# FCs or AFCs that have been 100% amateur trained?



## Grasshopper (Sep 26, 2007)

Just curious, as I'm dead set on doing it all myself, how many FC or AFC dogs there are out there that have been strictly amateur trained.


----------



## JeffLusk (Oct 23, 2007)

doesn't mr. darnell have a couple? 
Not sure how many, but they are out there.

Btw, good luck on your quest!!


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Welcome back! I have asked that question several times and never gotten an answer. It all has to do with how many pros do YOU get to train with, how often, and access to grounds. But no one has actually answered the question. I'll be curious to see what you get here!


----------



## TXduckdog (Oct 17, 2007)

Are you talking all-time?

Hundreds and LOTs of NAFC's as well.


----------



## Grasshopper (Sep 26, 2007)

Let's say recently - last 5 years?

Thanks Carol - the elk hunt was awesome!! I'll give you a call this week.


----------



## Jimmie Darnell (Sep 22, 2003)

Yes 110% amateur trained. I have 3 titled dogs and more to come I hope. It requires a lot of blood, sweat, and tears.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

TXduckdog said:


> Are you talking all-time?
> 
> Hundreds and LOTs of NAFC's as well.


Whoa hold on... Are you talking "totally amateur trained?"

Hardly hundreds regards,,,,

Bob Johnson's dog gets my vote FC-AFC Weezer Retriever. Along with FC-AFC Small Craft Advisory... Linda Harger, DC AFC Ginny's Yakkity Yak Don't Talk Back....

Name some more!!

Angie


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

In my old training group at least 7 going back a few years, presently FC/AFC Buckshot's Midnight Sky MH, AFC Sasseville Get'um Molly and FC/AFC Sasseville Getumn Quick, although "Quick" was trained and Titled under amateur Dick Dallasasse, his new co-owner has since placed him with a Pro. Having said that there have been a number over the years that NO Pro has EVER put his hand in front of the dog across the country. I am not sure what that means ,because except for the satisfaction of "doing it yourself", it is all about the dogs > So if you are with a pro for just the basics, or have the dog in the North through the warmer months, then send it South, or train it sometimes then handle it on the weekends, don't think there is much difference in my opinion. A good dog is a good dog and a good all-age handler is a good all-age handler!


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2008)

FC AFC LaCrosse Max Q Jake JH



Grasshopper said:


> I'm dead set on doing it all myself


Why is that?


----------



## HiRollerlabs (Jun 11, 2004)

When you says "totally amateur trained" are you including amateurs who train daily with pros, or are you limiting it to amateurs who only train with other amateurs.

Just wondering since some dogs are handled/trained by Ams who day train with pros. 

I am guessing that if you are only counting Am trained dogs in an all Am group (no pro day training or don't go with pro south for winter training)--there aren't many.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

> In my old training group at least 7 going back a few years, presently FC/AFC Buckshot's Midnight Sky MH, AFC Sasseville Get'um Molly and FC/AFC Sasseville Getumn Quick, although "Quick" was trained and Titled under amateur Dick Dallasasse, his new co-owner has since placed him with a Pro. Having said that there have been a number over the years that NO Pro has EVER put his hand in front of the dog across the country.


That's what I think as Totally Amateur Trained... Anything else is not....

I don't care if it's winter trip, summer trip,,, or a trip around the block.....

I don't think there is that many?

Angie


----------



## JKL (Oct 19, 2007)

Where did the 100% Amateur trainers learn ?


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

JKL said:


> Where did the 100% Amateur trainers learn ?


Let's stay to the point shall we??? ;-) We're not talking about where/who the amateur trainers learned from... As long as those amateurs exclusively trained their dogs....

Angie


----------



## JKL (Oct 19, 2007)

Angie B said:


> Let's stay to the point shall we??? ;-) We're not talking about where/who the amateur trainers learned from... As long as those amateurs exclusively trained their dogs....
> 
> Angie


And if a Pro becomes an Amateur, does that put them in the same catagory of someone who has never been a Pro, and not ever trained with a Pro ?


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Angie B said:


> Hardly hundreds regards,,,, Angie


What information do you have that would back up that statement? There are roughly 2,500 individual names in the ftretrieverjudge.net database. Many of whom have never placed a dog but still judge, in some cases, a lot. They are a long way from anything resembling success with dogs in the filed. 

Now if we used an 80% of the time requirement, I think you would find several hundred active people who do qualify. 

There are a larger majority of Amateurs who do their own training & have than you realize. & some very successful trainers. There is quite a pod of them in OR - Pete Goodale & Jack Vollstedt come to mind as being real successful, plus others. In CA, the Erwin's & Bill Daley come to mind. There are many more but not going through the list. 

Now, I don't think you are an Amateur if you were a Pro, now call yourself an amateur but co-own dogs with the same clients you had when you were a pro, do you?


----------



## msdaisey (May 13, 2004)

FC AFC Cropper's Hit & Run is the latest in the string that Newt has trained and titled.


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

FC-AFC Oakdale’s Whitewater Devil Dog (call name: BAM), Howard Niemi


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

AFC Rockerins Riverdance by Paul Rainbolt...100% Am trained....However I understand Gena’s early obedience should get most of the credit.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Angie B said:


> That's what I think as Totally Amateur Trained... Anything else is not....
> 
> I don't care if it's winter trip, summer trip,,, or a trip around the block.....
> 
> ...


Angie Until recently in the last few years never gave it much thought, BUT, having said that in the "big picture" there haven't been many that go from 7 weeks old to FC/AFC and /or to NAFC NFC in a group that have a "day job" AND find time to train to that level, did that for 18 years, and as Jimmy said you give up much!! You train in the early AM, you train at noon, you train until dark, you use up all your vacation time to run dogs. You drive two hours to chase a "big water set-up" that takes 10 or 15 minutes run then hang around for your group to get thier dogs run, all amateurs and not retired amateurs! AND you don't "collect dogs" if they can't make the grade they are gone. Is that what you mean? been there done that, don't know if I want to ever do it again!


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Roy McFall and his dogs...Arnie and Linda Erwin and their dogs


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Criquetpas said:


> Angie Until recently in the last few years never gave it much thought, BUT, having said that in the "big picture" there haven't been many that go from 7 weeks old to FC/AFC and /or to NAFC NFC in a group that have a "day job" AND find time to train to that level, did that for 18 years, and as Jimmy said you give up much!! You train in the early AM, you train at noon, you train until dark, you use up all your vacation time to run dogs. You drive two hours to chase a "big water set-up" that takes 10 or 15 minutes run then hang around for your group to get thier dogs run, all amateurs and not retired amateurs! AND you don't "collect dogs" if they can't make the grade they are gone. Is that what you mean? been there done that, don't know if I want to ever do it again!


I understand what your saying Earl. And yes,,, I guess that's what I mean. A dog like the original poster stated,,, Totally Amateur Trained...

There is not many that have garnished the FC-AFC titles that way.

What do they say??? "All it takes is money and time"

Angie


----------



## Grasshopper (Sep 26, 2007)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Grasshopper
> I'm dead set on doing it all myself
> 
> Why is that?


That's a good question Melanie - I feel a greater sense of accomplishment by completing the task myself. Hard headed I guess, but my aim is to learn how to train my dogs. It's really the training part that got me hooked, not the competition. Does that make any sense?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

JKL said:


> Where did the 100% Amateur trainers learn ?


I can only speak from personal experience but my brother had a dog training mentor in a man named John Luther DVM who was going to vet school at the time when my brother was in grad school at A&M, I got to tag along and be bird boy and gofer...also learned the ins and outs of the retriever trial game from a gentleman named Richard "Cactus" Pryor. he kind of took us under his wing and showed us how a trial works and the logistics of how things were done


----------



## JeffLusk (Oct 23, 2007)

Angie are you sure weezer has never been touched by a pro? I know bob does a lot more than most, but thought he occassionally had a pro run him. I may be wrong


----------



## Aaron Homburg (Sep 23, 2005)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> AFC Rockerins Riverdance by Paul Rainbolt...100% Am trained....However I understand Gena’s early obedience should get most of the credit.


I thought Paul used a pro???

Aaron


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Aaron Homburg said:


> I thought Paul used a pro???
> 
> Aaron


Gena's WAS a pro according to Paul....but some how I dont think it was dogs.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

So what about HiRoller's question?

Is a dog "amateur trained" if the am owner does ALL the hands-on stuff, but trains with a pro on occasion, watching, picking their brain and getting advice? Is that dog 100% amateur trained?

JS


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

Roy McFall has had over a dozen that I know of, don't recall exactly. I believe he may have said 15 but not sure. He has over 1500 all age points and has had a outstand career. Along with Roy is another who runs a lot in Alaska, Jack Volstead, who has over 900 AA points. They should both be in the Retriever Hall of Fame, but from what I hear, getting in that is pretty political. Bud


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Grasshopper said:


> That's a good question Melanie - I feel a greater sense of accomplishment by completing the task myself. Hard headed I guess, but my aim is to learn how to train my dogs. It's really the training part that got me hooked, not the competition. Does that make any sense?


Makes sense to me!! That's why I have dogs. It's my hobby. It's what gets me up in the morning. 

For me the joy is not in owning a trained dog but in training the dog.

JS


----------



## Grasshopper (Sep 26, 2007)

JS said:


> So what about HiRoller's question?
> 
> Is a dog "amateur trained" if the am owner does ALL the hands-on stuff, but trains with a pro on occasion, watching, picking their brain and getting advice? Is that dog 100% amateur trained?
> 
> JS



In my opinion, yes.


----------



## golden boy 2 (Mar 28, 2005)

Sorry Mel but Jake is disqualified from this list, Lister ran him a couple times. It took Andy several months to undo his work.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

:twisted::twisted::twisted::twisted: Told ya so!!!

But like JS said, its why I get up in the morning, and like you said, the joy is in the training. I never got my Indy with the idea, "I am going to win a field trial", instead, I found out I had a dog that needed the work, and discovered a whole new outlook on life past 50!


----------



## zipmarc (Jan 23, 2006)

Chris Hatch with FC-AFC Hightest Black Tie Affair, AFC Tealcreek Patton's Saber. I know both Jack Vollstedt and Pete Goodale train with pros on occasion. You will have to be more specific in defining "amateur trained".


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2008)

Grasshopper said:


> That's a good question Melanie - I feel a greater sense of accomplishment by completing the task myself. Hard headed I guess, but my aim is to learn how to train my dogs. It's really the training part that got me hooked, not the competition. Does that make any sense?


And it was a sincere question.

What kind of resources do you have at hand?

grounds
time
equipment
training groups
mentors
knowledge
dog sense
talented animals

And that's just the short list.


----------



## Tatyana (Nov 6, 2007)

I think Al Wilson trains all his dogs himself and he's doing great with Twister (FC AFC Nebo's Onyx Tornado) and a couple of other dogs.


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

I am not to sure about completely AM trained, although I feel strongly he was and I am 100% sure he was AM handled to all points and titles,

FC AFC CFC CAFC Barracuda Blue MH is another (and choclate to boot!!!)

and I am 100% sure his SON was both trained and handled to all points and titles by an AM

FC AFC Cuda’s Blue Ryder MH (you guessed it CHOCO!!!!!) 

NCA

ps..didnt know if you are disqualifying for deceased dogs.


----------



## JKL (Oct 19, 2007)

Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> I am not to sure about completely AM trained, although I feel strongly he was and I am 100% sure he was AM handled to all points and titles,
> 
> FC AFC CFC CAFC Barracuda Blue MH is another (and choclate to boot!!!)
> 
> ...


Tyson dogs were trained by Gonia when I first moved to Wa 12 years ago.


----------



## JKL (Oct 19, 2007)

Tatyana said:


> I think Al Wilson trains all his dogs himself and he's doing great with Twister (FC AFC Nebo's Onyx Tornado) and a couple of other dogs.


Al has used Mark Edward.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

golden boy 2 said:


> Sorry Mel but Jake is disqualified from this list, Lister ran him a couple times. It took Andy several months to undo his work.


Hey Mikey, Greg RAN Jake in a couple of Derbies. He has never trained him. I basically took Jake to Greg the day before the trial. He and about ten or twelve other handlers have run Jake at trials and collected ribbons. I thank them all. Also would like to thank the Kaisers for Hauling him to one of the Nationals for us. It's really nice to have so many great friends helping out!

If Jake doesn't fit the definition of 100% Amateur trained, then I don't think any will.

Yes we have day trained with pros on occasion and even conversed with a few about dogs.

I think anyone that has ever run a National including a National Am. has probably trained with a pro since most pre-National training groups have at least one pro.

I've also read books and watched videos and I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express this weekend. So what?

BTW we train with Jimmie and Debbie when we can. He is better than some pros I know. I hope this doesn't diminish this accomplishment.

Anyone that trains a dog to the FC and/or AFC level has really accomplished something very special no matter how much help you receive along the way.


