# Owner/Handler Qualifying?



## Northern Neck VA (Dec 1, 2016)

Fairly new to the game...what is Owner/Handler Qualifying?

Thanks.

NNK


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

"A Qualifying Stake, or an Owner-Handler Qualifying Stake at a Retriever trial shall be for dogs which have never won first, second, third, or fourth place or a Judges’ Award of Merit in an Open All-Age, Limited All-Age, Special All-Age, or Restricted All Age Stake, or won first, second, third or fourth place in an Amateur All-Age Stake, or Owner-Handler Amateur All- Age Stake, or won two first places in Qualifying Stakes at licensed or member club trials. In determining whether a dog is eligible for the Qualifying Stake, no award received on or after the date of closing of entries shall be counted."

Owner/Handler means the owner, as defined in the rulebook, must handle the dog in the stake.


----------



## Northern Neck VA (Dec 1, 2016)

Average distances??


----------



## golfandhunter (Oct 5, 2009)

Northern Neck said:


> Average distances??


Could be up to 350-400yds. First series may be a triple with one retired gun or all stand out guns.
Second series land blind. Third series water blind and fourth series water marks. Fourth series may have the same distances as the first series.


----------



## NateB (Sep 25, 2003)

Not going to see excessive distances in a Qual in VA. I have run a few quals and I think the largest mark was 200-250, but that is in the midwest, in places that are flat then they will be longer. Best bet is go find a nearby trial and go watch, ask questions of the spectators (not the handlers with a dog obviously). I have run hunt tests and field trials. At the first field trial I went to I was pleasantly surprised at how friendly everyone was.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

NateB said:


> Not going to see excessive distances in a Qual in VA. I have run a few quals and I think the largest mark was 200-250, but that is in the midwest, in places that are flat then they will be longer. Best bet is go find a nearby trial and go watch, ask questions of the spectators (not the handlers with a dog obviously). I have run hunt tests and field trials. At the first field trial I went to I was pleasantly surprised at how friendly everyone was.


You're better off training for long distances and factors, because you never know. Last year one in Va. had a 388 yard land blind going through ditches, crossing a mound, through an old fall at about 300 yards, and it was early in the season too. NNK there is one not too far from you on Sept. 29 at MAHRC in Providence Forge.


----------



## NateB (Sep 25, 2003)

Julie R. said:


> You're better off training for long distances and factors, because you never know. Last year one in Va. had a 388 yard land blind going through ditches, crossing a mound, through an old fall at about 300 yards, and it was early in the season too. NNK there is one not too far from you on Sept. 29 at MAHRC in Providence Forge.


Wow, that's a huge blind for a qual. They just keep getting tougher and tougher as the dogs get better and better. I stand corrected!!!


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

NateB said:


> Wow, that's a huge blind for a qual. They just keep getting tougher and tougher as the dogs get better and better. I stand corrected!!!


It had a blind stake at the end of it that made it easy.


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

There is a difference between a Qualifying Stake and an Owner Handler Qualifying Stake. Harry


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

HarryWilliams said:


> There is a difference between a Qualifying Stake and an Owner Handler Qualifying Stake. Harry


And there is a difference in an O/H Q at a field trial and one at a hunt test.


----------



## Rob DeHaven (Jan 6, 2003)

I just started running them last fall and the first one I ran was an O/H at a hunt test and it was probably the toughest on marks. The others were regular Qs at trials.


----------



## DL (Jan 13, 2003)

It is basically field trial rules with white coats and pros aren't allowed to run. A hunt test might put one on to let people try another game, or a field trial might have one so amateurs don't have to compete with pros as far as handling goes. That is the answer to what it is as far as I know.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

DL said:


> It is basically field trial rules with white coats and pros aren't allowed to run. A hunt test might put one on to let people try another game, or a field trial might have one so amateurs don't have to compete with pros as far as handling goes. That is the answer to what it is as far as I know.


pros can to run them


----------



## Zach Fisher (Jan 16, 2015)

DL said:


> It had a blind stake at the end of it that made it easy.


hahaha

That blind was a monster. I think the judges were very fair with that series in terms of who was carried to the water blind. And that was a hunt test OHQ.


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

mjh345 said:


> pros can to run them


Something that needs to be changed....


----------



## Dave Burton (Mar 22, 2006)

I liked that land blind lol




Julie R. said:


> You're better off training for long distances and factors, because you never know. Last year one in Va. had a 388 yard land blind going through ditches, crossing a mound, through an old fall at about 300 yards, and it was early in the season too. NNK there is one not too far from you on Sept. 29 at MAHRC in Providence Forge.


----------



## Dave Burton (Mar 22, 2006)

Doesn't have to be flat to be long. I saw a Qual in TN at Chad's place and they threw a 120 yrd flyer and 550 plus retired memory bird. Just a double. Anybody that has been there knows flat isn't anywhere on the grounds. I have also seen all 3 birds under 250 yrds. You have to train for everything. 




NateB said:


> Not going to see excessive distances in a Qual in VA. I have run a few quals and I think the largest mark was 200-250, but that is in the midwest, in places that are flat then they will be longer. Best bet is go find a nearby trial and go watch, ask questions of the spectators (not the handlers with a dog obviously). I have run hunt tests and field trials. At the first field trial I went to I was pleasantly surprised at how friendly everyone was.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Northern Neck said:


> Average distances??


