# RAC 2014 Rule Proposal changing Ownership definition



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

The Retriever Advisory Subcommittee on Rules Report for 2014
In an effort to learn from many of our Amateur handlers, we would like to hear from you on what we believe is a vital part of our field trials, namely the Amateur stake.
Let’s go back some years to the 70s and 80s. The collar had come into fruition for training, more people were now able to train their own dogs, new professional trainers were appearing every day and more people were joining the sport.
Enter the awards for the High Point Open Dog and the High Point Amateur Dog. Now, we all know what happens when there is an award to be won! Everyone wants to win it!
Very quickly, the professional trainers figured out that the more trials they ran, the more points, not only would their dogs accumulate, but if they had an amateur to run dogs off the truck they could accumulate Amateur points as well. To that end, some pros would take an amateur with them to the field trials. The amateur would then run all the dogs on the truck (whose owners were not present) in the Amateur stake.
Shortly after this system showed up, there was a tremendous hue and cry for the rights of the Amateur that would try and run his own dog against this string of “borrowed” dogs being run by a Professional’s trav- eling companion. So the Owner-Handler Amateur stake was born!
This Owner-Handler stake worked very well for a time. Clubs want- ing to make sure Amateurs were indeed running their own dogs se- lected this option and life went on.
But, of course, those high point awards were still out there! Now, field trialers are nothing if not inventive, and thus we now have several con- figurations that allow, (one way or another), for one dog to be owned by multiple individuals. Now these individuals have rendered the “Owner- Handler” stake useless!
The Rules Committee would like to propose that we change the defi- nition of “owner” to the following:
“where ownership means exclusive ownership whereby a dog is owned by one person and that person’s household members only.”
This is perhaps the pure form of ownership and would put the Own- er-Handler Amateur stake back to the original intent of the rule.
This would, of course, be an option for clubs, as it is today, but with a clearer and more defined definition of “owner.”
We understand there are a number of perfectly reasonable dual own- ers that would not be eligible to participate in the Owner-Handler op- tion, but there would also be the elimination of those people trying to beat the system by turning the Owner-Handler stake into something it is not!
What do you think?
Please e-mail us at:
Kate Simonds: [email protected]
John Goettl: [email protected]
John Russell: [email protected]
Ray Vreeland: [email protected] Julie Cole: [email protected]
Submitted by the Retriever Advisory Committee – Subcommittee on Rules
Chairman – Katharine B. Simonds
Members – John Goettl, John Russell, Ray Vreeland and Julie Cole


I encourage all who care to reply. Here is my reply sent earlier.

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the RAC proposal for 2014. Having been involved in Retriever Field Trials as either a handler, judge or just plain old club member and worker since 1984 in Anchorage, Alaska... I have seen a lot of things in our sport. Among those, designated handlers. While I recognize the problem an realize the angst it causes most folks, in my opinion the number of folks and dogs participating in this practice is so small compared to the all age population at large that we are wasting our time discussing it at great length. 

Your main argument for the proposal is the yearly High Point Awards (I am assuming the Amateur, since we are talking about the OH AM). 

Out of curiosity, I looked up the current top 10 Amateur dogs by points accrued in 2014, 13 dogs (Including ties). Not a single one of them has been run this year in an Amateur, OH or otherwise, by anyone other than the owner and handler we all know as the owner of the dog. 

This totally throws your theory of the points race destroying the OH Amateur out the window. 

In my opinion, this proposal is more about control than about protecting the Amateur Stake. In fact, this move will harm more small "average Joe" handlers such as myself than anything.

Back in 2000 I was fortunate to become co-owner with my training partner of a very fine dog that he was unable to run at the time. The dog knew me, had hunted with me and most importantly... Would run for me. Over the next three years we ran 4 Nationals and qualified for another and put 83 points on top of the 13.5 she already had. Your proposal would hurt these type of partnerships. There are many training parters and friends all over the country who help each other out and should not be penalized because a few bend the rules to their advantage... And a few others get upset about it. 

Lastly, why should Field Trialer's be subjected to an ownership rule more stringent than is required by the AKC?

This proposal should be tabled. It may be perceived as a problem, but in reality it's a non-issue.

Thank you for your time. Hope to see you at a trial soon, back in training with a pup!

Bill Davis


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

As I read the proposal it would apply only to optional OHA stakes and would not change the definition of "amateur." Did I miss something?


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Does "is" mean "is"? You can't legislate morality, ethics or good sportsmanship. I am not replying to the committee as I participate on such a minuscule level, I don't have the chops to know if a real problem exists.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

And does this "owner" definition also apply to Qualifying stakes? 

I don't think you can legislate good sportsmanship.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Good Dogs said:


> As I read the proposal it would apply only to optional OHA stakes and would not change the definition of "amateur." Did I miss something?


This is the same proposal made earlier to redefine 'Owner', not Amateur. It would, at least initially, apply to the optional OHA stake, not create a separate stake.

Last time everyone seemed to recognize that this was not a big problem, but apparently someone in power seems to have a bug in their ear about this one. It is way more elegantly crafted this time, though--I will have to give it to them. This time they blamed the evil pros for causing this problem, since everyone knows they are less than human and anyone would be more willing to vote against their constant nefarious activity. LOL. How many pros do you know care about high point AA dog vs. high point Open dog?

I am with Bill, it is a solution looking for a problem that is not widespread. I would love to know the back story on why this one simply won't die.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

"where ownership means exclusive ownership whereby a dog is owned by one person and that person’s household members only.”
Define "household members". How is a FT secretary know and verify the status of a spouse, significant other, adult child or any other person? Enforcement is/will be a problem and what will be the penalty?

We have been over a half of century trying to define "amateur" and their are those that are still "questionable". "Owner" will be no different.
It comes down to ethics/sportsmanship.

Tim


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

I'm torn on this. I've detailed it before, but I think there are certain arrangements that are not in keeping with the spirit of an "amateur" handler aspect of an amateur. There are folks who are paid to train dogs and co-own those dogs with the paying party and run 6 or 8 of these dogs in an amateur. That's cheating. These folks are pros and are skirting the rules by claiming it's some sort of expense sharing plan. Will this proposal limit those folks from running an owner handler amateur? Yes. Will it limit other legitimate co-ownership arrangements? Yes.

There are folks who run 10 plus dogs (or some other high number) in the amateur because they have essentially unlimited resources, time, etc. Is this cheating? No. Is it common? Not in most parts of the country. Is it in keeping with the spirit of an amateur handler? Probably not. Will the new proposal fix it? No.

The only proposal that I believe addresses both issues is giving a club the option to limit an amateur handler to some number of dogs. Like an owner/handler amateur where no single handler can run more than 3 dogs. Ad before you say I'm trying to limit competition consider the fact that even professional sports leagues have salary caps. Also consider that there are people who avoid field trials because of the reality of competing with people with unlimited resources. I'm not one of them, but I'm pretty sure it would be a good thing for field trials to be more inclusive. 

Also consider that amateurs are the backbone of this game. We judge, put on trials, pay pros, etc. If you're entering or handling dogs in trials, you have a duty to judge and help put on trials to give back to keep this game going. If you don't or don't do it often enough, you're a taker. It's almost logistically impossible for an amateur running 6 or 8 or 10 dogs every weekend to "give back" enough to make up for the amount of "taking" they're doing.


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

I think a few folks are concerned about great dogs being bought by the well-heeled in a co-ownership arrangement so their pro runs the dogs in the Open and the original owner still able to run the dog in the AM. I really don't mind it personally. I have to run against them in the Open anyway.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

There are several Amateurs who post here on RTF (and FB) who co-own dogs with training partners. These guys are average working guys and girls for the most part who train hard, work hard and just want to play the game. 

A proposal like this has the unintended consequence of keeping well meaning folks like these (and yes even myself back when I was in that position) from running an OH AM or OH Q... It may not sound like much... But there were clubs as recently as last weekend that had an OH AM that were 30 dogs or less. The more clubs that do this, the more competition they keep out. Granted, the hullabaloo is over designated handlers running multiple dogs... But I'll bet we can name them on one hand. When we are talking about over 400 handlers that have earned points or a jam in trials.... The few that are the concern could be dealt with without creating new problems for the majority. Again, IMHO... If it's not broken, don't fix it.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

huntinman said:


> There are several Amateurs who post here on RTF (and FB) who co-own dogs with training partners. These guys are average working guys and girls for the most part who train hard, work hard and just want to play the game.
> 
> A proposal like this has the unintended consequence of keeping well meaning folks like these (and yes even myself back when I was in that position) from running an OH AM or OH Q... It may not sound like much... But there were clubs as recently as last weekend that had an OH AM that were 30 dogs or less. The more clubs that do this, the more competition they keep out. Granted, the hullabaloo is over designated handlers running multiple dogs... But I'll bet we can name them on one hand. When we are talking about over 400 handlers that have earned points or a jam in trials.... The few that are the concern could be dealt with without creating new problems for the majority. Again, IMHO... If it's not broken, don't fix it.


Agreed just an average Joe..Well stated Bill thanks for your letter.


----------



## moonstonelabs (Mar 17, 2006)

There is more to this than you are suggesting Bill. There are amateurs that sell there dogs for huge amounts of money then continue to run their sold dog in amateur stakes....from weekend trials to the national Amateur. There are amateurs running others dogs for which they are not Co owners to help improve the sale ability of puppies. They are not running their dogs while I am running dogs I own and train. It is a problem in my mind. 

That said I have often wondered why the national amateur is not owner handler ?

When ever there are rules there will be handlers trying to get around said rule for personal advantage. That will never change ......no matter how many rules we have. The playing field will never be level! That I accept. 

I think the proposal a resonable one. It takes nothing away from the clubs as it is they who decide to have or not have an owner handler stake. In the end it strengthens the meaning of Amateur.

