# Who' s the real owner!!!



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

I'm just wondering who is the real owner of all these co owned dogs??? They used to be owned by one person now they are owned by multiple people. What gives??? Is this game that important to some that certain individuals think they can't win without a co owner? Even pros are becoming Amatures and running the same dogs they ran as pro's but now they just co own the dogs. They say they don't take money for training but they take it for expenses. What a joke! What a mockery of our sport!


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

I tend to agree with you, but I'm not sure how to police it. It's one of those "know it when you see it" kind of deals.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

You could always refuse entries.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

The real owners should be ashamed! I've seen two dogs title this year and the owner was no where to be found. Except at the National!


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

What color scarf?


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

Some people have different morals than others.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Your right! But when the powers to be at the National level don't care what's the point!


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> You could always refuse entries.


That would go over like a fart in a phone booth.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Charles C. said:


> That would go over like a fart in a phone booth.


I agree. I spoke tongue firmly planted in cheek. I have been there and done that. No desire to do it again.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> I agree. I spoke tongue firmly planted in cheek. I have been there and done that. No desire to do it again.


I don't have a problem with people running a friends dog. I have areal problem with people scamming the system!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Barry said:


> I don't have a problem with people running a friends dog. I have areal problem with people scamming the system!


Trust me, it was not a friend running a friend's dog. And the AKC did nothing to support the club. Would not go there again.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> Trust me, it was not a friend running a friend's dog. And the AKC did nothing to support the club. Would not go there again.


It's not just happening here its out west also. It's getting crazy. The only thing the AKC seems to care about is the check at the conclusion of the trial.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Isn't this all the clubs responsibility along with checking judges credentials?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

And if you are truly upset about it, then do something about it...otherwise it's just whining on the internet, is it not?


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

FOM said:


> And if you are truly upset about it, then do something about it...otherwise it's just whining on the internet, is it not?


Really, than do something about it... I guess you missed a post. Just running you chops Lannie. Been in the game for a couple of years and you got it all figured?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Sensitive? You are the FTC are you not? Like Ted said, you can deny entries...but I agree with him, it's brain damage waiting to happen and not worth it. It's your FT, that's about the only way I know to do something about the issue, take a stand if you believe it's an issue. You can also write to the RAC as another option. Or heck, write the all listening powers that be at the AKC. Other wise it's just whining on the internet, sorry you disagree but it is what it is...or are you suggesting some other club deny entries and pave the way?

And I've been in the game long enough to know that it is not a battle I could win, plus to know whining on the internet doesn't change it. 

And it is L-A-I-N-E-E, just saying...and I'm not running my chops any more than you. 

Edit: One other thing, I think I've proven myself as a giver to the sport, yet it's comments like yours that make me wonder why bother....apparently "new blood" isn't allowed to have an opinion, just a willingness to do slave labor and work a clip board?

Second Edit: And exactly how long does someone have to be in the game to actually be allowed to have an opinion? Cause 14 years isn't enough apparently...


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

FOM said:


> Sensitive? You are the FTC are you not? Like Ted said, you can deny entries...but I agree with him, it's brain damage waiting to happen and not worth it. It's your FT, that's about the only way I know to do something about the issue, take a stand if you believe it's an issue. You can also write to the RAC as another option. Or heck, write the all listening powers that be at the AKC. Other wise it's just whining on the internet, sorry you disagree but it is what it is...or are you suggesting some other club deny entries and pave the way?
> 
> 
> And I've been in the game long enough to know that it is not a battle I could win, plus to know whining on the internet doesn't change it.
> ...


Well there you go again. It's not about being FTC, it's not about me. And you don't think I haven't already talked to the powers to be. Like I said before you must have missed the post. 
And yes I am very sensitive about the way we the Amatures are treated. So take your Internet whining and put in the closet. I guess this kind of stuff doesn't bother you because since you have been in the sport it has been tolerated. Years ago your training bud or others would let you know real fast what your doing was wrong.
Your so called whining on the Internet is to throw it out there. Let people respond and voice their opinion if they wish. And by the way it's not what it is supposed to be. 
No one is questioning your giving to the sport. I'm not sure why you felt the need to mention that. Sorry if you feel offended. You made it sound like a put up or shut up not me. Your the one who had the condescending tone.
And really 14 years isn't enough unless its constructive. I don't believe running against pros in the am is going to bring many new people into the sport. Why should they?
Lannie, Lanie, L A I N E E just saying, what ever.


----------



## Bill Watson (Jul 13, 2005)

Some folks are just snoty! If the shoe fits, JMHO Bill


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Barry, why not take up the issue with "your" club? Start naming names and calling people out?(other than folks on the Internet). Pretty safe having a sharp tongue towards Lainee. Doubt you'd get so far putting down the names you speak of and compete(assume you compete) against. 

Step up to the plate! True "Internet whining" is doing exactly what you are doing. If you get called out you'll just retreat and say the whole question is/was hypothetical and you were not actually making any complaints about an individual. So, if your standing up for the amateur, let's hear the facts and the names of those deserving not to run in the Am! 

Stop the Internet whining and make a stand


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Barry said:


> Really, than do something about it... I guess you missed a post. Just running you chops Lannie. Been in the game for a couple of years and you got it all figured?


So I guess you will be volunteering to do all the manual labor next year at the trial Lainee works he butt off to make sure happens?

