# Definition of a Pro Trainer?



## J. Walker (Feb 21, 2009)

This relates mostly to field trials due to the Amateur. What do you folks think defines a professional? Is it just accepting money for personally training dogs or does it extend to giving seminars and running in SRS events? I feel that someone who gives the occasional seminar but who does not personally train or run the dogs of others _for a fee_ is still an amateur. While it may seem incongruent, I think those who accept prizes at SRS events are pros as every other sport uses similar criteria to determine who the pros and amateurs are.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Anyone who accepts money to train and/or handle dogs. 

Evan


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Evan said:


> Anyone who accepts money to train and/or handle dogs.
> 
> Evan


So that definition would include the APDTA lady that teaches the puppy classes at PetSmart? I am not being facetious, where do you draw the line?


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Evan said:


> Anyone who accepts money to train and/or handle dogs.
> 
> Evan


So does someone that trains guide dogs for the blind and gets paid for it can not run in the amatuer>

What about someone that trains people to train their own agility dogs?

What about someone that trains Obedience dogs for money?

What about someone that only boards and breeds dogs? 

What about someone that trains and runs beagles in field trials, could they run a retriever in an amatuer?

Just wondering...


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

2tall said:


> So that definition would include the APDTA lady that teaches the puppy classes at PetSmart? I am not being facetious, where do you draw the line?


...for field trials or hunting. Most people take this to include hunting tests, but not obedience or IED dogs.

Amy Dahl


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Evan said:


> Anyone who accepts money to train and/or handle dogs.
> 
> Evan


 
not just money, but goods or services of value



2tall said:


> So that definition would include the APDTA lady that teaches the puppy classes at PetSmart? I am not being facetious, where do you draw the line?


Yes, she is a pro dog trainer.

the drawing of the line, if you are laying hands on a dog in exchange for anything of value. 
If only teaching people, and not the dogs they have, you are not. And some folk like Evan here do both.






.


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

Maybe the rules should be consulted as there's some incomplete and some incorrect information being posted. HPW


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

One way to not be a pro trainer is to buy 20+ puppies a year and train them and sell them as started or finished dogs and make 100,000 a year. but if you teach people to train their dog at Petsmart for $7 an hour you are SOL...LOL


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Your right Harry! I already have convergent opinions from two folks I respect. Amy says "paid for training hunt or trial/test only". Ken says, "anyone that lays hands on dogs for training". No wonder it is such a divisive issue, is there a source for a real, written definition?


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

afdahl said:


> ...for field trials or hunting. Most people take this to include hunting tests, but not obedience or IED dogs.
> 
> Amy Dahl


Agree......


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

2tall said:


> is there a source for a real, written definition?


With regard to Amateur status in retriever field trials, the rule book.

Amy Dahl


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

The definition of a Pro?
There have been hundreds of posts on this topic on RTF over the years and I don't think anyone's mind has ever been changed.

Tim


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

afdahl said:


> ...for field trials or hunting. Most people take this to include hunting tests, but not obedience or IED dogs.
> 
> Amy Dahl


correct.

The OB person at Petsmart would not be a pro for AKC FT and HT purposes


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

The AKC rulebook for Field Trials does not directly define a professional. It gives definitions of what excludes someone from being an Amateur, so by default part of that lists the definition of a professional. It's up to the FTC to determine if the entrant/handler/judge meets this definition. Good luck! HPW

(page 46 I think)
*3. The following definitions and standards should be*
*followed in determining the status of any person to be an*
*Amateur:*
_(a) For purposes of eligibility to judge under Section 3_
_of Chapter 14 of the Rules for Retriever trials, a person_
_shall be considered an Amateur who during the period of_
_two years preceding the trial in question has not earned_
_any part of his or her livelihood from the training of a_
_dog for hunting or field trial competition and/or from the_
_handling of a dog in field trial competition at any level._
_(b) For purposes of eligibility of a person to compete in_
_an Amateur All-Age stake at a licensed or member_
_retriever trial under Section 10 of Chapter 14, the standard_
_set forth in paragraph (a) above shall apply but the_
_time period applicable shall be one year preceding the_​
_trial in question._


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

Evan very correctly in my view gave the following answer


> Anyone who accepts money to train and/or handle dogs.


I'd merely add the rider "and get's away with it over time".

It's a bit like good conduct medals in the military; awarded for a long history of undetected crime. 

Eug


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

mjh345 said:


> correct.
> 
> The OB person at Petsmart would not be a pro for AKC FT and HT purposes


I don't believe there's an issue as it relates to a HT. There's no Amateur status in the AKC HT program. It only pertains to the Field Trial rules. HPW


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

*Well, this is currently a hot topic down south right now.... where one person's status has been challenged. But, the definition is vague in the sense that it does not state whether one has to have their hand over the dog's head to meet the definition of "train" other than the statement "at any level." Personally, I don't think a seminar qualifies any more than one selling video tapes. And, isn't obedience the foundation of our retriever training? Definitely a slippery slope. *

