# Correction - New Designation for Owner/Handler Amateur



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

It appears that I was slightly misinformed. Hence, the correction.

According to John Russell, the change under discussion is not to add a third category of Amateur Stake. Rather, it is to clarify the parameters of the Owner/Handler Stake. The proposal under consideration to to make the O/H available only to "exclusive owners" that is: the owner and his/her immediate family. Husbands and wives, Parents and children, would all be considered "exclusive owners" and eligible to run in the O/H Amateur. 

Clubs would be able to elect, as before, to hold an Amateur or an O/H Amateur.

It is thought that this clarification is consistent of the intent of the O/H Amateur when it was first proposed. 

Again, the RAC is interested in feedback on this proposal from the FT community.

John confirmed that the RAC abandoned the proposal for limits on the numbers of dogs per handler in the Amateur. He noted that there was simply a lack of interest in the proposal. He noted that if sufficient numbers of people expressed an interest in revisiting the concept, the RAC would consider it.

The above is all I know, so I cannot answer any questions for further information.

As before, I urge that you get involved in these issues and contact the RAC if you have concerns. 

Ted


----------



## Gawthorpe (Oct 4, 2007)

Ted:
Would you mind publishing again the contacts on the RAC for each region?
I appreciate your communicating this information.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Gawthorpe said:


> Ted:
> Would you mind publishing again the contacts on the RAC for each region?
> I appreciate your communicating this information.



I am not sure how regions are divvied up. However, the members that I know are:

Kate Simonds 
Ray Vreeland
John Russell
John Goettl

Ted


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

What is the definition of "owner" ?


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

I wonder if the RAC will solicit opinions via snail mail directly from the AKC club contacts/secretaries, or if they are going to rely on word of mouth via RTF and weekend field trials to get the feedback in order to craft a rule change proposal...and where does the "interest" comes from in this proposal and how widespread IS that interest?

k g


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

thanks for the update Ted....but just wondering if they might to change the wording from Exclusive Owner to Primary Owner, before someone claims that there are a duo or trio of Exclusive Owners


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

K G said:


> I wonder if the RAC will solicit opinions via snail mail directly from the AKC club contacts/secretaries, or if they are going to rely on word of mouth via RTF and weekend field trials to get the feedback in order to craft a rule change proposal...and where does the "interest" comes from in this proposal and how widespread IS that interest?
> 
> k g



Keith

Like the idea of limiting dogs per handler in the Amateur, I believe that the idea will be discussed at the NARC and NRC, and will be noted in the Retriever News. Input will be solicited. If there is sufficient interest, a proposal will be crafted, and the proposal sent as before to the clubs for their review and written response. 

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

BonMallari said:


> thanks for the update Ted....but just wondering if they might to change the wording from Exclusive Owner to Primary Owner, before someone claims that there are a duo or trio of Exclusive Owners



Bon

If the idea generates sufficient interest, I believe that the RAC will word a proposal which defines "Exclusive Owner" (their term) to address your concern. I think - without knowing - that their "Exclusive Owner" will be similar to what I called "Single Family Owner" 

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

DRAKEHAVEN said:


> What is the definition of "owner" ?



The "Owner" of a dog is determined by its AKC registration papers.


----------



## skyy (Mar 25, 2014)

to me again this is a total waste of time. How common is a O/H Am stake, because I can't remember ever seeing an O/H Am stake her on the east coast.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

skyy said:


> How common is a O/H Am stake, because I can't remember ever seeing an O/H Am stake her on the east coast.



I will run four trials this April/May. Three have owner/handler Amateur.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

So this new rule will do nothing to keep people from having co-owners on the AKC registration paperwork to skirt the intent of an O/H. Not to mention that there are some co-ownerships out there for valid reasons.

I'm not sure how this rule is going to help with the underlying issue that some are trying to address - a large volume owner who spreads their dogs out across a circuit (or the country) and has "co-owners" run their dogs - there are only a handful of those who do this, yet this proposal will do nothing to curb this behavior.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

FOM said:


> So this new rule will do nothing to keep people from having co-owners on the AKC registration paperwork to skirt the intent of an O/H. Not to mention that there are some co-ownerships out there for valid reasons.
> 
> I'm not sure how this rule is going to help with the underlying issue that some are trying to address - a large volume owner who spreads their dogs out across a circuit (or the country) and has "co-owners" run their dogs - there are only a handful of those who do this, yet this proposal will do nothing to curb this behavior.



To the extent that you believe that the "large volume owner" is an issue, I believe you are incorrect. 

IF
- the new rule was adopted
- a club decided to hold an O/H Am under the new rule
- then an Amateur handler who co-owns the dog with the "large volume owner" would not be permitted to enter the O/H am, nor would the "large volume owner" be permitted to enter the O/H Am

IF
- the new rule was adopted
- and my understanding is correct
- then only the "Exclusive Owner" (or members of his/her direct family) would be eligible to enter the O/H Am

For example, if you wanted to run Tango in a new rule O/H, you could even if you and David were listed as co-owners, because you are married.
However, if you wanted to run Tango in a new rule O/H, you could not if you and I were co-owners, because we are not direct family members.

Ted


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Sounds ridiculous to me. (Speaking as a former co-owner of a competitive dog). I don't know how anyone would have determined "exclusive" in my partnership. We viewed it as 50/50.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

huntinman said:


> Sounds ridiculous to me. (Speaking as a former co-owner of a competitive dog). I don't know how anyone would have determined "exclusive" in my partnership. We viewed it as 50/50.



I think the term "Single Family" is more descriptive than the term "Exclusive" but it is what it is


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Off the top of my head I can think of 2-4 co-owners who are or were indeed Co-owners, both run the same dog, and pretty much only that 1 dog. ~Half the time it's with one; half the time it's with the other both are Amateurs. I myself am contemplating a co-ownership, with another amateur to share the expenses-time associated with campaigning a dog. Seems like a pretty raw deal that these type of people, could not run an O/H Amateur because of suspected rule circumvention by others. The thing with cheaters, who are playing the system (if they do exist); they will pretty much always find a way to play the system regardless of how many times they redefine Amateur; and basically the only people the stake will end up losing are those who play by the rules.

Heck just sign the dog over to the "owner" you want to run the dog for the season, and get it back later; very feasible to do

Outsiders-view; The heart of this problem is the more bullets you have in a gun, the more likely you are to get one of those bullets to hit the correct target. Someone running with 10 dogs of the same caliber as someone running 1 dog, has 9 more chances that one of their dogs will win, basic math.


----------



## TroyFeeken (May 30, 2007)

Sounds silly. Another waste of time by the RAC and if passes, the local clubs dealing with people raising complaints.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Outsiders-view; The heart of this problem is the more bullets you have in a gun, the more likely you are to get one of those bullets to hit the correct target. Someone running with 10 dogs of the same caliber as someone running 1 dog, has 9 more chances that one of their dogs will win, basic math.


IMO Running multiple dogs is a lot bigger advantage than just that of mere chance. I've only had multiple all-age dogs a few times. However, I learned something about the test with each dog I run. My second dog always had an advantage. That's why there's a rule about a handler running dogs out of order. That's also why I like to run test dog if I have one on a test that I still have a dog running.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

I think ARC (Atlanta Retriever Club) has held several O/H amateurs in the past when they were concerned with numbers. And a number of clubs have so designated their Am stake over the years.

I do have a question about the term "exclusive owner" since it appears nowhere the AKC regulations. What further exclusivity is thought to be gained by this term versus the current AKC definition of "owner"?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

So we are saying that the co-owners on the AKC registration paperwork have to be "exclusive" family members in order to run the dog in an O/H under the new proposal? They can not be non-family?

Okay, get it. And you are correct, if it passes then the large volume owners would not be able to skirt the intent - I misinterpreted prior comments.

However, how can it be a "Owner Handler" if on the AKC paperwork the owners are listed, yet they aren't allowed to run? Will the AKC approve such a thing?