The other Bill


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

A cure for a disease that is inconsequential, if it is voted on and passed the effect will be fewer Owner/Handler Amateur Stakes


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

moonstonelabs said:


> *There is more to this than you are suggesting Bill. There are amateurs that sell there dogs for huge amounts of money then continue to run their sold dog in amateur stakes....from weekend trials to the national Amateur. *There are amateurs running others dogs for which they are not Co owners to help improve the sale ability of puppies. They are not running their dogs while I am running dogs I own and train. It is a problem in my mind.
> 
> That said I have often wondered why the national amateur is not owner handler ?
> 
> ...


I never suggested anything. I RESPONDED to the RAC proposal and gave my opinion. I am speaking for the folks who would be harmed by the proposal. All you are doing is making accusations. 

Everyone knows about the problems... You say whenever there are rules handlers try to get around them... And your solution for that is.... More rules? Makes sense to me.

Edit: the high profile dog you mention running weekend trials and the National Am has exactly 1 Amateur Pt in two starts in 2014... Not counting the National Am. Not exactly an epidemic.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

So basically they(RAC) wants to make a rule that maybe a dozen people are bending,manipulating,and exploiting that grey area and the spirit of the rule. As long as rules have been around there will always be a segment of the populous that will try and exploit the rules to gain an advantage. History has shown that for the majority of the time the best dog(s) /handlers still manage to come out on top. The OwnerHandler stake WAS paved with good intentions but people have even messed that up


----------



## jollydog (Jul 10, 2006)

This was addressed at the NARC meeting in June. Bill Davis I said pretty 
much to the group what you did in your first post. Leave it alone.
One thing I want to add, I know many will disagree, even though you may sell
a dog that you raised and love a part of it always belongs to you. Heck I feel like 
Every puppy I have ever sold is still mine in a way.
I have competed all my life in sports especially tennis against players
who had resources to work with the best pros. My mother took me to 
a park and counted how many in a row I could hit on the backboard. 
Victory was always sweeter. Earned a college scholarship in tennis. I worked hard as an athlete and hard with my new
doubles partner my dog. I don't care who is entered or who is running them, 
We just prepare and do our best. I walk away each weekend with new respect for
These great retrievers and their handlers. There are a ton of them out there. 
Says a lot for our sport to me.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

jollydog said:


> This was addressed at the NARC meeting in June. Bill Davis I said pretty
> much to the group what you did in your first post. Leave it alone.
> One thing I want to add, I know many will disagree, even though you may sell
> a dog that you raised and love a part of it always belongs to you. Heck I feel like
> ...


Good post Sylvia... I'm like you... I grew up in an athletic family. Played sports in HS, college and the military. I always felt if my dog was running her best, I didn't care who else was there, the results would take care of themselves... I told someone on a pm... I look at it sort of like golf, you have to beat the course before worrying about what the others are doing. 

Based on past proposals, such as the layout blind... They are going to do what they want anyway...


----------



## russell.jason2 (Mar 13, 2011)

While I agree most folks have the best interest of the sport in mind, there will always be a few who skirt the rules. While I was on board to change the definition of O/H amateur, I am starting to concede the point, you can't keep adding rules to legislate the few. To support adding more rules would make me sound like a democrat, LoL. To combat the issues of folks bending the rules to get ahead, the informal leaders of this sport must not allow it to happen and call it out when they see it. The sport is better off being self govern to ensure the true intent of an amateur is upheld.

Jason


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

russell.jason2 said:


> While I agree most folks have the best interest of the sport in mind, there will always be a few who skirt the rules. While I was on board to change the definition of O/H amateur, I am starting to concede the point, you can't keep adding rules to legislate the few. To support adding more rules would make me sound like a democrat, LoL. To combat the issues of folks bending the rules to get ahead, the informal leaders of this sport must not allow it to happen and call it out when they see it. The sport is better off being self govern to ensure the true intent of an amateur is upheld.
> 
> Jason


Here here!


----------



## Gawthorpe (Oct 4, 2007)

Bill:
First I am curious to hear how you found this request for replies to the new proposed definition of an Amateur? It is great to see the RAC reach out to others that are not represented at the Nationals. 

The Rules Committee would like to propose that we change the defi- nition of “owner” to the following:
“where ownership means exclusive ownership whereby a dog is owned by one person and that person’s household members only.”
This is perhaps the pure form of ownership and would put the Own- er-Handler Amateur stake back to the original intent of the rule.
This would, of course, be an option for clubs, as it is today, but with a clearer and more defined definition of “owner.”

To state that this is a non-issue is very subjective to your situation. The effect on the individual competitor varies depending on where in the country you are located. When you are the individual competitor that loses a placement to a cheat it hits you hard and could steer a great member away from our sport. 
Here are some examples.
1. Amateur co owning dogs and supplying "Training Expense Bills" to their fellow co owners. 
2. Amateurs selling their dogs to others, yet they are still listed as co owners for the purpose of entering the Owner Handler Amateur.

I think one of the critical aspect of the idea is to give the clubs the Option of having a more restrictive stake. Let the clubs decide what is best for their particular club. Similar to States' Rights vs. Federal. If a club has a situation where they feel the "Spirit of the Amateur" has a rotten side to it let them try cut out the rotten.
Doing nothing is not the answer it simply encourages more rotten to spread. It is time for Amateurs to stand up for themselves, contribute and be vocal.


----------



## Erin O'Brien (Mar 5, 2010)

Specifically, there are people who buy dogs for large sums of money and I'm pretty sure the old owner isn't on the akc papers anymore, yet they still run the dog in o/h events, which I think is wrong. If you're gonna sell your dog for 100s of thousands of dollars and then cheat, you're not a good sport. There are a select few who don't think the rules apply to them and ruin it for the people who are honest. I applaud the ft chairmen and secretaries that have oh events and actually go further than entry express to verify ownership. I think if people didn't abuse the rules, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Gawthorpe said:


> Bill:
> First I am curious to hear how you found this request for replies to the new proposed definition of an Amateur? It is great to see the RAC reach out to others that are not represented at the Nationals.
> 
> The Rules Committee would like to propose that we change the defi- nition of “owner” to the following:
> ...




Hi Eric, it was in the Retriever News in my mailbox today...

I know this is an important issue to you and I respect your opinion on it... I just disagree with it. 

As far as losing placements to cheats... There are plenty of ways that has and does happen in this game that has nothing to do with ownership. Just my two cents. 

I personally don't feel that punishing ALL legitimate co-owners, just to corral a few bad apples is fair to the good ones.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Allow me to play devil's advocate for a minute. 

I am training my first dog, who cannot run in the FT game. One of the many things I have learned the hard way over the last 3+ years. I would really like to get some line time in a Q or two just to see what it is like. A good friend of mine thought he had a washout (he's looking for a competitive AA dog - aren't we all?) and offered to let me co-own the dog so I could run him in some O/H Qs and kind of get my feet wet. 

A totally innocent arrangement, aimed at getting someone new into the FT game, which as I read the proposed change to this rule would not be allowed. How is this good? How would I be hurting anyone by voluntarily paying to get my rear end handed to me a lot?

You can't legislate morality, or in this case good sportsmanship. I think you have to decide if the problem of a few folks taking advantage of these rules is worth outlawing my situation. And keep in mind that any new rules are likely to have unintended consequences as well.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Rules, or laws if you will, are usually forced upon us to attempt to legislate morality and/or common sense and fairness. They are for the minority who bend the intent of the laws already on the books. If the current rules were fine, then we wouldn't be discussing this issue in the first place.

The current definition of 'Amateur' in the books is unenforceable by any field trial committee as they cannot possibly know if the co-owner handler is actually being reimbursed for expenses only or if it infringes upon the terminology "*has not received compensation from the direct training of a dog for hunting, hunting tests or field trials and/or the handling of a dog in the same, and/or the regular and systematic personal instructions of other individuals regarding the above pursuits at any level. Compensation as provided above is defined as money, goods or services to a person or any member of their household.*"

It is probably safe to assume that those who are currently bending the 'owner/handler' rule will indeed change owners again to accommodate new rules which require the dog be owned by family members etc. so we will be back to square one with the proposed rule changes.

I believe a group of Amateurs made a presentation at the National Am requesting that there be a 'best of three Amateur' option for clubs who choose to implement it. This would be the only option which could be easily enforced by the field trial committee. Limit the number of dogs a handler can run in the Amateur to 3. You could also put a limit on co-owned dogs, but again as we all know that owners can be manipulated. 

Agreed that this is not a problem in some circuits, but in some circuits the entries in the Amateur stakes are huge and some Amateurs are now multistaking large numbers of dogs in both the Open and the Am which creates a hardship upon the operating club and it's members. Those clubs should have the option of implementing a 'limited' if you will Amateur as is allowed in the Open.

I have stuck my neck out on this one before and been hit by the bus, so I'm ready. I'm more concerned about the integrity of the sport than any political aspirations I may have.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

RookieTrainer said:


> Allow me to play devil's advocate for a minute.
> 
> I am training my first dog, who cannot run in the FT game. One of the many things I have learned the hard way over the last 3+ years. I would really like to get some line time in a Q or two just to see what it is like. A good friend of mine thought he had a washout (he's looking for a competitive AA dog - aren't we all?) and offered to let me co-own the dog so I could run him in some O/H Qs and kind of get my feet wet.
> 
> ...


Steve, this change to the O/H Stake would not prevent anyone from co-owning a dog nor would it prevent the co-owner from running the dog in a regular Amateur Stake or the National Amateur. I think the effect would be minimal as few clubs hold O/H Amateurs anyway and I suspect even fewer will if this definition is included in the rule book. If implemented it would provide clubs who believe the current co-ownership definition is being abused an option. I think most people believe, as I do, that we have more serious issues to address and that this proposal will die a natural death.