*3. The following definitions and standards should be*
*followed in determining the status of any person to be an*
*Amateur:*
_(a) For purposes of eligibility to judge under Section 3_
_of Chapter 14 of the Rules for Retriever trials, a person_
_shall be considered an Amateur who during the period of_
_two years preceding the trial in question has not earned_
_any part of his or her livelihood from the training of a_
_dog for hunting or field trial competition and/or from the_
_handling of a dog in field trial competition at any level._
_(b) For purposes of eligibility of a person to compete in_
_an Amateur All-Age stake at a licensed or member_
_retriever trial under Section 10 of Chapter 14, the standard_
_set forth in paragraph (a) above shall apply but the_
_time period applicable shall be one year preceding the_
_trial in question._
_(c) No person shall be entitled to status as an Amateur_
_if it is determined that it is inappropriate for such person_
_to judge or to compete as an Amateur by virtue of a relationship_
_or an association with a professional other than_
_as a client. The time periods for any disqualification from_
_Amateur status under this section shall be the same as_
_those fixed by paragraphs (a) and (b) above._
_(d) The determination of Amateur status under these_
_directives for the purpose of any particular field trial shall_​
_be made by the Field Trial Committee for that trial._


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

HarryWilliams said:


> (page 46 I think)
> *3. The following definitions and standards should be*
> *followed in determining the status of any person to be an*
> *Amateur:*
> ...


 
I was just going to type the same Harry. page 34 in my book.
Now if Ms. Molly MiniVan teaching at petsmart
has any of the pups go on to be hunting dogs
or run in a derby or Q she is indeeed a training
pro. and it does not need to be a full time job.
Note "Any Part".... and they do need to be good
at what they do, just get paid to do it.



.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

kzunell said:


> So does someone that trains guide dogs for the blind and gets paid for it can not run in the amatuer> *Yes they can*.
> 
> *1.* What about someone that trains people to train their own agility dogs? *Yes*
> 
> ...


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

2tall said:


> So that definition would include the APDTA lady that teaches the puppy classes at PetSmart?


*No, it would not.* The rule book, as I read it, is quite clear*.*


----------



## Kim Williams (Apr 29, 2009)

geez people you make this confusing.

Mr Bora, I think you are wrong.

losthwy, yes what?


----------



## Brandoned (Aug 20, 2004)

JusticeDog said:


> *Well, this is currently a hot topic down south right now.... where one person's status has been challenged. But, the definition is vague in the sense that it does not state whether one has to have their hand over the dog's head to meet the definition of "train" other than the statement "at any level." Personally, I don't think a seminar qualifies any more than one selling video tapes. And, isn't obedience the foundation of our retriever training? Definitely a slippery slope. *
> 
> Good post Susan, couldn't agree more!


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Kim Williams said:


> geez people you make this confusing.
> 
> _Mr Bora, I think you are wrong_.
> 
> losthwy, yes what?


That possibility existents with every line I type.
Yet…………
What differs Ms. Molly at petco with the local bubba’s future hunting dogs.
From
The person doing young dog training at Handjem?????

I mean aside from having to clean the ferret pen  ;-)


 hmmmmmmm 


.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

*The original posters questions asked "does it extend to giving seminars" where the person did not touch the dog?*.................... not to try to get things back on track or anything....


----------



## Kim Williams (Apr 29, 2009)

I don't think going out in the back parking lot and doing marks is part of their program.

How bout you have your next chessie exclusively trained by molly and see how far that gets you in the next field trial.

using clickers and teaching, sit, stay, roll over and heel gets you very far and is not a threat to anyone running trials.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

As stated, it is up to the event giving committee to determine one's status. This is highly unfair to both parties - the entrant and the committee.

My club could ALLOW Danny Farmer or Mike Lardy to run the amateur, and unless someone protests, the placements would stand.

This sport was founded by people who had morals and ethics and the rulebook was written to assume its participants would have the same. Over time, that has proven to be a poor assumption by the original architects of the sport and the rulebook. By in large, its a moot point... but every now and then someone exploits the vagueness/loopholes in the rulebook and I think the community at large handles it very well. Fortunately, the community is very small and tight knit.

If someone trains retrievers for hunting or for the purpose of competing in retriever performance events in exchange for compensation, they are not an amateur. This would also include the handling of retrievers in retriever performance events... Hunting guides who handle a dog for compensation are still amateurs.

It doesn't matter who is a pro, what matters is who is not an amateur.

Holding seminars, making videos, or selling dog training equipment should not affect one's amateur status.

The spirit of the rule is, typically, just as important as the written rule.

SM


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

I would think that if said individual profited from the seminar, then yes he is considered a pro, per AKC rules.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Kim Williams said:


> geez people you make this confusing.
> 
> Mr Bora, I think you are wrong.
> 
> losthwy, yes what?


this is Dead Horse Topic #5, it's not that complicated, it's about TRAINING AND HANDLING RETRIEVERS FOR HUNTING OR FIELD COMPETITION!

It's not about books, videos, seminars, or obedience or agility training, it is about hands on training for specific activities

compensation means being paid to train dogs for those activities, prize money is not compensation, selling trained dogs is not compensation...


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

dexdoolittle said:


> I would think that if said individual profited from the seminar, then yes he is considered a pro, per AKC rules.


I was paid $1,000 to use my property and pavillion to hold the seminar. I assisted at the seminar by throwing birds, shooting flyers, shuttling dogs, and even gave advise to handlers (too late on that whistle)............ i'm a pro?

If the seminar guy is a pro... the video guy is a pro... and the equipment salesman is a pro.

SM


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Losthwy said:


> *No, it would not.* The rule book, as I read it, is quite clear*.*


I agree. But common sense is not as common as one would hope.

"Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." 2 Cor:6

Evan


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

dexdoolittle said:


> I would think that if said individual profited from the seminar, then yes he is considered a pro, per AKC rules.