It's interesting.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

I agree with Ted Shih's #13,15 but Doug Main I agree w/you. My "problem" w/this business is when judges allow a pro to a run test dog(s) when they have a client's dog on their truck and it is run in the same Amateur. I have seen and experienced this too much and obviously the client gets the benefit of pro instruction. But who said this game was fair? So try to always be the better handler if not the best and let the dice roll.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

FOM said:


> So we are saying that the co-owners on the AKC registration paperwork have to be "exclusive" family members in order to run the dog in an O/H under the new proposal? They can not be non-family?
> 
> Okay, get it. And you are correct, if it passes then the large volume owners would not be able to skirt the intent - I misinterpreted prior comments.
> 
> ...


Now you are getting to the heart of the inevitable issue with any such proposed change. The term "owner" isn't for the exclusive use of the retriever field trial community. And I can't imagine the AKC wanting the word to mean something different among differing breeds, shows, events etc. I would guess this is yet another proposal directed at a specific situation that someone on the RAC doesn't like (such as layout blinds) rather than a change that will benefit the game.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

It's another example of how convoluted rules become when you try to legislate solutions to relatively minor problems.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Doug Main said:


> IMO Running multiple dogs is a lot bigger advantage than just that of mere chance. I've only had multiple all-age dogs a few times. However, I learned something about the test with each dog I run. My second dog always had an advantage. That's why there's a rule about a handler running dogs out of order. * That's also why I like to run test dog if I have one on a test that I still have a dog running.*



Now that is something I would have a slight problem with...If you are still involved in the stake IMO you are breaking the spirit of good sportsmanship by running test dog


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

BonMallari said:


> Now that is something I would have a slight problem with...If you are still involved in the stake IMO you are breaking the spirit of good sportsmanship by running test dog


Seems to happen more often then not, in all stakes


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

BonMallari said:


> Now that is something I would have a slight problem with...If you are still involved in the stake IMO you are breaking the spirit of good sportsmanship by running test dog


In the Open it happens every time a Pro runs a test dog...I see nothing wrong with it...


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

BonMallari said:


> Now that is something I would have a slight problem with...If you are still involved in the stake IMO you are breaking the spirit of good sportsmanship by running test dog


What is your problem with it?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

FOM said:


> In the Open it happens every time a Pro runs a test dog...I see nothing wrong with it...


I am very well aware that it happens in the Open......but this is about the Amateur stake...I understand a PRO running test dog in the Amateur stake,sometimes for the sake of expediency.....but allowing a competitor to do so in the Amateur stake is that grey area between fair play and good sportsmanship


----------



## Mark Littlejohn (Jun 16, 2006)

swliszka said:


> I agree with Ted Shih's #13,15 but Doug Main I agree w/you. My "problem" w/this business is when judges allow a pro to a run test dog(s) when they have a client's dog on their truck and it is run in the same Amateur. I have seen and experienced this too much and obviously the client gets the benefit of pro instruction. But who said this game was fair? So try to always be the better handler if not the best and let the dice roll.


In the 50 or so Amateur stakes I've attended, I've never seen a pro run test dog. Is this the situation you're citing?


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

BonMallari said:


> I am very well aware that it happens in the Open......but this is about the Amateur stake...I understand a PRO running test dog in the Amateur stake,sometimes for the sake of expediency.....but allowing a competitor to do so in the Amateur stake is that grey area between fair play and good sportsmanship


What rationale makes you say that or draw a difference?


----------



## Dave Burton (Mar 22, 2006)

Next we will see owners moving in with their trainers(same household).


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Even though this thread is about the AM. it happens in all stakes, shouldn't make any difference what stake it is. Alot of times there are no options because every one else is gone... I see nothing wrong with it


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

mjh345 said:


> What rationale makes you say that or draw a difference?


Well a lot of talk is being bantered about keeping the Amateur for amateurs...I just dont think it would be playing in good spirit if I was able to run one of my brother's dogs in the water blind if he still has a dog in the water blind...Not much I can do if A List Pro ____ runs test dog, and then goes and tells client X___ to beware of the getting the dog behind the swale in the bank behind the point...


----------



## Dave Plesko (Aug 16, 2009)

This has suddenly morphed into a test dog discussion, but as a trial committee memember, I'm just happy when someone will actually step up and volunteer to run a test dog. It's not as easy to find that person as Bon might think.

DP


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Dave Plesko said:


> This has suddenly morphed into a test dog discussion, but as a trial committee memember, I'm just happy when someone will actually step up and volunteer to run a test dog. It's not as easy to find that person as Bon might think.
> 
> DP


I'm with you on that issue........


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Dave Plesko said:


> This has suddenly morphed into a test dog discussion, but as a trial committee memember, I'm just happy when someone will actually step up and volunteer to run a test dog. It's not as easy to find that person as Bon might think.
> 
> DP


No doubt, in St Louis two weeks ago they were begging for a test dog for the Open. That was in the first series, too!!!


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

I apologize for derailing the thread.....


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

labman63 said:


> Next we will see owners moving in with their trainers(same household).


More likely trainers moving in with an owner since some trainers train on an owner's grounds now. Will that mean that owner can run any of the pro's dogs...wait, that was the reason for the original O/H events.


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Mark Littlejohn- 50 for me too and have seen it in 5 different states w/different pros/clients. skyy -west of PA.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> Now you are getting to the heart of the inevitable issue with any such proposed change. The term "owner" isn't for the exclusive use of the retriever field trial community. And I can't imagine the AKC wanting the word to mean something different among differing breeds, shows, events etc. I would guess this is yet another proposal directed at a specific situation that someone on the RAC doesn't like (such as layout blinds) rather than a change that will benefit the game.



David, 

I think that you - and others - are making this more complicated than it needs to be.

The Rule Book already has this language on page 16



> A dog is not eligible to be entered or to compete in any licensed or member trial in any stake, if a Judge of that stake or any member of his family has owned, sold, held under lease, boarded (except as a veterinarian incidental to veterinary care), or trained the dog, or handled the dog at more than two trials, within one year prior to the starting date of the field trial, or if a Judge or any member of his family holds a direct financial interest contingent upon the dog’s performance



I am not part of the RAC. I do not know the reasons that this issue is coming to the fore at this time. I do know that the crafting of the language is not difficult.

For example, 

The Owner/Handler stake (Amateur or Qualifying) shall be open to a dog that is owned by an individual and any member of his immediate family. The Owner/Handler Stake shall not be open to a dog owned by more than one individual, who are not members of the same immediate family. Immediate family means .....

The bigger question is whether this change will benefit the sport. Frankly, I can see both sides of the argument.


Ted


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

O/H Amateur has been abused in the past & will continue to be so until properly defined -
I like the idea of Single Family Owner - meaning those who are blood relatives or legally bound from a single 
source all being able to run any dog in the stake, thus Exclusive Owner.

I think all the nay-sayers are not looking at all the potential this rule would have.
It would create an opportunity for someone too busy to do the dating scene but 
was single to all of a sudden be attractive based on their dog's talents - It would 
also create the possibility for someone unhappy with their domestic setup to 
potentially upgrade based on the talents of their dog.

I am also sure that the creativity that some have shown in circumventing the 
present rule would soon be put to use trying to figure out a new way to circumvent 
this rule if adopted.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

This is a dead horse from Amateurs running around the country with a truckload of Pro dogs running the amateur, to multi owned dogs to selling dogs for a dollar and buying back etc, etc etc. Where there is a will, there is a way. Leave it alone the way it now exists . I presently triple co-own two dogs and co-own two others. The reason for many amateurs is splitting expenses, work schedules, traveling, training, experience,
it aint all evil stuff. My opinion.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Criquetpas said:


> This is a dead horse from Amateurs running around the country with a truckload of Pro dogs running the amateur, to multi owned dogs to selling dogs for a dollar and buying back etc, etc etc. Where there is a will, there is a way. Leave it alone the way it now exists . I presently triple co-own two dogs and co-own two others. The reason for many amateurs is splitting expenses, work schedules, traveling, training, experience,
> it aint all evil stuff. My opinion.