----------



## Chad Baker (Feb 5, 2003)

I like bring your best three option the best! I don't care if the dog is owned by 20 people, if its a owner/handler or a regular am! People are going to bend the rules however limit the rule bending to three dogs ! Trials run smoother everyone has a more level playing field! We all know certain people co own to fund their own training program its not rocket science limit those people to three dogs! This horse has been ridden for a long time lets get the RAC to move in the right direction!
Chad


----------



## coachmo (Apr 23, 2009)

What it boils down to is people that skirt around rules will generally find a way to do just that. It goes back to "you can't legislate morality"! No matter how much you try it's impossible to beat "integrity" into someone. It's one of those traits that you either have or you don't. It's kinda like the guy who lies then gets pissed when you call him a liar! As previously stated to change the rules to address a few will potentially hurt a large number of owners/co-owners running these events. I agree with C. Baker and Charles C. on limiting an individual's entries to a specific number.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

I don't dislike the intent of the proposed rule but its implementation will clearly punish legitimate co-ownership among middle class folks who share expenses to play the game in favor of the wealthy who have no need of co-ownership for financial reasons. Example: several years ago I purchased a dog on a payment plan that was based upon the dog's performance, i.e., I couldn't afford to pay the desired price & was unwilling to pay based upon performance I doubted the dog could reach. I didn't think the dog's potential was quite as good as the then-owner thought. So we worked out a payment plan based upon future performance. For a several year period the dog was co-owned. Once the dog titled, the performance-based co-ownership agreement was paid up (based upon performance milestones achieved) & I then received single & total ownership. During the co-ownership period I trained or had trained totally at my expense, entered & ran that dog exclusively & the co-ownership was nothing more than a process like buying a car. When the car is fully paid for, the title is released by the lienholder & the car is titled exclusively in the name of the person who has paid up the note. This agreement is not unlike numerous, legitimate co-ownership agreements that exist in the various dog games today where co-ownership is a means to a legitimate end under both the letter & spirit of the governing rules.

The proposed rule change would eliminate such legitimate co-ownership agreements. And while the wealthy may respond like Marie Antoinette, by saying either buy & train the dog within your financial ability or don't play - such a rule change will without question eliminate many more legitimate co-ownership arrangements than this rule will restrict the cheaters who bend the letter & spirit of the rules. If there has to be a rule change, the limiting the number of entries to 3 or some other reasonable number in an amateur event is a much better & more transparent means. But that said, my opinion is that I have great satisfaction in lining up against all comers & occasionally beating them, both pros & amateurs, under any definition. So my bottom line is much like Ed said, it's a problem with virtually no consequence, more rules won't change the problem & that is who is the amateur - a question the AKC has shown repeatedly it is unwilling to define & enforce.

So leave it alone & let's take pride in beating those who are more privileged, have more dogs or who even attempt to bend the rules to their liking.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

huntinman said:


> There are several Amateurs who post here on RTF (and FB) who co-own dogs with training partners. These guys are average working guys and girls for the most part who train hard, work hard and just want to play the game.
> 
> A proposal like this has the unintended consequence of keeping well meaning folks like these (and yes even myself back when I was in that position) from running an OH AM or OH Q... It may not sound like much... But there were clubs as recently as last weekend that had an OH AM that were 30 dogs or less. The more clubs that do this, the more competition they keep out. Granted, the hullabaloo is over designated handlers running multiple dogs... But I'll bet we can name them on one hand. When we are talking about over 400 handlers that have earned points or a jam in trials.... The few that are the concern could be dealt with without creating new problems for the majority. Again, IMHO... If it's not broken, don't fix it.


I totally agree. IMO this is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater proposal.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I prefer Erik's best three proposal, but doubt it will be submitted for review. 

As for new O/H, I am on the fence. 

I have many friends who co-own dogs, and I have co-owned dogs.

On the other hand, there are people who abuse the O/H. 

It is easy to say it is no big deal, if it is not an issue in your circuit. 

For some circuits, it is a big deal and clubs could use a tool to address it. 

As for the claims that the new rule will prevent legitimate co-ownership, I doubt it. I don't think many clubs - other than those who have to deal with those who abuse the O/H - will elect to hold O/H Ams under the revised definition. 

Ted


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> I prefer Erik's best three proposal, but doubt it will be submitted for review.
> 
> As for new O/H, I am on the fence.
> 
> ...


If it is thought to be a big deal, let's quantify how big is big. I know of 2-3 people in the category of co-ownership where it is abused but I also know of a dozen or more who are legitimate co-owners who would be punished. So what constitutes a "big" deal that needs to be addressed by punishing legit co-ownership?


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> I prefer Erik's best three proposal, but doubt it will be submitted for review.
> 
> As for new O/H, I am on the fence.
> 
> ...


I don't think the new rule will prevent co-ownership, however it will definitely keep co-owners out of the OH stakes. That may not be a big deal to you, but it would be to me if I wanted to enter one of those 30 dog OH AMs like you ran last weekend.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

RAC will never consider a stake limiting the number of dogs a single handler can run, the proposed Limited Entry Open was never given serious consideration so a similar idea regarding the Amateur is automatically DOA. I know of only one questionable co-ownership, the others that I know about are 2 training partners of similar age who are aircraft mechanics, a retired school teacher and retired friend, a couple, one an artist the other retired, whose co-owner was the co-owner of the sire, big fish to go after, really?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Won't prevent co-ownership directly but indirectly. If all clubs' Am stakes were designated O/H under the proposed rule it would have the same effect........


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

EdA said:


> RAC will never consider a stake limiting the number of dogs a single handler can run, the proposed Limited Entry Open was never given serious consideration so a similar idea regarding the Amateur is automatically DOA. I know of only one questionable co-ownership, the others that I know about are 2 training partners of similar age who are aircraft mechanics, a retired school teacher and retired friend, a couple, one an artist the other retired, whose co-owner was the co-owner of the sire, big fish to go after, really?


That's why I wonder why the RAC is fooling with it? One of them lose a trial to a designated handler and have a burr under their saddle?


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

EdA said:


> RAC will never consider a stake limiting the number of dogs a single handler can run, the proposed Limited Entry Open was never given serious consideration so a similar idea regarding the Amateur is automatically DOA. I know of only one questionable co-ownership, the others that I know about are 2 training partners of similar age who are aircraft mechanics, a retired school teacher and retired friend, a couple, one an artist the other retired, whose co-owner was the co-owner of the sire, big fish to go after, really?


In sincerely hope that anyone who favors the 3 dog limit gets their opinion to the people that matter and doesn't just assume it would be "DOA." The current change isn't being floated for the retired school teacher and mechanic (I don't like the change - think it affects too many honest co-ownerships). It's for the "amateur" running 6 or 8 dogs with 6 or 8 different co-owners who almost undoubtedly is being compensated for their services. If you don't think such a person exists, you're not looking very hard.


----------



## BBnumber1 (Apr 5, 2006)

Here is a suggestion, provide a set of caveats that a club can apply to the Amatuer stake:

O/H (current definition of Ownership)
Single Household O/H (Proposed Single Household definition of Ownership)
Limitted Entry (Limit number of entries per handler, either a defined number, or let clubs specify)

So, a club could hold one of the following:

Amatuer
O/H Amatuer
Single Household O/H Amatuer
Limitted Entry Amatuer
Limitted Entry O/H Amatuer
Limitted Entry Single Household O/H Amatuer


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

BBnumber1 said:


> Here is a suggestion, provide a set of caveats that a club can apply to the Amatuer stake:
> 
> O/H (current definition of Ownership)
> Single Household O/H (Proposed Single Household definition of Ownership)
> ...


Should clubs be able to target specific people & dogs they don't want to compete against? If not, there is no need for such restrictions. If so, those targeted should only be those operating against rules & should be exposed rather than restricting the legit competitor.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Charles C. said:


> In sincerely hope that anyone who favors the 3 dog limit gets their opinion to the people that matter and doesn't just assume it would be "DOA." The current change isn't being floated for the retired school teacher and mechanic (I don't like the change - think it affects too many honest co-ownerships). It's for the "amateur" running 6 or 8 dogs with 6 or 8 different co-owners who almost undoubtedly is being compensated for their services. If you don't think such a person exists, you're not looking very hard.


I certainly recognize the abuses both actual and perceived but is it better to punish the many for the sins of a few? As to the limited number entries per handler proposal I suggest save your breath, it will never, I said never, happen!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

BBnumber1 said:


> So, a club could hold one of the following:
> 
> Amatuer
> O/H Amatuer
> ...


My head is spinning just thinking about that! Maybe we should just eliminate the Owner Handler Stake altogether and simplify rather than complicate our lives.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Is the precieved issue to protect/help clubs put on trials more efficienctly or to protect the abilities and/or potential recognition for the dogs?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> Is the precieved issue to protect/help clubs put on trials more efficienctly or to protect the abilities and/or potential recognition for the dogs?


The answer to that lies in the minds of the members of The Subcommittee on Rules to The Retriever Advisory Committee.

Chairman – Katharine B. Simonds
Members – John Goettl, John Russell, Ray Vreeland and Julie Cole


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

BBnumber1 said:


> Here is a suggestion, provide a set of caveats that a club can apply to the Amatuer stake:
> 
> O/H (current definition of Ownership)
> Single Household O/H (Proposed Single Household definition of Ownership)
> ...


Your list points out the fact that clubs need options and no single option is going to help every club. Different circuits have different needs. Currently their are clubs that only hold O/H and some that never hold O/H.

When discussing limiting entries per handler maybe it would be better if that limit considered the number of stakes that handler has dogs. Then the discussion becomes more about mechanics than personalities. The amateur or pro with 12 dogs in 1 stake is much easier for a club to manage than the one that has 3-4 dogs entered in each of 3- 4 stakes.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I don't know if any of the chair members frequent this forum, but this has been a good discussion from an across the board cross section of retriever people. I think this thread would be of value to them as they move toward a decision.


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

i propose the RAC consider a "Combined Blue Book Value of Your Truck and Dog Box Must Be Less Than $4K-Amatuer".


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

roseberry said:


> i propose the RAC consider a "Combined Blue Book Value of Your Truck and Dog Box Must Be Less Than $4K-Amatuer".


HaHa! Funny thing is... Back in the day, Petrovish and I pulled up to a trial in Soda Springs, Ca and we met that criteria! Hell, you could have thrown in our bank accounts too and we wouldn't have been over. But both dogs were titled and we were having fun! 1996 I think. Chasing the proverbial point.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

roseberry said:


> i propose the RAC consider a "Combined Blue Book Value of Your Truck and Dog Box Must Be Less Than $4K-Amatuer".