Also... only the individual and the IRS knows if he PROFITED from the seminar... he might of lost money - after paying me for my pavillion and buying lunches. 

SM


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> ....
> 
> This sport was founded by people who had morals and ethics and the rulebook was written to assume its participants would have the same. Over time, that has proven to be a poor assumption by the original architects of the sport and the rulebook. By in large, its a moot point... but every now and then someone exploits the vagueness/loopholes in the rulebook and I think the community at large handles it very well. Fortunately, the community is very small and tight knit.....
> 
> ...


 

who are you and what have you done to Shayne 





.


----------



## Kim Williams (Apr 29, 2009)

So is Dennis Voit who just did an advanced seminar with Lardy a pro or Amateur?


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

So as long as I never touch the dog, I can make as much money as I want and still be an AM?


----------



## Kim Williams (Apr 29, 2009)

I am pretty sure you get can only earn up to $150,000


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Kim Williams said:


> So is Dennis Voit who just did an advanced seminar with Lardy a pro or Amateur?


Dennis Voigt is an amateur and has been one for his entire field trial career


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

dexdoolittle said:


> So as long as I never touch the dog, I can make as much money as I want and still be an AM?


seems to me if you are already a professional dog trainer it would be pretty difficult to continue to do that without ever touching a dog

you can sell insurance, fly airplanes, build houses, be a tradesman, or do most anything except conform to the specific rules regarding training retrievers for field competition and hunting and earn as much money as you want and still be an amateur, you can even be retired and be an amateur......


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

EdA said:


> Dennis Voigt is an amateur and has been one for his entire field trial career


Not saying anything whatsover about Mr. Voigt's status, but I have trouble with these two words in the same sentence as used.


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

I just think that rules are out dated. It is funny that my wife who has a PHD works 50 plus hours a week could care less about standing next to a dog is considered a pro and someone who like Evan is not. Sorry but you will never convince me of this one.


----------



## Kim Williams (Apr 29, 2009)

Well someone on here is right and someone is wrong, now do I believe an ex pro or an old timer


----------



## Kim Williams (Apr 29, 2009)

Dex, your wife is a PHD (Pizza Hut Dude) yep, shes pro


----------



## J. Walker (Feb 21, 2009)

EdA said:


> this is Dead Horse Topic #5, it's not that complicated, it's about TRAINING AND HANDLING RETRIEVERS FOR HUNTING OR FIELD COMPETITION!
> 
> It's not about books, videos, seminars, or obedience or agility training, it is about hands on training for specific activities
> 
> compensation means being paid to train dogs for those activities, prize money is not compensation, selling trained dogs is not compensation...


I don't see this as "dead horse" anything. I've recently heard of the issue being pretty hotly contested among several clubs with a lot of veteran trainers and handlers. While I personally feel that those giving seminars, for instance, are not pros, the argument can easily be made that if owner/handler teams are running and there is one on one time running setups in which the speaker gives specific and personalized instruction, that could be construed as training the dog and getting paid to do it. I also disagree vehemently about the prize money issue. While it may not have been specifically addressed, the spirit of the rule is whether one has gained financially by actually training and handling dogs. Even if one trains and handles his own dogs then wins a $5,000 dog trailer at an SRS event, he just gained financially by training and handling dogs.

Then again, I am of the firm belief that Amateur should be exactly that: amateur trained, amateur handled, and amateur owned.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

2tall said:


> Not saying anything whatsover about Mr. Voigt's status, but I have trouble with these two words in the same sentence as used.


so would you have preferred tenure, you folks are a bit too much into minutia today, and I am out, work to do....


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

J. Walker said:


> Then again, I am of the firm belief that Amateur should be exactly that: amateur trained, amateur handled, and amateur owned.


then you better start drafting your rule change proposal so you can submit it to the Subcommittee on Rules for consideration


----------



## schb02 (Feb 21, 2010)

Kim Williams said:


> Well someone on here is right and someone is wrong, now do I believe an ex pro or an old timer


Believe in the ex Pro.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

I thought Pro was defined as anyone who starts to win consistently in the amateur stakes. And may have given advice to somebody about some dog at sometime, somewhere, for which any money was exchanged, in any venue, OB, Agility, Nutritionist, Dog-Walker. Even so far as buying someone lunch and drinks


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

J. Walker said:


> Then again, I am of the firm belief that Amateur should be exactly that: amateur trained, amateur handled, and amateur owned.


Isn't the point of all this hair splitting aimed toward precluding a handler participating in an amatuer stake who has an unfair advantage, or a conflicting interest issue with some potential judge of such a stake? The spirit of such rules should drive any conclusion, shouldn't it?

Common sense. Elusive concept.

Evan


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

Unfortunately the spirit only lives in about 90% of us. For the other 10% we need better rules......


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

J. Walker said:


> Then again, I am of the firm belief that Amateur should be exactly that: amateur trained, amateur handled, and amateur owned.


so you are saying that someone who enlists the use of a pro to train their dog or enlists a pro to learn how to handle their dog isnt an amateur


if that were the case the Amateur stake would consist of six entries


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

BonMallari said:


> so you are saying that someone who enlists the use of a pro to train their dog or enlists a pro to learn how to handle their dog isnt an amateur
> 
> 
> if that were the case the Amateur stake would consist of six entries


Oh goody, the odds are getting better. I might stand a chance after all. Oh never mind, I forgot the rule about 12 QAA entrants.  HPW


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Losthwy said:


> kzunell said:
> 
> 
> > *4.* What about someone that trains and runs beagles in field trials, could they run a retriever in an amateur?* No*
> ...


