# New Category of Owner Handler Amateur for FT Being Discussed



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I am told that at the 2014 National Amateur, the Retriever Advisory Committee will submit for discussion a new category of Amateur - one that I will call the "single family" amateur for lack of a more elegant term. 

If the community supports the proposal, a club could elect to have one of the following Amateur stakes: 

1. Traditional Amateur
2. Owner/Handler Amateur
3. Single Family Owner/Handler Amateur

If a club elected to hold a Single Family O/H Amateur, a dog that was co-owned by two individuals who were not part of the same household would not be eligible to run.

The RAC will be soliciting comments from the community. So if you have an opinion one way or another, you should have your club representative contact the RAC.

Ted


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

If they call it single family O/H, they may as well call it what they really mean... Single owner. IMO, they are trying to shut down the am handlers running pro dogs... But they will also put a crimp in legitimize co-owner situations as well. 

Everyone worries about who is running what. The way I look at it, if your dog is running at the top of his/her game, who cares what other dogs are entered?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

So I guess that means that I wouldn't be eligible to run Sophie (AFC Candlewoods She's So Fine) even though Lanse gave her to me..How long would I have to live at Pendroy to qualify(big sarcasm)...because the unstable work situation in Vegas is making me think Montana is a nice option(dead serious)..My room is already set up..

I wouldn't be opposed to it and I could see the reason for it..makes perfect sense

Guess that means we reinstate MaryKent as a owner/handler and us guys back to bird throwers. She has been training with us lately now that the boys are independent teens,and gives her and my brother a return to when they were a new couple..quite cute


----------



## Brandoned (Aug 20, 2004)

So I guess that means I would not be able to enter because my dog is "co-owned" with me by my 10 year old nephew... Yea sounds like a good idea to me!!! I get what they are trying to do, but geez!


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

I don't really think it would make any difference to overall participation if they did this. Even with "traditional amateur", re-defined as purely amateur trained and handled, you would still have plenty of retired or semi retired people that day train with a pro multiple times a week and show up at a trial with 3-6 dogs on the truck. The work and luck involved in winning consistently would still be a huge barrier to entry to the guy who it would seem they are trying to attract.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Yep those pesky multiple household co-owners are a real problem, what a silly waste of time.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

I don't think that will help anything.
Just as for O/H, where names went on the paper...for single family O/H, names will come off the paper.
The name of the owner who doesn't handle.

The rule is meant to address, those who co-own, solely for the purpose of handling.
Not going to do that. Those people will just find a way around that rule.
Instead, it will hurt those who genuinely do co own.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

well this will keep folks from adding names of movie stars or superheros as handlers
as has been done in the past
now and then
glad that issue is fixed


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

If a club elected to hold a Single Family O/H Amateur, a dog that was co-owned by two individuals who were not part of the same household would not be eligible to run


I would be curious to get RTFers thoughts on how many dogs this would affect at their respective FT? Are there really that many "co-owned" dogs entered at your trials?


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

I've always found it hard to believe anyone would cheat (or deliberately exploit a loophole) over a $5 ribbon anyhow, but then parents get in fights at little league games every day.


----------



## Beverly Burns (Apr 20, 2006)

I am all for a club having that option. Clubs and members work very hard to put on trials and give them an option if they feel it necessary. No club has to do it just as with limited, special and restricted Opens.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Wade said:


> I would be curious to get RTFers thoughts on how many dogs this would affect at their respective FT? Are there really that many "co-owned" dogs entered at your trials?


Around here, versus a regular AM, this would probably affect about five or six dogs per AM. Versus an O/H AM, it would affect perhaps two or three.

The impact would be felt by folks who sold a dog to someone who doesn't run amateurs and they get to run them in the AM, which would be handled by an O/H am anyway and legitimate co-owners. I am not aware of any bogus co-ownership on our circuit. Given all the noise about it, it must be a much bigger problem on other circuits.

Nevertheless, I am generally for giving clubs more options, if they feel it makes things better for them.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

We'll a name who owns many dogs but has never run a dog and has many dogs with different pro's who sends several dogs to nationals has just started to run her dogs in amat with a co owner. Is this the reason for this potential policy?. Does it affect me? No . I'm not at that level.


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

Get it down to 3 dogs per handler in the Am and at least you are approaching the spirit of it.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Scott Adams said:


> Get it down to 3 dogs per handler in the Am and at least you are approaching the spirit of it.



At last year's National Amateur, the RAC floated a proposal that would allow clubs to limit the number of dogs that could be run per handler in the Amateur. 

That proposal died from lack of support by the community.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

The whole thing is BS. Comes up every year or so... Mainly from folks who feel someone else has an advantage.

Train harder.


----------



## BrettG (Apr 4, 2005)

You know if you can't compete change the rules.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Will field trial committees have to determine status and dog custody when accepting entries of recently separated or divorced owner/handlers?

Tim


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

cakaiser said:


> I don't think that will help anything.
> Just as for O/H, where names went on the paper...for single family O/H, names will come off the paper.
> The name of the owner who doesn't handle.
> 
> ...


This pretty much nails it.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Beverly Burns said:


> I am all for a club having that option. Clubs and members work very hard to put on trials and give them an option if they feel it necessary. No club has to do it just as with limited, special and restricted Opens.


I wish more clubs had the same attitude about the now illegal use of layout blinds or having a gun retire in the field lying on the ground concealed by a holding blind.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

EdA said:


> I wish more clubs had the same attitude about the now illegal use of layout blinds or having a gun retire in the field lying on the ground concealed by a holding blind.


Bingo.......