How about a state resident self-employed owner handler amateur ;-)


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

huntinman said:


> HaHa! Funny thing is... Back in the day, Petrovish and I pulled up to a trial in Soda Springs, Ca and we met that criteria! Hell, you could have thrown in our bank accounts too and we wouldn't have been over. But both dogs were titled and we were having fun! 1996 I think. Chasing the proverbial point.


Soda Springs is in Idaho...I was just there two weeks ago...still not much there


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

though i *wish* i had a dog in this fight i am not making light of the issue! please resume the meaningful dialogue.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

BonMallari said:


> Soda Springs is in Idaho...I was just there two weeks ago...still not much there


Bon, this Soda Springs is in CA near Donner Pass... not far from Reno.. I was actually there along with a whole bunch of other FT folks...

https://www.google.com/maps/place/S...2!3m1!1s0x809be9f6b33065fd:0xd5248e394134f7a2


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Learn something every day Very Cool


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

And near Pickle Meadows the USMC cold weather training Battalion.


----------



## Mark (Jun 13, 2003)

Erin O'Brien said:


> Specifically, there are people who buy dogs for large sums of money and I'm pretty sure the old owner isn't on the akc papers anymore, yet they still run the dog in o/h events, which I think is wrong. If you're gonna sell your dog for 100s of thousands of dollars and then cheat, you're not a good sport. There are a select few who don't think the rules apply to them and ruin it for the people who are honest. I applaud the ft chairmen and secretaries that have oh events and actually go further than entry express to verify ownership. I think if people didn't abuse the rules, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.


Its very easy if this happens, file a protest that the handler is not the owner and if he cant prove that his name was on the papers at the date entries closed you are going to win your protest. If it is an "I am pretty sure he isn't on the AKC papers" this is a pretty good way to find out for sure. Pony up your $10 and you may get moved from an RJ to a placement or a higher placement if you are correct in your facts.

No rule change needed to address this scenario as the owner handler Amateur covers the scenario nicely

Mark


----------



## Mark (Jun 13, 2003)

Charles C. said:


> It's for the "amateur" running 6 or 8 dogs with 6 or 8 different co-owners who almost undoubtedly is being compensated for their services. If you don't think such a person exists, you're not looking very hard.


I think you are imagining things but I guess it could be happening on different circuits that I am unfamiliar with. If you have direct knowledge of all these compensated amateurs running strings of dogs for other co owners that you claim exist and are not hard to find, stand up and file a complaint about their Amateur Status. Now whether you win or not seems in doubt it has been a hard one to prove to the AKC in the past, but you probably have a duty to the sport not to simply overlook this situation and do nothing about it if you are so sure it is going on.

Mark


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Mark said:


> I think you are imagining things but I guess it could be happening on different circuits that I am unfamiliar with. If you have direct knowledge of all these compensated amateurs running strings of dogs for other co owners that you claim exist and are not hard to find, stand up and file a complaint about their Amateur Status. Now whether you win or not seems in doubt it has been a hard one to prove to the AKC in the past, but you probably have a duty to the sport not to simply overlook this situation and do nothing about it if you are so sure it is going on.
> 
> Mark


A club refused the entries of one of these "amateurs" once and was sued. It's not as simple as you make it sound.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

If I was new to field trials and read this thread I would think that fake owners running dogs in O/H stakes, pros masquerading as amateurs, and a multitude of amateurs who run 6-8 dogs not all of which they own was commonplace. I am fairly well tuned in and find many of these claims implausible or just urban legend. If you know of a specific verifiable person or incident then please share the details, if you are just forwarding rumors you are doing the sport a serious injustice and such rumors are harmful to the innocent.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Charles C. said:


> A club refused the entries of one of these "amateurs" once and was sued. It's not as simple as you make it sound.


Could you share any details? I am unaware of any such incident.


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

EdA said:


> Could you share any details? I am unaware of any such incident.


Talk to your buddy Ted.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Charles C. said:


> Talk to your buddy, Ted.


If there was indeed a lawsuit it never went anywhere and on what grounds and in what jurisdiction could such a lawsuit be filed. And that action terminated the so called Amateur status of the person involved so the system worked.


----------



## coachmo (Apr 23, 2009)

Anyone who thinks this is not happening is either naive or what's the other word....hmmmm...dumb! So now Charles is supposed to perform sort of "duty" for the sake of the sport by turning in the culprits! That would go over real well around here. The last time I checked the field trial world was a pretty small, tight-knit community in the big scheme of things. Please! C'mon man!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

coachmo said:


> Anyone who thinks this is not happening is either naive or what's the other word....hmmmm...dumb!


Unaware that what is not happening? We seem to have veered off course from the orginal proposal by the SOR to redefine Amateur as it relates to the Owner Handler Amateur Stake.


----------



## coachmo (Apr 23, 2009)

Referring to the quote included in post #55. Not veering off course at all. Just stating the obvious.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

coachmo said:


> Referring to the quote included in post #55. Not veering off course at all. Just stating the obvious.


So are you alleging that I am naive or dumb?


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

I just don't think this is a big problem in the Mid Atlantic. It's harder to beat good handler who trains full time and has 4 or 5 really good dogs that he/she owns outright, that may or may not work with a pro. The odd amateur co-owning a good dog is not going to ruin the sport or further reduce participation. As a sport and an organization we have bigger problems to solve like how to increase participation, attracting new people to the sport, and getting more people involved in putting on events.

Steve


----------



## coachmo (Apr 23, 2009)

Dr. Aycock, I am neither calling you naive or dumb I was stating an opinion like you so often do on RTF. My comment on "stating the obvious" was in regards to the underlined portion of the quote contained in post #55.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

The incident Mr. Cottrell referred to is no secret but a matter of public record due to an action taken by the FTC of the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club refusing the Amateur entries of an individual (which it is empowered to do by AKC rules) due to evidence bringing into question the Amateur status of the person entering. The other noteworthy incident wherein entries for an Amateur Stake were refused involved The National Amateur Retriever Club and Mr. Hillman. That case was eventually adjudicated by the AKC and was widely discussed on this forum. In both of those cases the individuals involved, either by choice or by decree abandoned their claims of Amateur status as defined in Field Trial Rules and Standard Procedures For Retrievers. Since those individuals no longer seek to participate in the Amateur Stake it would seem that the system as constructed works.

While there may be rare questions about certain individuals Amateur status to allege that such practices are widespread or common is simply not true. The issue is there are many many more legitimate co-ownership agreements than the occasional or isolated ones and should we punish the many for the abuses of a few, realizing that no matter what the rule there will always be someone seeking to circumvent it.


----------



## coachmo (Apr 23, 2009)

In my post #26 I stated that I believe changing the rules would hurt a large number of owners that abide by the rules and people looking to cheat will always find a way to do so. I do have one question though, Dr. Aycock. In your response to Charles and the incident in question it appears you first doubted it occurred. Now you post a great deal of information regarding the matter. Were you disagreeing that a law suit occurred or was there another part of his post you were challenging? Ted S. cleared this up.


----------



## Mark (Jun 13, 2003)

coachmo said:


> Anyone who thinks this is not happening is either naive or what's the other word....hmmmm...dumb! So now Charles is supposed to perform sort of "duty" for the sake of the sport by turning in the culprits! That would go over real well around here. The last time I checked the field trial world was a pretty small, tight-knit community in the big scheme of things. Please! C'mon man!


While it might not be an attractive option, the rules provide for this scenario. If you feel that the Amateur status is being abused or is bogus, don't just bellyache on the forum, you can do something about it. If you need to shame the culprits into submission first that's one option but there is an avenue to address it.

While it is a small tight-knit community that is an advantage too where everyone knows who and how the abuse is being perpetrated and it should be easier to stomp on, at least in theory


This is an amateur's sport run by amateurs with a code of being a gentleman / lady. If you see someone abusing the sport (or abusing his dog in the parking lot) you have a duty to stand up and report it because if you don't it just gets further abused. If one isn't prepared to enforce the existing rules, there is not much point in creating new ones.


Mark


----------



## coachmo (Apr 23, 2009)

Are you serious? Belly aching makes up most of the posts on RTF. I was responding to a post in which I disagreed with. There's tons of evidence here on RTF that not all members of the field trial world follows any code of being a gentleman/lady. I thinks that evident in the topic of these posts.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Charles C. said:


> Talk to your buddy Ted.


Here I am. 

To the extent that you are suggesting that the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club was sued - or threatened with a lawsuit - you are misinformed.

Once upon a time, the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club refused the entries of an individual on the grounds that the individual was being paid to train dogs. After the club provided the AKC with deposition testimony, cancelled checks, etc., the AKC instructed the club to accept that individual's entries in the future. When asked why the AKC reached the decision that it did, the AKC refused to inform the club what it failed to do - other than to say that the club had not proved its case "beyond a reasonable doubt". That standard, by the way, is applicable only to criminal cases, not to civil cases. When I pushed for more information, the AKC representative referred me to the AKC lawyers. The lawyers refused to provide me with any information. Needless to say, I am not enamoured with the AKC. 

But to return to your original point, no one threatened to sue or sued the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club. Period.

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Mark said:


> While it might not be an attractive option, the rules provide for this scenario. If you feel that the Amateur status is being abused or is bogus, don't just bellyache on the forum, you can do something about it. If you need to shame the culprits into submission first that's one option but there is an avenue to address it.
> 
> While it is a small tight-knit community that is an advantage too where everyone knows who and how the abuse is being perpetrated and it should be easier to stomp on, at least in theory
> 
> ...


Mark

It is a nice concept in theory. But, unfortunately, most people do not step up to the plate to denounce unsportsmanlike conduct

Ted


----------



## coachmo (Apr 23, 2009)

Ted that is a very true statement you made regarding the reluctance of individuals to denounce unsportsmanlike conduct. Why do you think that is?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

coachmo said:


> In my post #26 I stated that I believe changing the rules would hurt a large number of owners that abide by the rules and people looking to cheat will always find a way to do so. I do have one question though, Dr. Aycock. In your response to Charles and the incident in question it appears you first doubted it occurred. Now you post a great deal of information regarding the matter. Were you disagreeing that a law suit occurred or was there another part of his post you were challenging? Ted S. cleared this up.