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> Dennis Voigt is an amateur and has been one for his entire field trial career


I agree...... and if he had poopy dogs, no one would even care about this..... and if Dennis is now a "pro" for talking at a seminar, then the can of worms needs to re-open with Connie and Jackie IMHO. Perhaps the $$ he got was for his expenses. It's a pricey trip from Canada to Georgia.


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

Retract my question.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

stonybrook said:


> So how does this relate then to someone running another person's dog in a HT?
> 
> Travis


I don't understand your question. If you take money to run someone else's dog in a hunting test, you're fine to do anything you want in hunting tests; ie run any stake or judge any stake.

But, since you took money to handle a dog at a hunting test you can no longer run the amateur in field trials or judge field trials. You are however, eligible to run any other stake in a field trial.

So all this thread concerns is running the amateur stake or judging field trials.


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

Howard N said:


> I don't understand your question. If you take money to run someone else's dog in a hunting test, you're fine to do anything you want in hunting tests; ie run any stake or judge any stake.
> 
> But, since you took money to handle a dog at a hunting test you can no longer run the amateur in field trials or judge field trials. You are however, eligible to run any other stake in a field trial.
> 
> So all this thread concerns is running the amateur stake or judging field trials.


Yep. Understood, Howard.

My question wasn't well stated....and doesn't really fit in this thread. A similar discussion was posted recently re: running another person's dog in HT and Harry's view was that there was no way that could be done without some form off compensation changing hands (which I disagreed with). The discussion was about running someone's dog and then judging it later in the year. Like I said, doesn't really fit exactly with this discussion (other than the compensation portion).


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Kim Williams said:


> geez people you make this confusing.
> 
> Mr Bora, I think you are wrong.
> 
> losthwy, yes what?


Yes, they can run in the Amateur.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Sonny and Cher singing "I've got you, babe" in the background

It's GROUNDHOG DAY!

It's Deja Vu all over again.

Two points:
1) The Rule Book defines what constitutes an Amateur.
2) If you don't like the Rule Book, or think it needs further clarification, feel free to contact the Retriever Advisory Committee

Otherwise, this is just so much more hot air .... swirling around for the upmteenth time


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

I understand there has been some grumbling here and there about people accepting gas/fuel/lodging compensation for taking their "friends" dogs on the road with them and handling them for their friends. I take more issue with a person who may run a dog one weekend then judge it the next. 

As the rules read- one could argue that accepting money for expenses isn't accepting money for your livelihood and, one could just as easily argue that it is because accepting money for gas, expenses and handling makes the trip much more affordable and therefore, makes the persons' livelihood an easier existence. 

Ted, not sure why you put people down consistently when you don't like the topic they are discussing. Why not just step out if the subject doesn't agree with you? From what I've read, people have brought some good points to light and put some thought into their feelings about the subject. Why is that "hot air swirling around?"


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

stonybrook said:


> Yep. Understood, Howard.
> 
> My question wasn't well stated....and doesn't really fit in this thread. A similar discussion was posted recently re: running another person's dog in HT and Harry's view was that there was no way that could be done without some form off compensation changing hands (which I disagreed with). The discussion was about running someone's dog and then judging it later in the year. Like I said, doesn't really fit exactly with this discussion (other than the compensation portion).


Ol' Buddy Travis, You've got to remember that not all forums are the same. This is RTF and that was NAHRA. Also could it be possible that you have me mixed up with someone else. Cause I do not have the "view" you stated above. 

But all of that has nothing to do with how AKC determines who is not eligible to be considered an Amateur in an AKC Field Trial. Harry


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Brian Courser said:


> ?????????????? I am lost with your post. DOes your wife training dogs for a living or is she your wife that hleps you train your dogs? If she is has source of income from something other than dog training, she very well maybe a pro in her field but not when it comes to running dogs


if he is a pro his wife by association (members of the same household) by rule is considered a pro also, it isn't a matter of what anyone thinks it is a matter of what the rule states


----------



## Kim Williams (Apr 29, 2009)

I have an aunt who works for Petsmart but doesn't know what a derby is but knows what a clicker is who has a friend who was married to a pro but they are split up and she has a neighbor who talked at a seminar who took home $700 in cash when it only costed her $300 to get there and she knows someone who owns a pavillion who charged $1000 for someone to sit at the picnic tables and petted their dogs. Is she a pro?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Ted, not sure why you put people down consistently when you don't like the topic they are discussing. Why not just step out if the subject doesn't agree with you? From what I've read, people have brought some good points to light and put some thought into their feelings about the subject. Why is that "hot air swirling around?"


Here's the deal

1) If you are going to discuss a topic, some basic research is necessary.
For example, look at the Rules.
2) If you are REALLY concerned about the issue, then do something about it. In this case, get the Rule changed.
3) If you are not able to do 1 or willing to do 2, I don't give much credence to the discussion

But, hey if you and others want to talk about stuff, and act like it means something, but do nothing about it, feel free

Oh, and by the way, IF you wanted to be troubled with previous discussions on this subject, there is that silly little search feature


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

stonybrook said:


> Yep. Understood, Howard.
> 
> My question wasn't well stated....and doesn't really fit in this thread. A similar discussion was posted recently re: running another person's dog in HT and Harry's view was that there was no way that could be done without some form off compensation changing hands (which I disagreed with). *The discussion was about running someone's dog and then judging it later in the year.* Like I said, doesn't really fit exactly with this discussion (other than the compensation portion).