It ain't no easier because the owner is the handler, if that's what you're asking  get ready to run against pros who also "own" dogs, if you're going to be running the MD, VA area circuit.


----------



## Kajun Kamakazi (May 17, 2011)

I've run my fair share of Q's and a handful of them were O/H. The tests were just as hard in the O/H as they were in a conventional Q and the dogs that finished were all fine animals that I would be proud to own. But, conversely it cannot be denied that the competition is considerably less fierce in an O/H. That is my opinion from my own experience.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Daren Galloway said:


> Something that needs to be changed....





WHY??????????
Your not going to get a bunch of major pros running these.


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

Steve Shaver said:


> WHY??????????
> Your not going to get a bunch of major pros running these.


I don't believe it is in the spirit of an OH Q, especially with a HT for a pro to run it. HT pro's at a HT, if they want to run a Q, why don't they go run one at a FT.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

Daren Galloway said:


> Something that needs to be changed....


Need a tissue snowflake?


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

I heard a club told a pro they couldn't run the ohq. I thought perhaps they were adding their own rules..... not sure if the pro did or didn't... personally dont see why it matters as long as the pro owns the dog they are running.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Tobias said:


> I heard a club told a pro they couldn't run the ohq. I thought perhaps they were adding their own rules..... not sure if the pro did or didn't... personally dont see why it matters as long as the pro owns the dog they are running.


It matters because if you talk to a good pro they will tell you that a lot of trials are won with great handling. A pro handles far more dogs than the average amateur. 

That said a person with 40 year in the game whose retired and has three dogs is still going to have a lot more experience and hopefully be a better handler than a newer person. 

And the rules allow for it - so - suck it up butter cup. 

A club may have asked a pro not to enter to save the headache and have a better entry or something - but nothing prohibits the pro from running if they own their own dog.


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

JoeOverby said:


> Need a tissue snowflake?


Nope, never run one.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Usually less handlers and dogs in a o/h also usually less if it's in conjunction with a hunt test vs. a FT. Haven't seen them be any easier or tough as it's mostly the same judges in all type of qualms. I believe the spirit of the O/h qual is to perhaps add a bit a equality to the # of bullets a particular handler has in their gun. Thus have never minded a pro running dogs they actually own, as most people only ever own one or two dogs.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Daren Galloway said:


> I don't believe it is in the spirit of an OH Q, especially with a HT for a pro to run it. HT pro's at a HT, if they want to run a Q, why don't they go run one at a FT.





So what is the SPIRIT of an O/H qual? The spirit of an O/H qual is just that, owner handler.
At an O/H qual with a hunt test your not going to get a bunch of top level pros. They certainly wont bother with a hunt test qual where they cant run their AA dogs, it's a waste of time for them. What your going to get a one or two minor league pros such as myself wanting to run a qual within driving distance. I don't go run out of town much so I will run when ever given the chance. A qual is a field trial stake and a field trial is a competition. I don't go to a trial and say WAAAA there are too many good pros running the open I don't want to enter that. I have only had one dog capable of running AA stake and her career had to end way to short but I still competed and beat a lot of pros. My next up and comer just started opens this year and he has made it through the first series when a whole bunch of the pros went down in flames and these are good pros. I'm not afraid to compete with them in fact I like it. Talk about not fair, I'm just a minor league pro training gun dogs and I want to trial my own dogs and I have to run against some of the best in the country.
Again a field trial is a competition so I guess if your afraid of a little competition you shouldn't run them. It is against the spirit of a Qual period if you want to dumb down the competition.


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

Steve Shaver said:


> So what is the SPIRIT of an O/H qual? The spirit of an O/H qual is just that, owner handler.
> At an O/H qual with a hunt test your not going to get a bunch of top level pros. They certainly wont bother with a hunt test qual where they cant run their AA dogs, it's a waste of time for them. What your going to get a one or two minor league pros such as myself wanting to run a qual within driving distance. I don't go run out of town much so I will run when ever given the chance. A qual is a field trial stake and a field trial is a competition. I don't go to a trial and say WAAAA there are too many good pros running the open I don't want to enter that. I have only had one dog capable of running AA stake and her career had to end way to short but I still competed and beat a lot of pros. My next up and comer just started opens this year and he has made it through the first series when a whole bunch of the pros went down in flames and these are good pros. I'm not afraid to compete with them in fact I like it. Talk about not fair, I'm just a minor league pro training gun dogs and I want to trial my own dogs and I have to run against some of the best in the country.
> Again a field trial is a competition so I guess if your afraid of a little competition you shouldn't run them. It is against the spirit of a Qual period if you want to dumb down the competition.


I believe the spirit of an OH Q is to get new people into the field trial game, I'm speaking specifically of those in conjunction with a HT, to give Joe amateur a taste of a FT, now enter a pro who gets paid to train dogs, trains every day, runs more dogs in a week than most amateurs will own in their lives, and that I believe is not in the spirit of an OH Q with a HT. With all the bitching everyone does of the game dying, perhaps there should be a bit more concern about ways to get people into the game.