----------



## Chris Thiry (Jan 26, 2005)

Brandoned said:


> So I guess that means I would not be able to enter because my dog is "co-owned" with me by my 10 year old nephew... Yea sounds like a good idea to me!!! I get what they are trying to do, but geez!


Good point. There are many reasons for co-owning a dog. Many are strictly amateur trained. 

Just make the Amateur, amateur trained and handled period. Wasn't that the intent years ago.


----------



## waycool (Jan 23, 2014)

huntinman said:


> If they call it single family O/H, they may as well call it what they really mean... Single owner. IMO, they are trying to shut down the am handlers running pro dogs... But they will also put a crimp in legitimize co-owner situations as well.
> 
> Everyone worries about who is running what. The way I look at it, if your dog is running at the top of his/her game, who cares what other dogs are entered?


Bill,

The GSP national finally got so bad... (Amateurs running pro/other owner's dogs)(Amafessionals?) that they finally had to limit the number of dogs an amateur could handle in the NAFT... Now I think its TWO unless your name is on the papers as co-owner.

So if you add "Or co-owned" that would resolve the issue... Ultimately.. they are dog games for competitive folks.. so no stone goes unturned to win.. for good or bad...


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Chris Thiry said:


> Good point. There are many reasons for co-owning a dog. Many are strictly amateur trained.
> 
> Just make the Amateur, amateur trained and handled period. Wasn't that the intent years ago.



That's correct. But now everyone wants to legislate equality on the playing field. 

Instead of worrying about another's business, if we focus on our own dogs we might have more success and enjoyment. 

This game is like golf... During the event, you have no control over the competition. You can only affect what you do. So do it the best you can and the results are what they are.


----------



## skyy (Mar 25, 2014)

To me personally I think its a total waste of time and resources.... I'm still new to the FT game having made the switch from HT to FT a couple of season ago but in this short time I have noticed that close to 40 to 50% of the Am dogs comes off of Pro's trucks.......If you want to make a change, how about doing something with the Am where your dog must be removed from a pro's truck for one (1) year prior to be eligible to compete in an Am stake, same way they do with pro's.....


----------



## Brandoned (Aug 20, 2004)

EdA said:


> I wish more clubs had the same attitude about the now illegal use of layout blinds or having a gun retire in the field lying on the ground concealed by a holding blind.



Ed when I hear the word layout blind I think about your club and many others in that area. I still find it amazing that they were banned! People in this game seem to worry about the wrong things.


----------



## waycool (Jan 23, 2014)

Chris Thiry said:


> Good point. There are many reasons for co-owning a dog. Many are strictly amateur trained.
> 
> Just make the Amateur, amateur trained and handled period. Wasn't that the intent years ago.


How would you enforce that ? I mean the amateur trained part ?

I trained with MANY different pro's for close to 20 years... would that make my dogs pro trained ? Or who would check and verify a particular dog wasn't "pro" trained ?

I can appreciate the "Train harder" to beat the competition.. it's a true statement.. BUT at what point does it become unfair when ONE amateur is running a pro's entire string of dogs ? None of those other dogs' owners are even present at the trial ? 

I ran plenty of dogs for friends and I think that should be acceptable ... to a degree  there's a point where you are walking a fine line between Am and Pro ... I'm pretty sure there will be some "remuneration" for running those dog's at some point.. 

.02


----------



## PATG (Dec 4, 2013)

EdA said:


> Yep those pesky multiple household co-owners are a real problem, what a silly waste of time.


why is it that the guys that play w/ the pros and call themselves AM. think that it is a 
a funny idea? There are guys that actually like to play and do work for a living , does this really hurt you guys that have dogs all over the country?


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

Scott Adams said:


> Get it down to 3 dogs per handler in the Am and at least you are approaching the spirit of it.


Why limit it to 3 dogs? Why not let clubs limit it to even one or two dogs per owner/handler?


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

waycool said:


> How would you enforce that ? I mean the amateur trained part ?
> 
> I trained with MANY different pro's for close to 20 years... would that make my dogs pro trained ? Or who would check and verify a particular dog wasn't "pro" trained ?
> 
> ...


Steve, I hear you and those are all valid points. I just hesitate to support any form of legislation or rule changes due to unforeseen consequences. I think, over time, the sport itself will weed out excessive amounts of that practice.


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> At last year's National Amateur, the RAC floated a proposal that would allow clubs to limit the number of dogs that could be run per handler in the Amateur.
> 
> That proposal died from lack of support by the community.


I say BS
There are what 1800 owners/handlers in the AA stakes? 150 of them qualified for the NARC. Only those 150 got to voice their opinion and in that 150 are the people that abuse the game.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Chris Thiry said:


> .
> 
> Just make the Amateur, amateur trained and handled period. Wasn't that the intent years ago.


was that ever the intent?
I was told that waaaaaaaaaay back
the bankers and rail tycoons, who's dog pro's lived on grounds.
wanted a stake all to themself so they could run the dogs.
it was never about who trained it, way back then. was it????


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

EdA said:


> I wish more clubs had the same attitude about the now illegal use of layout blinds or having a gun retire in the field lying on the ground concealed by a holding blind.


A MEN, ED!!

JUST MORE OF THE SAME BY THE RAC: JUDGING BY LEGISLATION.

Bill Connor


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

B Peterson said:


> I say BS
> There are what 1800 owners/handlers in the AA stakes? 150 of them qualified for the NARC. Only those 150 got to voice their opinion and in that 150 are the people that abuse the game.