When the O/H rule was adopted the club I was president of at that time had a very active FT group. 
For some reason this particular club had an issue with dogs being brought in & DHed for the Amateur
Stake. It was put to a vote & decided we would have an O/H stake. The vote was 14-3 to adopt the rule.
There were 2 individuals (both RHOF members) waving their fists in each others face about the issue . 

You are correct that it is not all evil - but I don't believe a club has to adopt it if they have no issue. We
had an issue. The ability to adopt should the issue arise is just another tool in the clubs box. There is evil 
in the circumvention of any rule & it should be combatted fiercely!


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Marvin S said:


> I think all the nay-sayers are not looking at all the potential this rule would have.
> It would create an opportunity for someone too busy to do the dating scene but
> was single to all of a sudden be attractive based on their dog's talents - It would
> also create the possibility for someone unhappy with their domestic setup to
> potentially upgrade based on the talents of their dog.


I thought this was already the case; seems particular individuals swap domestics, like they do underwear.  Only an AM owner must be sure to have 2 houses on the property, and charge rent; just in case a swapped domestic decides to turn Pro, wouldn't want to lose Am status, for assumed cohabitation after an upgrade. Exactly what is the statue of limitations on talent upgrades, 6mts..a yr?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Marvin S said:


> When the O/H rule was adopted the club I was president of at that time had a very active FT group.
> For some reason this particular club had an issue with dogs being brought in & DHed for the Amateur
> Stake. It was put to a vote & decided we would have an O/H stake. The vote was 14-3 to adopt the rule.
> There were 2 individuals (both RHOF members) waving their fists in each others face about the issue .
> ...


I heard that story before from a credible source and thought it was funny then as much as it is now. At least now I know they were telling me the truth. Thanks for the verification


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> David,
> 
> I think that you - and others - are making this more complicated than it needs to be.
> 
> ...


In your wording the dilemma, issue or problem will be the re-defining of an owner as one individual, when currently, it is acceptable to the AKC (actually a routine practice) for a dog of any breed, in any event, to be owned or co-owned by several persons not of the same household. The regulations section that you mention clearly applies to each of the owners & their households or families of the owner(s) of a particular dog and does not contradict the current definition & usage of the word "owner" as used in all AKC registrations and regulations across ALL breeds & events. Therefore in that context the use of "owner" as defined as those who are named on the registration of a particular dog is actually more restrictive because of the broader application. In the case of the proposed application, the new definition is purposely more limited in application and contradicts & limits the term, "owner", in comparison to every other AKC application (bench, rally, obedience, etc and across all breeds). I just don't see how the AKC will allow the RAC to differently define or re-define the word "owner" uniquely for retriever field trials. Now if the RAC wants to eliminate an ownership practice they consider abusive relative to owner/handler events, then just add wording that says no dogs owned by more than one person are eligible to enter and run O/H events. In doing so the RAC will erect yet another barrier to participation in our sport to a number of individuals who are not abusing the O/H regs but only attempting to find a means to stay in the sport and compete. And all this because some member(s) of the RAC feels they are having to compete against someone they believe is abusing the regs dealing with O/H field trial stakes.

I'm with Earl, leave it alone. We know who the abusers are, and we know who is honestly co-owning dogs to help finance a legitimate interest in the sport. If I don't want to compete against the abusers I'll enter another event. And if the RAC wants to test this proposal, I suggest they start with limiting competitors in the national Am to actual owners.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

There are true co-owners in what I believe to be the spirit of rule. I had a job for many years that required me to work most fridays and saturdays. I have a bigger problem with legitimate Amateur owner/handlers that own and run 4 or more dogs in the Amateur stake as well as the Open. I think this goes against the "spirit" of the Amateur stake. These are really "Self-Funded Pros". 

The new proposal would not change this. Nor would it significantly help (at least in my circuit) with the burden on the clubs. 

These Pro-Ams generally don't give back. They are too busy running their own dogs to marshal, chair, judge. throw, shoot, etc.. Additional burden falls on Marshals, judges, gunners, bird boys, extra birds (bye dogs) and even the other contestants to name a few. 

Having one or two dogs in two or even three stakes is nothing compared to a Pro-Am that has 4 or or more in the AA stakes. The last series of an AM or Open can easily take 30+ minutes per dog. Juggling between stakes is often chaotic at best. Some stakes can be a half hour drive apart.

I enjoy helping put on trials for those that give back to the sport. I am growing very tired of subsidising through my free labor those that only "take". 

I don't know the original spirit of trials in general, as elitists have had a lot to do with them from their inception. They still have too much say in my opinion due to who is on the RAC, how they get there and how long they stay. Also the way in which proxy votes are gathered by some of these chosen few has allowed them to pass or fail whatever proposals they choose even when the majority of clubs and members vote and feel differently.


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

If two handlers co own a dog, then who is the primary handler? Who trains it the most? Who can possibly monitor this rule?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Tim West said:


> If two handlers co own a dog, then who is the primary handler? Who trains it the most? Who can possibly monitor this rule?



Tim, if the new rule is passed, it won't matter who is the primary handler. If the two owner are not members of the same household, the dog is not eligible for the O/H Amateur.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> Tim, if the new rule is passed, it won't matter who is the primary handler. If the two owner are not members of the same household, the dog is not eligible for the O/H Amateur.


That just made me go back and look at your previous explanation: 

so a (husband/wife) owned dog would be eligible
but a (brother/brother) owned dog would not be eligible


Thanks for clarifying that....not that it effects us now but could with the new pups a couple of years down the road


----------



## Randy Bohn (Jan 16, 2004)

RULE CHANGE PROPOSAL:Enforce the ones you have/had in the past, then most would be impressed.


----------



## Dwayne Padgett (Apr 12, 2009)

> The Owner/Handler stake (Amateur or Qualifying) shall be open to a dog that is owned by an individual and any member of his immediate family. The Owner/Handler Stake shall not be open to a dog owned by more than one individual, who are not members of the same immediate family. Immediate family means .....


It's BS ! So their going to tell me that me and a buddy or girlfriend can't own and run a dog together ? Is AKC now a Government agency ?


----------



## born2retrieve (Nov 18, 2007)

Dwayne Padgett said:


> It's BS ! So their going to tell me that me and a buddy or girlfriend can't own and run a dog together ? Is AKC now a Government agency ?


I agree totally! Stop complaining and get out and train! I see it as a way to limit the competition. I feel the same about a owner handler Q!


----------



## russell.jason2 (Mar 13, 2011)

born2retrieve said:


> I agree totally! Stop complaining and get out and train! I see it as a way to limit the competition. I feel the same about a owner handler Q!


Stop Complaining, wow, folk trying to make the game better and it's complaining. There a few folks that train their butts off but can only afford one to two dogs and you expect them to compete with an amateur who co-owns X-number of dogs and runs them in a Amateur. In my opinion, that is not the spirit and intent of the Amateur stake. I do not think no one is trying to make it easier, just trying to make it fair and make sure the Amateur does not turn into another open(in some cases it's no different.) There is a stake for folks who gets paid to train dogs for a living, or who co-owns numerous dogs in order to bring as many bullets as they can to the fight and in my opinion it's called the OPEN. When I run, I double stake my dog and I see no difference between the two stakes. The difference I am talking about is not the difficulty of the test, they are and should be the same but when pro-x has a large number of dogs in the open and amateur y has a large number of dogs he/she is running(majority of these dogs are co-owned), what's the difference???

Jason


----------



## born2retrieve (Nov 18, 2007)

So it is fair that a so called AM goes to a trial and pulls his dog off a pros truck and goes and runs the AM? It's all in who has the the deepest pockets. So if a guy splits the cost with more than one owner he pays the price. I still see it as limiting the competition! Calling it as I see it. There is always someone trying to bend the rules and the honest guy pays the price. Sore loser is the one who is pissed off at the end of the weekend and rocks the boat.


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

born2retrieve said:


> I feel the same about a owner handler Q!


Why?...........


----------



## born2retrieve (Nov 18, 2007)

Wade said:


> Why?...........