This is already covered in the rules. I don't know how the "more than two times" criteria was arrived at, but if people don't like it, they need to try and get it changed. Also, if you believe that the rule isn't being adhered to, it's up to you to file a protest against the dog's eligibility.



> *CHAPTER 14 RULES FOR RETRIEVER TRIALS*
> 
> SECTION 2.
> 
> ...


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> Here's the deal
> 
> 1) If you are going to discuss a topic, some basic research is necessary.
> For example, look at the Rules.
> ...


Quite Honestly and Respectfully Ted, 

Your only requirement is that people have a discussion which abides by "YOUR" rules. Nobody here is required to search old threads before commenting just because "YOU" want to make it a rule. 

1.) If someone wants to discuss a topic, they can post anything they want if respectful and it isn't considered offensive by the admin
2.)If "YOU" really feel everyone should be required to search old posts and be better informed before making any post, you should petition to change the rules on RTF to reflect your feelings of what the rules of posting should be.
3.)If you don't want to do 2 or 3, don't post at all or, be respectful of other posters which is about the only rule I've ever seen mentioned or requested on this board. 

There is that silly little thing called decency and respect we should try to provide to one another more frequently instead of putting down people and their opinions just because they don't line up with how you feel the world should be run.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Silly me

I thought that before people started discussing what the Rules say, that maybe, just maybe they ought to consult the Rule Book

Silly me, I thought that maybe, just maybe, before people started re-beating a dead horse, that maybe, just maybe they would want to know what had been said before

I was mistaken

They and you would rather blunder along in blissful ignorance

Well, blunder away in bliss


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Ted, not sure why you put people down consistently when you don't like the topic they are discussing. Why not just step out if the subject doesn't agree with you? From what I've read, people have brought some good points to light and put some thought into their feelings about the subject. Why is that "hot air swirling around?"


Oh lord you stepped in it now.

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Silly me
> 
> I thought that before people started discussing what the Rules say, that maybe, just maybe they ought to consult the Rule Book
> 
> ...


With all due respect, if people lived by those principles, attorney's would only make half the income they make now. So while you state you want this to happen, I'm guessing you haven't really thought this through....

/Paul


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> Silly me
> 
> I thought that before people started discussing what the Rules say, that maybe, just maybe they ought to consult the Rule Book
> 
> ...


I could make some personal attack on you as well Ted but, I have a little more class than that.


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

J. Walker said:


> I am of the firm belief that Amateur should be exactly that: amateur trained, amateur handled, and amateur owned.


Amen !!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

wackemnstackem said:


> Amen !!!!!!!!!!!!!


So, we're coming up with a new classification?

The Amateur *dog*.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Buzz said:


> So, we're coming up with a new classification?
> 
> The Amateur *dog*.


 
I could see the rule book starting to read like the Washington State Fish and Game regs......


----------



## Final Flight Retrievers (Jan 23, 2010)

Buzz said:


> So, we're coming up with a new classification?
> 
> The Amateur *dog*.


No I don't think so......anyone can train a PERSON to handle a dog but it takes a truly gifted person/trainer ( male or female) to train a DOG to that level......wouldn't you agree??????


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Here's the deal
> 
> 1) If you are going to discuss a topic, some basic research is necessary.
> For example, look at the Rules.
> ...


I absolutely agree with this.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Buzz said:


> So, we're coming up with a new classification?
> 
> The Amateur *dog*.


The dog not the handler gets the title, AFC.


Tim


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

jeff t. said:


> I absolutely agree with this.


 
You think that everyone in the first 7 pages of this discussion is beating a dead horse and full of hot air and shouldn't discuss their opinions and/or the interpretation of the rule? 

We all know how laws are written. They are written to allow interpretation which allows the law(a well written law) to evolve and change. Evolution of laws reflect societal values and changes within the social strata. 

Some people do not like laws to change because it will AFFECT their situation. These are typically the folks who sit in leather chairs all day and look down upon the peasants. They often tell the peasants to organize, stand up and vote- get the majority and your voice will be heard....etc....etc....etc........


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> You think that everyone in the first 7 pages of this discussion is beating a dead horse and full of hot air and shouldn't discuss their opinions and/or the interpretation of the rule?
> 
> We all know how laws are written. They are written to allow interpretation which allows the law(a well written law) to evolve and change. Evolution of laws reflect societal values and changes within the social strata.
> 
> Some people do not like laws to change because it will AFFECT their situation. These are typically the folks who sit in leather chairs all day and look down upon the peasants. They often tell the peasants to organize, stand up and vote- get the majority and your voice will be heard....etc....etc....etc........



This topic has been discussed ad nauseam on RTF 

AKC is the ultimate arbiter on this subject and has ruled on it in the past..nothing said here makes a whit of difference.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> if he is a pro his wife by association (members of the same household) by rule is considered a pro also, it isn't a matter of what anyone thinks it is a matter of what the rule states




I am constantly amazed at how many people voice opinions without consulting the Rule Book

It is online, if you want to take a look at it
http://www.akc.org/pdfs/rulebooks/RFTRET.pdf

Ed is correct - the Rule Book states as follows:



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


Hey, but don't mind me.

I am not supposed to rain on anyone's parade by suggesting that they do some basic research - such as reading the Rule Book


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

wackemnstackem said:


> No I don't think so......anyone can train a PERSON to handle a dog but it takes a truly gifted person/trainer ( male or female) to train a DOG to that level......wouldn't you agree??????