Well, Bruce

If you - or anyone else on RTF - want to do something other than complain on RTF, I would suggest you contact a member of the RAC directly and express your opinions

Ted


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> Well, Bruce
> 
> If you - or anyone else on RTF - want to do something other than complain on RTF, I would suggest you contact a member of the RAC directly and express your opinions
> 
> Ted


Who's complaining? I just called your idea that the retriever community supported this proposal... BS


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Legislating minutiae has always been popular in this sport...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

B Peterson said:


> Who's complaining? I just called your idea that the retriever community supported this proposal... BS



the proposal was made at the National Am, at the National Open, and reported in the Retriever News. Input was solicited. There was no support for the measure. If you or others had an opinion on the matter, you had an opportunity to express it. Discussion was not limited to the 150 people present at the National Am as you claimed


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> Well, Bruce
> 
> If you - or anyone else on RTF - want to do something other than complain on RTF, I would suggest you contact a member of the RAC directly and express your opinions
> 
> Ted


If you didn't want feedback on a public forum, maybe you shouldn't have posted it on one?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

huntinman said:


> If you didn't want feedback on a public forum, maybe you shouldn't have posted it on one?



You should read before you post. I encourage people to discuss. But if they want to accomplish something they need to do more than post. 

And if you had bothered to read before you posted, you would have observed I was commenting on Bruce's claim that the FT community had no input into the proposal to limit dogs per handler in the Am

Ted


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> the proposal was made at the National Am, at the National Open, and reported in the Retriever News. Input was solicited. There was no support for the measure. If you or others had an opinion on the matter, you had an opportunity to express it. Discussion was not limited to the 150 people present at the National Am as you claimed


I guess I stand corrected. Exactly how did the RAC solicit imput for this proposal?


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Hmmm... Good question Bruce. I have never been to a National, open or AM. I do not get RFTN. I am however, very interested in the retriever sport and thoroughly enjoy training for the someday! So do I get any input even though I'm not a member of the circle that makes the rules? It's one of those catch 22 deals. If you have not reached a level of success, you haven't earned the right to comment. It's hard to reach that level when you aren't a member.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

B Peterson said:


> I guess I stand corrected. Exactly how did the RAC solicit imput for this proposal?



The members of the RAC asked people to contact them with comments. The proposal was discussed at the FT I attended last year.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

2tall said:


> Hmmm... Good question Bruce. I have never been to a National, open or AM. I do not get RFTN. I am however, very interested in the retriever sport and thoroughly enjoy training for the someday! So do I get any input even though I'm not a member of the circle that makes the rules? It's one of those catch 22 deals. If you have not reached a level of success, you haven't earned the right to comment. It's hard to reach that level when you aren't a member.



And what efforts have you made to be involved? If you belong to a member club of the NRC or NARC your president or other officer could call or write the RAC

If you - or other people - want to have a voice you need to be more assertive.


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> The members of the RAC asked people to contact them with comments. The proposal was discussed at the FT I attended last year.


I would be interested in contacting the RAC rep from my zone. Who is it and how can I contact them?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

​I believe it would be Ray Vreeland. His contact number should be in Callbacks


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

B Peterson said:


> I would be interested in contacting the RAC rep from my zone. Who is it and how can I contact them?


Ray Vreeland is the RAC representative from your time zone.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> You should read before you post. I encourage people to discuss. But if they want to accomplish something they need to do more than post.
> 
> And if you had bothered to read before you posted, you would have observed I was commenting on Bruce's claim that the FT community had no input into the proposal to limit dogs per handler in the Am
> 
> Ted


I do read before I post. If you read before you post, you would have noticed that my last post was at the same time you were commenting to Bruce. Carry on.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

B Peterson said:


> I would be interested in contacting the RAC rep from my zone. Who is it and how can I contact them?



Other members of the RAC include:

Kate Simonds
John Russell
John Goettl

Ted


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Other members of the RAC include:
> 
> Kate Simonds
> John Russell
> ...


Pacific time zone? Has Bill Daley been replaced, if so by whom?


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

skyy said:


> To me personally I think its a total waste of time and resources.... I'm still new to the FT game having made the switch from HT to FT a couple of season ago but in this short time I have noticed that close to 40 to 50% of the Am dogs comes off of Pro's trucks.......If you want to make a change, how about doing something with the Am where your dog must be removed from a pro's truck for one (1) year prior to be eligible to compete in an Am stake, same way they do with pro's.....


You would have some pretty small trials, Open and AM.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

EdA said:


> Pacific time zone? Has Bill Daley been replaced, if so by whom?


Mr Daley resigned his position on the RAC last year, at least thats what was reported in the minutes of the National Open or maybe the Amateur on the RN blog


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

BonMallari said:


> Mr Daley resigned his position on the RAC last year, at least thats what was reported in the minutes of the National Open or maybe the Amateur on the RN blog


Hence my inquiry as to his replacement


----------



## Susan (Jun 10, 2003)

EdA said:


> Pacific time zone? Has Bill Daley been replaced, if so by whom?


As far as I know, the position has not been filled yet. We talked about this at the meeting of the SDR & FTC last week.

--Susan Wing


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Susan said:


> As far as I know, the position has not been filled yet. We talked about this at the meeting of the SDR & FTC last week.
> 
> --Susan Wing


Mr Daley is a really good man....gonna be tough act to follow


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> ​I believe it would be Ray Vreeland. His contact number should be in Callbacks


Ray Vreeland is the Eastern time zone rep. I think it would be John Russell, who is CST representative


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Todd Caswell said:


> skyy said:
> 
> 
> > To me personally I think its a total waste of time and resources.... I'm still new to the FT game having made the switch from HT to FT a couple of season ago but in this short time I have noticed that close to 40 to 50% of the Am dogs comes off of Pro's trucks.......If you want to make a change, how about doing something with the Am where your dog must be removed from a pro's truck for one (1) year prior to be eligible to compete in an Am stake, same way they do with pro's.....
> ...