By the way, I've never run an OH Q and am now running my dog in the Open and Am, so I'm not afraid of competition either.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Steve, What is your definition of "major pro"?
Joe, I have never met Daren G. in person but conversed a bunch. He is young but definitely not a snowflake. A different opinion does not call for disparaging remarks but opens the door for discussion/debate.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Daren Galloway said:


> I believe the spirit of an OH Q is to get new people into the field trial game, I'm speaking specifically of those in conjunction with a HT, to give Joe amateur a taste of a FT, now enter a pro who gets paid to train dogs, trains every day, runs more dogs in a week than most amateurs will own in their lives, and that I believe is not in the spirit of an OH Q with a HT. With all the bitching everyone does of the game dying, perhaps there should be a bit more concern about ways to get people into the game.
> 
> By the way, I've never run an OH Q and am now running my dog in the Open and Am, so I'm not afraid of competition either.






Sorry if I come off as an a$$ whole but the original post just sounds like whining to me. I have never seen an O/H qual in a regular field trial, only in conjunction of a hunt test and very few of those. Yes they are designed to attract new people to the trial game and I think it is a great idea. The HT Quals I have run tend to be somewhat easier than at a full trial and that's fine with me too but to say no pros in an O/H qual to me sucks. The major or "A" list pros will not be at a HT/Q and to answer Wayne's question to me a major pro would be a guy that makes a living at running trials and generally they don't even own a dog. The only pros you would shut out would be guys like me. Yes I am a pro but not a FT pro. I run my own dogs in trials and have run a few client dogs too but mainly I just do gun dogs. I don't want to be a FT pro. To be honest I don't know how they do it. I'm getting old and don't want to work that hard. I never even saw a trial until I was in my mid to late 40's and darn near 50 before I ever run one. Now if I would have gotten started at a young age I would be a FT pro.
An amateur running a O/H qual has nothing to fear from me unless they are not prepared to run a qual even though the dog I would run there has the capability of placing. To me if you want to play the FT game you need to be prepared for it. If you just want to dabble in the dog games stick to HT. There are many, many good amateurs out there that can give any "A" list pro a run for his money in any stake. I cant wait to retire so that I can concentrate on my own dogs. I will be a much better amateur than I am a pro when it comes to running trials. Yes we need new blood in the trial game but it is a competition and if you want to compete you need to be prepared. To shut out a pro like me with one or even two dogs in an O/H qual is ridiculous. In fact I think it is a good idea for new guys to run against a pro like me. I'm not the best out there but I have a couple good dogs and can compete so running against me just prepares a new person for the real world of field trials. I jammed my first open and I felt as if I had won the national. 11 dogs going into the 4th series and all but one other and my 2 1/2 yr old dog where FC or AFC. Talk about a rush. I watched Shaq (close to a 200 point AA dog) go down on the water blind in front of me then me and my dog got it done. Awesome feeling. Get chicken skins just flashing back on that.
Sorry if I got a little defensive. As Wayne said this is a good topic for debate/discussion and this is my view.


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

Steve Shaver said:


> Sorry if I come off as an a$$ whole but the original post just sounds like whining to me. I have never seen an O/H qual in a regular field trial, only in conjunction of a hunt test and very few of those. Yes they are designed to attract new people to the trial game and I think it is a great idea. The HT Quals I have run tend to be somewhat easier than at a full trial and that's fine with me too but to say no pros in an O/H qual to me sucks. The major or "A" list pros will not be at a HT/Q and to answer Wayne's question to me a major pro would be a guy that makes a living at running trials and generally they don't even own a dog. The only pros you would shut out would be guys like me. Yes I am a pro but not a FT pro. I run my own dogs in trials and have run a few client dogs too but mainly I just do gun dogs. I don't want to be a FT pro. To be honest I don't know how they do it. I'm getting old and don't want to work that hard. I never even saw a trial until I was in my mid to late 40's and darn near 50 before I ever run one. Now if I would have gotten started at a young age I would be a FT pro.
> An amateur running a O/H qual has nothing to fear from me unless they are not prepared to run a qual even though the dog I would run there has the capability of placing. To me if you want to play the FT game you need to be prepared for it. If you just want to dabble in the dog games stick to HT. There are many, many good amateurs out there that can give any "A" list pro a run for his money in any stake. I cant wait to retire so that I can concentrate on my own dogs. I will be a much better amateur than I am a pro when it comes to running trials. Yes we need new blood in the trial game but it is a competition and if you want to compete you need to be prepared. To shut out a pro like me with one or even two dogs in an O/H qual is ridiculous. In fact I think it is a good idea for new guys to run against a pro like me. I'm not the best out there but I have a couple good dogs and can compete so running against me just prepares a new person for the real world of field trials. I jammed my first open and I felt as if I had won the national. 11 dogs going into the 4th series and all but one other and my 2 1/2 yr old dog where FC or AFC. Talk about a rush. I watched Shaq (close to a 200 point AA dog) go down on the water blind in front of me then me and my dog got it done. Awesome feeling. Get chicken skins just flashing back on that.
> Sorry if I got a little defensive. As Wayne said this is a good topic for debate/discussion and this is my view.


I can respect that view and admit your situation as not a full on competition based pro (HT or FT) is different and not exactly what I'm targeting. 

What is your opinion of an A list HT pro that owns a couple dogs runs countless HT's a year, goes to a OH and wins it, is that in the spirit of the stake?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

The HT O/H quals and the regular Quals and O/H Quals I have worked look the same to me as far as difficulty. It must be a regional issue where they are easier. I have seen only 3 handlers finish and they are judged by the same judges that judge FTs. If a pro owns the dog (and I hope it's not just a convenient co-ownership) by the rules he can enter but, I don't see him necessarily being the best. Of course these are not A pros, especially at HT. "A" pros don't run against their truck. Just train and dog to line


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Daren Galloway said:


> Steve Shaver said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry if I come off as an a$$ whole
> ...