John


----------



## Larkin (Feb 4, 2005)

What about Bill Burks? Steve Parker? AFC Arctic Sunshine Sally? FC/AFC Yukon's Genuine Jessie? Has Bill titled Judy yet? Of course, those guys might not be "pros," but they're not exactly amateurs either, lol.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Chris Hatch is an amateur trainer and the owner of FC/AFC Hightest Black Ty Affair who he trained and handled to her titles. Ty was on the Purina Top Amateur Retriever List and also qualified for this year's National Amateur. 

Chris is also the breeder-owner-trainer of AFC Tealcreek Patton's Saber (Saber is Ty's son).
Saber is just 3 years old. He qualified for this year National Amateur and this year's National Open. Chris and his wife Portia will be traveling to Texas next week to run Saber in the National Open. 

Chris is not retired; he is still a "working" man (insurance agent). Every spare minute Chris can find, he is training his dogs. (He's my husband's training partner.) 

Good luck in Texas, Chris !


----------



## Nor_Cal_Angler (Jul 3, 2008)

JKL said:


> Tyson dogs were trained by Gonia when I first moved to Wa 12 years ago.


either I am reading you wrong, or your saying both or either (Chuck and Gonia) are in Washington....I must be reading that wrong because my understanding is Chuck is still in Davis and Gonia is somewhere around the SF Pininsula (san mateo or something).

and according to my breeder who used (Cuda's test tube,lol) and SilverCreek Kennels Mr Tyson's web site...All of cuda's points and titles are AM handled and Ryder is 100% AM handled and trained.

so, one of us is mistaken, It very well could be me...

NCA

PS...Found his website...http://www.silvercreekkennels.com/


----------



## Guest (Oct 21, 2008)

Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> either I am reading you wrong, or your saying both or either (Chuck and Gonia) are in Washington....I must be reading that wrong because my understanding is Chuck is still in Davis and Gonia is somewhere around the SF Pininsula (san mateo or something).
> 
> and according to my breeder who used (Cuda's test tube,lol) and SilverCreek Kennels Mr Tyson's web site...All of cuda's points and titles are AM handled and Ryder is 100% AM handled and trained.
> 
> ...


Please recheck your facts.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

I'm not going to say that any of Cuda's points were put on by Jim Gonia, but I know Cuda was at McKenna Kennels in McKenna, Washington, when I had a dog there in 95. I ran him in training a few times.

I don't know about Ryder.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Larry Calvert has titled a few dogs, as has Bill McKnight. It's doable for an amateur if he has more time than sense


----------



## JKL (Oct 19, 2007)

Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> either I am reading you wrong, or your saying both or either (Chuck and Gonia) are in Washington....I must be reading that wrong because my understanding is Chuck is still in Davis and Gonia is somewhere around the SF Pininsula (san mateo or something).
> 
> and according to my breeder who used (Cuda's test tube,lol) and SilverCreek Kennels Mr Tyson's web site...All of cuda's points and titles are AM handled and Ryder is 100% AM handled and trained.
> 
> ...



Gonia is in McKenna WA. Cuda and Rio were at Gonia's when I first came to WA. Dont know about Ryder. Moda is with Gunzer part of the year.

Bill McKnight uses pros for part of his breakout work.

To the best of my knowledge Calvert does al of his own training but does day train with pros at times.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Jimmie Darnell said:


> Yes 110% amateur trained. I have 3 titled dogs and more to come I hope. It requires a lot of blood, sweat, and tears.


 
Jimmie,

I really enjoyed watching you and China run that second series in the Amateur at Bush Wildlife a couple weeks ago. It was beautiful work!

It was good to get to meet you and Debbie.

Chris


----------



## Chad Baker (Feb 5, 2003)

I admire and like Jimmy D and anyone else who can do it completely on there own. I am not that lucky myself!! I can keep them maintained while they are not at Lardy's but I don't have the time to train on a daily basis like they need to be. I send my young ones to Jim van Engen because he has a awesome program for young dogs. I run a rather complicated business and have a young daughter at home which both require lots of time to be successful. I met Rob Reuter at the national Am, I enjoyed getting to talk with him and watching his Cutter run. Speaking of which Jeff Talley trains alot by himself I don't think Hillman has trained Cutter since he was a young dog. There are lots of trains of thought about this sport the main one we all have in common I hope is that we love to see good dog work!! Good work is Good work no matter if a pro or am trains. What about Lance he uses Van Engen for young work and does the AA himself? He has a few AA points!!!!
CB


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Saying Lanse has a few AA points might be the understatement of the year


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Grasshopper said:


> Just curious, as I'm dead set on doing it all myself, how many FC or AFC dogs there are out there that have been strictly amateur trained.


All of Jim Pickerings AFC's came at the hands of an amateur.


----------



## TXduckdog (Oct 17, 2007)

Angie....my statement was in regards to "ALL TIME"....not just the last 5 years....it has to be in the hundreds.

A search on AKC website of AFC led to 1380 hits. Even if it was 20% totally amateur trained that would be 276.


----------



## Grasshopper (Sep 26, 2007)

Melanie Foster said:


> Hey Grasshopper,
> 
> All kidding aside...why the original question? Do you really want to do it or do you have no idea what it takes?



In the last issue of The Retriever Journal, Mike Lardy wrote, "If you hope to compete in field trials, it is almost essential that you use a professional trainer." So I wanted to know if there were competitive FT dogs out there that did not receive training at the hands of a pro. Day training with a pro, to me, means that the amateur is getting continuing education, but they're still training their dog. Not trying to split hairs - I just wanted to have an idea of what folks were doing.

And no, you don't have to worry about bursting my bubble. I think I have a good, but maybe rose colored, idea of what it takes to train a dog and do it alone. I have sufficient resources for training (land and equipment) and great mentors and a pro that helps train me. I have two nice dogs - one that came out of the shallow end of the retrieving gene pool and one that came out of the deep end. With a goal in mind for each dog, I just train and enjoy our daily journey. 

Never say never, never say always . . . . 

Kathryn


----------



## K.Bullock (May 15, 2008)

TXduckdog said:


> Angie....my statement was in regards to "ALL TIME"....not just the last 5 years....it has to be in the hundreds.
> 
> A search on AKC website of AFC led to 1380 hits. Even if it was 20% totally amateur trained that would be 276.


You can't have a thread titled 100% amateur and not mention Jack Martin and his score of FC-AFC' s plus his NFC Sky.


----------



## Grasshopper (Sep 26, 2007)

Oh, I forgot to say thank you for all the responses. And congratulations to all you amateur trainers - you guys give me hope!!


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Grasshopper
Of course you can train your dog to a level of afc or fc. Look at all these people that have.
Will it happen tomarro? of course not. It didn't happen that way for them either.
It was an evolutionary process. They bought their first dog and didn't know much just like all of us.
Over time their skill level became proficiant,they found training groups whether pro or not it doesn't matter,,they still had to similate the imformation and apply it to their dog, as they would with a book or by trial or era,,,,,they aquired different grounds,and over time they earned more money to devote to their habit.

For most it took time. ,,but for some they had it all except the knowledge which they were able to devote the time to learn so it happened much faster.

It was probably most peoples asperations at one time to train their dog to an FC or better.

But it makes no difference whether one uses a pro or not they still have to know and understand how to maintain and advance the training that was done.

It makes no difference what road you take as long as you get there Some people can afford to take the short cut with brand new pavement but most of us use the bumpy road that windes around the mountain. The view is much better that way and sometimes it looks like we are going the wrong way. But we'll get there. If we don't slide off :razz:
Pete


----------



## Lpgar (Mar 31, 2005)

Jim...good Point....Dennis and Tule are an incredible team. Maybe not Pro trained but the years of influence that the Best Professionals in both the US and Canada might have had something to do with that success. JMHO


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Vicky Trainor said:


> FC-AFC Oakdale’s Whitewater Devil Dog (call name: BAM), Howard Niemi


AND don't forget, SHE IS GOING TO NATIONALS!!! Wahooo!


----------



## North Mountain (Oct 20, 2003)

Angie B said:


> Whoa hold on... Are you talking "totally amateur trained?"
> 
> Hardly hundreds regards,,,,
> 
> ...


I'm a big Yakity fan but she has spent time with Jerry Patopea.


----------



## mike hodge (Aug 31, 2003)

Grasshopper: Check your PMs.


----------



## joanne2m2 (Apr 13, 2005)

Mitch Patterson and FC AFC JJ's Desire To Go. Totally amateur trained.


Joanne


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

I believe Nan Ruby does all of her own training on her dogs.
FC/AFC Kensbridge Darkly Handsome ( "Dean") was one.
her female "Trip" was also exclusively trained by Nan too, I believe. Sorry - her reg. name escapes me....
I think she trained with Jerry Patopea but as far as I knew she did all the work on her own dogs.
I admire her- neat lady...


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> I have sufficient resources for training (land and equipment) and great mentors and a pro that helps train me. ... Kathryn


Are you single?


If not, I'm up for adaption


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

Howard N said:


> Are you single?
> 
> 
> If not, I'm up for adaption


Sounds a bit risky or risque then again maybe it was a spelling error. ;-) HPW


----------



## HiRollerlabs (Jun 11, 2004)

North Mountain said:


> I'm a big Yakity fan but she has spent time with Jerry Patopea.


Weezer and Bob Johnson day train with Andy Attar--to the best of my knowledge. Weezer's young dog training was done by Bruce Curtis. They are a great dog/handler team.

Even some of the "old guard" in our area who have put FC AFC's on more than a few dogs in 40 years of trialing use a pro for young dog training.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

I was told that Bob had done all the training on Weezer, I stand corrected. Thanks North Moutain for the correction on Yakity. I hope I'm still right on Gary Unger and Ruff????

Angie


----------



## Alec Sparks (Jan 31, 2003)

It's just my opinion but I would consider a dog to be Am trained if an Am put the dog through the entire yard from FF to swim by, transition and on through to it's title with no more pro "help" then running their marks/blinds from time to time [but certainly not on a regular basis.] To much input of what/how to run if joining a pros training group on a regular basis.

What "regular"? IMO, anything more then a few times a month.

No one really "trains their dog alone without pro/amateur help" in the first place. Well....not retrievers in the US anyway.


----------



## AHC (Dec 10, 2004)

What about Ken Payne from Utah with "AFC Kayscreek's P.D.Q."


----------



## Jim Harvey (Feb 7, 2007)

Lpgar said:


> Jim...good Point....Dennis and Tule are an incredible team. Maybe not Pro trained but the years of influence that the Best Professionals in both the US and Canada might have had something to do with that success. JMHO


Ah Gar,....Dennis just knows who to hang around with!


----------



## Grasshopper (Sep 26, 2007)

Howard N said:


> Are you single?
> 
> 
> If not, I'm up for adaption


I am married, but we don't have any children . . . .

Wouldn't mind having a handsome, retriever training son in Alaska!!

Just call me Ma,
Kathryn


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Grasshopper said:


> I am married, but we don't have any children . . . .
> 
> Wouldn't mind having a handsome, retriever training son in Alaska!!
> 
> ...


He isn't much trouble. You just gotta feed him and he will do what he is told without too much grumbling!


----------



## Grasshopper (Sep 26, 2007)

Is he a picky eater? I'm not much of a cook.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

I find this thread hilarious --- it is amazing how someone would post about someone's accomplishments an individual when they had considerable help along the way. About 50% of the people mentioned are in that boat.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Gary Unger is an amatuer now (has been for several years), but he was also a successful professional trainer for years as well.

kg


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> I find this thread hilarious --- it is amazing how someone would post about someone's accomplishments an individual when they had considerable help along the way. About 50% of the people mentioned are in that boat.


So what is your point Marvin? No kidding?? How could a person training a dog as a amateur go _without_ help??? Help from a pro and having a pro do part of the job for you are 2 different things.

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Alec Sparks said:


> It's just my opinion but I would consider a dog to be Am trained if an Am put the dog through the entire yard from FF to swim by, transition and on through to it's title with no more pro "help" then running their marks/blinds from time to time [but certainly not on a regular basis.] To much input of what/how to run if joining a pros training group on a regular basis.
> 
> What "regular"? IMO, anything more then a few times a month.
> 
> No one really "trains their dog alone without pro/amateur help" in the first place. Well....not retrievers in the US anyway.


Personally I don't see anything wrong with an amateur training with a pro on a regular basis... Actually I think it's smart. But when it's all said and done the amateur is doing all the _driving_ of the dog.

IMHO

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

K G said:


> Gary Unger is an amatuer now (has been for several years), but he was also a successful professional trainer for years as well.
> 
> kg


That's what I thought and I assumed, possibly wrongly, that he did all his own dog work because he was at one time a pro.

Angie


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

K G said:


> Gary Unger is an amatuer now (has been for several years), but he was also a successful professional trainer for years as well. kg


Gary is one of the pro's who, when he made the transition, didn't become co-owner of all his clients dogs. & for that I admire him.