I never doubted that the incident occurred only that there was litigation threatened or involved which Ted has confirmed.


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> Here I am.
> 
> To the extent that you are suggesting that the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club was sued - or threatened with a lawsuit - you are misinformed.
> 
> ...


Thanks for clearing up my misinformation. In response to your post I ask this:

1) Do you think the process worked?

2) Would you go through that process again?

3) Do you think there are still individuals being paid to train dogs running amateur stakes as you suspected with this other individual?

4) What do you think about the current proposal?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

coachmo said:


> Ted that is a very true statement you made regarding the reluctance of individuals to denounce unsportsmanlike conduct. Why do you think that is?


Because of the mountain of work which ultimately falls on the shoulders of one person and the shoot the messenger mentality so prevalent in our society.


----------



## coachmo (Apr 23, 2009)

Well we agree again! I wonder if that is the angle Ted intended for his post to reflect. I'm not really sure!


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Most all the competitive field trial dogs I have owned were co-owned including several field champions. Presently co-own a Derby list dog, still competing , a Master hunter , a young wannabe Derby dog, and two nondescript trial dogs. The derby dog is co-owned, by a welder , a pipefitter and a old retired guy, me. The Master Hunt test dog is co-owned by the pipefitter, the old retired guy and the owner of a Shooting Range who hunts, but doesn't train dogs. The wannabe is owned by a carpenter , the pipefitter and the old retired guy. The two nondescript field trial dogs are owned by the old guy and his daughter. Hardly a crew of wealthy , professional amateur handlers and trainers. I throw birds, shoot flyers, and sometimes train all the co-owned dogs. All in the long run you will hurt will be the aforementioned co-owners. I have more issues with the multi dogs that range upwards to 3 or 4 to as many as eight Amateur owned dogs who sometimes dominate the circuit by shear numbers with multiple bullets..I have run and lived through all the eras of Amateurs riding around with pros running dogs off the pro trucks, to selling dogs for a dollar or first right of refusals, to owners who never run the dog, but, have designated amateurs, etc. etc. The numbers have been small and have policed themselves for the most part...


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

I have never liked the fact that the FTC should be responsible for enforcing the rules as regarding Amateur status, this is and should be the responsibility of the AKC and it would relieve the burden of such incidents from the local club to the governing body where it belongs.


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

EdA said:


> I have never liked the fact that the FTC should be responsible for enforcing the rules as regarding Amateur status, this is and should be the responsibility of the AKC and it would relieve the burden of such incidents from the local club to the governing body where it belongs.


I suppose that's my whole point with this thing. What are you going to do? Call someone out and make a bunch of enemies who may be judging you next week? I think one blatant cheater is too many, and I don't think it should be the club's responsibility.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Charles C. said:


> I suppose that's my whole point with this thing. What are you going to do? Call someone out and make a bunch of enemies who may be judging you next week? I think one blatant cheater is too many, and I don't think it should be the club's responsibility.


Regrettably you are correct.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

EdA said:


> Because of the mountain of work which ultimately falls on the shoulders of one person and the shoot the messenger mentality so prevalent in our society.


Not to mention that when a club does prove unsportsmanlike conduct, the penalties are usually light and issued during off circuit time periods, so those found in violation never really suffer for their transgressions. Not worth the brain damage!


----------



## John Gianladis (Jun 23, 2012)

I have always been an advocate of limiting the maximum number of dogs which can be entered by an Amateur. The number "3" sounds appropriate to me. Several of the trials in my area are entered by Amateurs who compete with 5, 6, or even 7 dogs. When you have 3 to 5 handlers who are running a third to half of the field (and running the Open with these dogs, it jacks up your logistics quite a bit). When bringing up this point, I've frequently been told something like "if you have a good marshal, it can work just fine". I disagree. A handler can't be two places at one time. I've never competed with more than 2 dogs at a time due to being financially constrained, but have noted that some of the most successful Amateurs (Dubose's, Chad Baker, etc.) have run only 1 or 2 dogs at a time. Please let me know what I can do to further this cause! Thanks!!

JG


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

John gianladis said:


> I have always been an advocate of limiting the maximum number of dogs which can be entered by an Amateur. The number "3" sounds appropriate to me.
> JG


I sympathize with clubs who have to deal with those problems but amateurs should be treated no differently than professionals so until there is some limitation of entries for professionals there will not and cannot be a limitation for amateurs.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I don't necessarily like limiting the number of dogs a person can run. Say the magical number is 3 dogs, our goal is to eventually have 2 competitive dogs at any given time (2 for myself, 2 for my husband), if one of us is judging, the other will run their dogs, so that would mean we'd have to choose which one sits out...I'll tell ya right now, it would seriously make me not want to judge...or what if I end up with 3 that happen to be running AA, an older 10 year old, 5-6 year old and a young one I want to start running at 3-4, that sucks if my husband can't be at a trial for what ever reason, I wouldn't be able to run his dogs too....ya gotta stop creating rules to enforce common courtesy and sportsmanship...it's like trying to legislate prosperity, it's not gonna work.

FOM


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

John gianladis said:


> I have always been an advocate of limiting the maximum number of dogs which can be entered by an Amateur. The number "3" sounds appropriate to me. Several of the trials in my area are entered by Amateurs who compete with 5, 6, or even 7 dogs. When you have 3 to 5 handlers who are running a third to half of the field (and running the Open with these dogs, it jacks up your logistics quite a bit). When bringing up this point, I've frequently been told something like "if you have a good marshal, it can work just fine". I disagree. A handler can't be two places at one time. I've never competed with more than 2 dogs at a time due to being financially constrained, but have noted that some of the most successful Amateurs (Dubose's, Chad Baker, etc.) have run only 1 or 2 dogs at a time. *Please let me know what I can do to further this cause! *Thanks!!
> 
> JG


Hi John, did you send your opinion to the RAC at the email addresses in the OP?


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

I agree with Johnny G's take on allowable Amateur entries. It is a burden for our clubs/stakes/marshals. I also would not like the current co-owner definition changed. My big fear is even though most of us "little people" voicing and even voting that we don't want this change have virtually no say in the matter.

Why? Well, many of the rule changes that have been "voted on" by clubs more closely reflect the views of the RAC and specifically its Chairwoman. A smart connected person with power, an agenda and proxy votes is virtually omnipotent. Especially when there is no recording of "who voted how".

Wonder why I don't have much faith in the system or its politics!

John


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Charles C. said:


> Thanks for clearing up my misinformation. In response to your post I ask this:
> 
> 1) Do you think the process worked?



No, because the AKC has no backbone.





> 2) Would you go through that process again?


Yes, because I am stubborn



> 3) Do you think there are still individuals being paid to train dogs running amateur stakes as you suspected with this other individual?


Absolutely



> 4) What do you think about the current proposal?


I prefer limiting dogs per handler. But, I am probably in favor of the change.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> Because of the mountain of work which ultimately falls on the shoulders of one person and the shoot the messenger mentality so prevalent in our society.



I can certainly vouch for this. Ten members of the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club unanimously voted to deny the entries of an individual who we all believed was being paid to train dogs for Field Trials. As the club secretary, I did all of the paperwork - which was a pain. And to this day, most people believe that I served as the impetus for the decision to reject this person's entries, which I did not. There was a period of time where I received hate emails about this. So, if you decide to go down this path, be prepared for alot of brain damage.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

John gianladis said:


> I have always been an advocate of limiting the maximum number of dogs which can be entered by an Amateur. The number "3" sounds appropriate to me. Several of the trials in my area are entered by Amateurs who compete with 5, 6, or even 7 dogs. When you have 3 to 5 handlers who are running a third to half of the field (and running the Open with these dogs, it jacks up your logistics quite a bit). When bringing up this point, I've frequently been told something like "if you have a good marshal, it can work just fine". I disagree. A handler can't be two places at one time. I've never competed with more than 2 dogs at a time due to being financially constrained, but have noted that some of the most successful Amateurs (Dubose's, Chad Baker, etc.) have run only 1 or 2 dogs at a time. Please let me know what I can do to further this cause! Thanks!!
> 
> JG



Contact Erik Gawthorpe, who prepared a submission to the RAC on his best 3 proposal and made a presentation at the RAC Meeting in Roseburg.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Contact Erik Gawthorpe, who prepared a submission to the RAC on his best 3 proposal and made a presentation at the RAC Meeting in Roseburg.


He did and he presented it clearly and passionately and there was very little discussion. So now we are discussing it on the internet but the SOR did not give it consideration in the inquiry that was circulated, the only inquiry was about co-ownership as it relates to the O/H Amateur.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

I reiterate my earlier question. Why should FT's have a different definition of ownership than anyone else with an AKC registered dog for AKC licensed events? I have not read a valid reason yet.

In the show and agility ring, as far as I know, there is no AM stake at all. They don't care who runs the dog... They don't have any restrictions on ownership other than what AKC rules state.


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

Leave this rule alone .If a rule is being broken as the rule is currently written and you can prove it , then there is a venue for that grievance to be heard .Don't throw the baby out with the bath water regards.................


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

huntinman said:


> I reiterate my earlier question. Why should FT's have a different definition of ownership than anyone else with an AKC registered dog for AKC licensed events? I have not read a valid reason yet.
> 
> In the show and agility ring, as far as I know, there is no AM stake at all. They don't care who runs the dog... They don't have any restrictions on ownership other than what AKC rules state.


Great Idea, Bill. Why don't you write the RAC and tell them for consistency's sake that they abolish the Amateur Stake?


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> Great Idea, Bill. Why don't you write the RAC and tell them for consistency's sake that they abolish the Amateur Stake?


If you think that's the way to go, you are perfectly capable of crafting a letter. 

I don't think I actually offered a solution there, more of a point you failed to grasp.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Very simple solution, already utilized in FT politics.
Simply don't give them an opportunity to run the 2nd.
Done.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

EdA said:


> Because of the mountain of work which ultimately falls on the shoulders of one person and the shoot the messenger mentality so prevalent in our society.