I see these 3 words "AND WINS IT" as key words in your post 
What difference does that make as to your "in the spirit of the stake" issue? If he bombs out in the first series does he now meet the "spirit of the stake"?
If he actually owns the dog is the only thing that matters.
The rule book can't and shouldn't attempt to define subjective issues such as who is an A list pro "spirit of the stake" or other such nonsense


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Daren Galloway said:


> I can respect that view and admit your situation as not a full on competition based pro (HT or FT) is different and not exactly what I'm targeting.
> 
> What is your opinion of an A list HT pro that owns a couple dogs runs countless HT's a year, goes to a OH and wins it, is that in the spirit of the stake?





As for being a competitor in that trial I would have no problem with it. I think it is just as good for a HT pro to have an arena to step up to the trial world. An "A" list hunt test pro is not the same as an "A" FT pro. If the spirit of the stake is to make it easier I don't agree with it. Competition is reality and field trials are competitions. If say a guy with his Master titled dog wants to try a qual I think it is awesome but he better be prepared. What do you think it does to a new guy that tries a qual and goes out in the first series? Just sayin that a person that wants to try Field trials better be prepared to compete and also prepared for failure. I simply don't think there are enough owner handler pros to really worry about. I have never gone into any trial intimidated by any handler but just about every time I step to the line I am somewhat intimidated by the test.* You need to beat the test not the competitors.
*


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

mjh345 said:


> I see these 3 words "AND WINS IT" as key words in your post
> What difference does that make as to your "in the spirit of the stake" issue? If he bombs out in the first series does he now meet the "spirit of the stake"?
> If he actually owns the dog is the only thing that matters.
> The rule book can't and shouldn't attempt to define subjective issues such as who is an A list pro "spirit of the stake" or other such nonsense


It should not define "in the spirit of the stake"? Was the rule not created for a reason? Were OH Am's not created for a reason, and maybe I'm all wet, but a pretty similar reason? Defining A list pros would be ridiculous, that's why I made the statement "no pro's". No I do not think if he bombs out in the first it meets the "spirit of the stake" I do however consider it poetic justice.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Daren Galloway said:


> mjh345 said:
> 
> 
> > I see these 3 words "AND WINS IT" as key words in your post
> ...


Apparently according to you the rule book shouldn't define "In the spirit of the stake":.... but you [email protected]?

O/H Am's were created for a reason, however this thread isn't dealing with that category. It is discussing an O/H qual.
Not an O/H Am Qual


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

mjh345 said:


> Apparently according to you the rule book shouldn't define "In the spirit of the stake":.... but you [email protected]?
> 
> O/H Am's were created for a reason, however this thread isn't dealing with that category. It is discussing an O/H qual.
> Not an O/H Am Qual


You must've misread, maybe you missed my "?", and you clearly missed my point.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Daren Galloway said:


> You must've misread, maybe you missed my "?", and you clearly missed my point.


Bro - you're arguing with the rule book here - it's a waste of brain power. Won't change a thing.


----------



## Peter Balzer (Mar 15, 2014)

Sooner Retriever Club is having a O/H Qual attached to a regular hunt test on 9/22
Tulsa Retriever Club is also having a O/H Qual attached to a regular hunt test on 9/29.

Since the subject is being brought up thought I would plug a couple of clubs were someone can come watch/participate/volunteer.


----------



## vtjackson (Mar 23, 2017)

Am also new to this game so the following is based on observation and not published material. Thought the Owner/Handler Qualifying Event was a Field Trial Format event often held in conjunction with Hunt Tests as a way to introduce "Hunt Testers" to the world of the Field Trialer. Longer distances, ranking of performances instead of pass/fail, etc. Haven't seen enough Field Trials to know/comment of whether the distances are as long as a "regular" Field Trial but sure seemed longer than what I have seen at hunt tests. Also, seems Owner/Handler Qualifying Events do not have the "Open" and "Amateur" categories one sees at a Field Trial.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

There is one clear advantage to an o/h hunt test Qual. There are normally no other stakes running. The stake runs smoothly without the distraction of skipping handlers because they are at the open or am. Also has lots of help because of the captive audience.


----------



## bamajeff (May 18, 2015)

Does an O/H Qual count towards QA2 title just like a field trial qualifier?


----------



## Peter Balzer (Mar 15, 2014)

bamajeff said:


> Does an O/H Qual count towards QA2 title just like a field trial qualifier?


Yes and 6 other characters


----------



## Tobias (Aug 31, 2015)

I agree with Mr Shaver. If the powers that be wanted to limit pros at the O/H Q they would have written it in the rules.

A small hunt test/gun dog pro who has 10-12 dogs on his truck and maybe has a breeding program, probably has a couple of his own dogs that he runs in tests.... Not really much different than a breeder who does not train professionally, but trains and titles their breeding stock for marketing purposes... 


I am probably stepping out there when I say it, but I would guess there are more hunt test (gun dog) pros than field trial pros, and of those many, I would guess, are just a little better than the average (successful) amateur trainer who competes and trains for hunt tests or Q's regularly....


----------



## Peter Balzer (Mar 15, 2014)

Tobias said:


> I agree with Mr Shaver. If the powers that be wanted to limit pros at the O/H Q they would have written it in the rules..