Same reason. Limits the competition. I feel the best dog should win period. Don't care who is running it. If u feel the need to limit the competition in order to get a ribbon than go run hunt test.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

born2retrieve said:


> Same reason. Limits the competition. I feel the best dog should win period. Don't care who is running it. If u feel the need to limit the competition in order to get a ribbon than go run hunt test.


That isn't the intent of the O/H. Q Hopefully it encourages people to run there own dogs in the minor stakes and either get or stay involved at a hands on level.;-)


----------



## russell.jason2 (Mar 13, 2011)

born2retrieve said:


> Same reason. Limits the competition. I feel the best dog should win period. Don't care who is running it. If u feel the need to limit the competition in order to get a ribbon than go run hunt test.


Same standard answer to anyone that has recommendations to change..."go run hunt test"


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

born2retrieve said:


> Same reason. Limits the competition. I feel the best dog should win period. Don't care who is running it. If u feel the need to limit the competition in order to get a ribbon than go run hunt test.



I agree with what Todd has to say. It has nothing to do with a ribbon or the competition. 

IMHO the only reason a Pro should be running a dog in a Minor stake is because the owner CAN NOT be present. I have a hard time with those owners who can't or won't run their own dog. What's the purpose of being involved in the game if all you are going to do is sit and watch from the sidelines. This is suppose to be a hobby so go have some fun. Besides, Minors are a great place to sharpen your skills before stepping up with the big boys.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

born2retrieve said:


> Same reason. Limits the competition. I feel the best dog should win period. Don't care who is running it. If u feel the need to limit the competition in order to get a ribbon than go run hunt test.


So, you must want to abolish the amateur stake. Just have 2 opens. Since the amateur, by definition, limits the handlers.


----------



## born2retrieve (Nov 18, 2007)

cakaiser said:


> So, you must want to abolish the amateur stake. Just have 2 opens. Since the amateur, by definition, limits the handlers.


Why don't we have a true amateur than. Let's just say no dog can be professionally trained. How about we do that?


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

born2retrieve said:


> Why don't we have a true amateur than. Let's just say no dog can be professionally trained. How about we do that?


That will never happen. But...fine by me.
You didn't answer the question.


----------



## born2retrieve (Nov 18, 2007)

cakaiser said:


> That will never happen. But...fine by me.
> You didn't answer the question.


Not saying I want 2 opens. Everyone wants a fair playing field. I don't see it fair for a Am to have a hand full of pro trained dogs in the AM and I can't because I co own them (I don't have any co owned dogs at this time). I understand the so called problem. I also think if the shoe was on the other foot it would not be a problem.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

born2retrieve said:


> Not saying I want 2 opens. Everyone wants a fair playing field. I don't see it fair for a Am to have a hand full of pro trained dogs in the AM and I can't because I co own them (I don't have any co owned dogs at this time). I understand the so called problem. I also think if the shoe was on the other foot it would not be a problem.


The field trial game itself was only meant to be fair on the field itself. You can not expect to match the resources of bank heiresses, trust fund babies, and business moguls. They will always have resources at their disposal that the average person will never have. But they have to run the same test under the same conditions and the same judges
The Amateur has been defined and challenged and redefined and will continue to be challenged.
Michael Phelps is considered an amateur only because of the current standard by the USOC, 20 years ago he would have been considered to be ineligible to compete in the Olympics


----------



## born2retrieve (Nov 18, 2007)

BonMallari said:


> The field trial game itself was only meant to be fair on the field itself. You can not expect to match the resources of bank heiresses, trust fund babies, and business moguls. They will always have resources at their disposal that the average person will never have. But they have to run the same test under the same conditions and the same judges
> The Amateur has been defined and challenged and redefined and will continue to be challenged.
> Michael Phelps is considered an amateur only because of the current standard by the USOC, 20 years ago he would have been considered to be ineligible to compete in the Olympics


That much better explains my point. Change in the rule will hurt the little guy more than anything.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I think it is a myth that unlimited competition is good - or that it exists in the real world.

In business, anti-trust laws were enacted from preventing people with monopoly power from crushing the competition and engaging in price fixing.
In sports, the most popular sport we have is Pro Football, where a salary cap allows a team from Green Bay, Wisconsin to compete with teams from New York City.

I have thought for some time that it was important to level the playing field, in order to increase competition.

That is, in part, why Ed Aycock and I proposed the Limited Entry per Handler Open many years ago. That proposal never left the committee. It upset me that it was never discussed publicly, but life goes on.

When the proposal to limit the number of dogs per handler in the Amateur was announced, I supported it. I thought it would enhance competition. The number of dogs per handler was not really an issue in my circuit, but I knew it was in others and thought something should be done. However, I was apparently in the minority, as the proposal died on the vine.

I don't know who "born2retrieve" if he runs dogs, helps put on field trials, etc. 

However, I do know Erik Gawthorpe, John Gassner, and some of the other folks who have commented on this thread. They work hard. They compete hard. They contribute to the sport. They put on trials. They judge. They are telling you that they are fed up. That should be concerning, because these are good guys who contribute to the sport. It would be a huge loss if they left. I also know Jason Russell is a new guy to the sport. He works hard for the Shreveport club. It would be shame if we lost him, too. These guys are not whiners. I think if they are concerned, the least we can do is listen.

When I started running field trials, working class guys would show up in their station wagon and run their dogs. Those guys are mostly gone now. The group at risk now is the upper middle class guy. I am concerned that if something is not done that in a few more years, we will have gone back to where the Amateur started with the ultra wealthy taking turns putting on field trials at one another's home. 

I am torn on this issue of redefining the Owner/Handler.

On the one hand, I think that there are those that have abused the rules in order to gain a competitive advantage.
On the other hand, I have friends who co-own dogs so that they can afford to play. And I have co-owned dogs in the past in order to spread my own dollars as well. 

I think we need to do something to level the playing field in the Amateur.

I just don't think that the "Exclusive Owner" or "Single Family Owner" stake would be a very effective weapon.
I preferred limiting the number of dogs that a handler could run in the Amateur, but that proposal never left the ground. 

Ted


----------



## born2retrieve (Nov 18, 2007)

Now I see your point and agree with u Ted. I don't think it is right to say what dogs can and can't be entered by a AM


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

born2retrieve said:


> Now I see your point and agree with u Ted. I don't think it is right to say what dogs can and can't be entered by a AM




I think you missed my point.


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

I think limiting the entries per handler and redefining the owner/handler relationship serve two different purposes.

There are a couple of problems these potential rules address:

1. The "Shamateur." Competes in the amateur with 3, 4, 5, etc., dogs that he/she co-owns with other individuals. It's likely that this individual is compensated in some manner for training and running these dogs, but it's difficult and probably dangerous to try to prove it (think litigation). The redefined owner handler would wipe this out pretty effectively, but there would be collateral damage for the true co-owner arrangements that are born out of financial necessity or convenience. 

2. The professional amateur. This individual has numerous dogs that he/she runs in the amateur, but owns these dogs and obviously doesn't receive any compensation for running the dogs. Some feel that because this individual has so many "bullets," it violates the spirit of the amateur. Very few individuals have the money and time to compete in this manner. It's sort of like the New York Yankees competing against the Milwaukee Brewers with no salary cap. The dog per handler limit addresses this issue, but for whatever reason is not popular with the powers that be.


----------



## born2retrieve (Nov 18, 2007)

What ever than Ted. I agree with the number of dogs a handler can run in the AM. Your way of a owner handler will dictate what dogs I can and can not run. Just so u know I help at every trial/hunt test I ever ran in.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It has been proven time and again. Sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.


----------



## russell.jason2 (Mar 13, 2011)

huntinman said:


> The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
> 
> It has been proven time and again. Sometimes it's better to leave well enough alone.



WOW!!! I was going ask are you serious with this statement but the more I think about it, I guess for some folks like the game is fine as it is. It is a great game but I would point to post by Charles C., he makes some very valid concerns, but I guess he is on the road to hell. I train with and run field trials with Charles and I can promise you he is not trying to make the Amateur easier, just wants it fair. I wonder why folks are against limiting the number of dogs a handler can run in the Amateur.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

born2retrieve said:


> I agree with the number of dogs a handler can run in the AM. Your way of a owner handler will dictate what dogs I can and can not run.



