of times, move on. Especially National winners.
> I don't wanna have to wait until someone else's dog retires or kicks it so I can move up and place somewheres!


How does a Major stake in FTs compare to triple A ball? And what should multiple winners "move on" to???? After titling, qualifying for Nationals, a next goal may be winning a Double Header. Do you want to deny someone the chance of going for that, or High Point Amateur dog?
LM


----------