I think the elimination of pros entering a O/H Qual would eliminate the "co-owner" debacle that has come about. There are shadow co-owners or pros are listed as co-owners in EE for a dog, but not officially co-owned on AKC paperwork. It's kinda on an honor system in my limited understanding. Therefore, you can essentially have a pro run your dog with no proven co-ownership. To be clear I have no preference towards or against pros running in an O/H qual, just prefer the established rules be followed by everyone.


----------



## Dave Burton (Mar 22, 2006)

I ran several this past fall and spring. Both at a FT and one at a HT. I didn't see any difference except the one at the HT was probably a little tougher than the others. All had 30 some dogs. The one at the HT if I remember right had 4 or 5 dogs already QAA running and one of the judges was someone that had been an open judge at 2 trials few weeks before. As for the OP's question I don't think there is a "spirt of the rule". It's pretty simple, if you own a dog run it. If you can't beat them train harder. Like Steve said,I didn't go because it was at a HT, I went because it was the only one close that weekend.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

Wayne Nutt said:


> Steve, What is your definition of "major pro"?
> Joe, I have never met Daren G. in person but conversed a bunch. He is young but definitely not a snowflake. A different opinion does not call for disparaging remarks but opens the door for discussion/debate.


My response had nothing to do with a differing opinion. Like steve, I too felt the post came across a whining. With all the anti-pro, pros are the reason for the master entry cluster, pros don't help, all pros do is take BS I hear weekly, I frankly get tired of hearing people bitch about pros. An O/HQ is simply that. Regardless of what the entrants do for a profession, if you dont like the competition, don't go. I've run a few "real" ft qualifyings...ive played for green, placed, and had my teeth kicked in by more amateurs than anything. The point is, it doesn't matter what you label the Q...you had better be prepared...thoroughly...before running one...and it ain't the ht pro you need to be worried about. 

Lastly, you and I obviously have differing opinions on "disparaging"...


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

The difficulty of any Qual depends upon the quality of the dogs entered as the judges have to determine a winner. The stronger the field of entries, the more difficult the work being asked will be. It doesn't matter one bit if the OH Q is attached to a Hunt Test or a Licensed Trial as the Judges determine the tests. If you have respected Judges from around the Field Trial world sitting in the chair you will have a quality competitive event. 



There are a few Professional Trainers that enter the OH Q. There is nothing in the rules to prevent it or require amateurs only. Although one does have to question the business sense of a Pro that would enter a OH Q and compete against his/her own clients/potential clients. If you don't have clients entered and you want to run your own dog, go for it.


----------



## EJ (Dec 5, 2011)

It's fun- do it!
Ran one after running hunt stakes for a while and got a JAM- Almost pulled the judges arm out of his socket shaking his hand and he must have thought I had lost my mind.
Good way to challenge yourself and your dog with a new game and then run a hunt stake that same weekend. I normally see the O/H Q's in combination with the Hunt Stakes when they happen


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

I find a thread like this somewhat amusing because the monster that has been created" the professional dog trainer" was created by Amateurs...they created the problem by abdicating their position of primary dog trainer...You all want Amateur stakes but you all have pro trained dogs or you yourselves are pro trained...

And to clarify things, the O/H stake was NOT designed to encourage more people to get into the game. It was designed to eliminate the absentee owner and discourage an Amateur from running dogs that belonged to someone else . No one used to care about that little detail,until those dogs started placing and winning


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Definition of Snowflake as an excerpt from Merriam-Webster-"....It's developed a new and decidedly less pleasant use as a disparaging term for a person who is seen as overly sensitive and fragile."


----------



## Terry Marshall (Jan 12, 2011)

Wayne Nutt said:


> Definition of Snowflake as an excerpt from *Merriam-Webster*-"....It's developed a new and decidedly less pleasant use as a disparaging term for a person who is seen as overly sensitive and fragile."


Wow Wayne, I didn't think anyone still used dictionaries....


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Maybe more should. It's an internet version. Just type in the word. You don't even have to know the alphabet.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

Wayne Nutt said:


> Definition of Snowflake as an excerpt from Merriam-Webster-"....It's developed a new and decidedly less pleasant use as a disparaging term for a person who is seen as overly sensitive and fragile."


Spade is a spade...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

BonMallari said:


> And to clarify things, the O/H stake was NOT designed to encourage more people to get into the game. It was designed to eliminate the absentee owner and discourage an Amateur from running dogs that belonged to someone else . No one used to care about that little detail,until those dogs started placing and winning



I disagree with this interpretation of history. 

I remember when the issue came up for a vote. The reason the O/H Q was promoted is that several clubs wanted some way to avoid 50+ dog Qualifyings that were populated with huge Pro handled contingents. Amateurs running multiple dogs in the Q were never discussed as an issue at the time. 

The Rocky Mountain Retriever Club voted for the change because we believed that clubs needed a tool to manage entries, even though we have never, and probably will never hold an O/H qualifying. 

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

JoeOverby said:


> Need a tissue snowflake?


Why the hostility, Joe? 

A few comments:

1. Darren is a dedicated young man. He trains his own dog regularly. He works at Field Trials. He judges. He has an opinion that differs from yours. No need to call him names because he disagrees.