 

nope,
people, like dogs are not all the same.
and with some folk, some times, now and then.
it is harder to train the person.

Ted,
You seem a bit grumpulated today.
I hope all is well with you.
Liken this topic to folk talking about how much snow they have.
It does not make the snow go away, or stop falling.
But it is something everybody can talk about.
BTW,
I still feel my original reply is correct.;-)




.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Ken Bora said:


> not just money, but goods or services of value
> 
> Yes, she is a pro dog trainer.
> 
> ...





Ken Bora}[FONT=Arial Black said:


> I still feel my original reply is correct[/font].


As do I, sorta. The rule book - Standing Rec's 3 (a) (b) (c) Page 33 & 34 are quite clear (at least to me) what constitutes either an Amateur or a Pro. 

But that brings up the story - Guy's up at the bar, good looking member of the opposite sex sits down beside him, they strike up a conversation, a couple more drinks & then the proposition which she agrees to accept for $10K. The guy then asks if she would do the same for $1k, she replies what do you think I am, he replies " that has been established, I'm just trying to negotiate the best price". 

The term is explicit "any part of his or her livelihood", any one have an issue with that? To me that includes gas money, meals, anything of value that you would have to buy yourself. I've had those shady offers so know they happen!! I also believe the dog sellers should have to follow the reinstatement rule after a dog sale larger than the original purchase price of the pup. PotL pup is the price of the stud fee!!!

But the AKC does a horrible job of enforcing anything though they have knowledgeable people (you've all seen a KG post referencing the book) & an infrastructure in place to do so. They leave enforcement to people who are just trying to run a trial, generally with limited help. Why is that? Too many of the icons of the sport are beneficiaries of the ignore button. At the present time, co-ownership seems to be the tool of choice for the rule skirters, as it has been in the past. How is co-ownership of a dog with a Pro not a realtionship other than as a client? Unfortunately, the rule skirters have friends in high places so only if you go against the grain do you get called on it. JusticeDog's post is about someone who has left too many carcasses along the way. JMO


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

As I was reading this post I noticed this statment. 



> Competition does not build character - It reveals it.


I think this statment is the most fitting thing writen regaurding this post. 

*Winners train and losers complain*. 
If you feel the rules aren't fair, play a different dog game go run hunt tests or shoot to retriever or BDC, and if you don't like those suggestions go train your dog. Beat the people & dogs you feel are taking advanage of the rules.

I'll be glad when the weather gets better and I can train again.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> I was paid $1,000 to use my property and pavillion to hold the seminar. I assisted at the seminar by throwing birds, shooting flyers, shuttling dogs, and even gave advise to handlers (too late on that whistle)............ i'm a pro?
> 
> If the seminar guy is a pro... the video guy is a pro... and the equipment salesman is a pro.
> 
> SM


......... and ,the way the rule is written, all their wives and kids are also pros

john


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> Two points:
> 1) The Rule Book defines what constitutes an Amateur.
> 2) If you don't like the Rule Book, or think it needs further clarification, feel free to contact the Retriever Advisory Committee
> 
> Otherwise, this is just so much more hot air .... swirling around for the upmteenth time


...............


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

john fallon said:


> ......... and ,the way the rule is written, all their wives and kids are also pros
> 
> john


As pertains to eligibility to handle a dog in an amatuer stake, I agree.

Evan


----------



## TN_LAB (Jul 26, 2008)

john fallon said:


> ..... all their wive*s* ..... are also pros
> 
> john


This rule only pertains to the FTs in Utah


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

john fallon said:


> ......... and ,the way the rule is written, all their wives and kids are also pros
> 
> john





Evan said:


> As pertains to eligibility to handle a dog in an amatuer stake, I agree.
> 
> Evan


Has anyone ever used that as grounds for a divorce?
Some guy married to a pro saying “Sorry Honey, It’s not you. I want to run the AM.”





.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Ken, you're so devious!!!

Evan


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> Has anyone ever used that as grounds for a divorce?
> Some guy married to a pro saying “Sorry Honey, It’s not you. I want to run the AM.”
> 
> 
> ...


Hmmmmm I don't know if they used it, but I actually suggested this to a friend of mine on Wednesday.......  I must say, I like how Ken thinks!


----------



## GG (Jan 29, 2006)

As long as you are not successful, no one will care--but look out if you start winning!!!!!!!!
GG


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

GG said:


> As long as you are not successful, no one will care--but look out if you start winning!!!!!!!!
> GG


Boy howdy!! 

Evan


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Notwithstanding the posts here & in previous threads claiming that the AKC has ruled on this subject related to specific persons, I do not believe that is actually true. I do think the AKC may have provided an opinion but it does not carry the wait of a "ruling" on the subject of an individual being an amateur. It would seem to me, that to obtain an actual "ruling", it would require a certain series of events to occur. First, a person's amateur status would have to be protested, meaning that individual would first have to enter an amateur stake. Then another person entered in that stake would have to protest the entry status of the person suspected of not being an amateur (according to the rules procedure for protests). Then the FT committee of the event would have to rule on the status of the accused. That ruling, if it ruled against amateur status, would have to be appealed and sustained, ultimately by the RAC in order for there to be a "ruling" that would apply in similar circumstances to others, i.e., a precedent.

I know of no such precedent, so I would think, absent precedent, there are no such AKC rulings that are applicable. Maybe an AKC opinion from some AKC employee has been offered but not a judical process required for a ruling.