I agree and many clubs would close shop...


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

FOM said:


> I agree and many clubs would close shop...


Just looking at it around here, you would cut at least 1/3 of the amateur entries--perhaps a few more based on my guess about some folks who may still be under the 1 year window. However, you would most likely lose about 2/3 of the open entries as those pros would go to a different trial where their clients could run their dogs in the Am.

Might be nice with 100 dog trials but pretty tight with 50-60 dogs.


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> ​I believe it would be Ray Vreeland. His contact number should be in Callbacks



Ted I don't have a callbacks catalog. Could you provide an email please?
Thanks


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

B Peterson said:


> Ted I don't have a callbacks catalog. Could you provide an email please?
> Thanks


You can get one from the retriever News


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> Just looking at it around here, you would cut at least 1/3 of the amateur entries--perhaps a few more based on my guess about some folks who may still be under the 1 year window. However, you would most likely lose about 2/3 of the open entries as those pros would go to a different trial where their clients could run their dogs in the Am.
> 
> Might be nice with 100 dog trials but pretty tight with 50-60 dogs.


Well I use a Pro part of the year and if they ever changed the Am to be non-pro trained dogs, I'd take my toys and go hunting  These are games, nothing more. And if I did that my club would stop having a FT.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

FOM said:


> Well I use a Pro part of the year and if they ever changed the Am to be non-pro trained dogs, I'd take my toys and go hunting  These are games, nothing more. And if I did that my club would stop having a FT.


You would probably lose more than my guesstimate--I was being generous on a few and if I didn't really know, I called them amateur trained. In one of the previous "change the definition of Amateur" threads about 4 or 5 years ago Ted (I think it was Ted) posted an actual FT with every person in the AM and whether or not that dog had pro training. The vast majority did--way more than my guess.

Not only would it really impact a lot of clubs' P&L, it sure wouldn't help the judging pool to restrict the definition so severely.


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

B Peterson said:


> Ted I don't have a callbacks catalog. Could you provide an email please?
> Thanks


You could also use the AKC judges directory.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Why is it that every year, they seem to define a new restriction on Amateur? I guess this one might make a tad more since than the No _co-habitation_ with a Pro. Still what would stop someone from just being single _owner_ on the paperwork for a bunch of dogs? Limiting the # of dogs a single Amateur can run in an event makes more since, as then a single person would be unable to empty a Pro truck as it were.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Why is it that every year, they seem to define a new restriction on Amateur? I guess this one might make a tad more since than the No _co-habitation_ with a Pro. Still what would stop someone from just being single _owner_ on the paperwork for a bunch of dogs? Limiting the # of dogs a single Amateur can run in an event makes more since, as then a single person would be unable to empty a Pro truck as it were.


Since doesn't make sense in this instance.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

huntinman said:


> Since doesn't make sense in this instance.


Exactly, makes know cents ither


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Ted, I know you are only reporting but do you know the reason for this proposed rule?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Why is it that every year, they seem to define a new restriction on Amateur? I guess this one might make a tad more since than the No _co-habitation_ with a Pro. Still what would stop someone from just being single _owner_ on the paperwork for a bunch of dogs? Limiting the # of dogs a single Amateur can run in an event makes more since, as then a single person would be unable to empty a Pro truck as it were.


Its the nature of the game and a microcosm of society...Its like telling me that since I used a golf pro to help me work on my swing that I cant play in the US Amateur or US Publinks ...The quest for a titled dog grows greater with each passing year and people figured out it was sometimes more expedient to hire a pro to assist/train one's dog and become a contender with their first dog as opposed to those that learned to train by themselves....the game created the monster of the well heeled amateur with a slew of pro trained dogs, now some entities want to manage the monster...the steroidal version is how people want to limit the pro's in certain venues


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

"If the community supports tstop to peproposal, a club could elect to have one of the following Amateur stakes: 

1. Traditional Amateur
2. Owner/Handler Amateur
3. Single Family Owner/Handler Amateur

If a club elected to hold a Single Family O/H Amateur, a dog that was co-owned by two individuals who were not part of the same household would not be eligible to run."
.
.
Hum? Those agreeing to co-ownership deals and being funded to run dogs in Am may loose out.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Breck said:


> "If the community supports tstop to peproposal, a club could elect to have one of the following Amateur stakes:
> 
> 1. Traditional Amateur
> 2. Owner/Handler Amateur
> ...


that would be lose out, care to name names?....;-)


----------



## waycool (Jan 23, 2014)

LOL this just too familiar... entertaining I must say  Obviously.. you all know each other..and know who's doing what! 

Here's the rub...

So I dunno bout retrievers and I can just shut up.. but hell I'm here.. so... In other AKC field titles a dog that is awarded first place points in an Amateur stake can utilize a certain number of those points toward an OPEN field championship. In pointing breeds that number is 4 as well there is retrieving requirement that can also be met (GSPs, Viz,Weims) The effect... is that PRO's actually are or were (out of the game 10 years now) recruiting amateurs to run their other clients dogs in the amateur stakes to get these FOUR points used toward their open championship as well as qualifying their client dogs for the NAFT...

I don't think it is necessarily unfair for an amateur to run other peoples dogs.. EXCEPT at which point the Amateur's status come into question.. I do think it is unfair to when it comes to PRO's finishing dogs by utilizing these four points that are allowed from Amateur wins. I dunno if retrievers even can do this.. and I'm too lazy to look it up  Hallelujah !