Angie B said:


> So what is your point Marvin? No kidding?? How could a person training a dog as a amateur go _without_ help??? Help from a pro and having a pro do part of the job for you are 2 different things.
> 
> Angie


Angie - I have probably been at the sport just about as long as you are years old - I do recognize the difference. 

But to help you - People are being praised on this site as having done the whole job when in fact, their dog was spending time at a professional's & they weren't present. That's where the 50% comes from. now do you understand?


----------



## JKL (Oct 19, 2007)

Angie B said:


> Personally I don't see anything wrong with an amateur training with a pro on a regular basis... Actually I think it's smart. But when it's all said and done the amateur is doing all the _driving_ of the dog.
> 
> IMHO
> 
> Angie


The difference between day training with pros and day training with amateurs is that the pros will help you get out of the ditch fairly quickly and cleanly. Amateurs usually have enough going on with their own dogs that you are left on your own to drive your car and when you end up in the ditch, unless you really know what you are doing, it can take a bit of trial and error to get back on the road.
That can make a big difference in the learning curve of a dog and amateur trainer/handler.


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

My dog Gracie is an AFC and Amateur trained...our breeding as well.

It can be done, but it's hard. She and Archie had most of their training when I was retired. Lot's easier than now when I'm back to work.

I'm going home now to try to run a land/water blind before dark.


----------



## msdaisey (May 13, 2004)

We have quite a few Ams on this coast who do train their own dogs and title them. As far as I am aware, Bart Clark does all of his own work, and so does Bob Larsen. 

I also know that Newt doesn't train with a pro. ;-)


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> Gary is one of the pro's who, when he made the transition, didn't become co-owner of all his clients dogs. & for that I admire him.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Totally and thank you for the clarification. They like myself unknowingly were told one thing when something else was indeed the case. I'm glad my errors was pointed out.

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

JKL said:


> The difference between day training with pros and day training with amateurs is that the pros will help you get out of the ditch fairly quickly and cleanly. Amateurs usually have enough going on with their own dogs that you are left on your own to drive your car and when you end up in the ditch, unless you really know what you are doing, it can take a bit of trial and error to get back on the road.
> That can make a big difference in the learning curve of a dog and amateur trainer/handler.


Oh I understand.. And I have yet to ever train with good amateurs that didn't give you their input when asked. They rarely will turn their back when you need help.... Sounds like you need to train with a new set of amateurs...

Either way anyone doing it totally themselves has a tough row to hoe and need good help from pro's and amateurs alike. The more they are able to utilize both the better off they and their dogs will be.

Angie


----------



## Bud Bass (Dec 22, 2007)

I would put the knowledge of the two amateures that I mentioned earllier in this thread, Roy McFall and Jack Vollsted, agains any pro here. In addition, they can both be quite helpful, as long as your are not running against them. I know Jack has put on seminiars for our clubs in Alaska. Bud


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

David Morange, Gene Haydel, Ken Robbins, Bill Schrader (before he was a pro), Hal and Sharon Gierman, Mike Loggins, Judy Aycock, Bob Larsen, Jackie Mertens, Charlie and Yvonne Hays, Stevie O'Connell, Randy Bohn, Pete Marcellus, Dewitt and Loraine Boice, Lee Jolley, Darrell Frisbie, George Wilson, Roger Reopelle, Pat Kenny, Danny Farmer (before he was a Pro), Sam Milton, Jerry and Barbara Younglove, Ray Veerland, Jack Vollstedt


Really guys - this is a funny thread. Remember - 95% of the joy of these games is social.
Getting together with friends, some from all over the country, some you see only at Nationals, some you see only when you train with Pros, Some you see only when you judge out of State. Trained with many groups, met alot of great people, threw birds for alot of them, drank a few with alot of them - many were Amatuers - many were Pros. It was all good.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Tim West said:


> My dog Gracie is an AFC and Amateur trained...our breeding as well.
> 
> It can be done, but it's hard. She and Archie had most of their training when I was retired. Lot's easier than now when I'm back to work.
> 
> I'm going home now to try to run a land/water blind before dark.


Tim I was thinking of Archie this past weekend. I know of a good water blind to train on. What do you think Booty? Can it be lined?


John


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Gerard Rozas said:


> David Morange, Gene Haydel, Ken Robbins, Bill Schrader (before he was a pro), Hal and Sharon Gierman, Mike Loggins, Judy Aycock, Bob Larsen, Jackie Mertens, Charlie and Yvonne Hays, Stevie O'Connell, Randy Bohn, Pete Marcellus, Dewitt and Loraine Boice, Lee Jolley, Darrell Frisbie, George Wilson, Roger Reopelle, Pat Kenny, Danny Farmer (before he was a Pro), Sam Milton, Jerry and Barbara Younglove, Ray Veerland, Jack Vollstedt
> 
> 
> Really guys - this is a funny thread. Remember - 95% of the joy of these games is social.
> Getting together with friends, some from all over the country, some you see only at Nationals, some you see only when you train with Pros, Some you see only when you judge out of State. Trained with many groups, met alot of great people, threw birds for alot of them, drank a few with alot of them - many were Amatuers - many were Pros. It was all good.


I'd say half your list uses pro's so I don't understand your post in relation to the topic?

Ya,,, we all train, socialize, love good dog work and God Bless America....

Mickey Mouse for President... WhoHoo!!!

Angie


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

akblackdawg said:


> I would put the knowledge of the two amateures that I mentioned earllier in this thread, Roy McFall and Jack Vollsted, agains any pro here. In addition, they can both be quite helpful, as long as your are not running against them. I know Jack has put on seminiars for our clubs in Alaska. Bud


Mr McFall has forgotten more than most of us will ever learn...Jack Vollstedt is one of the true gentlemen of the sport,had the pleasure of being around both for limited times...


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

Angie - everyone on the list have had at least one titled a dog that they trained. Most have had many dogs. Never said that they never had a dog with a pro, just that they trained and titled at least one dog.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

HiRollerlabs said:


> Weezer and Bob Johnson day train with Andy Attar--to the best of my knowledge. Weezer's young dog training was done by Bruce Curtis. They are a great dog/handler team.


You are correct, Ann. Bob goes south with Weezer also, staying at the "No-Tell Motel" in cairo, Georgia.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

K G said:


> Gary Unger is an amatuer now (has been for several years), but he was also a successful professional trainer for years as well.
> 
> kg


True. When Gary was getting back into the game as an Amateur, one of the reasons he got Rough was that Slew was in the pedigree... Gary had titled Slew...


----------



## kevin (May 7, 2006)

Jack has had dogs with pro's off and on Rex was started with Jerry at utopia


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Where is the pizzzing match smiley........who really cares who uses a pro or has used one once or twice...my brother trained his first lab poor boy style while in grad school and titled him...but now that he has a nice professional practice and used some nice pros like North Mountain (Laura Norberg) or Chris LaCross .he has also called upon George Wilson to work with his dogs while George maintains his amateur status training national champion GSP's does that mean he cant ever be mentioned as an amateur trainer...

the pettiness of who used which pro and for how long is ludicrous...in todays age of time management and limited resources, you use whomever is available both to pocketbook and your philosophical training regimen...get over it already


----------



## RedHeadedHurricane (Oct 10, 2008)

Just wonderin' if any of you remember a fella named Harvey Shoe?


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2008)

bonbonjovi said:


> Where is the pizzzing match smiley........who really cares who uses a pro or has used one once or twice...


The original poster asked if she could title a dog without using a pro. People jumped on the thread and starting listing folks who they believed had not used a pro...ever. Others corrected them. Nothing more. Just clarifying facts.

No one said anyone is less of a person/handler/trainer for having used a pro at one time or other.


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

Harvey Shoe

I have heard a bunch of Harvey, Tommy and Joey stories!


----------



## Larry Huskey (Sep 25, 2005)

My friend Jack Martin has done quite a bit training his own dogs including a National Field Champion.

1981 NFC-AFC Orion's Sky
FC-AFC Orion's Sirius
FC-AFC Orion's Lady Dart
FC-AFC Orion's Blue Moon

He has had 3 Double Header winners and qualified for 37 Nationals.


----------



## RedHeadedHurricane (Oct 10, 2008)

Gerard Rozas said:


> Harvey Shoe
> 
> I have heard a bunch of Harvey, Tommy and Joey stories!



I learned alot of what I know about retrievers and training from Harvey Shoe. He died about 5 years ago. Mighty fine fella. I miss him scolding me for doin' something wrong.


----------



## HiRollerlabs (Jun 11, 2004)

Unless you are fortunate to be part of an Am group with GOOD amateur trainers, then it seems like it would be tough to advance yourself/your dog without making a lot of mistakes along the way.

How many times do you see a post that implies that the first dog was a "learner dog"? Poor dog and poor frustrated trainer??

Angie commented that her experience is that Ams aren't afraid to give constructive criticism IF you ask. This summer we were doing a point drill cast on a blind. One of my Am partners watched me give a silent straight step left off-the-point cast--the dog took it, and partner said, "Why did you give that cast, this is training? (meaning)--You should have given a literal cast to the blind and expected the dog to take the straight left cast." So, on the second dog I gave the literal silent step cast, got the straight left off the point from the dog (oh yeah) and another partner says, "Why didn't you give a straight silent left cast off that point?" It was pretty funny.

I really appreciate the collective training talents of my group and their advice, and it's a lot of fun.


----------



## Janice Gunn (Jan 3, 2005)

*John Gunn*

Multiple FC AFCs & NFTCH
Multi US & Cdn National qualifer and finalist
With *TWO breeds* - Goldens and Labradors

As pure an Amateur as they come.


----------



## 7blackdogs (Oct 21, 2004)

AFC Tapper Jake - Trained by George Francis


----------



## Joe Kuczynski (Jul 10, 2008)

FC,CFC,AFC,CAFC Miss T MH was amateur trained by Pete Plourde. She went to Bill Thompson while Pete & Peggy were recovering from that awful wreck last year but didn't do well and went home with Pete's son. She was a finalist in all three nationals she qualified for this year. She's fun to watch in the holding blind because all she does is look up at Pete the whole time!


----------



## Roger Perry (Nov 6, 2003)

Bill Wertz trained FC/AFC Coolwaters Ice Tiger by himself and mostly without the use of the collar.

Bill also has an outstanding young dog that qualified all age at 17 months old and is on the Derby list.


----------



## zipmarc (Jan 23, 2006)

HiRollerlabs said:


> I really appreciate the collective training talents of my group and their advice, and it's a lot of fun.


Hear, hear. In my group we have two sided dogs and a favorite discussion starts with, well, now, why are you running this blind with your dog on your left (or right as the case may be). The sluice is to the right, and the line to the blind is to the right of the sluice....Yada, yada.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Janice Gunn said:


> *John Gunn*
> 
> Multiple FC AFCs & NFTCH
> Multi US & Cdn National qualifer and finalist
> ...


Janice thanks for reminding me about Connie and Brian Cleveland and Jackie Mertens. They have also titled two breeds and have qualified for (and in Jackie's case, won) Nationals.

They too, are also PURE amateurs since their very successful dog business relates only to collecting money from training videos, training their own dogs to sell as started dogs, selling puppies and having a successful dog training operation for obedience, agility, etc.

Great trainers and handlers, yes. Amateurs-only by the technical definition regarding AKC Retriever HTs and FTs. PURE amateurs.......NOT EVEN CLOSE. My definition of PURE and yours are obviously very different.


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

Well, this could narrow the list........
Whos' dog is totally Am trained & titled, handler still married?


----------



## Kris Hunt (Feb 25, 2005)

Nor_Cal_Angler said:


> I am not to sure about completely AM trained, although I feel strongly he was and I am 100% sure he was AM handled to all points and titles,
> 
> FC AFC CFC CAFC Barracuda Blue MH is another (and choclate to boot!!!)
> 
> ...


Don Remien did Ryder's breakout work, ran him through Derby. 

Kris


----------



## Jeff Bartlett (Jan 7, 2006)

Howard N said:


> Larry Calvert has titled a few dogs, as has Bill McKnight. It's doable for an amateur if he has more time than sense


larrry i dont know but bill had a dog at jimmys for a short short time 

what about jack volstedt i no he has john handle on occasion but id say he has done all the training 
eccept break out. frank and oly id say that they trained there dogs 80% 
argue that


----------



## zipmarc (Jan 23, 2006)

pyzon said:


> what about jack volstedt i no he has john handle on occasion but id say he has done all the training
> eccept break out.


Volwood's Big Ol' Rex was started by Jerry Patopea. Jack trains with Patopea occasionally - their properties in Oregon are very close.

And years ago Jack trained with Rex Carr, if I remember correctly he had a dog or dogs on Rex's truck.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Gerard Rozas said:


> Harvey Shoe
> !