I was not involved in either the proposal to limit dogs per handler in the Amateur or the proposal to change the definition of Owner/Handler. Both proposals would limit the number of dogs that an Amateur might potentially run. 

One point that is being forgotten is that if either proposal were adopted, individual clubs would still have the power to decide whether to implement them

Just because you have the power to impose a limitation does not mean you need to exercise it. 

Ted


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Ted, 
Thank you for informing of the goings on. The people should voice their opinions to their local club delegates and I will at my local club's meeting tomorrow night.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Ted, 
Thank you for informing of the goings on. The people should voice their opinions to their local club delegates and I will at my local club's meeting tomorrow night.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

born2retrieve said:


> Why don't we have a true amateur than. Let's just say no dog can be professionally trained. How about we do that?


The Amateur stake is defined by the status of the handler not the dog and who would be in charge of determining which dogs have had professional training and which have not.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Granddaddy said:


> We know who the abusers are, and we know who is honestly co-owning dogs to help finance a legitimate interest in the sport. If I don't want to compete against the abusers I'll enter another event. And if the RAC wants to test this proposal, I suggest they start with limiting competitors in the national Am to actual owners.


Do you? I think if you really knew you would be surprised at how is permeates the sport. 
You might be surprised at the number of lawsuits spawned by the present rules & lost by 
the governing body. You would also be surprised at the number of complaints lodged &
decided in favor of the abusers. This is not at the lower levels of the sport where someone 
is skirting the rules, it is at all levels. 

As for someone helping with the financing, there was no silver spoon in my mouth. Along the 
way I was offered more than 1 under the table deal that I turned down as I felt it contrary to
the intent of the sport. I played as I could afford it without shortchanging our family. Sometimes 
the dogs got shortchanged in the training department because there were a few things I didn't
know, but when we were out hunting I still had the best dog in the group. 

I believe an Amateur should be just that. I have no issue with someone sending their dog to boarding 
school for training. If they want to miss that part of the process &/or do not have skills in that area 
that is their choice, I still believe them to be an Amateur by lack of knowledge. The more training they 
hire out just makes them that much more of an Amateur, they can always be the judge sitting in the
seat with the dunce cap on! 

I believe this new attempt is a huge step in the right direction. It offers clubs with this issue an alternative
that is not subject to legal challenge. Running a club, especially with the shortage of members & disparate 
skill sets most have today is enough of a challenge without the threat of an unnecessary lawsuit hanging 
over their head. In the old days it was not uncommon to have a club member who had a direct line to that 
particular State's governor, a valuable asset in a dispute with any bureaucracy. Many clubs today are run, if
you want to call it that, by people who are in charge of the 1st project in their life, & it shows.


----------



## born2retrieve (Nov 18, 2007)

EdA said:


> The Amateur stake is defined by the status of the handler not the dog and who would be in charge of determining which dogs have had professional training and which have not.


Ed I understand that but we both know that former pros run in the AM and some of the AMs are better handlers than the pros. The only difference is to be one makes money and the other does not off of training dogs. I also understand that Ted did not come up with the owner handler. He is trying to promote it here. My issue with it all is it puts a restriction on what dogs can be ran. So the way I read is a guy owns 10 dogs he can run them all. A guy that co owns a dog due to what ever the reason can not run his dog or dogs. If u want to make it a even playing field than put a restriction on how many dogs a handler can run. Other wise as I see it is as u are only turning the table and not fixing the so called problem. I'm only standing up for what I feel is right.


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

Limiting the number of dog an amatuer can run, would still allow training buddies to run their friends dog. Nothing wrong with that.
If the "fun" in field trials is extinguished in the amatuer, the open will likely die with it.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

born2retrieve said:


> I also understand that Ted did not come up with the owner handler. He is trying to promote it here. .



Clearly, you failed reading comprehension in school. See Post 67.


----------



## born2retrieve (Nov 18, 2007)

Never claimed to the sharpest tack in the pack like some Ted! Use all the big words you want too!


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

I think what some folks are missing , it's not the owner/handler kind of ancient history. At one time designated amateurs would run pro trained dogs off of Pro Trucks and ride all around the country doing so. It was common practice. Kinda like the pre-dow where in some clubs you would always be in the first ten dogs or/and no one would show up for the drawing so who knows if there was a draw. Now there are as many as two, three, six etc dogs entered in the Amateur-All age, sometimes pros run the amateur's dogs in the Open, the amateurs show up on Saturday, then the boondoggle starts with my dog is still in the Open or I have to get my dog off the pro truck, etc etc.. It used to be if you had a very nice field champion you could double stake the dog and perhaps play all weekend. Now it is about the numbers in the Amateur that weren't seen 15 years ago. So some would like to limit the numbers a amateur can run in one stake. I think the more you change things the more they stay the same! Pros have always been involved in the field trial game. There are folks out there who have never run a dog, but, own field champions, never a amateur field champion. The middle-class working stiff days unless they have a great dog are all but gone if your trying to title a dog. Now as Ted indicated the upper middle class is being affected. If you enjoy the journey then field trials are the way to go, if not there are other venues in the dog game .


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Earl

I believe that just as the O/H was adopted to address the run the dog off the pro truck in the Amateur, there is a need for changes to address the current issues facing the sport. I am not so certain that the changes to the O/H are the best way of doing so, however.

Ted


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

russell.jason2 said:


> WOW!!! I was going ask are you serious with this statement but the more I think about it, I guess for some folks like the game is fine as it is. It is a great game but I would point to post by Charles C., he makes some very valid concerns, but I guess he is on the road to hell. I train with and run field trials with Charles and I can promise you he is not trying to make the Amateur easier, just wants it fair. I wonder why folks are against limiting the number of dogs a handler can run in the Amateur.


I think it's regional. Out here we have a bigger problem getting enough dogs entered to break even. Sure there are some big 90 dog plus summer trials, but overall amateurs running a lot of dogs is a nonissue. I think that unless a person has experienced the problem first hand, I haven't, we tend to not understand what the big deal is.


----------



## waycool (Jan 23, 2014)

Criquetpas said:


> It used to be if you had a very nice field champion you could double stake the dog and perhaps play all weekend.


You all (retriever folks) run your FC's in the regular All Age stakes ? Very interesting... pointing dogs folks generally don't do that (taboo)... they have alternate Limited stakes for that... 

Of course most pointing dog breeds also have TWO parent clubs.. American Field and AKC... so there's lots of BIG championships (more meaningful) to run in outside the tradition AKC weekend trials...


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

I kind of liked the non-corrected version better: a new class of OH Am vs changing the definition for the OH Am. Either way though, if a club has issues with "Shamateurs", this should fix it until they take the co-owner's name off the registration and go about their business.

This is not a big problem on my circuit--I can think of one who runs sometimes around here--but it would certainly run out a lot of legitimate co-ownerships, if clubs used it.

Even the big number of dogs owned by one person in the AM isn't a big deal, IMO. I can think of a two people who will run five, maybe six, a few more with four and a ton with three or less.


----------



## Mark (Jun 13, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Earl
> 
> I believe that just as the O/H was adopted to address the run the dog off the pro truck in the Amateur, there is a need for changes to address the current issues facing the sport. I am not so certain that the changes to the O/H are the best way of doing so, however.
> 
> ...



Anyone care to name names of who and where these problems that are alluded to actually exist. I don't personally see it at all on my circuit, and as one who regularly peruses results on entry express, nothing jumps into my eye with co-owned dogs consistently placing in the Am on other circuits. Since a problem may exist in the shadows and to the extent that it is sufficiently prevalent, (the RAC appears to be aware of it if they are promoting discussion of a rule change), let's get it into the open by naming names. 
We only have a few Owner handler Am stakes in the East, and from what I see most clubs here would like to see more entries to make their trials break even rather than having to go to a $100 entry for a reduced entry.

Who are all these designated handlers with or without co-ownerships skirting the spirit of the game?