2. When the issue of the O/H Qual came up for a vote, the issue was clubs having very large Q with many pro run dogs. Clubs wanted a tool to reduce numbers. They also wanted to promote Amateur participation. I don't remember anyone anticipating the issue of pros running dogs in the O/H Q. I will say that given the arguments for an O/H Q that in my mind pros running in the O/H Q do seem to me to violate the "spirit" of the proposal that the clubs voted on. 

3. I think that a similar thing has happened with the National Derby Championship. When it was first proposed, I think that there was a limit of three (3) dogs per handler. The reason for that limitation was to promote the new Amateur, to give him/her the "National" experience, and hook him/her on the sport. Now, the limit is five (5) dogs per handler, which I think is more discouraging to the newcomer, but furthers the economic viability of the event.

I personally think we ought to be looking for ways to encourage newcomers (and especially Amateurs) to become involved in the sport.

Is this a fight that I am emotionally invested in? No.

But, I think Darren is getting a bum rap. 

Ted


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

*Owner/handler background*



BonMallari said:


> And to clarify things, the O/H stake was NOT designed to encourage more people to get into the game. It was designed to eliminate the absentee owner and discourage an Amateur from running dogs that belonged to someone else . No one used to care about that little detail,until those dogs started placing and winning


Bon, you have accurately stated the underlying reason for the birth of the O/H stake in the
Amateur. If ACBIII were with us today, Lance would attest to that, as he was one who promoted it.

Yes, there were members in the Denver club that got on board because good handlers like John
Parrot handling many owner's dogs on Farmer's truck took it's toll & posed a threat - real or imaginary - to local owners. This went on in the '80's, before many of today's participants were present!

As an owner and trainer I never felt threatened. Many in Denver, Ft. Collins, Cheyenne did. While the element of "luck of the draw" and quality judging offset the impact of John's handling absentee owner's dogs, the emergence of the O/H limitation in many instances - RE the Arkansas Valley Retriever Club
entries - suffered and resulted in smaller Entry's (numbers) thus a dilatory B/E! As an officer of the AVRC
the crusade to 'stifle' the Parrot/Farmer approach cost the club and was not appreciated.

WD


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Cannuck #57 X 2 ...the trouble is that a lot of people here were not around(as you state)when these "tensions" were apparent as well as what pros ran what circuit for maximum results. The passing of time, memories, dogs and people.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

Ted Shih said:


> Why the hostility, Joe?
> 
> A few comments:
> 
> ...


I said my piece in post 47. I don't feel the need to defend myself further. Damn the pro regards.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

JoeOverby said:


> Ted Shih said:
> 
> 
> > Why the hostility, Joe?
> ...


"Damn the pro regards"???
WOW Joe just Wow
A couple of things for you to consider

Do you realize HT' s were created for Ams?
.
Do you realize most hunt tests and field trials wouldn't happen without people like Ted and Darren and myself putting them on free of charge ?

Would it affect your income if we decided to quit doing this thankless non paying jobs?


Did you pay attention to it when Darren told you that he's never run and owner Handler qual?

Don't you believe your clients would be better served with training their dogs now rather than arguing on the internet?

Are you a member of the prta?

Do you think that being a pro involves more than just charging money?


----------



## jrrichar (Dec 17, 2013)

I would like to mention one thing that seems to get looked over by those longing for yester years. 

The west is a very different place, which has nothing to do with FTs, but has placed a massive strain on the sport. LAND. There are very talented amateurs that use pros because 1. it is the only way to gain access to the required PRIVATE training grounds necessary for any competitive FT dog 2. the cost of living and requirements of the workforce today plus the reduced field event numbers do not allow most working full timers to adequately campaign 3. the sport has faced an ever increasing animosity from the public towards hunting and dog field events in general placing pressure on established public offerings. 

I don't live on the east coast anymore but something tells me they face many of the same issues. There are plenty of amateurs that are active in the sport in all ways but must use pro training to some extent. Most of us don't want to (we would much rather train our dogs) but we need to support our lives outside the sport. Some understanding by the "old-timers" especially those that no longer compete, would be generally appreciative. 

Joe, many more of the FT community appreciate pros. I do immensely. They work training our dogs, give back to the sport, support local economy, and contribute to elevating the sport to the level that is currently seen. Sometimes I wish people would see more then just ribbons and handlers. There are workers, bird suppliers, gas stations, hotels, atv/utv shops etc. that can rely to some degree on continued business events and pro group training bring to often small town America. 

I don't care if people use pros or don't. Your dog your choice. However, when you press submit to register for a FT event keep in mind it is a competition. As already stated only the field matters and you should be adequately prepared. I don't think that has changed from 30+ years ago.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

canuckkiller said:


> Bon, you have accurately stated the underlying reason for the birth of the O/H stake in the
> Amateur. If ACBIII were with us today, Lance would attest to that, as he was one who promoted it.
> 
> Yes, there were members in the Denver club that got on board because good handlers like John
> ...


The opposition to that behavior, a very good Amateur handler running a substantial number of very good Open dogs with absentee owners, began in California with Gene Corona running 6 or 8 dogs off of Remien's truck sometimes getting all 4 places. To suggest that running 6-8 dogs does not present a competitive imbalance is unrealistic and was harmful to the sport thus the birth of the Owner Handler Amateur Stake.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

Ok Mark...you and I have had this argument before.

#1 I am fully aware of why HTs were created. That said, the fact that i make my living training dogs has nothing to do with why they were created. Like I said in post 47...just get sick of the incessant pro bashing. Further, this post had absolutely nothing to do with HTs other than when some O/H Q's are held...youre a lawyer, if your gonna pick an argument, stay on topic.