Harvey Shue wore shoes


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Scott Adams said:


> Well, this could narrow the list........
> Whos' dog is totally Am trained & titled, handler still married?


Jim Pickering.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

RedHeadedHurricane said:


> Just wonderin' if any of you remember a fella named Harvey Shoe?


I remember Harvey Shue very well. He was Tommy Sorenson's asst. They would usually travel together. Sometimes he would run all the dogs himself. He managed a duck club in Arkansas for Coca Cola I think. 

Harvey was alway smiling and telling stories. His "little black book" was infamous. He trained gundogs down south until his health failed him.

He was a true personality.


John


----------



## Vickie Lamb (Jan 6, 2003)

From seven week old puppies: AFC Double Barrel Main Man, AFC Double Barrel Legal Tender... and several others QAA to all-age wins and placements, some done all by me, some done part by me puppy/basics/transition or all-age work. 

However, am now pro training...


----------



## Janice Gunn (Jan 3, 2005)

John Gassner said:


> Janice thanks for reminding me about Connie and Brian Cleveland and Jackie Mertens. They have also titled two breeds and have qualified for (and in Jackie's case, won) Nationals.
> 
> They too, are also PURE amateurs since their very successful dog business relates only to collecting money from training videos, training their own dogs to sell as started dogs, selling puppies and having a successful dog training operation for obedience, agility, etc.
> 
> Great trainers and handlers, yes. Amateurs-only by the technical definition regarding AKC Retriever HTs and FTs. PURE amateurs.......NOT EVEN CLOSE. My definition of PURE and yours are obviously very different.


 
John I have absoutely NO idea what you are talking about ??????
Did I mention Connie, Brian, or Jackie ?????

My understanding is that Connie/Brian are Mike Lardy students.......
I have no idea about Jackie.
The thread is about Amateurs that are not pro-trained.

I will repeat what I said - *John Gunn* *is as pure an amateur as they come.*
He occassionally trains his own dogs, plays hockey and hunts....along with his many property chores......
He does not produce videos, sell dogs, sell puppies or any of the other
stuff you mentioned.
Are you somehow attempting to compare John with the Clevelands?
Otherwise I just don't get your post at all ???

Our boarding and obed. training business is my baby, not John's.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Janice I am very happy for you and John and your accomplishments with your dogs. You and John are obviously good trainers/handlers.

The thread is about titled dogs that have been trained and handled solely by amateurs. I hope this clarifies for you what the thread is supposed to be about.

I know that technically you and John are considered amateurs when competing in field trials and hunting tests. So are the Clevelands and Jackie. Do you consider them PURE amateurs? Most people don't. I doubt that they themselves do. However, they (like you and John) are able to compete in field events even though you are absolutely a professional dog trainer (pro). 

I honestly have no problem with this. I have a problem with your constant reference to John and your dogs as being "completely" or "purely" amateur trained.

You are a dog pro. Do you agree? If you trained dogs for field you (and automatically your husband) would be considered pros. 

You instead train for obedience, etc. Many of the basic skills required of field dogs are derived from obedience training such as heeling, steadiness and even force fetching and retrieving objects.

You are a professional dog trainer/person. You have helped in the training and handling of your dogs in competition. Technically you and John (and Connie, Brian and Jackie) amongst others can be called amateurs for field trial and HT purposes.

But let's be honest, you or your husband......"as pure an amateur as they come"? In my mind not even close. Nothing more nothing less.


PS glad to here that Stanley is better. Now go win some more Nationals but this time with a rug!


----------



## Janice Gunn (Jan 3, 2005)

I certainly am honored you put us in the same category as Jackie and
the Clevelands......
However there are many differences and I am 100% comfortable saying that John is a true amateur.........
If you wish to believe different, you go right ahead....doesn't bother
me at all. I know what we really do here, and you don't.

I think I'll go spit some hot dogs to Stanley now and work on some nice
competition obedience fronts....
It should help alot with his field retrieving, I'm quite sure of that ;-)


----------



## JKL (Oct 19, 2007)

Janice,
Are you saying John has never trained with a pro, at any time?
Hasnt John spent time training with Delgesso? 
Not to discredit any of his accomplishments, I have great respect for both you and he, as well as your dogs but I dont believe there is such a thing as "pure" or "true" amateur.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

JKL said:


> .... but I dont believe there is such a thing as "pure" or "true" amateur.


Pete Marcellus is as pure as you will find. You can probably count on 1 hand how many times he has even trained at a pros place, even with a group of amateurs. He trains with Judy Aycock, Ed Aycock, and Martha Russell when he's not working 5-6 days a week.

Aaron Kelly missed the AFC on Booster by half a point before Booster was retired. But he is now pro training. Same scenario as Pete, only Aaron is a fireman so he only works like 8 days a month.

Scott Carruth is an Amatuer. :razz:

SM


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> Just curious, as I'm dead set on doing it all myself, how many FC or AFC *dogs* there are out there that have been strictly amateur trained.



You guys with this 100 % AM BS crack me up
What would this tell us about the *dog ?* If it tells us nothing, why does it matter.
A good, well trained dog is one no matter the circumstances of it's training




john


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

john fallon said:


> You guys with this 100 % AM BS crack me up
> What would this tell us about the *dog ?* If it tells us nothing, why does it matter.
> A good, well trained dog is one no matter the circumstances of it's training
> 
> ...


The thread is about the trainers who have trained FC/AFC without paying a pro. 

James Roberts, titled FC/AFC Scudbuster
A Tulsa boy who took the time and got it done.



.


----------



## stevelow (May 13, 2004)

I am an amateur trainer, and I consider my dogs to be amateur trained. No person other than I have ever handled either of them at the line, either in training or in trials. We have never titled a dog, but have had a lot of fun.

Cody is my first field dog; I started training him when I was 71 years old. He passed 23 Master hunt tests before I changed over to Field Trials. He finished 8 of 11 Quals, and has an Amateur second and an Open third. I know these are very modest accomplishments compared to what others have done.

Cody's son, Pilot, won a Qual at age 2 1/2, despite the fact that he had absolutely no training in his second year for eight months due to my illness.

I certainly could not have accomplished any of this without pro help. Cody and I day trained with Bob Reckart in the beginning. In the past several years we have day trained with Karl Gunzer, his wife Cyndi, and his former assistant Rob Erhardt. Without their coaching and input, we could not have gotten anywhere. I have nothing but the highest regard for these pros, but I am in this game for the pure enjoyment of running my own dogs.

People who don't avail themselves of professional help are very rare, and are missing a lot.


----------



## Bait (Jan 21, 2004)

Very well said, Steve. Only gonna have to disagree with you on one thing though. Those accomplishments are NOT all that modest. To do all THAT with your first field trial dog is huge, and as you know takes a ton of work. You've done well. I'm a big fan of Steve Low. And, anybody else who is thankful for the help they get and doesn't forget where they came from, or why they're doing this. Like Steve.
BAIT


----------



## Grasshopper (Sep 26, 2007)

john fallon said:


> You guys with this 100 % AM BS crack me up
> What would this tell us about the *dog ?* If it tells us nothing, why does it matter.
> A good, well trained dog is one no matter the circumstances of it's training
> 
> ...


Maybe I should do a better job of explaining myself. Notice that I am not trying to tell you anything about either of my dogs - they are what they are - good, bad or indifferent - but they will be trained by me unless I feel that some part of their education would be better served by being with a pro. If it makes you feel better, I just paid a pro to take my older dog goose and duck hunting in Canada. It was an experience that I thought she would benefit greatly from, and one that I was not in a position to offer her any time soon, if ever. She had a great time and a wonderful first hunt - and picked up loads of birds. 

The bottom line is that I enjoy training. I want to learn how to be a better trainer, which is easier if I actually do the work myself. Plus, it gives me a great deal of satisfaction.

You're right, a good, well trained dog is one regardless of who trained it. And when all is said and done, I hope my dogs will be able to speak for themselves by having fully realized their potential, be it MH or AFC, and that we will have had a wonderful journey together. But if the titles never materialize, we will still have shared the journey, and I will continue to enjoy every step along the way.

If that doesn't make sense, I'm not sure how else to explain it.

Kathryn


----------



## Grasshopper (Sep 26, 2007)

Thank you to all the amateurs for posting and sharing your accomplishments!! You really give folks like me hope .

Kathryn


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Tulsa Slim said:


> The thread is about the trainers who have trained FC/AFC without paying a pro.
> 
> James Roberts, titled FC/AFC Scudbuster
> A Tulsa boy who took the time and got it done.
> ...


Sorry i left you out of my short "pure" amateur list Paul. You are the poster boy for pure amateurs (and hippie field trialers). Ramsey is the real deal.

SM


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Very well said Grasshopper. I know there are quite a few of us on this board with the same outlook. But I sense a common subtle feeling throughout this thread, that yep, you are "pure" amateur as long as you don't accomplish anything. But as soon as you pass a Master or win a place in an AA trial, then its because of all the pros you consulted with! 
Forget the thousands of hours, early mornings, long drives, excuses for being late to work, shaking off the crying jags after frustrating tests or training days and every thing else you have poured into this game and your dog, if you end up with the AFC someone is going to point out all the pros you consulted and advantages you have. Some people are just that way but the great thing is it can in no way diminish the personal satisfaction and joy we get out of it.

I extend heartfelt thanks to those pros and very talented amateurs who have helped me. I could not have done any of it without their guidance.


----------



## Janice Gunn (Jan 3, 2005)

JKL said:


> Janice,
> Are you saying John has never trained with a pro, at any time?
> Hasnt John spent time training with Delgesso?
> Not to discredit any of his accomplishments, I have great respect for both you and he, as well as your dogs but I dont believe there is such a thing as "pure" or "true" amateur.


 
John and Al were *FRIENDS*...... They have trained together yes, but certainly not in a professional capacity. I could count on one hand the
number of times they did throw birds for each other.
Training with someone thru friendship, and paying/asking for their
advice are two different things.

I have nothing against pros that's for sure. Sometimes I wish we could
use them because the setting would benefit our dogs.
It would also give us the opportunity to take some time off and not have
to travel or train to keep them going..... John has a busy life and
training isn't always priority.....

John has his own way of training, we don't repeat nor do we handle on
marks - he devised his own unique method that works for our dogs.


----------



## Sharon van der Lee (May 25, 2004)

I'm jumping in late on this thread, sorry. The following of our dogs were totally amateur trained and trialed -

FTCH AFTCH Fire Storm Raven (1999 Nat'l Amateur Finalist)
FTCH AFTCH Pintail Packin' Pete (2001 Nat'l Amateur Finalist)
NFTCH NAFTCH FTCH AFTCH Clubmead's Steel Magnolia (Winner - 2001 Nat'l, Winner - 2003 Nat'l Amateur, 2002 Nat'l & Nat'l Amateur Finalist, 2003 Nat'l Finalist)
FTCH AFTCH Pekisko's Round Trip (2001, 2002, 2005 Nat'l Amateur Finalist)

We did not train with a pro, but trained with a lot of very knowledgeable amateurs who helped guide us when we were rookies.

Now, with work and getting involved with horses, we don't have time to train like we did. So, I have sent my latest prospect to a professional. I get the same satisfaction out of seeing her progress and am thankful that there are people who will help her reach her full potential.

Sharon


----------



## RickStock (Mar 26, 2010)

Jack Volstedt hired me full time in the late seventies as a full time pro in a kennel at Coto de Caza. Jack was not the pro and the finical backer. We were both on the learning curve of training to a national level. Jack trains with pros and he trains them; Jack did it with hard work, reading every book we could find and training with everyone we could. Pro or not. We learned from training with everyone. Email me any specific questions about those days.
[email protected]. San Diego, now into Agility.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

It's been two years since this thread was started, I was wondering how Grasshopper and her dog are doing now, any reports?

John


----------



## Christa McCoy (Jan 29, 2010)

Angie B said:


> Whoa hold on... Are you talking "totally amateur trained?"
> 
> Hardly hundreds regards,,,,
> 
> ...


I have a Weezer daugher! Heck of a dog!


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> It's been two years since this thread was started, I was wondering how Grasshopper and her dog are doing now, any reports?
> 
> John


I know she got at least one derby first, and a couple of placements. No one has ever walked the walk as determinedly as she has.

And oh yeah, the dog just now aged out, so bigger things are still to come.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Grasshopper said:


> Just curious, as I'm dead set on doing it all myself, how many FC or AFC dogs there are out there that have been strictly amateur trained.


Concrete numbers are impossible to be exact. In the last 15 years I would say very few. I can say here in Colorado there are about 5 or 6 amateur trainers who run Field Trials that don't usually or regularly use a pro.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I find it interesting that people equate the taking of money for the training of Retrievers with Retriever training prowess .

There are quite a few Amateurs out there who could make a very big name for them self as a Pro ..... The flip side is, there a lot of people taking the money that wouldn't make a pim...............