Mark


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Mark said:


> Who are all these designated handlers with or without co-ownerships skirting the spirit of the game?


Do NOT name specific people on this resource - it will and has put this resource at jeopardy in the past, if you would like to answer Mark's question, please do so via PM or email.

I'm not saying this as a means to stifle the discussion, but rather protect RTF from threats of law suits, etc. It does happen.

FOM
RTF Moderator


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

FOM said:


> Do NOT name specific people on this resource - it will and has put this resource at jeopardy in the past, if you would like to answer Mark's question, please do so via PM or email.
> 
> I'm not saying this as a means to stifle the discussion, but rather protect RTF from threats of law suits, etc. It does happen.
> 
> ...


I agree and one has to go back 25, 30, 35 years or more and is in the category of ancient history and who cares. Sorry I brought it up on my post thought most were aware of the practice, apparently not. Move on folks.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> Clearly, you failed reading comprehension in school. See Post 67.


Ted, you spend a lot of time questioning the reading comprehension of others. 

But, if I'm not mistaken it was you that posted the original thread that had to be corrected. And it was you that was corrected and posted this thread with the first word in the title as "Correction". 

So... Was it your reading comprehension or listening skills that caused you to get the story wrong in the first place?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

huntinman said:


> Ted, you spend a lot of time questioning the reading comprehension of others.
> 
> But, if I'm not mistaken it was you that posted the original thread that had to be corrected. And it was you that was corrected and posted this thread with the first word in the title as "Correction".
> 
> So... Was it your reading comprehension or listening skills that caused you to get the story wrong in the first place?


Bill 

Actually, I was given differing information from different members of the RAC. So, neither my reading comprehension nor my listening skills were at fault.

But, I am delighted that you are so concerned for my well being. 

Ted


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

I get so confused. So you had differing information from different RAC members but you posted anyway? Sounds like a plausible explanation.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

duk4me said:


> I get so confused. So you had differing information from different RAC members but you posted anyway? Sounds like a plausible explanation.



No. 

One person told me version 1. I was asked to post in order to obtain feedback. Then I posted. 

Then I was asked to post a correction. So I did.


----------



## Mark (Jun 13, 2003)

Criquetpas said:


> I agree and one has to go back 25, 30, 35 years or more and is in the category of ancient history and who cares. Sorry I brought it up on my post thought most were aware of the practice, apparently not. Move on folks.


I am not interested in the designated handlers of the past, that is done, a rule change was effected and the result was the owner handler Amateur. I am interested in the present and why a rule change is necessary, as I personally don't see co-ownership being abused. If there is abuse, and it is substantial enough to warrant a rule change, the facts should be on the table.


Mark


----------



## born2retrieve (Nov 18, 2007)

Ted's circuit is being over run with pro handler co owners. You would never hear a peep if the co owner never won.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

I hate to raise this issue, but what about a dog co-owned by a significant other? I just looked at the AM entries in our last trial. Five dogs in the AM were owned by non-married couples. 

Helen


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

helencalif said:


> I hate to raise this issue, but what about a dog co-owned by a significant other? I just looked at the AM entries in our last trial. Three dogs in the AM were owned by non-married couples.
> 
> Helen


But are they "exclusive" significant others? ;-)


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Mark said:


> I am not interested in the designated handlers of the past, that is done, a rule change was effected and the result was the owner handler Amateur. I am interested in the present and why a rule change is necessary, as I personally don't see co-ownership being abused. If there is abuse, and it is substantial enough to warrant a rule change, the facts should be on the table.
> 
> 
> Mark


Let me put this in a way that may be more tactful....the O/H is not being _abused_...and seeing how this a privately owned public forum,it is not the place to just throw names out with reckless abandon

It also has to do with perception vs reality...depending on what part of the country you reside and where you stand on the issue

calling someone out on a forum,especially when that person may be from a different part of the country and you have no idea the real circumstances behind their ownership agreements is foolish and reckless. Thats kind of how rumors get started in the FT game


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Did a re-count. There were 5 dogs owned by couples who are unmarried significant others.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

helencalif said:


> I hate to raise this issue, but what about a dog co-owned by a significant other? I just looked at the AM entries in our last trial. Five dogs in the AM were owned by non-married couples.
> 
> Helen


I fear that with a change in the designation of the O/H rules the AKC will have to deal with the definition of what constitutes a "couple",they might even have to face someone challenging the validity of a significant other or lifestyle partner...the possible litigation or threat of it could be ugly


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

born2retrieve said:


> Ted's circuit is being over run with pro handler co owners. You would never hear a peep if the co owner never won.


I wish you would: 

1. Identify yourself;
2. Stop misrepresenting what I have written

I am not promoting the measure. I see reasons for it. I see reasons against it. 

Ted


----------



## born2retrieve (Nov 18, 2007)

Greg Sharer my phone number is 817-694-5480. You need more info than that let me know? You said yourself that your trails where going to be owner handler. You started the thread and seem to be promoting it. All I'm saying is you can run your dogs and I should be able to run mine. Co owned or not!


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

born2retrieve said:


> Greg Sharer my phone number is 817-694-5480. You need more info than that let me know? You said yourself that your trails where going to be owner handler. You started the thread and seem to be promoting it. All I'm saying is you can run your dogs and I should be able to run mine. Co owned or not!


Full research on your history, experience, gossip, qualifications in 3,2,1....

/Paul


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

born2retrieve said:


> Greg Sharer my phone number is 817-694-5480. You need more info than that let me know? You said yourself that your trails where going to be owner handler. You started the thread and seem to be promoting it. All I'm saying is you can run your dogs and I should be able to run mine. Co owned or not!



Greg 

1. The trials that I will be running have O/H - under the existing rules. 
Why does my statement that those trials have O/H mean that I support the "proposed" O/H? The two are not logically linked.

2. Do you run a dog in the Am? Do you belong to a club? 
If so, your club ought to discuss what its position is as to the proposed rule and communicate its position to the RAC.

3. As for me, I haven't decided whether to promote the new definition or not. And my club has not reached its decision, either.

Beyond that, I am tired of telling you what I believe and have you ignore what I have written. So, I will reduce my brain damage and place you on ignore. 

Ted


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Wow that was fast. Here is a question Greg. Every trained a dog yourself or do you just housebreak puppies?

/Paul


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> Greg
> 
> 1. The trials that I will be running have O/H - under the existing rules.
> Why does my statement that those trials have O/H mean that I support the "proposed" O/H? The two are not logically linked.
> ...


Ted, in 1. and 2. above you asked Greg questions after asking him his name (which he supplied).

How are you supposed to get the answers if you place him on ignore?

Just curious... Hope your head isn't hurting too bad.;-)


----------



## born2retrieve (Nov 18, 2007)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Wow that was fast. Here is a question Greg. Every trained a dog yourself or do you just housebreak puppies?
> 
> /Paul


Was a pro. Will be AM again this summer if I want to be. This is not about me. It's about my right to run a co own dog period. At this time I don't even have a co owned dog. I have seen my share of poor sportsmanship.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Hmm. I think Ted runs "trials".


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I'm totally lost, can't remember what we were talking about.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Every trained a dog yourself or do you just housebreak puppies? /Paul


I have to say that is one of the funnier things you have posted on this forum . 
As it's your saying "Request permission to use it at some time ".


----------



## russell.jason2 (Mar 13, 2011)

John Robinson said:


> I think it's regional. Out here we have a bigger problem getting enough dogs entered to break even. Sure there are some big 90 dog plus summer trials, but overall amateurs running a lot of dogs is a nonissue. I think that unless a person has experienced the problem first hand, I haven't, we tend to not understand what the big deal is.


John, I think you are right. It's interesting as I look at EE how trials across the country are different in regards to the number of entries in the Amateur. With as many dogs as I see co-owned (which I am not against) what is the reason to have a owner/handler Amateur anyway, limit entries? I guess the problem I would have is running against a amateur who brings 6+ dogs which atleast half of them co-owned. I see an issue with that in the Amateur, this is just my opinion, I think that has its place in the open. What about the person who does not every run their dog (s) but co-owns the dog (s) with an "amateur" that campaigns the dog like a pro, I am just not sure about that. I still have a lot to learn but this is some of my observations.