I disagree.

I believe it's called "gumption" or lack there of.

Not a lot of it, that I witnessed, running around with it in dog games. Or in society in general really.

What's the ole' saying "you got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything."


----------



## just me (Feb 17, 2010)

bill the show ring has a bred by class and an amatuer owner handler class in those classes it very much matters who runs the dog

ed samples
brentwood tn


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

John Kelder said:


> Leave this rule alone .If a rule is being broken as the rule is currently written and you can prove it , then there is a venue for that grievance to be heard .Don't throw the baby out with the bath water regards.................


As a field trial chairman, member of our field trial committee, field trial judge and participant since 2004, I can speak from a little experience on this matter. If you haven't judged or marshalled an Amateur stake lately, then it is a little hard to understand this argument.

There seems to be a new trend of running very large numbers of dogs in the Amateur stakes, co-owned or not, almost to the extent of making the stake a 'Professional Amateur'. This creates a hardship upon the judges, workers, and other participants in the fact that the running order and rotation is no longer an option. These multidog handlers must be run as soon as they decide to show up, and then sent on to another stake where they are again worked in and run back to back, therefore making any appearance of running order or draw numbers inconsequential.

As the current rules stand concerning 'amateur' and 'owner/handler' both are unenforceable. As Ted Shih has demonstrated, when the field trial committee went out on a limb with evidence in hand to deny an entrant 'amateur' status, the matter went all the way to litigation, and the decision was NOT upheld by the AKC. As in the matter of owners and/or co-owners, that will also be unenforceable as the actual owner will put the dog in whoever's name in order to be a 'legal' owner/handler.

Now back to the option of limiting entries in an Amateur stake. This is a solution that easily enforced by any field trial secretary and/or committee. It maintains the integrity of the 'amateur' stake actually being a stake for the amateur handlers who work and put on the trial (which is probably the original intent of 'owner/handler'), and it would easily maintain the integrity of the running order for the visiting participants. 

It should be an option for the clubs who choose to have a 'limited amateur' stake just as they may choose to have an 'owner/handler' stake. The 'owner/handler' stake is no longer a viable option since it has been diluted with the co-owner trend.

The hunt test clubs have just gone through this scenario with limited entries. They all said it would never happen. It did. You can't just keep expecting clubs to host events with unmanageable entries. Most field trial clubs only have 4-5 actual 'working' members......and they are getting old!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

TBell said:


> when the field trial committee went out on a limb with evidence in hand to deny an entrant 'amateur' status, the matter went all the way to litigation


Please oh please can we have this discussion without perpetuating the litigation myth?

During my 40+ year career the actions of a FTC have been subject to litigation once in the mid to late 1980s when a disgruntled participant who was suspended for verbally abusing judges was suspended. The brouhaha that ensued was considerable when it became known that the AKC was considering not supplying legal defence for a committee directed to enfore AKC rules and regulations. Many letters were written including an impassioned one from me to the President of The American Kennel Club in which, among other things, I pointed out "if you do not support the field trial committee for doing their job then no one will ever serve on a field trial committee again, including me". Ultimately the legal staff at AKC intervened and the lawsuit was resolved.

Again for those who want and advocate a limit on entrants per handler the place to start is in the Open, until that is implemented no such limit on the Amateur is possible.


----------



## moonstonelabs (Mar 17, 2006)

Ed I hate to appear argumentative but there have been other litigations. Just a few years ago a contestant took legal action against the club and judges in Medford Oregon. Kind of points to how regonalized our sport is and adds to why the proposed rule change may be of value in some parts of the country. 

The other Bill


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

moonstonelabs said:


> Ed I hate to appear argumentative but there have been other litigations. Just a few years ago a contestant took legal action against the club and judges in Medford Oregon. Kind of points to how regonalized our sport is and adds to why the proposed rule change may be of value in some parts of the country.
> 
> The other Bill


Well we certainly have a significantly lower litigation rate than the rest of the US, did that one involve someone from Alaska too?


----------



## moonstonelabs (Mar 17, 2006)

Nope just west coast folks


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

There has been so much administrative proceedings in the past , short of litigation, that have never been "outed" . I personaly have been arrested as judge and issued tickets (long story posted on the RTF long ago when asked), involved in a issue where the Reserve Jam was born, several unsportsmanlike conduct issues (was on the FTC) , someone striking a dog after a dog attacked an honor dog with a wiffle bat just 20 feet from the line ( I was judging) , to disallowing memberships because of relationship with a significant other, was on the local club board at the time. There have been physical altercations "alledged " to have happened on the field trial grounds, etc etc. The dog game has seemed to handle these quite well considering everything and think it will continue to do so in the future. We have enough rules and regulations just enforce what you have and support your local clubs FTC's .


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Charles C. said:


> It's almost logistically impossible for an amateur running 6 or 8 or 10 dogs every weekend to "give back" enough to make up for the amount of "taking" they're doing.


Correct! Several years ago I judged an Amateur that had 20% of the dogs from 1 handler. With the assent of my co judge we informed his pro that 
there would be an honor in the 1st series & when the "Bye dog" ran the test was done, there was no issue because it was addressed early!



Gawthorpe said:


> I think one of the critical aspect of the idea is to give the clubs the Option of having a more restrictive stake. Let the clubs decide what is best for their particular club. If a club has a situation where they feel the "Spirit of the Amateur" has a rotten side to it let them try cut out the rotten.
> Doing nothing is not the answer it simply encourages more rotten to spread. It is time for Amateurs to stand up for themselves, contribute and be vocal.


In the 60's a very wealthy individual offered to pay my trial expenses, in cash, if I would run his dog in the Am along with a bonus if
the dog was titled. I was a young guy with 3 kids & a wife who stayed home as a mother & could have used the money at the time. I 
turned him down & he was so surprised that it was all over the circuit in little time . I do not know how people who cheat can look 
in the mirror with clear conscience. 

It was well known that I would not run other's dogs but did agree to run Code Blue just once when Jim H had to have some surgery.
That was not a real challenge as the dog was a dream to handle! Fortunately his owner recovered & I did not have to run the dog. 



Ted Shih said:


> Mark
> 
> It is a nice concept in theory. But, unfortunately, most people do not step up to the plate to denounce unsportsmanlike conduct
> 
> Ted


Heartily Agree!



Criquetpas said:


> Most all the competitive field trial dogs I have owned were co-owned including several field champions. Presently co-own a Derby list dog, still competing , a Master hunter , a young wannabe Derby dog, and two nondescript trial dogs. The derby dog is co-owned, by a welder , a pipefitter and a old retired guy, me. The Master Hunt test dog is co-owned by the pipefitter, the old retired guy and the owner of a Shooting Range who hunts, but doesn't train dogs. The wannabe is owned by a carpenter , the pipefitter and the old retired guy. The two nondescript field trial dogs are owned by the old guy and his daughter. Hardly a crew of wealthy , professional amateur handlers and trainers. I throw birds, shoot flyers, and sometimes train all the co-owned dogs. All in the long run you will hurt will be the aforementioned co-owners. I have more issues with the multi dogs that range upwards to 3 or 4 to as many as eight Amateur owned dogs who sometimes dominate the circuit by shear numbers with multiple bullets..I have run and lived through all the eras of Amateurs riding around with pros running dogs off the pro trucks, to selling dogs for a dollar or first right of refusals, to owners who never run the dog, but, have designated amateurs, etc. etc. The numbers have been small and have policed themselves for the most part...


Earl - the OP's Co-Owner used to stand in the gallery with a running critique of what was going on, it was hilarious - he also stated the terms of their agreement, 
which does not correspond to the OP's post. Be careful of what you support, as I've stated to you before. I am sure your motives are pure as the driven snow, but
not all folks are like you. I managed to do it as a worker bee & run what I could afford, I believe others who really want to play can do the same.



Charles C. said:


> I suppose that's my whole point with this thing. What are you going to do? Call someone out and make a bunch of enemies who may be judging you next week? I think one blatant cheater is too many, and I don't think it should be the club's responsibility.


Those who support the rule remaining as it is, for the most part, have benefitted in the past or present from it being as it is. As I built my database I ran across a 
dog running the Idaho RC OH Amateur that had 5 co-owners, some of them poobahs in the sport! What would be the odds of having checked AKC @ the time & asked 
if the necessary transfers of ownership had been accomplished. 

Those who cheat & also the takers stand out on the database, these are the beneficiaries of a weak AKC position as they like things the way they are!
Having folks like Bill & Earl do their heavy lifting save them the responsibility of their actions. 

I applaud the RAC for taking a stance, it will improve the situation. 

Many years ago I was President of our club here in the NW. We had an issue with a couple of people importing dogs to handle 
in the Am as at the time it was a big deal to get your name on the trophies & the resultant publicity it carried in our metropolitan 
newspaper. They were usually so busy being a semi pro that their duties toward the trial fell to someone else. When the O/H was 
proposed @ the yearly banquet it was voted in with 78% of the vote affirmative. Folks who are in the RHOF were trading insults 
over the issue. But it worked & settled the issue, the abusers got the message & it was stopped. A club option to deal with an 
issue they believe they have is a good way of handling things, IMO. I will be writing the RAC members when I see the proposal in
FT News.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> I applaud the RAC for taking a stance, it will improve the situation.
> .


Marvin, Marvin, Marvin....the Subcommittee On Rules has made no stance they just created a poll.....


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

EdA said:


> Marvin, Marvin, Marvin....the Subcommittee On Rules has made no stance they just created a poll.....


That they proposed a workable solution to the issue is a huge step in the right direction, I consider that as taking a stance .


----------



## DeWitt Boice (Aug 26, 2005)

This issue is not about limiting entries or what might be a better rule, it is about defining the definition of Owner Handler.

For 35 years I have been a ONE dog amateur. Before Pacer I went to work every day, ran home after work and train my dog. In the heat of the summer I got up early and train before work. I take time off fromwork to chair, marshal, judge and work field trials. 