----------



## Pete Hayes (Jan 3, 2011)

wackemnstackem said:


> No I don't think so......anyone can train a PERSON to handle a dog but it takes a truly gifted person/trainer ( male or female) to train a DOG to that level......wouldn't you agree??????


REALLY??? Get a clue!


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Pete Hayes said:


> REALLY??? Get a clue!


We got a National Amateur Champion in the house..welcome to the RTF Pete Hayes....


----------



## Pete Hayes (Jan 3, 2011)

BonMallari said:


> We got a National Amateur Champion in the house..welcome to the RTF Pete Hayes....


Thanks, good to be here.
I was trying to refer to the quote about Amateur trained only, but I still cant figure it out the system. 
Some of us have Families, jobs and other things in life that come before training. The list of amateur's who give and give to to the sport and need to use a pro to train there dogs is endless. Im tired of the idea that using a pro somehow dirties our hard work!
Pete


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Pete Hayes said:


> Thanks, good to be here.
> I was trying to refer to the quote about Amateur trained only, but I still cant figure it out the system.
> Some of us have Families, jobs and other things in life that come before training. The list of amateur's who give and give to to the sport and need to use a pro to train there dogs is endless. Im tired of the idea that using a pro somehow dirties our hard work!
> Pete


Not only that, but the implication was, all ya gotta do is write a check every month, show up & get your pro trained dog off the truck, and you're golden.


----------



## Dog Pro (Apr 9, 2008)

Welcome Pete,i had the joy of watching first hand the final series in which you won it all,i have to admit i was routing for Jack(after all he is an Oregon boy)but your team put on a spectacular show.Enjoy the RTF


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

> Notwithstanding the posts here & in previous threads claiming that the AKC has ruled on this subject related to specific persons, I do not believe that is actually true. I do think the AKC may have provided an opinion but it does not carry the wait of a "ruling" on the subject of an individual being an amateur. It would seem to me, that to obtain an actual "ruling", it would require a certain series of events to occur


.

I can tell you from personal experience that this is incorrect. 

The Rocky Mountain Retriever Club informed a person that their entries would not be accepted in the Amateur. 

We supplied our evidence to the AKC and to the accused. This evidence included several depositions from independent witnesses. The accused sent responsive paperwork to the AKC, but not to the club. I requested that paperwork from the AKC. My request was denied.

Several months later, the AKC sent me (as secretary of the club) a brief letter informing the club that unless it had additional evidence, it was required to accept the accused's entries in the Amateur. No explanation whatsoever for the decision.

I called the head of performance events for the AKC and asked for an explanation. I was told that the club failed to prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt." I asked why a criminal standard was used in a civil case (preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt) and where that standard was set forth in the Rules. I asked what we failed to prove and why. I got no response.

I was told to call Legal. I called Legal. They refused to respond.

I sent a letter to the AKC demanding a response and explanation. I received no response.

Conclusion: There is no set procedure for addressing the issue. 





> First, a person's amateur status would have to be protested, meaning that individual would first have to enter an amateur stake. Then another person entered in that stake would have to protest the entry status of the person suspected of not being an amateur (according to the rules procedure for protests). Then the FT committee of the event would have to rule on the status of the accused.


All of this was done according to the Rules.

Third parties contacted the club about the accused's Amateur status.
The FTC for the club conducted an investigation.
The FTC refused to accept entries of the Accused in the Amateur.
The FTC sent its explanation to the AKC and the accused.
The Accused appealed.
The AKC upheld the appeal.

However, as detailed above, the AKC provided the club with NO details concerning how it came to its decision.





> That ruling, if it ruled against amateur status, would have to be appealed and sustained, ultimately by the RAC in order for there to be a "ruling" that would apply in similar circumstances to others, i.e., a precedent.


The RAC has nothing to do with this. The review is performed by AKC Performance Events. 



> I know of no such precedent, so I would think, absent precedent, there are no such AKC rulings that are applicable. Maybe an AKC opinion from some AKC employee has been offered but not a judical process required for a ruling.


I can only tell you that from my personal experience that:

1) The AKC does not tell you the Rules of Engagement
2) The AKC does not explain its decisions
3) If there was precedent, the AKC does not share it.
4) I would be hard pressed to deal with the brain damage again.


----------



## Steve Hester (Apr 14, 2005)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Quite Honestly and Respectfully Ted,
> 
> Your only requirement is that people have a discussion which abides by "YOUR" rules. Nobody here is required to search old threads before commenting just because "YOU" want to make it a rule.
> 
> ...


 
ROFLMAO


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

I can only tell you that from my personal experience that:

1) The AKC does not tell you the Rules of Engagement
2) The AKC does not explain its decisions
3) If there was precedent, the AKC does not share it.
4) I would be hard pressed to deal with the brain damage again. 

[/QUOTE]

So we have a vague rule that is probably not enforceable yet the AKC awards a title to dog based on this rule.

Now I understand

Tim


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


My reference to the RAC as the ultimate authority is in reference to the fact that the RAC sets the rules and in this discussion the clarity of the rules has been a major focus of the discussion. If the AKC Performance dept would issue an opinion that the rules were unclear relative to determning amateur status, then the RAC would be compelled to offer clarification. And maybe that's why you didn't get a reply, because in their opinion the rules are not clear as to intent. Point being until those who write the rules are willing to offer clarification, there will be no precedent for other clubs to follow.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

wackemnstackem said:


> No I don't think so......*anyone can train a PERSON to handle a dog* but it takes a truly gifted person/trainer ( male or female) to train a DOG to that level......wouldn't you agree??????