So.. then the last unfairness question is... what advantage does the DOG have.. when handled by one of these Amafessionals as opposed to the dogs actual amateur owner handling ? 

Oh what tangled webs....... 

I believe the "co-habitation" item is part of AKC's description of Amateur Status and not related to a Stake restriction per se'.. The issue there is obvious... co-habitants, one claims to be amateur .. other is a pro... double your money double your fun.. but double jeopardy  

Carry on..  there is no good answer but the banter is FUN !


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> The members of the RAC asked people to contact them with comments. The proposal was discussed at the FT I attended last year.


Ted 
Thanks for posting. Don't know why you get under some skin, but keep bringing up the issues. It seems to me the true amateur/owner handler is being squeezed out of the FT/HT game yet is expected to work and be silent and if you protest there is an attempt to hush your discord. Just sayin


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

waycool said:


> I believe the "co-habitation" item is part of AKC's description of Amateur Status and not related to a Stake restriction per se'.. The issue there is obvious... co-habitants, one claims to be amateur .. other is a pro... double your money double your fun.. but double jeopardy
> 
> Carry on..  there is no good answer but the banter is FUN !



FYI I believe this provision of the current rules covers that situation. 


> No person shall be entitled to status as an Amateur if
> it is determined that it is inappropriate for such person to
> judge or to compete as an Amateur by virtue of a relationship
> or an association with a professional other than as a client.


----------



## Dave Farrar (Mar 16, 2012)

BonMallari said:


> Mr Daley is a really good man....gonna be tough act to follow


I met him at hunt test a few weeks ago. He was running a junior dog in front of me. REALLY nice guy that gave me a few tips. I didn't know who he was until that evening after I got home and looked him up on EE.


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

how about the:
owner, i train alone am. no one who has a training group can enter. you set up your own test and throw stand alones.
owner, i own my own business am. for those who only train on sundays after church. run on a stop watch cause your in a hurry.
owner, my kids play travel ball am. no one who trains on weekends can enter. and the event is at least 300 miles from all participants homes.
owner, cross over limited. no one with a box larger than a 3 hole cross over can enter.
owner, my wife is my only bird boy and she can't hit the ground with a bird am. for guys who only train with their wives.
owner, my dog has never even met a pro am.
owner, i tried, but not one person is willing to co-own my dog am.
owner, limited to 3 ex-wives single am. this is a very competitive event for guys who couldn't "be fixed" by three or more women.
non owner, good dogs i sold am. entries limited for people to run great dogs they sold to someone else because they thought the one they kept was better.
owner, i aint got no water am. a land only event for owner/trainers who don't have good water.
owner with manager or babe wwe style am. an event like pro wrestling where you can cheat, but only while your manager or your hot female sidekick distracts the judges.(could also be a midget)


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Breck said:


> "If the community supports tstop to peproposal, a club could elect to have one of the following Amateur stakes:
> 
> 1. Traditional Amateur
> 2. Owner/Handler Amateur
> ...


Candidate 1 -

36 placing dogs - 14 co-0wned - 6 sold - Handled NAFC - Judged National - 63 AA assignments in 25 years - RHOF as Amateur 

Candidate 2 - 

61 placing dogs - 6 co-owned -14 sold - handler owner NAFC - judged National - 38 AA assignments in 40 years - Campaigned 
circuit in Station Wagon days with a load of other peoples dogs - RHOF as Amateur

Candidate 3 - 

10 placing dogs - 7 co-owned - judged National - 37 AA assignments in 25 years - 

Maybe this is the reason the issue is coming forward - the cheaters are emboldened .


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Hint for Candidate X
Over 5000 owner entries (some under aka's)


----------



## perry_rm (Apr 3, 2014)

Mark Littlejohn said:


> Perhaps everyone should be given "Participant" ribbons to pacify those who contend that competition in the Amateur stakes is unfair.
> The steeper the climb, the greater the reward.


Why would a pro want to run their dog in the am stakes. This whole thing stinks to me. I'm new to the whole thing. Just got my first lab and I am interested in training her and getting her titled. I also plan to hunt the heck out of her. After reading this discussion it makes me sick of the whole idea. It just seems like some sort of racket. Pros running their dogs in am stakes to get titles. Am' running their dogs that were trained by pros. And this crap about clubs going out of business if they don't support the racket. 


It seems pretty simple simple to me. If your dog was trained by a pro it is a pro. Therefore compete with the pros and stay out of the Am's. Why cry about. If you want to be an AM then put in the work yourself and be one. 

I may be reading to much into this but it seems to me this has nothing to do with logic and a whole lot to do with people making money. Anyways, like I said I am new to this and welcome anyone to set me straight if I am wrong on this assumption.


----------



## russell.jason2 (Mar 13, 2011)

PATG said:


> why is it that the guys that play w/ the pros and call themselves AM. think that it is a
> a funny idea? There are guys that actually like to play and do work for a living , does this really hurt you guys that have dogs all over the country?