My dog Blue had the points but no win and died untitled. Jake had the win but only 14 ½ points. One half point from an AFC title. I have taken second place to dogs not handled by their true owner several times. So to me, this is a big deal. 

In my opinion, those who say it is a small number of people, are just trying to justify their designated handling. I don’t see these so called training partners spending the money to enter their training partners average dog in the field trial. It is amazing how they always leave those dogs home. Colorado is a tough place to compete. Our local trials are held in the cool mountains during the summer months. Handlers show up from all over the country on their summer vacation to run their great dogs and they have always been welcome. But when they show up with other peoples great dogs, that just stinks!

Before Owner Handler, I don’t remember much, if any co-ownership. I do remember shortly after the inception of O\H, I gave a friend co-ownership of my Duke dog. My friend was a new handler to field trials. I made him a co-owner so he could run Duke in an O\H Am, while I judged the Open. So please don’t tell me co-ownership is anything other than a way to get around the Owner Handler rule.

When I am putting in the time and effort to hold a field trial, I should be able to have an O\H Am with the intent of the owner handler rule and with out it being circumvented. If you don’t like the rule stay home. And when you hold your trial don’t restrict it.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

DeWitt Boice said:


> This issue is not about limiting entries or what might be a better rule, it is about defining the definition of Owner Handler.
> 
> For 35 years I have been a ONE dog amateur. Before Pacer I went to work every day, ran home after work and train my dog. In the heat of the summer I got up early and train before work. I take time off fromwork to chair, marshal, judge and work field trials.
> 
> ...


DeWitt, thanks for your opinion and your post. You have been in the game a long time and have seen a lot of things that happen. 

I am one of those who considers myself a one dog Amateur like yourself... My first dog had over 20 all age points and was 6 1/2 before his first win. For a while there, I thought he may retire as a "high point untitled dog". Fortunately we got the AFC... But, alas... Several Open 2nds... And a scrapped 4th series with one dog left to run when he was the only dog who had done the test kept him from his FC. 

As one of those who have expressed an opinion that differs from yours... I would like to kindly point out that not all co-ownerships these days (or even back in 2000-2003 when she died) are nefarious. She was FC AFC Northwind Gale Force. We had an actual co-ownership that worked... I ran "Liddy" most of the time in the spring and summer... And my co-owner ran her most of the time in the fall and winter. It worked pretty well as most of that time I still lived in Alaska... I did travel and run the NW... But I had to (and still do) work. 

Many folks have expressed differing opinions on this. Not everyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is a "Designated Handler". Some (including me), see it as an infringement on the basic ownership rights we already have. I can't see willingly giving up any rights without challenge. 

Why should legitimate co-owners be punished because of the bad apples playing the system? 

Interesting discussion... It's like politics or religion... Those of us on either side of the issue will not likely be swayed by the best efforts of the other side... Doesn't make us bad folks though;-)


----------



## DeWitt Boice (Aug 26, 2005)

Bill I do agree with you, O\H is a bad deal for you. You and people like you get screwed by this rule. It is tough to get your dog titled and harder to get them qualified for the National Am. Having co-ownership where training and time spent with the dog is a great deal. However, there are people who take advantage of the rule. When someone pulls a dog off a professional’s truck or travels to three or four trials with someone elses dog is not the same thing.

I can think of no other way to stop this practice. So you and a few others get burned by this rule but DH is stopped. Where we disagree is: I think all Amateur stakes should O\H, you don’t think any should be. I see letting the club decide as the compramise. 

The RAC is simply defining the meaning of Owner\Handler to address the co-ownership cunundrum.

Any refernce to politics, religon or a 3 dog limit is just GDG.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Hey DeWitt,

I will tell that Co-ownership can be legit and not just to get around rules. Just because you and others have manipulated it, doesn't mean we all have or will. So your thoughts are OK, but if someone else wants to address this issue by being in favor of a three dog limit or some other means they are wrong?

This isn't just about letting clubs decide if they want to have an O/H Amateur. It's about redefining ownership.


----------



## Bill McKnight (Sep 11, 2014)

I suspect if the national was designated as owner/handler it would raise a number of concerns not yet discussed here. That the issue pops up every few years suggests it is more tHan a passing problem.

The other Bill


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

To clarify a misconception of DeWitt's... I don't have anything against OH Amateurs or clubs holding them. I just don't think we need to redefine what an "owner" is.


----------



## DeWitt Boice (Aug 26, 2005)

Currently I can make my dog owned by a consotium. keeping the controling 51% interest, I can give out 0.001% co-ownership interest.now every handler in field trials can run my dog in O\H Ams. 

As the rule is now, O\H means absoluty nothing! so of course you have nothing against them currently


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

DeWitt Boice said:


> Currently I can make my dog owned by a consotium. keeping the controling 51% interest, I can give out 0.001% co-ownership interest.now every handler in field trials can run my dog in O\H Ams.
> 
> As the rule is now, O\H means absoluty nothing! so of course you have nothing against them currently


Now you you are just getting a little overly dramatic. You made the statement that I didn't think any Amateur stakes should be OH. I point out that is incorrect and you come up with this nonsense? OK... You don't want to discuss the issue, you just want to drown out debate with belligerence. That's actually comical.


----------



## DeWitt Boice (Aug 26, 2005)

To restate my point

As the rule is now, O\H means absolutely nothing!


----------



## Gawthorpe (Oct 4, 2007)

*Owner Handler - no Gray*

The best requirements are black and white. There is no gray.

We are not the first organization confronted with the manipulation of entries, Amateur status or ownership. Equine and retriever competitors have many of the same competitive, volunteer and organizational issues. The United States Hunter Jumper Organization has already dealt with this issue. The following requirement for their Amateur Owner Hunter is critical to their membership. It is the first qualification of the Amateur Owner Hunter event. It is Rule Number 1.

“To be ridden by Amateur Owners or an amateur member of the owner’s family. In either case classes are restricted to riders who are no longer eligible to compete as junior exhibitors. Leased horses are not eligible and multiple ownership is not permitted unless all owners are members of the same family.”

There are some competitors that will continue to bend, change, amend, edit, manipulate any rule to gain a competitive edge. My father was a project developer of commercial properties in Arizona. He would call these manipulations "Gray Areas." This is how he described Gray Water.
Clean water in Arizona is known as Clean Water
Sewage Water in Arizona is known as Black Water.
Gray Water isn't either but I choose not to drink it.

Bill Davis initiated this thread encouraging the readers to send their thoughts to the RAC. There have been 6800 views and 112 replies. What kind of water are you drinking and what are you doing to keep it clean? Have you emailed your opinion to the RAC?


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Gawthorpe said:


> The best requirements are black and white. There is no gray.
> 
> We are not the first organization confronted with the manipulation of entries, Amateur status or ownership. Equine and retriever competitors have many of the same competitive, volunteer and organizational issues. The United States Hunter Jumper Organization has already dealt with this issue. The following requirement for their Amateur Owner Hunter is critical to their membership. It is the first qualification of the Amateur Owner Hunter event. It is Rule Number 1.
> 
> ...


Excellent, Eric, excellent thoughts....I'm writing my letter today.

Thanks for the post!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Pardon my confusion but has the discussion shifted to changing ownership rules per AKC or more narrowly defining ownership as it applies to the Owner/Handler Amateur stake per SOR request for comment?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

DeWitt Boice said:


> To restate my point
> 
> As the rule is now, O\H means absolutely nothing!


It means I won't run a dog which I don't actually own both in letter & spirit of the rule in O/H designated stakes. That covers about 98% of those who actually handle and "own" dogs. The other 2% are cheaters & should be outed. We know the AKC will do nothing about enforcing ownership but I think peer pressure might. Peer pressure might not get the cheaters disqualified but if their peers made it a regular discussion topic among those playing the game, it would have the same effect.

But because the rule is abused by 2% or so of those playing the game, some are wanting to penalize legitimate co-ownership. That is not the right approach. I just think shame would go a long way.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I wrote the RAC concerning this issue and was informed that the RAC was interested in responses to this question: "What does a club expect when it opts for an O/H stake and does the language need to be adjusted to achieve that end?"

My response to that question is as follows:

You posed the question for discussion in this fashion: “What does a club expect when it opts for an O/H stake and does the language need to be adjusted to achieve that end?”


Let me pose a different question: “What do I expect when I enter an amateur stake at a field trial?”
At a minimum, of course, pursuant to the Rule Book, I expect not to compete against individuals who has received compensation for the training/handling of a dog that competes in field trials. 
However, just as we modified the Rules to include the “Owner/Handler Amateur” to deal with a competitive issue of a handler who ran multiple dogs off of a professional truck, I believe that current realities require that we deal with new competitive realities - or what I believe are anti-competitive realities.


Among the anti-competitive practices that I would like to address in the Amateur Stake are the following:


The person who co-owns dogs with multiple individuals.) This person is not “compensated” as a professional is, but through the use of creative accounting is “reimbursed” for fuel, food, bird expenses, depreciation of equipment, etc. associated with the training he does for his "co-owners."


The person who runs more than three dogs in the Amateur stake. The comment will be made that we cannot restrict dogs in the Amateur if we are unwilling to restrict them in the Open.) For starters, I would say that Ed Aycock and I made a proposal to the RAC for the limitation of dogs per handler in the Open (at the club’s option), which was never publicly discussed. So, I am certainly willing to discuss limitations on dogs per handler in the Open, although I see little political power behind such a movement.)


However, setting aside that proposal, I would say that in this case, it is like comparing apples to oranges. The Open and the Amateur are different fruit. When you enter the Open, you understand that there are very few restrictions, the tests will likely be harder, the callbacks less generous. All of that comes with the territory. I, at least, do not expect the same atmosphere at the Amateur. I think that when you allow a person to run to run more than three dogs in the Amateur stake, you are making the stake more like the Open, where anything goes.


You are also significantly diminishing the opportunities for success for the local Amateur who works to put on a field trial. This person has largely disappeared from the Open. If we allow competitors to run 4 or more dogs in the Amateur, I suspect we will see this person disappear from that stake as well. During the almost twenty years that I have participated in field trials, I have seen the extinction of the middle class Amateur. I believe that if we allow handlers to run 4 or more dogs in the Amateur, we will see the extinction of the upper middle class Amateur.