----------



## born2retrieve (Nov 18, 2007)

I guess I'm surprised that more people don't see that this idea of a co owned dog can not be ran in a owner handler is taking their rights away. I do understand that it is sometimes abused but it is still their right to do what they are doing.


----------



## BBnumber1 (Apr 5, 2006)

First, let me say that I am leaning towards opposition to this rule change because of the affect on legitimate co-owners. I might be in favor of the same thing as an option for clubs in addition to the current owner handler.

In regard to the 'rights' comment, I disagree. Running a dog at an event is a priviledge afforded us by the AKC and the hosting club, not a right. There have been restrictions on running specific events for a long time. The Amatuer restricts who can handle a dog, the O/H further restricts that. The Open has 4 levels of restriction, Open, Limited, Restricted, and Special. The question is whether the restrictions are good or bad for the sport, the AKC, the clubs, and the participants.


born2retrieve said:


> I guess I'm surprised that more people don't see that this idea of a co owned dog can not be ran in a owner handler is taking their rights away. I do understand that it is sometimes abused but it is still their right to do what they are doing.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

born2retrieve said:


> I guess I'm surprised that more people don't see that this idea of a co owned dog can not be ran in a owner handler is taking their rights away. I do understand that it is sometimes abused but it is still their right to do what they are doing.


As a current co owner of a legit FT dog, I am not opposed to the proposal because I knew that when I took possession of Sophie that it was the twilight of her career and probably wont affect me...BUT had the same offer came up say 4-5 years ago I may not have been so willing to accept the change...

If the proposal passes, it will impact any future thought of any co ownership with family and probably eliminate any co ownership with non family, but its not a deal breaker and if the trials we choose to attend adopt an O/H then we will adjust accordingly

IMHO the measure goes the same route as the limited entry


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

I do not like the idea of changing ownership rules part way through the journey. There are many legitimate co-owner arrangements and to suddenly deny those individuals the right to participate in an Owner Handler stake because of the supposed abuse of the ownership status of a few punishes the wrong people. Leave the Owner Handler Amateur Stake alone, if there is some perceived abuse that makes some clubs feel the need to restrict find another way to do that. This does not seem to be a widespread issue or one that many people are concerned about. We are in a time when we have many clubs with few if any field trial participants voting on matters that do not pertain to or affect them, leave the rulebook alone, PLEASE!!!!!


----------



## born2retrieve (Nov 18, 2007)

Thank you Ed!!!


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

I agree. This is not worth spending any time on. Let's run our dogs against whoever shows up and try to win. 




EdA said:


> I do not like the idea of changing ownership rules part way through the journey. There are many legitimate co-owner arrangements and to suddenly deny those individuals the right to participate in an Owner Handler stake because of the supposed abuse of the ownership status of a few punishes the wrong people. Leave the Owner Handler Amateur Stake alone, if there is some perceived abuse that makes some clubs feel the need to restrict find another way to do that. This does not seem to be a widespread issue or one that many people are concerned about. We are in a time when we have many clubs with few if any field trial participants voting on matters that do not pertain to or affect them, leave the rulebook alone, PLEASE!!!!!


----------



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

BonMallari said:


> That just made me go back and look at your previous explanation:
> 
> so a (husband/wife) owned dog would be eligible
> but a (brother/brother) owned dog would not be eligible
> ...


Unless they change the rules on who constitutes a family member also, I think you would still be ok.

For purposes of this SECTION, the words “any member 
of his family’’ shall include a spouse, a sibling, a parent 
or a child, whether natural or adopted, of the judge in 
question; but shall not extend to other blood or legal 
relationships.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

EdA said:


> I do not like the idea of changing ownership rules part way through the journey. There are many legitimate co-owner arrangements and to suddenly deny those individuals the right to participate in an Owner Handler stake because of the supposed abuse of the ownership status of a few punishes the wrong people. Leave the Owner Handler Amateur Stake alone, if there is some perceived abuse that makes some clubs feel the need to restrict find another way to do that. This does not seem to be a widespread issue or one that many people are concerned about. We are in a time when we have many clubs with few if any field trial participants voting on matters that do not pertain to or affect them, leave the rulebook alone, PLEASE!!!!!



Exactly.......


----------



## john h. (Oct 15, 2007)

EdA said:


> I do not like the idea of changing ownership rules part way through the journey. There are many legitimate co-owner arrangements and to suddenly deny those individuals the right to participate in an Owner Handler stake because of the supposed abuse of the ownership status of a few punishes the wrong people. Leave the Owner Handler Amateur Stake alone, if there is some perceived abuse that makes some clubs feel the need to restrict find another way to do that. This does not seem to be a widespread issue or one that many people are concerned about. We are in a time when we have many clubs with few if any field trial participants voting on matters that do not pertain to or affect them, leave the rulebook alone, PLEASE!!!!!


I agree....


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

EdA said:


> I do not like the idea of changing ownership rules part way through the journey. There are many legitimate co-owner arrangements and to suddenly deny those individuals the right to participate in an Owner Handler stake because of the supposed abuse of the ownership status of a few punishes the wrong people. Leave the Owner Handler Amateur Stake alone, if there is some perceived abuse that makes some clubs feel the need to restrict find another way to do that. This does not seem to be a widespread issue or one that many people are concerned about. We are in a time when we have many clubs with few if any field trial participants voting on matters that do not pertain to or affect them, leave the rulebook alone, PLEASE!!!!!


I just started a new thread on POTUS dealing with this issue called
"Champion of the Little Guy". My comments on the 1st post say what 
needs to be said. Your dog goes with Danny in the summer I believe,
one of the trials he runs is Minot, club held together by one individual.
That individual only gets to run about 4 or 5 trials a year, when he is 
fortunate enough to have a good dog. 

What you & those who agree with you are saying is "It's OK if you want 
to work your hiney off for my enjoyment, but wanting to share in the spoils
of your efforts should be legislated in a manner that the deck is stacked
against you". 

Show me where my logic is flawed !


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

Very nice reply David.




BBnumber1 said:


> First, let me say that I am leaning towards opposition to this rule change because of the affect on legitimate co-owners. I might be in favor of the same thing as an option for clubs in addition to the current owner handler.
> 
> In regard to the 'rights' comment, I disagree. Running a dog at an event is a priviledge afforded us by the AKC and the hosting club, not a right. There have been restrictions on running specific events for a long time. The Amatuer restricts who can handle a dog, the O/H further restricts that. The Open has 4 levels of restriction, Open, Limited, Restricted, and Special. The question is whether the restrictions are good or bad for the sport, the AKC, the clubs, and the participants.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Marvin S said:


> I just started a new thread on POTUS dealing with this issue called
> "Champion of the Little Guy". My comments on the 1st post say what
> needs to be said. Your dog goes with Danny in the summer I believe,
> one of the trials he runs is Minot, club held together by one individual.
> ...


Its a free world Marvin. No one makes anyone "work their hiney off". I'm just getting back in the game after being out for a while. I have been judging and recently went to a nearby trial and worked for two days... (With no dog to run)
I felt like I should start participating again... As I will be on the line next year in a derby or two... And maybe in the all age in a few years. But, it is my CHOICE.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> I just started a new thread on POTUS dealing with this issue called
> "Champion of the Little Guy". My comments on the 1st post say what
> needs to be said. Your dog goes with Danny in the summer I believe,
> one of the trials he runs is Minot, club held together by one individual.
> ...


And how about the two guys from Tulsa who are aircraft mechanics for AA and co-own a terrific bitch, are they not considered "little guys"? Whether or not my dog spends the summer in MN has no bearing on the changing of a 25 year old rule.


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

Not to change to subject but are you coming up this Summer Ed?




EdA said:


> And how about the two guys from Tulsa who are aircraft mechanics for AA and co-own a terrific bitch, are they not considered "little guys"? Whether or not my dog spends the summer in MN has no bearing on the changing of a 25 year old rule.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Will somebody explain what the co-ownership abuse is that has raised this topic? Is it pros co-owning with amateurs? Is it an amateur co-owning with an amateur who is semi-pro? What has RAC received as complaints? 