With that said, I must repeat my earlier question, What's the big deal ,as long as the dog ends up being all it can be.

Enlighten me ?

john


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

AFC Tanker's Smokin' Gun owned & trained by Stan Bukaty.

Evan


----------



## Grasshopper (Sep 26, 2007)

2tall said:


> I know she got at least one derby first, and a couple of placements. No one has ever walked the walk as determinedly as she has.
> 
> And oh yeah, the dog just now aged out, so bigger things are still to come.


Thanks for looking out for me Carol! Archer's illustrious derby career consisted of 7 derbies - 3 of which were the triple header at the Spillway. We met lots of wonderful folks and made some new friends. We worked our tails off and enjoyed almost every minute of it!

We won the inaugural Treasure Coast RC Derby, placed 4th in the Down East RC Derby in Oct. '09, and got a RJ in the South Lousiana RC Derby in January.

So there you have it - I'm proud of our accomplishments and our 6 whole derby points. I was disappointed for a minute or two when I realized that we were not going to make the Derby List, but oh well. And when he's ready, we'll run our first Q.

Kathryn


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

> Cody is my first field dog; I started training him when I was 71 years old. He passed 23 Master hunt tests before I changed over to Field Trials. He finished 8 of 11 Quals, and has an Amateur second and an Open third. I know these are very modest accomplishments compared to what others have done.


"...modest accomplishments..." No Way!!!
Inspiring - YES!!!
________
Jaguar xk6 engine


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

stevelow said:


> I am an amateur trainer, and I consider my dogs to be amateur trained. No person other than I have ever handled either of them at the line, either in training or in trials. We have never titled a dog, but have had a lot of fun.
> 
> Cody is my first field dog; I started training him when I was 71 years old. He passed 23 Master hunt tests before I changed over to Field Trials. He finished 8 of 11 Quals, and has an Amateur second and an Open third. I know these are very modest accomplishments compared to what others have done.
> 
> ...


Steve, I missed this before. I saw it partially quoted below, without the source included in the quote. So I came on a hunt for the original.

This is so inspiring and is an example to all of what can be done if we choose to put the right pieces together: Genetics, dedication, exposure, patience, consistency....

So very cool! Thanks for posting this.

Chris


----------



## Bait (Jan 21, 2004)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Steve, I missed this before. I saw it partially quoted below, without the source included in the quote. So I came on a hunt for the original.
> 
> This is so inspiring and is an example to all of what can be done if we choose to put the right pieces together: Genetics, dedication, exposure, patience, consistency....
> 
> ...


Steve is an inspiration, in many ways for me.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Finishing an AA stake is an accomplishment.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Grasshopper said:


> Thanks for looking out for me Carol! Archer's illustrious derby career consisted of 7 derbies - 3 of which were the triple header at the Spillway. We met lots of wonderful folks and made some new friends. We worked our tails off and enjoyed almost every minute of it!
> 
> We won the inaugural Treasure Coast RC Derby, placed 4th in the Down East RC Derby in Oct. '09, and got a RJ in the South Lousiana RC Derby in January.
> 
> ...


Wow! You've done very well with you dog, better than most even with Pro training or Pro help, congratulations and keep it going in the qual and AA. Do you have a good amateur training group? A few years back I was part of a great amateur training group, we were all working guys who happened to have pretty talented dogs all at the same time. There were four of us, with an ocassional fifth, one of us was a very experienced and dedicated field trialer. 

It was the best situation for advancing a dog I have ever been a part of. Between the four of us we had access to lots of great grounds all around the valley. With only four dogs we accomplish a lot in a couple hours after work, and really do a lot on weekends. Durring our slow winters we trained at lunch every day for two hours. I'm convinced that a dedicated amateur can accomplish more than a pro.

That training group is gone now, one guy died, another moved away, another decided it was time to raise his kids. Now I use a pro much more than in the past, but even then I had a pro break out my dogs after raising them in a training regime and having them totally prepared for school. I don't feel the need to judge people either way, be they full time amateurs, train ocassionally with a pro, hand the dog off for a pro to run on road trips or full time pro dogs with the occasional trip home, I just appreciate good dog work however it is accomplished. Not saying you are being judgemental, and I can really appreciate what you have accomplished all on your own, so keep up the good work, I know your dog will be QAA in no time.


John


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Grasshopper said:


> Thanks for looking out for me Carol! Archer's illustrious derby career consisted of 7 derbies - 3 of which were the triple header at the Spillway. We met lots of wonderful folks and made some new friends. We worked our tails off and enjoyed almost every minute of it!
> 
> We won the inaugural Treasure Coast RC Derby, placed 4th in the Down East RC Derby in Oct. '09, and got a RJ in the South Lousiana RC Derby in January.
> 
> ...


Kathryn,

What you all have accomplished is awesome.

I'll be down at Treasure Coast for a muddy camo event, but I'd imagine you guys will be chasing the whitecoat stuff somewhere....

Good luck!

Chris


----------



## Grasshopper (Sep 26, 2007)

Thanks, John and Chris - we really should have done much better, but it has been a very steep learning curve for me. 

Some of the most fun we have had has been training with The World Famous Lanse Brown! He really helped me put things in perspective - to paraphrase him "You're not training for a derby, you're training for a National Championship!" He even let me copy his Rex Carr notes - how cool is that!

Between all the wonderful amateurs and professionals I have had the honor of training with, some days I feel like I have died and gone to heaven! Of course some days the climate is a little warmer, but I really relish each minute I get to spend training and competing.

Very fortunate to be livin' the dream!

Kathryn


----------



## Stephen Whitley (Feb 3, 2007)

Good work Kathryn! Congratulations!


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Grasshopper said:


> Thanks, John and Chris - we really should have done much better, but it has been a very steep learning curve for me.
> 
> *Some of the most fun we have had has been training with The World Famous Lanse Brown!* He really helped me put things in perspective - to paraphrase him "You're not training for a derby, you're training for a National Championship!" He even let me copy his Rex Carr notes - how cool is that!
> 
> ...


It's funny you mention Lanse Brown. It was Lanse who took myself and the small training group I mentioned under his wing and offered us support including letting us use his wonderful property. If you've got Lanse helping you, you are good hands.

John


----------



## goosecaller (May 27, 2006)

Jack Volstedt


He has had a few!!


Goose


----------



## freefall319 (Jan 31, 2010)

Jimmie Darnell said:


> Yes 110% amateur trained. I have 3 titled dogs and more to come I hope. It requires a lot of blood, sweat, and tears.


Congrats!

Guess, there may be hope for me yet. I would eventualy like to get my pup to her JH, but, we'll see how I do. I know she can do it, it's just up to me to get her there.


----------



## wutadog (Oct 21, 2003)

I am very surprised (and a bit disappointed) that John Cavanugh's name hasn't come up in this thread.
John was an inspiration for me and MANY amateur trainers; he was instrumental in the field trial judges manual, gave up his time for judging hunt tests, field trials, and seminars. He was a fierce competitor, and trained his own dogs. John was, and is, one of the greatest amateur trainers I have known....


----------



## Guest (Mar 28, 2010)

Grasshopper said:


> That's a good question Melanie - I feel a greater sense of accomplishment by completing the task myself. Hard headed I guess, but my aim is to learn how to train my dogs. It's really the training part that got me hooked, not the competition. Does that make any sense?


Hey, I'll answer it!!! Because you have a hummer and a fun finder and are a training slut! LOL  I, for one, hope you do it!! And I love to watch people "grow up" in the sport. Can't wait to hear when Archer gets his first AA points...


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

This thread reminds me of another titled amateur dog. Lanier Fogg and AFC "Dash". 

I had to delete the snappy comments about Lanier. Let's just say that what Dash accomplished is all the more (or should I say Moore) impressive?


John


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

As has been the underling theme of this thread all along it has finally morphed to its intended point.... Amateur trainers and are some of them capable of training their own dogs to the two AA titles.

Some are and some aren't is the obvious answer, and that should settle the matter, but does it
( ????)'cause *some *of the ones that are not have devised a way to increase their odds, it's called the "OH" , and to make matters worse, some have even going so far as to bestow "Title" status on a designation, and to limit the competition for getting this"Title", they have eliminated a large segment of great dogs and handlers by extending this "OH" crap to the "Q".

The purpose of a Non Slip Retriever Trial as stated in the Standard Procedure-BASIC PRINCIPLES is "to determine the relative merits of _*RETRIEVERS *_in the field". The OH has done its share in undermining this principle.

just sayin'
john


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

john fallon said:


> As has been the underling theme of this thread all along it has finally morphed to its intended point.... Amateur trainers and are some of them capable of training their own dogs to the two AA titles.
> 
> Some are and some aren't is the obvious answer, and that should settle the matter, but does it
> ( ????)'cause *some *of the ones that are not have devised a way to increase their odds, it's called the "OH" , and to make matters worse, some have even going so far as to bestow "Title" status on a designation, and to limit the competition for getting this"Title", they have eliminated a large segment of great dogs and handlers by extending this "OH" crap to the "Q".
> ...


Hi John,
I get that you think the Owner/Handler stakes are not a good validation of a retriever's merit.

What do you think about the Amateur stakes? Why are you not writing negatively against them as well?

I'm of the mindset that the O/H stakes are fun and plan on entering and running my second one ever in a few weeks. 

I think "fun" should be part of the requirement! Chris


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Hi John,
> I get that you think the Owner/Handler stakes are not a good validation of a retriever's merit.
> 
> What do you think about the Amateur stakes? Why are you not writing negatively against them as well?
> ...


Here! Here! That is where a lot of newer folks get turned off. If you only stress the merits of titles and the most sure fire way to get them, you have lost the entire reason a bunch of us ever got into dog games at all. Girls, (and guys I guess) just want to have fun....with their dogs!


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Walt, my feelilng is if you don't like it don't run it. Just because there is some demand for what might be dubbed a "fun run", how does that impact the stakes that do offer points? I see no reason they can't co exist. If the clubs do not have the resources to put on all stakes, pick out the ones that are of the most benefit to their goals.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> John's not the only experienced trialer that dislikes OH stakes. There was an interesting thread on the Canadian forum about that a few months back.
> I'm not experienced enough to have a firm opinion about it, but I respect the people that do, on both sides.
> Walt


Was the Amateur written about negatively as well, or was just the owner/handler written about negatively?


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

john fallon said:


> As has been the underling theme of this thread all along it has finally morphed to its intended point.... Amateur trainers and are some of them capable of training their own dogs to the two AA titles.
> 
> Some are and some aren't is the obvious answer, and that should settle the matter, but does it
> ( ????)'cause *some *of the ones that are not have devised a way to increase their odds, it's called the "OH" , and to make matters worse, some have even going so far as to bestow "Title" status on a designation, and to limit the competition for getting this"Title", they have eliminated a large segment of great dogs and handlers by extending this "OH" crap to the "Q".
> ...





[email protected] said:


> Just the OH stake.
> Reduction of the judging pool was one of the side effects written about in that particular thread. If asked to judge a trial, that person can have a friend run his dog for him. In an OH stake, this can't happen so the person will most likely not judge.
> Walt


OK I can see that point.


----------



## kawarthalabs (May 30, 2005)

The thread on the Canadian board WAS in reference to the Am. stake.It was felt by some that giving up a weekend to judge meant giving up a weekend to run a trial. For the Am. that's retired not a big deal as they could run or judge any weekend they wanted, but for the working Am. with limited holiday time it is a big deal when their friend could not run their dog for them. It's a lot easier to say no to a club when asked to judge a minor stake if they are holding an O/H Am. In ref to a previous post you can't judge your own dog regardless of what stake they are running.
Tony.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Only once in over a decade of running FTs have I seen this happen, but one time I saw one of a pro's clients run another clients four dogs off the pros truck. The two clients were long time friends, though not training partners. The trial was over a thousand miles from home. It was technically legal, but there was a very vocal gallery that raised such a rukus that it became ugly. I have considered having an amateur training buddy take my dog with him to run with his dog from time to time, but never did it due to logistal reasons. I don't see any reason that would upset people, unless my dog was Carbon or Auggie.

I think the judging pool idea is bogus, just judge the amateur and let you buddy run your dog in the open.
John


----------



## kawarthalabs (May 30, 2005)

Notice I did state minor stakes. Perhaps the judging pool idea is bogus in the land of unlimited judges, HOWEVER in Ontario there is a movement to increase the judging pool.
Tony.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Pete said:


> So at plain ole qualifying a judge can judge his own dog if run by a friend. How bout in an amateur?
> 
> Pete



Of course not ,one cannot judge his own or his immediate families dogs that is covered extensively in an other part of the rules.

More on point is....If a judge is asked to judge an Open,or is working that weekend, or is sick, or, or . or,.. his Amateur friend can not run his dogs in an "OH" that weekend or any other weekend for that matter.