#2 I run a club and put on a couple HT's a year...i know exactly what goes into doing so. I also volunteer my resources at EVERY SINGLE TEST I ATTEND. 

#3 The effect on my income if years stopped would be insignificant as the gross majority of my dogs never even see a HT.

#4 I did pay attention to his claim of never running one. That doesn't change what he said in his previous post about his feelings on pro involvement in an O/HQ that I along with others took as whining. 

#5 What I do with my time is my business. Your assertion as to what would be more beneficial to my clients is irrelevant to this argument and merely an attempt to get me to argue with you...as that's what you enjoy. Like I said previously, stay on topic. 

#6 I don't see the relevance of my membership to professional organizations to this argument either. 

#7 Yes, being a pro involves more than just charging money. But what my definition of a pro is is irrelevant to this argument.

Let's just get down it. I called Darren a snowflake because I felt his post was whining. Wayne and Ted took offense to that. I made a sarcastic remark to Ted's ridicule of my response and now you're playing defense attorney...


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

RE: Post #62 -

"It's in the eye of the beholder"!

I had the Good Fortune to judge Gene & 'WILLIE' several times. A hell-of-an animal and no question,
Gene was a fine/gifted/wonderful handler. Many was the time when after the land series & land blind, both
would be sitting in the middle of the pack. After the water blind & water marks "cream rose" and more
often than not, on summing up, that tandem/team placed or Won.

WD


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

JoeOverby said:


> I made a sarcastic remark to Ted's ridicule of my response


Joe 

You need to consult a dictionary

rid·i·cule
ˈridiˌkyo͞ol/
_noun_
noun: *ridicule*


*1*.
the subjection of someone or something to contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior.
"he is held up as *an object of ridicule*"

synonyms:mockery, derision, laughter, scorn, scoffing, contempt, jeering, sneering, sneers, jibes, jibing, teasing, taunts, taunting, badinage, chaffing, sarcasm, satire; More







antonyms:respect








Ted


----------



## RetrieverNation (Jul 15, 2012)

An Owner/Handler Qualifying is a Field Trial, plain and simple. The only difference is the handler must own the dog per the rulebook. 

To say the event or judges is something less than a regular Field Trial is ridiculous. There may be fewer competitive dogs, but the caliber of the dogs placing is no different than a regular field trial, or at least in my experience.

I have run three O/H/Q events this past summer. Every one of them had QAA, QA2 and professionally trained dogs competing. Most of the QAA and above dogs received those results at regular Field Trials. The last one I ran had five dogs that had met or exceeded the requirements to be Qualified All Age. Whoever determined the rules to allow already accomplished QAA dogs to continue to run really had some good foresight in protecting these events from being something less than a real Field Trial.

The results were even more interesting. The QAA and QA2 dogs did not get that easy first like they hoped to. The placements overwhelmingly went to the dedicated amateur whose home club was hosting the event or to the person with a professionally trained dog. 

There would probably be more entrants if the people who felt these events were inferior were not so afraid of doing poorly at such an event.


----------



## JoeOverby (Jan 2, 2010)

Ted Shih said:


> Joe
> 
> You need to consult a dictionary
> 
> ...


Yep...synonymous with contempt...i can spell condescension too.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

JoeOverby said:


> Yep...synonymous with contempt...i can spell condescension too.


​Well, I wasn't there before, I think I am there now.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

I don't have a problem with anyone running a OH Q at a HT as long as they own the dog. I haven't run one but will at some time in the future. But I also don't have a problem with someone that has a different opinion. As I said before, it opens the door for discussion and debate.

I disagree with Steve as to what constitutes a major pro. For example, Best Retrievers has a 100 dog kennel, a number of assistant trainers, takes two very large trailers to go to a hunt test. And there are others like Jeff Chestnut and Lyle Steinman, etc. They are major competitors. I have lots of respect for these trainers as they are excelling in their trade.
Rowdy and I have flashes where we will have better a series' at a hunt test than their best dog. But day in and day out they will do better than me. But on any given day I may prevail at a Q. Or so I hope.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Wayne Nutt said:


> I don't have a problem with anyone running a OH Q at a HT as long as they own the dog. I haven't run one but will at some time in the future. But I also don't have a problem with someone that has a different opinion. As I said before, it opens the door for discussion and debate.
> 
> I disagree with Steve as to what constitutes a major pro. For example, Best Retrievers has a 100 dog kennel, a number of assistant trainers, takes two very large trailers to go to a hunt test. And there are others like Jeff Chestnut and Lyle Steinman, etc. They are major competitors. I have lots of respect for these trainers as they are excelling in their trade.
> Rowdy and I have flashes where we will have better a series' at a hunt test than their best dog. But day in and day out they will do better than me. But on any given day I may prevail at a Q. Or so I hope.





Curious Wayne, of those guys mentioned how often do they run FT and how many of those dogs do they own? Things that people say on here shows me that things are very different in other parts of the country. In my world here I don't see any problem with any pros running the qual.
Here's some stats on our local trials.

DQ/HT - 7 out of 18 dogs were pro handled 2 of those placed one jammed.

DQ/HT - 8 out of 25 dogs pro handled with one of those placing and one jam.

Full trial -10 out of 20 dogs pro handled with one of those placed and one jam.