Not sure there is much room for the guy/gal who works full time and trains his/her own dogs. We are behind the 8-ball. Every time something like this is brought up, you hear from the powers to be in the amateur game and a lot of them shut down any idea that changes "the way it's done". Most folks who are and have always been successful don't want change. I took a course on "change Management" once and the first thing you learn is the folks who excel in a current process are against change. I have much respect for the amateur who works hard and trains his/her own dogs and are successful. The person who I have much respect for in this game was an amateur who had a full time job working his butt off and yet trained 3 FC/AFC's, 2 of them National Amateur finalist. Now that my friend is a "amateur". I don't have a real problem with the current system but I had recommended to Ted a few changes, one of which to limit the number of dogs an amateur can run. Like I said before, I am a republican, ;-), so I have no problem with the folks that are fortunate enough to own multiple dogs, have them pro trained or be able to travel all over to train and run field trials. However, like I said before even the NFL has a salary cap and its the most popular sport in the country, the Seattle's of the world can win a super bowl, not just the cowboys or patriots. :razz: I say keep training hard, I don't foresee anything changing.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Jason

If you or Bruce or anyone else feel strongly that there ought to be a limit on the number of dogs that a handler can run in the Amateur, I suggest that you contact the members of the RAC. As I mentioned, the RAC brought up the possibility of imposing a restriction on the number of dogs that could be run by a handler in the Amateur. The RAC asked for input. The proposal was not supported.

If you feel strongly about it, then maybe you can re-ignite the process. Don't say - "oh well" the "powers that be" won't listen to me.

There is a process for changing the Rules in our sport

1. You submit a proposal to the RAC
2. The RAC presents the proposal to the member clubs for discussion
3. If there is sufficient interest, the matter is placed for a vote to the membership

Making proposals on RTF may make you feel good, but it doesn't accomplish anything

If you really want to try and change things, you are going to need to get involved in the process.

It can be difficult and it can be frustrating, but it is the only way to get things accomplished.

Ted


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> Jason
> 
> If you or Bruce or anyone else feel strongly that there ought to be a limit on the number of dogs that a handler can run in the Amateur, I suggest that you contact the members of the RAC. As I mentioned, the RAC brought up the possibility of imposing a restriction on the number of dogs that could be run by a handler in the Amateur. The RAC asked for input. The proposal was not supported.
> 
> ...


Who decides if there is "sufficient interest"? This stuff can't make it to a vote, but the ridiculous layout blind vote made it down to the clubs?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Charles C. said:


> Who decides if there is "sufficient interest"? This stuff can't make it to a vote, but the ridiculous layout blind vote made it down to the clubs?



There was a concern about liability. Some bird boys had gotten kicked by dogs. Others were kept in them too long in the heat. The issue came up. It came up for a vote. Ed, Robbie, I and others fought for the use of layout blinds. The issue was submitted to the clubs for a vote. We lost.


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> There was a concern about liability. Some bird boys had gotten kicked by dogs. Others were kept in them too long in the heat. The issue came up. It came up for a vote. Ed, Robbie, I and others fought for the use of layout blinds. The issue was submitted to the clubs for a vote. We lost.


I understand the arguments against layout blinds, I just thought it amounted to legislating common sense. I know in the club I belong to, lots of people who have little involvement in field trials and don't judge were part of the vote. Despite my vote against the measure and arguments for their use, our vote was to ban the blinds. It's unfortunate.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I think it is important to remember the clubs have a say in the process. For example, the requirements for judging that so many on RTF criticize was put up for a vote and passed. Many measures are ignored by clubs who elect not to vote. If you don't participate in the process, I don't think you have any right to complain


----------



## Hambone (Mar 4, 2003)

I didn't know about the layout blind rule till reading this post. Having spent a very long and hot August day laying in one that was positioned at the bottom of a dry ditch abou 8 FT. Deep I'm glad they outlawed them. I liked to got a heat stroke from that gun station.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

> I understand the arguments against layout blinds, I just thought it amounted to legislating* common sense. *I know in the club I belong to, lots of people who have little involvement in field trials and don't judge were part of the vote. Despite my vote against the measure and arguments for their use, our vote was to ban the blinds. It's unfortunate.


The highlighted and underlined part of your responce is the problem, very little of that left nowdays, for the folks that were in favor I would urge them to set up a layout blind in there front yard, in the sun because the whole point of them was to use them in situations were there was no other way to retire a gun, about every 10 min. get up and toss a bumper, get back in and repeat, do this for 4 hours and report back. At some point someone would have been left out there to long and gotten hurt...


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

I have retired into a layout blind both in training and field trials, not all layouts are the same, there are mesh ones which provide ventilation for the person in the blind. Also outlawed was the practice of lying on the ground to retire under any type of concealment. I often do this in training sometimes concealing myself under a ghillie blanket. Like most things if we consider the extreme almost anything would be unacceptable. As I argued at the time if we are concerned about bird thrower safety we should first address popper guns and lack of hearing and eye protection.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

EdA said:


> I have retired into a layout blind both in training and field trials, not all layouts are the same, there are mesh ones which provide ventilation for the person in the blind. Also outlawed was the practice of lying on the ground to retire under any type of concealment. I often do this in training sometimes concealing myself under a ghillie blanket. Like most things if we consider the extreme almost anything would be unacceptable. As I argued at the time if we are concerned about bird thrower safety we should first address popper guns and lack of hearing and eye protection.


I hear ya, Iv'e spent many days in a layout blind, have 5 different ones hanging in my garage, if you or me are out in a layout blind at a trial we have enough scence to call on the radio and say Iv'e had enough I need to get out of here now, problem is a 12 year old kid may not, he may just be trying to do a really good job, toughs it out and gets sick, it's not going to be the judges that the parents chew out it's going to be the club. The rule probably should have been adults only in layouts.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Todd Caswell said:


> I hear ya, Iv'e spent many days in a layout blind, have 5 different ones hanging in my garage, if you or me are out in a layout blind at a trial we have enough scence to call on the radio and say Iv'e had enough I need to get out of here now, problem is a 12 year old kid may not, he may just be trying to do a really good job, toughs it out and gets sick, it's not going to be the judges that the parents chew out it's going to be the club. The rule probably should have been adults only in layouts.