My question to all of you proponents of the OH stakes is how is your position supported in the rules regulations and guidlines "Basic Principle"• that I quoted above, that states without any handler restrictions other than being an amateur as defined within, is "to determine the relative merits of RETRIEVERS in the field".


•_fundamentals_: principles from which other truths can be derived regards


john


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

John Robinson said:


> Only once in over a decade of running FTs have I seen this happen, but one time I saw one of a pro's clients run another clients four dogs off the pros truck. The two clients were long time friends, though not training partners. The trial was over a thousand miles from home. It was technically legal, but there was a very vocal gallery that raised such a rukus that it became ugly. I have considered having an amateur training buddy take my dog with him to run with his dog from time to time, but never did it due to logistal reasons. I don't see any reason that would upset people, unless my dog was Carbon or Auggie.
> 
> I think the judging pool idea is bogus, just judge the amateur and let you buddy run your dog in the open.
> John


Was this in the AM? I guess I'm missing something but I don't understand why the "ugly rukus" of one amateur running anothers dog(s).


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

wutadog said:


> I am very surprised (and a bit disappointed) that John Cavanugh's name hasn't come up in this thread.
> John was an inspiration for me and MANY amateur trainers; he was instrumental in the field trial judges manual, gave up his time for judging hunt tests, field trials, and seminars. He was a fierce competitor, and trained his own dogs. John was, and is, one of the greatest amateur trainers I have known....


Dave, With all due respect because you know I hold John in very high regard and will always be grateful for the mentoring he provided early on. But he did send his dogs south with Ricky in the winter.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

In a lot of cases like the one mentioned above. Sending a dog South with a capable person be it Pro or Amateur is only done out of expedience because that person was not able to take the dog and go South them self .

I am sure the benefits gleaned by the dog in the former scenario is not being adversely compared to those of the latter.

So there you have it, in the case just mentioned, the dog would have been better off with his owner being able to go south rather than going south with a PRO;-)

BTW Is the Nat AM an OH event ?
john


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

john fallon said:


> *
> BTW Is the Nat AM an OH event* ?
> john



Nope, and they dont award a second place in the event either :razz:


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

john fallon said:


> BTW Is the Nat AM an OH event ?
> john


It is not, but you have to get committee permission to have someone else handle......


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

BonMallari said:


> Nope, and they dont award a second place in the event either :razz:


They don't award a Third place either... so *All* who are not dropped and do not win come in behind the winner  hence they all are in Second place until another distinction is made.
Here in the US we call them all Finalists ( a poor choice for my money, but we have already hashed that one out) .

Are you sure you are not refering to a _first runner up _designation as is rumored to be done elsewhere, such as Canada ?


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

cakaiser said:


> It is not, but you have to get committee permission to have someone else handle......


Let us suppose one buys a dog that has already qualified or someone owns a dog that got its qualifying points being run in a regular AM, run by his buddy while he was working or, or, or,

Long story short: The Nat AM is not an OH event


john


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Back to the original question about FCs or AFCs that have been 100% trained and handled.

With my limited acquaintance with amateurs, an amateur trainer-handler I most admire is Chris Hatch, my husband's training partner (Well, one of them. The other has been Steve Cote until Steve sold his top Derby dog last fall. Steve is still a close friend, but just not training with Don much since selling his Derby dog.)

Chris Hatch trained and handled his FC/AFC Hightest Black Ty Affair (Ty) to both titles and qualified her to run in the National Amateur (maybe more than once). A few years ago Ty was on the Top Amateur list. Ty is now 10 years old and retired.

Chris bred Ty to Patton and kept Saber who Chris trained and handled to become AFC Tealcreek Patton's Saber. Saber qualified for the National Amateur before he was an AFC. This weekend AFC Saber got 2nd place in the Amateur at the American Chesapeake trial in Los Banos, CA. (See my congrats to Chris under the American Chesapeake trial thread.) 

Saber needs only a few points to get his FC title. Chris and Saber keep knocking on the door in the Open. It is only a matter of time and circumstance. Darn hard to beat Billy Sargenti when he runs 16-18 dogs in the Open. Many of them are great dogs and are darn hard to beat. Billy has 16-18 chances. Chris has one. A bit challenging, wouldn't you say? Well, you just train harder.

This past weekend at Los Banos there were only 3 amateurs who made it to the final series of the Open. Chris Hatch with Saber was one of them. Alas, no placement for Saber. I don't know who won it. So far in California trials, Billy Sargenti has nabbed most of the Open placements. If not Billy, there's Jerry Patopea with Pirate. Tough competition. 

In 2008 Chris bred Ty again and kept a female -- Tealcreek Easy Riser. Chris and Riser just got 1st place in the Derby at Los Banos. Riser is 1 pt. away from being on the National Derby List.

I admire Chris a lot as an amateur trainer handler. He is not retired. He is not independently wealthy. He doesn't hit a lot of trials during the year. Chris works full time in insurance. He takes maybe one week day off to train. Otherwise, he trains on weekends and after work. Chris is a dedicated trainer and works darn hard at it. I'm glad he and Don train together. Couldn't ask for a better training partner. 

Chris gives back to the sport, too. He always volunteers to set up stakes at trials or marshal, or help in anyway. He takes his turn at judging, too, which means he isn't running Saber at those trials. Also, Chris is the current president of the Shasta Cascade Ret. Club which puts on two trials a year. And Chris will be working at the National Am in K-Falls in June. 

Can you get an FC or an AFC title on your dog if you are an amateur owner-trainer-handler who never hired a pro? Yes, you can. Chris Hatch has done it in tough west coast competition against very talented dogs who were trained and handled by very talented pros or other amateurs who could be pros. 'Tain't easy, but can be done. Hard work, you gotta be good and your dog has to be good. 

Helen


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Re: Pulling Open dogs off a pro's truck to run in the Amateur stake

It depends on who pulls the dog off the truck and handles it. Pirate is handled by Jerry Patopea in the Open. Pirate is handled by his owner Gary Zellner in the Amateur. This is just one example of a dog being handled in the Open by a pro and then handled in the Amateur by his amateur-owner handler. Pirate is tough competition in both events no matter who is doing the handling. (Gary Z. is a darn good amateur handler.)

I think the concern arises when a non-owner pro's client pulls a bunch of Open dogs off the pro's truck to handle them in the Amateur stake. 

A few years ago there was quite a ruckus out here on the west coast when this happened. This may be the reason why a number of clubs started having (and still do have) owner-handler only Amateur stakes. 

The "regular" Amateurs were up in arms because a pro's client who spent time in training with the pro with those dogs ran them in an Amateur stake at the same trial the pro handled them in the Open. BAM, big ruckus. 

I support owner-handler Amateur stakes. Yes, it can be gotten around by changing ownership title with AKC so more than one person is listed as the owner with the potential that all the owners are eligible to handle the dog as long as they are amateurs. 

As field trial secretary for several clubs and as an avid catalog reader. I don't see co-ownerships happening just to get around the owner-handler requirement. 

However, if Gary Zellner would only see the value in that, he can put me down as Pirate's co-owner. I'll gladly handle Pirate in the Am when Gary can't be there. 

Somehow, I don't think Gary will go for this idea and I think Jerry Patopea just gasped. 

Helen


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> The "regular" Amateurs were up in arms because a pro's client who spent time in training with the pro with those dogs ran them in an Amateur stake at the same trial the pro handled them in the Open


Was there is a question about this persons Amateur status ?....

"Regular" Amateur ??? What are they? I can find no such designation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they are/were the Owner Handlers in what appears to be a not so thinly veiled move to limit the competition by excluding some of the better dogs there, on the grounds that day.

With the "relative merits" of those dogs, on the FT grounds that day, but unable to be run by an Amateur , untested... how is the Basic Principle of a Non Slip Retriever Trial ( Stand.- Basic Principles - 1 ) being adhered to ?

john


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

I personally feel the O/H rule was instituted because some one in the position of influence got their ass kicked by a competitor that was not an owner of the dog that did the ass kicking. Simple as that. I see no such need to have a seperate designation for the Amateur stake. As long as the person handling the dog meets the requirements for Amateur status, then all is good.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Rick_C said:


> Was this in the AM? I guess I'm missing something but I don't understand why the "ugly rukus" of one amateur running anothers dog(s).


Hi Rick,

Let's make this a hypothetical trial. If you are running field trials, you are by nature competitive, some more, some less. If you are running any particular curcuit and have a competitive dog, it doesn't take long before you know who else is competitive. If you have a super-super dog you likely want to compete against and beat the best. But most of us lucky enough to have a normal, "once-in-a-while-the-stars-line-up", kind of competitive dog, will take every little break that happens that day. 

One of those breaks is not having to compete against this or that dog which has been tearing up the circuit. I'm sorry if this sounds petty, but it is true. Now picture signing up for a small town FT, you are running against all the pros in the open and one pro in particular has a client with, let's say seven very good dogs, one of which is almost legendary. The owner of these dogs is unable to make the trial that weekend, so the amateur competition breaths a collective sigh of relief, and assumes the odds just went up on their placeing in that trial. But then another amateur who occasionally trains with that pro, volunteers to pull all seven of these dogs off the pro's truck to run in the amateur.

That is what happened. It was legal, but some of the amateurs in the gallery thought it wasn't right, and that there should be a distinction between your training buddy taking your dog with him to a trial you couldn't attend, and this seeming loophole for having an absentee client's dogs run in both stakes, week after week. I think the OH rule came about as an answer to that percieved abuse of the rule. I personally don't think the rule was necessary as the situation I described was very rare, but maybe the impetus for the rule change was just to try to increase the odds for "local" amateurs at individual club trials, I don't know.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

John's scenario was not an isolated incident. Imagine several so called A list pros with 15 Open dogs on their truck, 1/2 to 2/3 of them Field Champions, some with absentee or non-participating owners. Said pro enters 6 to 10 of his Open dogs in the Amateur run by his/her best amateur handler who runs and qualifies several of these dogs for the National Amateur. 

That practice violated the "spirit" of the Amateur stake much more than allowing clubs the option to hold an Owner Handler Amateur All-Age stake. Such behavior was the genesis of the Owner Handler Amateur All-Age Stake.

I can only imagine that the only people opposed to the stake either do not have a competitive dog or wish to run multiple dogs in the Amateur Stake that they do not possess an ownership stake in.

The O/H stake is a club option, anyone who dislikes it certainly has the option not to enter. 

Do not be deluded that the Owner Handler Amateur Stake somehow dilutes competition. This past weekend's O/H Amateur at Lone Star had 4 dogs entered who had Open wins this Spring with their amateur owners running them in very large Open Stakes against multiple pros and lots of quality dogs.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

We had a similar event happen in Alaska about 10 years ago. A well known pro had quite a few good dogs owned by a well known owner who does not run dogs at all. A local AM handler was going to run those dogs off the pros truck in the AM. A number of people entered in the AM pitched a fit and the end result was that the owner who was present tried to run the dogs. Not being an active handler, the result wasn't pretty and I was embarresed for this owner and for the club and people who complained in the first place. I was a competitor at that trial. No rules were being broken, but you would have thought that somebody committed a major crime. 

I generally believe that if I focus on my dog and he/she performs up to their potential, it does not matter who else is there. It's sort of like golf in that you have to beat the course before worrying about the other competitors. If the course beats you, you are done anyway. If you beat the course 3 times and make it to the 4th series, you generally will have a good chance no matter who the other dogs are, assuming you can beat the course in the 4th.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

huntinman said:


> *We had a similar event happen in Alaska about 10 years ago. A well known pro had quite a few good dogs owned by a well known owner who does not run dogs at all. * *A local AM handler was going to run those dogs off the pros truck in the AM. * A number of people entered in the AM pitched a fit and the end result was that the owner who was present tried to run the dogs. Not being an active handler, the result wasn't pretty and I was embarresed for this owner and for the club and people who complained in the first place. I was a competitor at that trial. No rules were being broken, but you would have thought that somebody committed a major crime.
> 
> I generally believe that if I focus on my dog and he/she performs up to their potential, it does not matter who else is there. It's sort of like golf in that you have to beat the course before worrying about the other competitors. If the course beats you, you are done anyway. If you beat the course 3 times and make it to the 4th series, you generally will have a good chance no matter who the other dogs are, assuming you can beat the course in the 4th.


But don't you think just having some unrelated guy run the other guys dog's in the amateur goes against the spirit of the rule? I agree with you that, competition be damned, your dog still has to do the test. Heaven knows there have been plenty of times that my dog went out prior to the fourth series by failing the test, but that doesn't have anything to do with the question of what was the intent of creating an Amateur stake in the first place. As you said, no rules were broken, but it does seem to point out a loophole that is perhaps not in keeping with the spirit of the game. If that became the norm, each pro truck could have a designated amateur hitter, who would follow him around, trial to trail and run all of the open dogs in the amateur.