Good heavens, NO! Pros earn their money training dogs, but they also train their clients to handle. Most will tell you in all candor that the dog is the easier of the two on average.

I don't train other people's dogs anymore. I train trainers. I love it, but it's a bigger challenge in nearly all cases.

Evan


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

It appears that the AKC must have used it's IGNORE feature on him 

What goes around comes around regards

John


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> My reference to the RAC as the ultimate authority is in reference to the fact that the RAC sets the rules and in this discussion the clarity of the rules has been a major focus of the discussion. If the AKC Performance dept would issue an opinion that the rules were unclear relative to determning amateur status, then the RAC would be compelled to offer clarification. And maybe that's why you didn't get a reply, because in their opinion the rules are not clear as to intent. Point being until those who write the rules are willing to offer clarification, there will be no precedent for other clubs to follow.




I wish that your belief were true.

However, it has been my experience in dealing with both the AKC and the RAC on multiple occasions, that neither body has any interest in making their processes more transparent, or in making their decision making process more inclusive.

I wish you, Happy Gilmore, and anyone else who wants to try their hand at this all the best.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I could make some personal attack on you as well Ted but, I have a little more class than that.


I think that someone has someones number.

Bingo!!! regards

john


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Hey Ted, I had no idea of what you've gone through with your club. I can however understand how you may have assumed wrongfully that what I've commented upon in the past was somehow related. I can assure you it has not been. I can empathize your situation as I too have been close to something "similar". 

Anywho- we still shall have our disagreement on topics which makes for conversation...


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2011)

BonMallari said:


> We got a National Amateur Champion in the house..welcome to the RTF Pete Hayes....


Actually, we have a National Amateur Champion _*handler*_ in the house. ;-) I think it is safe to say that Pete was not trained by just "anyone."


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Tim Carrion said:


> I can only tell you that from my personal experience that:
> 
> 1) The AKC does not tell you the Rules of Engagement
> 2) The AKC does not explain its decisions
> ...


My dumb question is...

why would anyone take a chance with thier personal reputation by trying to enter an amatuer that they may have questionable status for in the first place?

I can easily see an obedience trainer working with a retriever that eventually hunted, or even ran a trial, without ever intending that dog to do so. Owners have a way of making decisions after the fact and while that trainer may never have ever had a bird near the dog, or taught it anything other than sit, here, heel and kennel, they may still get questioned...

So if you're that trainer, why would you attempt to enter an Am in the first place?

Isn't one's reputation more valuable than a $2 rosette?


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

DarrinGreene said:


> My dumb question is...
> So if you're that trainer, why would you attempt to enter an Am in the first place?
> 
> Isn't one's reputation more valuable than a $2 rosette?


The question isn't dumb but logical. It isn't the $2 ribbon, but rather an age old motive- Money.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

DarrinGreene said:


> My dumb question is...
> 
> why would anyone take a chance with thier personal reputation by trying to enter an amatuer that they may have questionable status for in the first place?
> 
> ...


I don't think it's about reputation. You enter your dog, someone says you are a pro, you say you are not. You are sure you are right, they are sure they are right. I think that most of the people in question are amateurs in the strictest sense. Some contestants question another's status based on their interpretation of the rules. You can see from the discussion on this thread that there are many different thoughts on who is considered an pro. For example if you are a pro your wife is too, but, is your girl friend a pro too, if not then how long is she your girlfriend before she is? 

As others have mentioned, if you start to do good at trials more people question your amateur status, if you're out in the first series no one complains.

It seems to come up every couple years or so. It usually comes down to a field trial comittee meeting, lots of grumbling and not much more as it's very hard to prove, the trial is over and the "problem" is at someone elses trial.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> I think it is safe to say that Pete was not trained by just "anyone."


Didja ask his wife how he responded to the ear pinch?

 :razz:


----------



## BentleysMom (Nov 6, 2010)

I was personally heartbroken when I found out that a Pro is also someone who is in a relationship with a Pro. A few years ago I decided to learn the sport of HT and FT's. Totally enjoyed spending time with the man I dated and also loved the dogs. He was Pro training. Finally thought maybe I'd give handling a chance and maybe try an AM Stake... Got my bubble popped! Someone told me the relationship rule. 

I understand the rule. Just heartbroken and confused. I am still learning how to blow the damm whistle for God's sake!!! 

For now, practice and in a few years I'll try against the Pro's... Great thread!


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

BentleysMom said:


> I was personally heartbroken when I found out that a Pro is also someone who is in a relationship with a Pro.


that has been going on in the FT game since....the beginning of the game...and in today's world in variations not mentioned on a family forum..


----------



## bmelvin (Feb 22, 2011)

Im not sure where the line is trully drawn to determine a Pro over an Amateur. But I worked a tower shoot this past weekend and was chatting with the Preserves "Pro" trainer and half way through the convo was told that if any dog needs to be force fetched it should be shot. It is not worth the time and effort because force fetching is a tool used to cover up bad breedings. Lets just say I very quickly had some where to be and got out of there. So that just changed my opinion about the word "Pro" in a BIG way. 

PS My dog made over 100 retrieves flawlessly. But I force fetched him so I guess I should start looking for a new dog


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

So No dating Pros, what about "_working _" relationships


----------