I have gone back through my catalogs for trials on the west coast. I don't see any co-ownership abuse in this region.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

EdA said:


> And how about the two guys from Tulsa who are aircraft mechanics for AA and co-own a terrific bitch, are they not considered "little guys"? Whether or not my dog spends the summer in MN has no bearing on the changing of a 25 year old rule.


They work hard and they can train my dogs any day. I CO-OWN a 2 plus year old bitch out of their bitch with my daughter, a grown woman near AARP age. I have CO-owned several FC/AFC's to alternate the running on different weekends. One with my daughter and one with a old, very old training partner who bares a whistle to his name. Here in the mid-west it is more of a numbers game rather then a co-ownership, multiple dogs, 3 to upwards to infinity, BUT, owned by the same person. Really don't have a problem with it. No different then any other amateur with pro trained dogs. I am a amateur trainer so any complaint by me would be to ban all-pro trained dogs from competing, LOL, leave the rules as they exist.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

I am new to running dogs in FT but have been around the game a while. Even hunted over a Super Chief son. Something to keep in perspective is those of us who don't have the grounds to train on nore the time because of other commitments and use a pro. I have a young dog that winters 500 miles south so I can't run her until they are back up here unless I fly down which for me is prohibitively costly. I have no problem with an amateur who has the bucks to have a string of dogs to envy. I know of people who co-own because of cost etc. There are a few on the West Coast who co-own dogs and run them in the Am as the other owner never would. It all evens out and you have to run against the best any way. I say leave things status quo.
Just a relative newby regards,
Jeff


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

One thing I wonder about this proposal is how would one enforce it? I am sure that it will be up to the club but all the information the club gets comes from EE, which information is entirely supplied by the person filling out the form. So, if I had a co-owner that was not part of my family, why could I not just leave that person off the ownership in EE, have only my name show up on the entry and nobody would be any the wiser. Unless the EE information is somehow linked to actual AKC ownership records, it seems that there is no way this proposal would be enforceable.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> One thing I wonder about this proposal is how would one enforce it? I am sure that it will be up to the club but all the information the club gets comes from EE, which information is entirely supplied by the person filling out the form. So, if I had a co-owner that was not part of my family, why could I not just leave that person off the ownership in EE, have only my name show up on the entry and nobody would be any the wiser. Unless the EE information is somehow linked to actual AKC ownership records, it seems that there is no way this proposal would be enforceable.


Penn 

The mechanism would be no different than it is currently. If there was a protest filed against a dog, the handler would be asked to produce the AKC ownership papers.

Ted


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

DoubleHaul said:


> One thing I wonder about this proposal is how would one enforce it? I am sure that it will be up to the club but all the information the club gets comes from EE, which information is entirely supplied by the person filling out the form. So, if I had a co-owner that was not part of my family, why could I not just leave that person off the ownership in EE, have only my name show up on the entry and nobody would be any the wiser. Unless the EE information is somehow linked to actual AKC ownership records, it seems that there is no way this proposal would be enforceable.


Exactly. Enforcement.

Last year the RAC committee tried to tighten up the definition of an AMATEUR. It sounds like now they may be trying to tighten up the definition of OWNER/HANDLER.

There will be no solutions because of enforcement. Who will enforce it? Field Trial committee? AKC??? Really?

The OWNER/HANDLER AMATEUR means nothing now, as co-owners have even written on RTF that they will put their dog in whoever's name necessary for them to run in an AMATEUR. You might as well name the stake the MINI OPEN or maybe the PRO/AM.

It sounds like the old 80/20 rule. 80% of the participants play fair, and 20% do not. If it weren't for the 20%, we would need no written rules.

Just read through the threads about finding judges, workers etc. Judges/Marshals/Gunner/Throwers are all getting harder to find while the dogs entered are getting larger. That is the real problem.

The true amateurs who work at and put on trials, train their own dogs and have regular judging assignments each year are the ones who are getting tired. Maybe it is time for a WORKER/HANDLER AMATEUR? Hmmmm.... I hear that bus coming!


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

TBell said:


> Exactly
> The true amateurs who work at and put on trials, train their own dogs and have regular judging assignments each year are the ones who are getting tired. Maybe it is time for a WORKER/HANDLER AMATEUR? Hmmmm.... I hear that bus coming!


I like the way you think!!


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

TBell said:


> The true amateurs who work at and put on trials, train their own dogs and have regular judging assignments each year are the ones who are getting tired. Maybe it is time for a WORKER/HANDLER AMATEUR? Hmmmm.... I hear that bus coming!


Tammy according to your definition who would qualify as an "Amateur" ? Solely training their own dog without a pro at any time? 1% ? Many of us gun, throw, marshall etc too.

Jeff


----------



## Lpgar (Mar 31, 2005)

Another vote for leave well enough alone. Ever notice that the loadest complainers are always the ones that could not win for any reason. The owner handled specification does plenty to keep the "pro's amateur" from running the truck. IMHO it is unfair as Ed suggested to make changes "along the way".


----------



## russell.jason2 (Mar 13, 2011)

Ever notice how folks that are against any rule change always go back to two things; 1. They tell you if you don't like it go run hunt test or 2. Ever who wants change must be trying to limit competition. I would submit that most people who want change are not afraid of competition and most double stake their dogs in the amateur and the open. I don't see this as anything to do with competition, its about what some folks think is right.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

labsforme said:


> Tammy according to your definition who would qualify as an "Amateur" ? Solely training their own dog without a pro at any time? 1% ? Many of us gun, throw, marshall etc too.
> 
> Jeff


This one sentence in the Field Trial rules makes the definition of AMATEUR unenforceable, as I have stated before. There is no field trial committee that would put themselves in a position to declare an entered AMATEUR ineligible without a lineup of personal lawyers.

(d) *The determination of Amateur status under these directives for the purpose of any particular field trial shall be made by the Field Trial Committee for that trial.*




russell.jason2 said:


> Ever notice how folks that are against any rule change always go back to two things; 1. They tell you if you don't like it go run hunt test or 2. Ever who wants change must be trying to limit competition. I would submit that most people who want change are not afraid of competition and most double stake their dogs in the amateur and the open. I don't see this as anything to do with competition, its about what some folks think is right.


x2 

Now food for thought.....maybe we should all review the inside cover of the last page of the Field Trial rules. It is right after page 64 and it is called the AKC Code of Sportsmanship.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

Tammy, I wasn't speaking of the shady part that happens seldom but those who don't have wholey self trained dog(s) and use a pro and run the Am too. In order to be in the ribbons you have to have dog sense and train too.
Best to ya'll and yours,

Jeff


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

I see Jeff. The Amateur stake is for true 'Amateur handlers', not necessarily 'Amateur trained' dogs. I admit that stake would have a hard time achieving the minimum 12 dogs.


----------



## Gawthorpe (Oct 4, 2007)

I had the initial thrill and then disappointment of catching a competitor who lied to me in person. As a professional he entered our owner handler qualifier. He told me he owned all three dogs he entered. After the event I waited 7 days and then checked with AKC.

Yes his placement was pulled and the 4th place guy was thrilled.

the disappointment occurred when the AKC did not give a harsh punishment for him cheating the other honest competitors.


----------



## Gawthorpe (Oct 4, 2007)

After reading every post in this thread I thought of another possible result.

It could give an incentive for single handlers to get married to be considered "exclusive"

A similar occurrence happens in the employee benefits industry. Companies check to verify who the employee listed as their spouse. When they uncover fraud often times the employee gets married to prove legitimacy.

Then we could also enjoy some married couple arguments at field trials. In my experience they have been the most entertaining. My wife is rarely seen at a trial


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Gawthorpe said:


> After reading every post in this thread I thought of another possible result.
> 
> It could give an incentive for single handlers to get married to be considered "exclusive"
> 
> ...


My wife would probably dump me and marry someone with better dogs.


----------