Full trial - 19 out of 25 pro handled pros taking all placements and 3 jams.

Full trial -12 out of 17 dogs pro handled of those two placed no jams.

Full trial 7 out of 20 dogs pro handled of those 1 place and one jam.

Of all these trial with pros plenty of ams taking placements and jams. The two trials listed that dominated by pros and without them there would have been no Qual.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Steve, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I don't know the answer to your questions. I did look at the results of three OH/Q. They were randomly selected with no rational or area of country. The results were: one test was 50/50 on placements, the other two were almost all pro placements. Almost because one placement didn't indicate their status.
As stated earlier, I don't have an issue with pros running as long as they own the dog.
Some of the trainers in this area tend to go to SRS rather than FT.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I don't get the controversy, it's an owner handler field trial, pretty simple. I go by the letter of the law and don't speculate on what was the spirit was. It actually quite rare for a pro owner to enter one, but I really don't see the pro having any advantage over any good amateur. It's not like you're going to see a whole string of his own dogs at one of these. Being able to "go to school" on a test by running a string of dogs is the pros biggest advantage.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

EdA said:


> The opposition to that behavior, a very good Amateur handler running a substantial number of very good Open dogs with absentee owners, began in California with Gene Corona running 6 or 8 dogs off of Remien's truck sometimes getting all 4 places. To suggest that running 6-8 dogs does not present a competitive imbalance is unrealistic and was harmful to the sport thus the birth of the Owner Handler Amateur Stake.


My buddy Gene Corona, I really liked him, he was always very talkative with me and tell me what he learned in Escalon,only to be rebutted by Ken Cory ..I miss those guys...Mr Corona was the first to show me the " white coat- black glove" , which my brother still to this day gives me grief about when I dress that way just to shoot the flyer....


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

BonMallari said:


> My buddy Gene Corona, I really liked him, he was always very talkative with me and tell me what he learned in Escalon,only to be rebutted by Ken Cory ..I miss those guys...Mr Corona was the first to show me the " white coat- black glove" , which my brother still to this day gives me grief about when I dress that way just to shoot the flyer....


Corona had a printed page on the back of his judge's book "If God had intended for Mexicans to rule the world he wouldn't have invented tequila." A good dude with a very good dog Dessa's Willie-Be-Good.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

These Qualifying threads come up often creating a bunch of hubbub that I don't get. In the big field trial picture the Qualifying Stake means next to nothing, dogs are not awarded letters in front of their name but people continue to argue of some unfairness, disgruntled the odd pro may run their dog in an O/A, and dismiss quals run at hunting tests as less than a true test. 
Get over it, it's a Qualifying, run them or not and move up to AA if or when dog is ready.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Wayne Nutt said:


> Steve, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. I don't know the answer to your questions. I did look at the results of three OH/Q. They were randomly selected with no rational or area of country. The results were: one test was 50/50 on placements, the other two were almost all pro placements. Almost because one placement didn't indicate their status.
> As stated earlier, I don't have an issue with pros running as long as they own the dog.
> Some of the trainers in this area tend to go to SRS rather than FT.




Well Wayne we are talking about pros running owner handler quals. You disagreed with me on what a major pro is which is irrelevant. My point is there just aint many big pros HT or FT that own dogs and run OH quals. I doubt that any of those you mentioned do. A guy that runs a 100 dog kennel doesn't have any time to be owning and running his own dog. I'm just looking for one example of a pro violating the "spirit of an owner handler qual". There is only one owner handler qual out this way and I just checked it out. There were 27 dogs entered and two were pro owned, two different pros with one dog each and one of them got 4th, big deal! Other local trials I listed previously were not O/H quals. I was just trying to show that it really doesn't matter. Amateurs in regular quals in this area hold their own against the pros.
Can anyone show me anywhere that a pro that went against the "spirit of an O/H Qual? If it is a problem with a pro running one or two little dogs that he owns in an O/H qual then why not ban pros form all quals. Again it is a competition so if you want to compete go for it. As I said *you need to beat the test before you can beat the competition.* That's the way I look at it when I run an open. The competition there is scary but if my dog cant do the test it really doesn't matter. The judges are your real competitor. They set up a test and you have to beat it then worry about the other dogs an handlers.
John Robinson says it plain and simple in post #72. Time for this thread to fade away I think.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Steve Shaver said:


> As I said *you need to beat the test before you can beat the competition.*.


Amen! Amen! Amen!


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

I know that I'm not the first to say this but....... You Sir are an asshole.

Kiss my entire ass regards

Bubba


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Who? (Is the arsehole)


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Who? The OP?


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

Boy I missed a lot this weekend running a FT


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Daren Galloway said:


> Boy I missed a lot this weekend running a FT





Shame on you for being out running a trial instead of being here talking about it ;-). How'd it go?


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

The judges had different ideas on what they were looking for than I do.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Daren Galloway said:


> The judges had different ideas on what they were looking for than I do.




Funny how that works, they always seem to put stuff in the way and make it difficult and then expect the poor dog to be perfect. Been there done that.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Daren Galloway said:


> The judges had different ideas on what they were looking for than I do.


Nice way to put it!


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Daren Galloway and Hank just won blue in FT Open at Brandon RC. Snowflakes don't do this!


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Wayne Nutt said:


> Daren Galloway and Hank just won blue in FT Open at Brandon RC. Snowflakes don't do this!





Awesome!!!!! Nice job Daren, congrats


----------