John


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

I do agree that it is against the spirit of the rules. I just feel that if clubs don't want it happening, just have an O/H stake. The day of the event is not the time to be getting all fired up about it. Everyone is wound pretty tight during the stakes as it is.


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

John, Dr Ed and Bill, thank you for the very good examples. Much more clear now.

Thanks,

Rick


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> But most of us lucky enough to have a normal, "once-in-a-while-the-stars-line-up", kind of competitive dog, will take every little break that happens that day.
> 
> One of those breaks is not having to compete against this or that dog which has been tearing up the circuit




Say it any way you will, but barring an Amateur from running the Amateur Stake with a super competitive dog that is on the grounds and healthy, for no other reason than so you can have a competitive edge with a normally not consistently competitive dog, is against the Basic Principles of FT's as stated in the first paragraph of the standard.

john


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

helencalif said:


> Back to the original question about FCs or AFCs that have been 100% trained and handled.
> 
> With my limited acquaintance with amateurs, an amateur trainer-handler I most admire is Chris Hatch, my husband's training partner (Well, one of them. The other has been Steve Cote until Steve sold his top Derby dog last fall. Steve is still a close friend, but just not training with Don much since selling his Derby dog.)
> 
> ...


Outstanding!


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

John I'm not defending it, just saying that right or wrong, this is probably why people were upset at the situation Ed, Helen and I brought up, which led to the creation of the OH stake. I run whatever is available, OH, regular Amateurs, Opens, Limiteds, Specials, I can't afford to be picky, if it happens to be an OH I'm not going to boycot it because it goes against the basic priciples of FT's. You go ahead and boycot them if you like.

John


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

john fallon said:


> Say it any way you will, but barring an Amateur from running the Amateur Stake with a super competitive dog that is on the grounds and healthy, for no other reason than so you can have a competitive edge with a normally not consistently competitive dog, is against the Basic Principles of FT's as stated in the first paragraph of the standard.
> 
> john


John, I am *almost* as big a purist as you are, but has the O/H ever prevented a dog from becoming an AFC or from qualifying for the National Amateur ? the Open has all the restricted stakes , the OH appeals to the purist in me, even if it restricts me from running any of Lanse's dogs 

We are all too familiar with the scene at many a National where the amateur handler is literally being "handled' by his/her pro while the test dog is being run


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

BonMallari said:


> John, I am *almost* as big a purist as you are, but has the O/H ever prevented a dog from becoming an AFC or from qualifying for the National Amateur ? the Open has all the restricted stakes , the OH appeals to the purist in me, even if it restricts me from running any of Lanse's dogs
> 
> We are all too familiar with the scene at many a National where the amateur handler is literally being "handled' by his/her pro while the test dog is being run


Hi Bon,

I'm heading out to Washington tomorrow afternoon to train for a couple days then run the Samish trial. I met your brother when I was running Connell the week before last. I see he's entered in Samish to, I'll say be sure to look him up again. Very nice guy.

John


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

John Robinson said:


> Hi Bon,
> 
> I'm heading out to Washington tomorrow afternoon to train for a couple days then run the Samish trial. I met your brother when I was running Connell the week before last. I see he's entered in Samish too, I'll say be sure to look him up again. Very nice guy.
> 
> John


John he told me that you and he both made the same tactical error on the water entry in the 3rd series of the open at eastern Wash along with some other dogs/handlers so it didnt make him feel so bad, I am just happy for him that he has seemed to find a new energy and dedication to hit the circuit again...it must be the PX90 training regimen 

I also see that he brought Kate out of the barn,she is a sweet gal and deserves a chance to run


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> Very nice guy


Yeah, Clint's the good Mallari brother.


:twisted: :twisted: :lol:


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

This has been a great thread for us outsiders. A good view of what FT are.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Howard N said:


> Yeah, Clint's the good Mallari brother.
> 
> 
> :twisted: :twisted: :lol:


there was NEVER a question about that

black sheep of the family regards ;-)


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

BonMallari said:


> ......has the O/H ever prevented a dog from becoming an AFC or from qualifying for the National Amateur ?.....


A question more on point would be has it has ever helped one?

One that won or placed or qualified by, as John put it ," not having to compete against this or that dog which has been tearing up the circuit".......

What's next ? I'm sure we all would like to level the playing field in the Open:razz:

john


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

If we _really_ want to level the field just do away with the Amateur Stake.:twisted: 

Or we could stick with the _intent_ of why there is an Amateur Stake. And have the owner run their own dog.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

john fallon said:


> Was there is a question about this persons Amateur status ?....
> 
> "Regular" Amateur ??? What are they?
> 
> john


Yes, questions were raised about the amateur status of the person who started running a bunch of dogs off a pro's truck. The person was traveling with the pro, the person assisted the pro, the person trained their dog with the pro, the person trained (handled during training) other clients' dogs for the pro. Now the person was pulling all these Open dogs off the truck and running them in the amateur stake... it hit the fan. 

Sorry for the poor term "regular amateurs". I guess I could have used the term "handlers who are recognized as amateurs" raised a ruckus.

The ability of the dogs was not in the equation. It was the perceived status of the handler.

Helen


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

John Robinson said:


> If that became the norm, each pro truck could have a designated amateur hitter, who would follow him around, trial to trial and run all of the open dogs in the amateur.
> 
> John


You have described very well a situation that occurred a few years ago -- except the "designated hitter" was traveling with the pro and handling dogs for the pro's other clients during training so the dogs could be handled in the Amateur stake to get their AFC.

From the Open to the Amateur with a "designated hitter" ... not the intent of the Amateur stake, in my opinion. 

That is why I am glad clubs will have an Owner-Handler Amateur stake at their trials because it prevents this "designated hitter, er handler" ploy from happening. 

Helen


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

john fallon said:


> *A question more on point would be has it has ever helped one?*
> 
> One that won or placed or qualified by, as John put it ," not having to compete against this or that dog which has been tearing up the circuit".......
> 
> ...


Good point but IMHO ...NO...a great dog is going to win more often than not, against all comers,in opens and amateurs alike...there is always going to be a top gun on every circuit, and in some more than one or two, 

a perfect example was this spring on the west coast...Bill Fruehling was absent from a couple of trials but Shaq won an open with Don Remien, and Shaq did not run the Amateur at a couple of trials but upon Mr Fruehling's return both he and Hank won amateurs. I am sure that there would have been a whole host of individuals that would have gladly run Shaq had they been asked

you can try and duck a great dog or you can try and beat em..choice is yours


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Losthwy said:


> If we _really_ want to level the field just do away with the Amateur Stake.:twisted:
> 
> Or we could stick with the _intent_ of why there is an Amateur Stake. And have the owner run their own dog.


Guys and gals,

I've tried pretty hard to read through the various posts on this thread.

I've obviously missed some posts, or at the very least, the intended message of some of those in this thread who have made one.

I am still not quite seeing the evils of the owner handler stakes as brought up on this past Friday or so in this thread. I am also not finding the evils of the Amateur stake, as opposed to those of the O/H stake.

Brother Fallon, will you please type some clarifying sentences of wisdom?

Thanks, chris


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Guys and gals,
> 
> I've tried pretty hard to read through the various posts on this thread.
> 
> ...


It all turns on The purpose of Non Slip Retriever Trials, the Amateur Stake and its accompanying title the AFC do not sway from that purpose. 

Field trials are about finding the* best dog on the field trial grounds that day.*When the OH was Amateur instituted, in some cases dogs that were at the trial and healthy and BTW were at times some of the top running dogs on the circuit were eliminated from the pool of competing dogs.
It does not take a vivid imagination to surmise that if those dogs were allowed to compete the outcomes of those trials could/would have been different.
Cut it any way you want this is in direct conflict with the "Basic Principles" of the sport.

I hope that helps,

john


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

The fundamental (basic principle) question why is there an amateur stake?


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Losthwy said:


> The fundamental (basic principle) question why is there an amateur stake?


IMO, for the same reason we have the O/H stakes now. Participants want a chance to win and did not feel they had a good enough chance against the Pro handled dogs... More stakes with few great do/handler teams.

By the way, I don't think it has really achieved that goal because there are many really good dogs/handlers at just about any all age stake. More good teams out ther today than ever before...


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

I want an O/H Derby. And why not an O/H Open? 

Pros can own dogs too regards.

John


----------



## Rudd (Jan 9, 2008)

John Gassner said:


> Pros can own dogs too regards.
> 
> John


I think this opens up another can of worms.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

John Gassner said:


> I want an O/H Derby. *And why not an O/H Open? *
> Pros can own dogs too regards.
> 
> John


Lets take John's idea and run with it...

An Unqualified Open AA stake, open only to those who have never placed or JAMed an AA or won two "Q"'s....with the win and or the points for a placement counting toward an FC. Perhaps we should call it a Reverse Restricted
Sorry for those who are not qualified (or is it unqualified) to run this stake........

john


----------



## Reminton Steele (Nov 10, 2007)

During a conversation with a very well respected "Pro" what other "Pro's" dogs do you face each weekend that are most competetive.
His reply I'm more worried about the "good Amateur/trainer/handler" with a good dog!!!


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

The designation of Amatuer falls on the handler. Not the dog.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

I am glad that field trials are such a growing healthy sport. With plenty of volunteers for everything from marshalls to flyer shooters. The O/H stakes appeal to those who are new to the game. Running against some of the big name pros is intimidating in the least. It also encourages owners to run their own dogs, not just send a check monthly.

I fail to see how more involvement by owners is detrimental to field trial competition.

Admittedly an outsider looking in
Mark D. Land


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

helencalif said:


> Yes, questions were raised about the amateur status of the person who started running a bunch of dogs off a pro's truck. The person was traveling with the pro, the person assisted the pro, the person trained their dog with the pro, the person trained (handled during training) other clients' dogs for the pro. Now the person was pulling all these Open dogs off the truck and running them in the amateur stake... it hit the fan.
> 
> Sorry for the poor term "regular amateurs". I guess I could have used the term "handlers who are recognized as amateurs" raised a ruckus.
> 
> ...


The resolution of this type of thing is the purview of the FT Committee. 

If this person was deemed by them to be an Amateur and was in good standing with the AKC and was not violating the AKC Code of sportsmanship.( I have affixed a copy for your convenience).........IMO, It was the protesters who were being unsportsmanlike.


john



AKC Code of Sportsmanship
PREFACE: The sport of purebred dog competitive events dates prior to 1884, the year of
AKC’s birth. Shared values of those involved in the sport include principles of sportsmanship.
They are practiced in all sectors of our sport: conformation, performance and companion.
Many believe that these principles of sportsmanship are the prime reason why our
sport has thrived for over one hundred years. With the belief that it is useful to periodically
articulate the fundamentals of our sport, this code is presented.
• Sportsmen respect the history, traditions and integrity of the sport of purebred dogs.
• Sportsmen commit themselves to values of fair play, honesty, courtesy, and vigorous
competition, as well as winning and losing with grace.
• Sportsmen refuse to compromise their commitment and obligation to the sport of purebred
dogs by injecting personal advantage or consideration into their decisions or behavior.
• The sportsman judge judges only on the merits of the dogs and considers no other factors.
• The sportsman judge or exhibitor accepts constructive criticism.
• The sportsman exhibitor declines to enter or exhibit under a judge where it might
reasonably appear that the judge’s placements could be based on something other than
the merits of the dogs.
• The sportsman exhibitor refuses to compromise the impartiality of a judge.
• The sportsman respects the AKC bylaws, rules, regulations and policies governing the
sport of purebred dogs.
• Sportsmen find that vigorous competition and civility are not inconsistent and are able to
appreciate the merit of their competition and the effort of competitors.
• Sportsmen welcome, encourage and support newcomers to the sport.
• Sportsmen will deal fairly with all those who trade with them.
• Sportsmen are willing to share honest and open appraisals of both the strengths and
weaknesses of their breeding stock.
• Sportsmen spurn any opportunity to take personal advantage of positions offered or
bestowed upon them.
• Sportsmen always consider as paramount the welfare of their dog.
• Sportsmen refuse to embarrass the sport, the
American Kennel Club, or themselves while taking
part in the sport.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

john fallon said:


> The resolution of this type of thing is the purview of the FT Committee.
> 
> If this person was deemed by them to be an Amateur and was in good standing with the AKC and was not violating the AKC Code of sportsmanship.( I have affixed a copy for your convenience).........IMO, It was the protesters who were being unsportsmanlike.
> 
> ...


I agree 100%


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

John if you either can't either admit, or perhaps even see that Helen's example pushes the rules to an extreme and violates the spirit of the rule, then I don't think there is any more to say to get you to understand the movement that led to the OH idea. Personally I think the OH rule kind of threw the baby out with the bath water, and there was probably a less drastic way of dealing with the situation, but I totally get the outrage that led to the rule.