These are the ills that would like to see you address. If you agree that my concerns are problems that merit attention, then we can discuss possible solutions. But, I think first we need to decide whether these concerns are problems to people other than me.


Ted


----------



## Gawthorpe (Oct 4, 2007)

Hi Ed:
I believe the more restrictive Owner Handler Rules should only apply to the Owner Handler Qual and Owner Handler Amateur. This gives the Club's the decision as to what event to host. 

The USEF rules I mentioned previously only apply to their Hunter Amateur Owner Class. 

The Club could host a standard Amateur
Or the Club could host the newly defined Amateur Owner.

I am off now to attend the Iowa Field Trial. Have a good weekend.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Gawthorpe said:


> Hi Ed:
> I believe the more restrictive Owner Handler Rules should only apply to the Owner Handler Qual and Owner Handler Amateur. This gives the Club's the decision as to what event to host.
> .


Thanks for the clarification, you know how far off course these RTF discussions become sometimes. Enjoy the trial whether running your dog or judging.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Ted, coinciding with the decrease of "middle class amateurs" in the game over the last 20 years has been the explosion in the size and number of HTs all over the country. I would venture to say that many who would have been marginally competitive or not competitive at all, but kept chugging away in the days past, simply moved to the friendlier, easier game.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Ted, I like your concise line of thinking here....

*"What does a club expect when it opts for an O/H stake and does the language need to be adjusted to achieve that end?"*

I believe that the rule was intended to level the playing field for, as Ted says "the local Amateur who works to put on a field trial" so they would not have the 'Professional Amateurs' infusing their 'Amateur' stake at their local trials.

I'm not sure I understand Dr. Ed and Ted's dispute with limiting the number of dogs that handlers can run in the Open except maybe for purposes of club logistics. The Open should be just that, 'OPEN', however, I can somewhat understand since we have had one pro run every other dog in our Opens. The odds of any other handler being able to 'WIN' an Open in that situations is difficult at best, and virtually impossible for the 'local amateurs putting on the field trial'.

I also agree with DeWitt as the current rule stands, "the O/H means absolutely nothing". It virtually has been manipulated into an area of 'gray' that defeats the whole purpose of an Owner/Handler Amateur. Our club doesn't even bother with the designation, as IT MEANS NOTHING. 

David, it would be nice if everyone would compete in the 'true spirit' of the rules as they are written, but it is highly unlikely when there is a blue ribbon at stake and possibly a trip the the all coveted "National". 

Therefore, the RAC is right on course with Eric's suggestion of only allowing 'family' co-owners which would make the Owner/Handler stake have meaning once again. However, as sincere as some are to follow the 'rules', the rule change would probably have minimal effect after a few years.

This brings us back to the slight 'mention' of limiting dogs per handler in the Amateur to again level the playing field for the amateurs who work to put on local trials who are unable to travel the country all year long running trial after trial. As DeWitt voiced his concern for trying to title his own dog in his local area, it is certainly hard if not impossible these days to put an AFC title on a dog without a pro to train the dog and/or an amateur that can travel year round entering trials. Therefore, these people who exist to only put on local trials and attempt to title their lone owner handled amateur dog will be extinct......

Sorry Dr. Ed for veering off course again, so I am also off to do better things with my time.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

huntinman said:


> Ted, coinciding with the decrease of "middle class amateurs" in the game over the last 20 years has been the explosion in the size and number of HTs all over the country. I would venture to say that many who would have been marginally competitive or not competitive at all, but kept chugging away in the days past, simply moved to the friendlier, easier game.


And there are some of us who moved from the easier game and not competitive at all but are still chugging away hoping that one day that will change


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

TBell said:


> I'm not sure I understand Dr. Ed and Ted's dispute with limiting the number of dogs that handlers can run in the Open except maybe for purposes of club logistics. The Open should be just that, 'OPEN'.


If you follow that line of reasoning, which I take no issue with, why should the Amateur be treated differently, if the handler qualifies as an Amateur under the rules why should he or she be restricted in the number of times they go to line?

That proposed stake is now almost a decade old, the economy, attrition, or alignment with stars have more or less caused that issue to be mute. Most of our field trials have been reduced to a size that requires no new solutions and the proposed stake was never going to be considered anyway.

I would be off to do better things but a chilly drizzle has descended on N. Centra Texas which has seriously interfered with those other things.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Granddaddy said:


> That covers about 98% of those who actually handle and "own" dogs. The other 2% are cheaters & should be outed. We know the AKC will do nothing about enforcing ownership but I think peer pressure might. Peer pressure might not get the cheaters disqualified but if their peers made it a regular discussion topic among those playing the game, it would have the same effect.
> 
> But because the rule is abused by 2% or so of those playing the game, some are wanting to penalize legitimate co-ownership. That is not the right approach. I just think shame would go a long way.


We could go into a lot of statistics - the co-owner issue is one of creating maximum exposure for a dog at the expense of those who follow 
the rules to the letter. I know of at least one person, & I'm sure there are more, that is the backbone of his club. He runs his dog, on occasion 
gets a reward for that effort, while competing against strings of dogs as DeWitt describes. I would say that individual is a giver, not a taker & 
deserved more than he has to show for his efforts. 

Again when I did my database, the cheaters stand out & in dog events/dog is much greater than your 2% figure, more like 15%. These people that cheat 
are not novices at training dogs, in many cases they are better trainers than the majority of pro's, so along with a numerical advantage they 
have a huge competitive advantage over the guy who trains after work & on the weekends. Who also do the majority of grunt work in putting 
on a FT while the cheater/taker does little to advance the sport. Beyond that, cheaters receive many unwarranted accolades that they do not deserve.
I can name the handler/dog that I 1st saw do this, & that was in the late 60's. A station wagon full of others dogs along with a couple of their own ,
one dog name in particular stood out but using that name would finger the cheater.

The database gave no credit to co-owners with different last names or those owners who ran 3 or more AA trial dogs. That generated
considerable e-mail activity from those who were cheating. It also generated many e-mails from those who play the sport by the rules about 
the many activities of the cheaters & the various methods they use to circumvent the rules. You're a bright enough guy to know that having
all the information, along with collecting serious input is an advantage & that info is in the database. 

I'm sure you have heard the joke about the guy propositioning a female in a bar & after attempting to negotiate a lower price the female says 
"what do you think I am?" & the guy counters with "I believe that has been established, I'm just attempting to establish the value in this 
transaction". Some people will do anything if money &/or perceived prestige are involved, others who value their personal integrity will not step 
over that line & they are the one's deserving of maximum consideration.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

EdA said:


> If you follow that line of reasoning, which I take no issue with, why should the Amateur be treated differently, if the handler qualifies as an Amateur under the rules why should he or she be restricted in the number of times they go to line?
> 
> That proposed stake is now almost a decade old, the economy, attrition, or alignment with stars have more or less caused that issue to be mute. Most of our field trials have been reduced to a size that requires no new solutions and the proposed stake was never going to be considered anyway.
> 
> I would be off to do better things but a chilly drizzle has descended on N. Centra Texas which has seriously interfered with those other things.


I hate to be argumentative, Dr. Ed, but what happens in your region may not necessarily be happening in my region. I know of two trials in our region that went over into Monday to finish because of multi-staked, multi-dog handlers (4+ in the Open and the Am). The trials weren't necessarily large either. There aren't many participants left at dark on Sunday afternoon, so word of these events isn't well known. I know of this because in one event I was a judge, and the other I was on the grounds camping.

I won't mention particulars because it would be easy to figure out the whos and whens, but there may be reasons that you and the RAC may be unaware of for clubs to need to implement some sort of dogs per handler limits. Whether it be in the Open, the Am or combined I am not smart enough to know.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

TBell said:


> I hate to be argumentative, Dr. Ed, but what happens in your region may not necessarily be happening in my region. I know of two trials in our region that went over into Monday to finish because of multi-staked, multi-dog handlers (4+ in the Open and the Am). The trials weren't necessarily large either. There aren't many participants left at dark on Sunday afternoon, so word of these events isn't well known. I know of this because in one event I was a judge, and the other I was on the grounds camping.
> 
> I won't mention particulars because it would be easy to figure out the whos and whens, but there may be reasons that you and the RAC may be unaware of for clubs to need to implement some sort of dogs per handler limits. Whether it be in the Open, the Am or combined I am not smart enough to know.


I certainly understand your frustration and I know the reasons and glad that we do not have to deal with that problem. I understand that some clubs in the SE need some type of relief, my point is that if you want limits they can't and won't be approved for just the Amateur. Entry per handler limit is a radical change for the way we have operated for 75 years and you will not find support in the appropriate places, particularly if you apply it to only one stake, especially the Amateur.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

TBell said:


> Ted, I like your concise line of thinking here....
> 
> *"What does a club expect when it opts for an O/H stake and does the language need to be adjusted to achieve that end?"*
> 
> *I believe that the rule was intended to level the playing field for, as Ted says "the local Amateur who works to put on a field trial" so they would not have the 'Professional Amateurs' infusing their 'Amateur' stake at their local trials..........*


Actually the owner/handler Am rule was intended to stop the practice of an accomplished amateur handling dogs off a specific pro's truck in amateur stakes - said amateur being very successful in doing so. Has the rule been effective in stopping that practice? Yes for the most part it has. I know of no such amateurs handling virtually the entire pro truck at amateur stakes since the rule was enacted.

Now we have different issues, we have amateurs technically co-owning dogs to circumvent the O/H rule and we have wealthy amateur owners entering numerous dogs that they actually own, that some believe provides an unfair competitive advantage. These are two separate issues & neither were the focus of the O/H rule when it was established. I've already stated I do not believe the technical ownership circumvention is significant enough to redefine ownership. If there is some way to restrict the practice of technical ownership to restrict this activity without restricting legitimate co-ownership, then I'd be all for it. As for a dog limiting rule only affecting amateur stakes, you might as well attempt to push water up hill as think this will be achieved through the AKC.


----------