Can't have any 12 year old kids working at a trial in the first place. (At least with popper guns involved)


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

perry_rm said:


> Why would a pro want to run their dog in the am stakes. This whole thing stinks to me. I'm new to the whole thing. Just got my first lab and I am interested in training her and getting her titled. I also plan to hunt the heck out of her. After reading this discussion it makes me sick of the whole idea. It just seems like some sort of racket. Pros running their dogs in am stakes to get titles. Am' running their dogs that were trained by pros. And this crap about clubs going out of business if they don't support the racket.
> 
> 
> It seems pretty simple simple to me. If your dog was trained by a pro it is a pro. Therefore compete with the pros and stay out of the Am's. Why cry about. If you want to be an AM then put in the work yourself and be one.
> ...


This is just crazy
But I suspect your opinion will change. You really don't have enough time or experiences in the game to make these statements. And Pro's are not trying to run the Am. And who cares, I've seen many "all pro" trained dogs with FC's barely able to get a Jam in the Am due to the handler. What about the guy that pays a pro, trains with the pro three days a week for years, has a hand in the training, learning everything they can from FF to bird placement, and how to be a better handler. Can he run your Am?


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Gun safety
I think some folks, especially a 16 yr olds, are unaware that a Popper Load can blow off part of your foot or hurt someone pretty bad. 
Another thing people aren't always aware of, especially if you have two at a station one shooting, is not to freekin' *Sweep* someone with the barrel of a shotgun, ever. Happens all the time. I had a flyer gunner sweep me while I was throwing. Didn't like that very much.
High on judge/chairman list should be gunner/birdboy instruction/training.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

huntinman said:


> Can't have any 12 year old kids working at a trial in the first place. (At least with popper guns involved)


Your absolutly correct 16 year olds and or blind planters, seen them used for that as well...


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

perry_rm said:


> Why would a pro want to run their dog in the am stakes. This whole thing stinks to me. I'm new to the whole thing. Just got my first lab and I am interested in training her and getting her titled. I also plan to hunt the heck out of her. After reading this discussion it makes me sick of the whole idea. It just seems like some sort of racket. Pros running their dogs in am stakes to get titles. Am' running their dogs that were trained by pros. And this crap about clubs going out of business if they don't support the racket.
> 
> 
> It seems pretty simple simple to me. If your dog was trained by a pro it is a pro. Therefore compete with the pros and stay out of the Am's. Why cry about. If you want to be an AM then put in the work yourself and be one.
> ...


Since you asked so nicely, (I not being sarcastic), I'll try to set you straight. This thread isn't about Pros judging in the Amateur stake, it's about some proposed rules to limit the Amateur stake in some cases by restricting which Amateurs can run. There is debate about this, and it may be regional, but there is some concern that a Pro could show up at a trial with one of his amateur clients in tow, and that "amateur" client could legally run every dog on his truck. Like I said there is a lot of disagreement about whether this really happens, and if so how much, I personally haven't seen it out here. I have had situations where I thought about having a training partner run my dog in the Open or Am because I couldn't run that trial, or maybe I'm judging the other stake, so there could be a little _throw the baby out with the bathwater _issue here. 

Anyway they created an "owner handler" stake to deal with that perceived problem. Now there is concern some people are getting around that rule by co-owning dogs, hence the proposed rule changes. 

John


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Breck said:


> Gun safety
> I think some folks, especially a 16 yr olds, are unaware that a Popper Load can blow off part of your foot or hurt someone pretty bad.
> Another thing people aren't always aware of, especially if you have two at a station one shooting, is not to freekin' *Sweep* someone with the barrel of a shotgun, ever. Happens all the time. I had a flyer gunner sweep me while I was throwing. Didn't like that very much.
> High on judge/chairman list should be gunner/birdboy instruction/training.


If I'm chairing a stake and in charge of the bird boys I try to make a point to go over gun safty and shoot a can, bottle, stump something to show them that these poppers can do damage, the two clubs I work with require gun stands, some judges don't like them and will try to fight you over it, I'll brush it and make it look as natural as possible but not having it isn't an option. As a flyer thrower I'm going to be between the gunners and behind a step or two, I love throwing the flyer but from a safety and a consistency standpoint, a flyer out of a winger alot of times may be a better option. we used one for 2 trials last year that I was involved with we had 2 no birds out of 164 and the fall was very consistant with a nice big flyer, made a believer out of me and my arm felt alot better the next day.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> Since you asked so nicely, (I not being sarcastic), I'll try to set you straight. This thread isn't about Pros judging in the Amateur stake, it's about some proposed rules to limit the Amateur stake in some cases by restricting which Amateurs can run. There is debate about this, and it may be regional, but there is some concern that a Pro could show up at a trial with one of his amateur clients in tow, and that "amateur" client could legally run every dog on his truck. Like I said there is a lot of disagreement about whether this really happens, and if so how much, I personally haven't seen it out here. I have had situations where I thought about having a training partner run my dog in the Open or Am because I couldn't run that trial, or maybe I'm judging the other stake, so there could be a little _throw the baby out with the bathwater _issue here.
> 
> Anyway they created an "owner handler" stake to deal with that perceived problem. Now there is concern some people are getting around that rule by co-owning dogs, hence the proposed rule changes.
> 
> John


WMRC has an OH Amateur or did have the last time I looked at a premium. 

There is a very high profile pro from the Midwest that has no dogs on his truck
that are not co-owned. 

IMO, I believe it to be a useful tool in the arsenal of a club that has those issues!