John


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

huntinman said:


> I agree 100%


Bill, Are you saying that you are ok with the example's Helen and the guy from Alaska had of a technically legal amateur along for a ride on a pro's truck to run all his open dogs in the amateur, or just that is was unsportsmanlike for the rest of the amateur handlers to voice their opposition to the practice, possibly being vied as rude behavior?

John


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I don't know how you would write it in a rule, but my personal position is that there should be a distinction between an amateur training buddy or friend, volunteering to run his buddy's dog in the rare situation that he couldn't make that trial, versus the designated amateur-pro assistant running every dog on the truck in the amateur. 

I agree with Walt, if you want your dog run in the amateur, drive out to the trial and run it. Just last weekend we had the owner of two dog's on Eric Fangsrud's truck drive all the way out to Washington State from his home in Eastern Wyoming to run his two dogs in the Amateur. He got fourth with one of them. 

I think this is a very rare problem as I run against pros in the open every weekend, yet I have only seen one example of it in kind of extenuating circumstances.

John


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

The rules regarding Amateur status used to state something to the effect that any relationship between a professional and an amateur beyond the normal client-trainer relationship could constitute forfeiture of amateur status. It's been tweeked considerably in more recent years. A FT Committee _could_ have determined that an amateur was inelligible to run the amateur stake on those grounds. Unfortunately, most FT Committees did not want to undertake a determination (or non-determination) of amateur status unless the evidence was clear and undeniable in most instances. Let's face it guys/gals, the FT Committee this weekend will be the competitors next weekend. The guy/gal you tried will likely be on the committee at a trial nearby at a later date! It's an onerous task & it is good that the AKC has revised this rule to assure that AKC will make this determination and not place undue burden on FT Clubs.

However, it used to be pretty prevalent that an accomplished amateur-handler often ran the good dogs off the pro's truck in the amateur stake to not only title, but qualify each year. It became a really raw sore spot with many. Hence we now have the Owner-Handler Amateur. It is still the determination of individual clubs whether to hold an O/H Amateur. It's not mandatory. I personally like them.

The only fair way to "level" the playing field in Field Trials is to have owners run their own dogs. In the Open this cannot be mandated by rule, or it is no longer an "open" stake. AKC has stated this on numerous occasions--Just ask Ted Shih or Ed Aycock!

Even the O/H Amateur has "holes" for those truly determined to have their dogs run when they are unavailable themselves. You put the "designated handler's name" on the registration papers. They are now "owners"!


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> Bill, Are you saying that you are ok with the example's Helen and the guy from Alaska had of a technically legal amateur along for a ride on a pro's truck to run all his open dogs in the amateur, or just that is was unsportsmanlike for the rest of the amateur handlers to voice their opposition to the practice, possibly being vied as rude behavior?
> 
> John


I am saying that we can't pick and choose which rules to enforce. I agree that situation may violate the spirit of the rules. I was competing that day in Alaska and was not opposed to those dogs being run. I was opposed to the rude behaviour. (not saying I am a saint, I've had my moments too). I just don't think the day of the trial is a good time to be hashing these things out. If they are within the rules that day, who are we as individuals to say they can't compete? 

I had a situation myself with a dog that I was running who was owned by someone else (a friend). I ran the dog in 4 or 5 trials before obtaining co-ownership of the dog. I caught as much grief for that as what we are talking about with the pro's (mostly because the dog was good and a threat to place consistently). I would bet that most would not care when somebody runs another's dog that is not a real threat to place. Not only that, I had a guy who was president of the club at the time call me at home and tell me that the club did not want me to run the dog due to an issue between the club and the dogs owner. I informed him that the dog and myself were both in good standing with AKC and that when we hung up I was going to call AKC to get their opinion. He called me back a few minutes later and said "don't call AKC, run the dog". I won't go into the rest of the story here, lets just say it was not pretty.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

While it is true that it is "legal" if no rule prohibits, is it sporting? *Sportsmanship begs that participants honor the spirit of the rules as well as the strict legality*.

I've run other people's dogs in trials for one reason, and one reason only. To look at a dog in a trial situation that I am considering purchasing! If I buy the dog, I'll run it alot; if I don't, I won't ever run it again. While I may agree to "start" a dog in a stake for a friend who can't get off from work early enough to run the first series; or is judging and can't finish their stake in time to run the first series, I won't run other people's dogs in a major stake at a field trial just to be a friend. Of course if everyone feels its okay to "be a friend" then perhaps I'll reconsider...just saying! If they can't run their dog, it really doesn't need to be run. I will co-own if the circumstances are good for both of us, I have a true financial interest in the dog, and it's a good dog to run. All 3 conditions must be met. 

Another thing to consider is that if you run a dog for someone else, there is a rule prohibiting you from judging that dog later when you are not running it after a certain number of starts. So...all of you who enjoy running dogs for others, remember that if you do it too much, you will give a decided edge to those who don't when you are in the judges chair. Your friends and co-clients won't be eligible to enter their dogs perhaps!


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Vicki Worthington said:


> While it is true that it is "legal" if no rule prohibits, is it sporting? *Sportsmanship begs that participants honor the spirit of the rules as well as the strict legality*.
> 
> I've run other people's dogs in trials for one reason, and one reason only. To look at a dog in a trial situation that I am considering purchasing! If I buy the dog, I'll run it alot; if I don't, I won't ever run it again. While I may agree to "start" a dog in a stake for a friend who can't get off from work early enough to run the first series; or is judging and can't finish their stake in time to run the first series, I won't run other people's dogs in a major stake at a field trial just to be a friend. Of course if everyone feels its okay to "be a friend" then perhaps I'll reconsider...just saying! If they can't run their dog, it really doesn't need to be run. I will co-own if the circumstances are good for both of us, I have a true financial interest in the dog, and it's a good dog to run. All 3 conditions must be met.
> 
> Another thing to consider is that if you run a dog for someone else, there is a rule prohibiting you from judging that dog later when you are not running it after a certain number of starts. So...all of you who enjoy running dogs for others, remember that if you do it too much, you will give a decided edge to those who don't when you are in the judges chair. Your friends and co-clients won't be eligible to enter their dogs perhaps!


So would the spirit of the rule preclude a beginner handler from running someone elses dog to get experience?

How about a dog the needs a half point to qualify for the National and the owner falls ill before the last trial in which it could qualify? That owner may have a best friend, training partner that knows the dog...

There are always gray areas. All I am saying is that if it is not breaking the rules who are you (or I) to be judge and jury? 

Where do we find the "spirit" of the rules?

I really don't think the problem is as big as this thread is making it out to be. Enter your dog, run the trial and let the chips fall where they may. We spend an awful lot of time worrying about things that we can't control or that don't really make that much difference in the grand scheme of things...


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> The only fair way to "level" the playing field in Field Trials is to have owners run their own dogs. !


if we truly wanted to level the playing field, dogs are entered and then there is a draw of handlers to see who runs which dog, the only prohibition a handler cannot run his own dog if he/she is the owner and a pro cannot run the dogs he/she trains

now, that would be fun....


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

I would actually pay good money to see that. It's taking entertainment to an artform!

We will never truly "level" the playing field unless we adopt a handicap system much like golf or bowling! By using the term, I simply mean that there will be fewer handlers running large numbers of dogs (interpret as more than 5 per handler).


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

huntinman said:


> So would the spirit of the rule preclude a beginner handler from running someone elses dog to get experience?
> 
> How about a dog the needs a half point to qualify for the National and the owner falls ill before the last trial in which it could qualify? That owner may have a best friend, training partner that knows the dog...
> 
> ...


The examples Helen and you provided just don't seem gray to me at all, they screams for corrective action. If it wasn't for those extreme cases, I don't think there would been any support for changing the rule. Too bad as there were probably many more reasonable reasons to run a buddy's dog in the amateur, but those folks had to push it and ruin it for the rest. 

I'll agree with you that it really isn't a big deal now that the rule was changed, it doesn't affect me one way or another, and but for that one situation I have never seen it in literally hundreds of trials that I have run.

John


----------



## kawarthalabs (May 30, 2005)

Perhaps the handlers should get the titles instead of the dogs?
Tony.


----------



## C. Johnson (Mar 21, 2004)

For me I just enjoy running the dogs (in training or trialing), to me that is what it is about. I have a 7yr old BLF that has never been able to be AA competitive, but I still show up and run her when I can. It can be pretty frustrating to get beat up every weekend in and out, but I enjoy running the dogs so I have stayed in the sport. Unfortunately for me I am not able to just purchase a competitive dog at the drop of a hat and start running trials (although this has worked out for many in our sport). Also being a few decades younger than the average FT handler I am in a different financial situation than most at FTs.

Last fall a friend of mine from down south couldn’t make it to a trial up north, so I ran his dogs for him (I had never put my hand over either of these dogs in training or otherwise prior to the trial) and was able to finish with both the dogs in the AM and placed one of them. Yes, there were plenty of comments made to me about being the “DH” (designated handler), now to me this was more unsportsmanlike than an Amateur running someone else’s dogs in an Amateur. Also, this was my first ever AA completion. I would not change my decision to do this as it was real fun (at the time I was contemplating taking a break from the sport and this really helped keep me excited about the sport) and I just enjoy running the dogs. But to me it is about enjoying running the dogs and nothing more. Hopefully I will get another chance to run a competitive dog down the road again (whether I own it or not).

-Cameron


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I don't think that there would have been a "Stink" raised at all but for the fact that the guy was winning and placing the dogs. 

If the pinch hitter had had a low batting average, would there have been a stink ???? 
If the answer is NO then we all know that it was about the better dogs, on the pros truck, winning. 

So the best dog won, what a novel concept 
In my opinion that's what FT's are all about.


john


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Everyone has the engine that drives their desires. Some think a title is great no matter how they got it; some think the joy is in the effort to get it on their own. 

Some think winning is great no matter how it comes about; others think it only matters when they do it themselves. I remember a friend of mine saying a number of years ago when asked about his dog's Open WIN: "That's (insert pro's name here) doing; I didn't run him, so it means nothing to me!" Trust me, the dog doesn't know squat about what winning is all about--the dog just knows he/she pleased it's handler...or not! I've never once had my dog actually "ask" me to go run a field trial. They get excited about going....anywhere, but especially training. They don't seem to get deflated if its training instead of a trial.

Each of us makes our own decisions. I don't think someone is a "bad person" or "poor sport" because they occasionally help out a friend. I do NOT like to see someone run other people's dogs on a consistent basis regardless of the reason. I think clubs who experience a lot of that usually adopt an O/H Amateur in response because their amateur members don't like it either.

Again, the dogs could care less about running a field trial. They don't give a fig about qualifiying for a national either. That stuff is all for the owners or the professional's reputation/future business.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Count the points, but take the WIN counting as a THE win toward the dogs title like they do with a speciality event, and we'll see how lond the OH AM lasts.

john


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Count the points, but take the WIN counting as a THE win toward the dogs title like they do with a speciality event, and we'll see how lond the OH AM lasts.
> 
> john


Instead of bitching about the Owner Handler Stakes why don't you write the members of the Subcommittee On Rules and propose the rule change.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> Instead of bitching about the Owner Handler Stakes why don't you write the members of the Subcommittee On Rules and propose the rule change.


Do you think that would work ?

john


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

kawarthalabs said:


> Perhaps the handlers should get the titles instead of the dogs?
> Tony.


AFTCH Scott Adams ooooooooooooooooooooo I like the ring of that!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

So many of the things that people complain about could be addressed if they got more involved with the sport and particularly with the clubs that put on Field Trials.

Don't like the grounds? Go out and find some new ones.
Don't like the judges? Volunteer to be on the judges' committee. (You'll discover that when you get someone to judge for your club, you will often have to judge for their club)
Don't like Restricted, Special, or Limited Opens?
Don't like Owner/Handler Amateurs or Qualifyings?

Join a club, get active, and become involved in the process

I believe in the concept that each club (whose members go through the brain damage of putting on a trial) ought to have the ability to hold the field trial that they want.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Do you think that would work ?
> 
> john


You will never know unless you do it, based on personal experience I very seriously doubt it..........


----------



## Brian Cockfield (Jun 4, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> So many of the things that people complain about could be addressed if they got more involved with the sport and particularly with the clubs that put on Field Trials.
> 
> Don't like the grounds? Go out and find some new ones.
> Don't like the judges? Volunteer to be on the judges' committee. (You'll discover that when you get someone to judge for your club, you will often have to judge for their club)
> ...


I agree Ted. I've heard people complain about poor judging yet they haven't even taken time to take the judge's test. It kind of reminds of people who don't vote complaining about the politicians.


----------



## D Osborn (Jul 19, 2004)

EdA said:


> if we truly wanted to level the playing field, dogs are entered and then there is a draw of handlers to see who runs which dog, the only prohibition a handler cannot run his own dog if he/she is the owner and a pro cannot run the dogs he/she trains
> 
> now, that would be fun....


I see a fundraiser in the making...
Just saying.


----------