----------



## perry_rm (Apr 3, 2014)

rboudet said:


> This is just crazy
> But I suspect your opinion will change. You really don't have enough time or experiences in the game to make these statements. And Pro's are not trying to run the Am. And who cares, I've seen many "all pro" trained dogs with FC's barely able to get a Jam in the Am due to the handler. What about the guy that pays a pro, trains with the pro three days a week for years, has a hand in the training, learning everything they can from FF to bird placement, and how to be a better handler. Can he run your Am?


I agree. I am more like an outsider looking it right now and just trying to express what I feel like I understand. I definatley enjoy the conversation and apppreciate the fact that it is being had. In the scenario you gave I am sure there would be a need for clarification of the rules so that they are appropriate for the sport. Obviously, I can not even being to comment on all the possible situations that could arise from such a rule change.

I guess my only concern was having a tru amature team go against a pro/am in competition. Now defining what a pro/am is would, as you have pointed out, be something up for debate. I see how it is not fair to tell a guy he can't run his dog becuase it was trained by a pro and he is an amature. Then again, who gets the title, the dog or the owner. I guess that is why there would need to be three categories. Pro, Pro/Am and Am. Then I am sure you get into the costs and time when trying to run all these competitions and find it very difficult to make such a change.

You know, it really gets down to the "intent" of the different classifications. However, it sounds like that is up for debate as well.


----------



## perry_rm (Apr 3, 2014)

John Robinson said:


> Since you asked so nicely, (I not being sarcastic), I'll try to set you straight. This thread isn't about Pros judging in the Amateur stake, it's about some proposed rules to limit the Amateur stake in some cases by restricting which Amateurs can run. There is debate about this, and it may be regional, but there is some concern that a Pro could show up at a trial with one of his amateur clients in tow, and that "amateur" client could legally run every dog on his truck. Like I said there is a lot of disagreement about whether this really happens, and if so how much, I personally haven't seen it out here. I have had situations where I thought about having a training partner run my dog in the Open or Am because I couldn't run that trial, or maybe I'm judging the other stake, so there could be a little _throw the baby out with the bathwater _issue here.
> 
> Anyway they created an "owner handler" stake to deal with that perceived problem. Now there is concern some people are getting around that rule by co-owning dogs, hence the proposed rule changes.
> 
> John


John, thanks so much for the clarification. That really does shed some light on the situation and helps a novice like me get a better grasp on the situation.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

I guess my only concern was having a tru amature team go against a pro/am in competition. Now defining what a pro/am is would, as you have pointed out, be something up for debate. I see how it is not fair to tell a guy he can't run his dog becuase it was trained by a pro and he is an amature. Then again, who gets the title, the dog or the owner. I guess that is why there would need to be three categories. Pro, Pro/Am and Am. Then I am sure you get into the costs and time when trying to run all these competitions and find it very difficult to make such a change.

You know, it really gets down to the "intent" of the different classifications. However, it sounds like that is up for debate as well.[/QUOTE]

Perry, in today's world probably 90% of the competitive ( and not so) dogs are pro trained at some point in time in their careers. As has been mentioned some amateurs are very good handlers, some not so. Does it really matter who trained the dog?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

I guess I just grew up in a different time where we worried more about what Amateur's were going to be at your trial...the names you always "feared" were Mike Flannery, Judy Aycock,Peter Lane,Roy McFall,Lanse Brown,Don Weiss,Guy Burnett,Delma Hazzard,David Crow...You faced them on Friday in the Open and you knew they would be in the mix Sat evening and expected to see them Sun morning , IF you were lucky enough to survive yourself, If I wasnt at the trial watching Clint, I could almost predict what cast of characters would be there battling it out in the Amateur till the bitter end on Sunday

Nowadays, the Sunday list still includes Aycock but its the HE not the former Mrs., Lanse Brown is usually around, there is usually a Hays except this one is not related to Charles and Yvonne, Chris Hatch is as good a bet to be there on Sunday as my pastor is at showing up for Sunday service, Ken Neil,Chad Baker,Sylvia McClure and until their dogs got older and retired you could always count on Fruehling,Shih,Graves,Erwin to be on the Sunday morning callback list...

The Amateur handler is still the backbone and heart of the FT game, I think that sometimes the field trialer gets so enamored with the Pro they forget that the amateur still makes the game, without them there is no game and no field trial..Lets strive to keep as many Amateurs in the game so the number we see on the Sunday morning callback list is long and filled with names we like to see, including maybe YOURS


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

labsforme said:


> Perry, in today's world probably 90% of the competitive ( and not so) dogs are pro trained at some point in time in their careers. As has been mentioned some amateurs are very good handlers, some not so. Does it really matter who trained the dog?


To some the joy is in training the dog, not in the collecting of ribbons. We may not end up with any pelts but enjoy the journey nonetheless! To this group it very much matters who trained the dog.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

fishduck said:


> To some the joy is in training the dog, not in the collecting of ribbons. We may not end up with any pelts but enjoy the journey nonetheless! To this group it very much matters who trained the dog.


Amen, Mark, amen!


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

Mark, I trained my dogs myself for many years until other things took priority. I still have one at home I train and as much as I can I have an active interest and participation with my other dog and pro. Many others have made the same choice due to varying circumstances. The pelts ,none so far in the three years I have been trialing. I am becoming a better handler and student of the game.So no denegration of either strictly amateur trained or pro trained people or dogs.
Best to ya'll and yours,

Jeff

PS So Carol you never got help, advice from a Pro ?


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Jeff,
Good luck in your endeavors! Hope you nail many pelts to the wall.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

Mark, thank you. It's usually my hiney getting nailed to the wall in the first series.


----------