/Paul


----------



## metalone67 (Apr 3, 2009)

Man are we in the 3rd grade. If this is indicative of what I'm getting back into, I guess I'll just get my titles and be done with it. 
IMO if at any time a person is getting paid to run a dog he has no business running in the AM. 
Isn't the AM for people that are like the majority of us here?
Seems a little unfair to have a pro run an individuals dog.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

metalone67 said:


> ....Isn't the AM for people that are like the majority of us here?......


In the beginning. 
When Moby Dick was a minnow and Christ was a child. Wealthy Land Barron’s and Rail Road Tycoon’s along with Lawyers and Bankers had huge estates with game stewards and hound men and horse grooms. Somewhere along the line field trials sprang up from the ground. And one Barron’s kennel man would run dogs against another Barron’s kennel man. And then some of those who owned the dogs and the kennel men decided it would be fun to stand in the mud and run the dogs against each other. And the Amateur was born.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Barry said:


> I'm just wondering who is the real owner of all these co owned dogs??? They used to be owned by one person now they are owned by multiple people. What gives??? Is this game that important to some that certain individuals think they can't win without a co owner? Even pros are becoming Amatures and running the same dogs they ran as pro's but now they just co own the dogs. They say they don't take money for training but they take it for expenses. What a joke! What a mockery of our sport!


1st - congratulations on your most recent title . Most posting on this thread would not understand the sacrifice that goes into doing it the right way . 

What you describe is not a recent phenomena, just more blatant than it used to be. We have icons of the sport, RHOF'rs, National Judges & National Am winners that have at one time or another been in the position of doing what you describe. The interesting thing is most were capable of getting where they were without the cheat. But it's no different than the PED's in BB, expect those rules to change as the everyday player is tired of being judged with the cheaters. As long as the ruling class feels they are benefitting from the sport being as it is nothing will change.

But I have something to offer - have your club adopt a bylaw stating that all unrelated co owners will be required to provide a signed & notarized copy of the contract & expense receipts with their co owner prior to competing in the stake. Anyone who benefits in the exchange by even one dollar is not an amateur. State that in your premium, let the other cllubs cater to cheaters. 

It is interesting that there are so many folks in this sport of above average intelligence & they still can't define "Amateur" to anyone's satisfaction.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Marvin S said:


> 1st - congratulations on your most recent title . Most posting on this thread would not understand the sacrifice that goes into doing it the right way .
> 
> What you describe is not a recent phenomena, just more blatant than it used to be. We have icons of the sport, RHOF'rs, National Judges & National Am winners that have at one time or another been in the position of doing what you describe. The interesting thing is most were capable of getting where they were without the cheat. But it's no different than the PED's in BB, expect those rules to change as the everyday player is tired of being judged with the cheaters. As long as the ruling class feels they are benefitting from the sport being as it is nothing will change.
> 
> ...



I think many in the sport "believe" they are of above average intelligence. If they are of above average intelligence, they definitely "SHALL" lack common sense. Or, at least one or two I know do... lol


----------



## 2labs (Dec 10, 2003)

If a dog is co-owned will it state this on the AKC paperwork for said dog, in a private contract between the owners, or in a handshake? 
Thanks
Dave


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Barry said:


> I don't have a problem with people running a friends dog. I have areal problem with people scamming the system!


I know we're talking about "co-owned" dogs but at least they go to the trouble of changing ownership papers, I really don't like it when an amateur tags along to run every other dog off a Pro's truck. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, but I don't like the idea even if it's legal. For the most part it's a non-issue, but I just judged an Am where it happened. I wish there was a way to outlaw it without making it illegal for a guy to run his buddy's dog when he can't make it for one reason or another.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

The pros that have these dogs know what's going on. If the pros cared one way or the other, they could put a stop to it in 5 minutes. They know who is taking the dogs off their truck. If the owner is in another state and the pro has one of his buddies running the dogs in the AM... Anyone with a brain cell knows what's going on there. 

Maybe the clubs need to talk to the PRTA and have them address it from that angle?


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

There are two separate problems being discussed here . 

The first one a) co ownership of a dog by those falling outside the immediate family definition that is already described in the rules, needs that a copy of the registration for the dog in question shows the handler to be an owner be produced upon request of the FTC... and the second, Amateur status as defined b) needs to spell out what, if anything ,is acceptable as a quid pro quo arrangement between the parties as it pertains to maintaining one's amateur status.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Most of you commenting on this thread are just blowing hot air. Lainee is right - talk is cheap. 

Unlike you, I and the other members of the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club have tried to do something. Those efforts - which failed - lead me to believe that you are barking up the wrong tree. 

Our club rejected the entries for the Amateur of a person, who we believed was being paid to train dogs for FT, only to be told that we would need to accept this person's entries for our next field trial.

In our case, we provided the AKC with deposition testimony of witnesses who saw the person being paid. The deposition testimony of other witnesses detailing how this person showed her clients what she had done with their dogs. Our proof was significant. However, we did not have any written contracts, cancelled checks, etc. (and we lacked the legal authority to obtain such evidence). Several months after we declined this person's entries, we received a letter that we would need to accept the person's entries in the Amateur at our next FT.

I called Performance Events for an explanation. I was told the club did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. When I asked why a criminal standard (beyond a reasonable doubt) not a civil standard (preponderance of the evidence) did not apply, I was told "Call Legal." When I asked what we should have done differently, I was told "Call Legal." 

When I called Legal, they said "No comment." So expect no backing from the AKC.

The AKC will not support inquiries into legal contracts, expense receipts etc. They will do nothing that increases the possibility of litigation.

If you want to do something, other than beat your chest on the internet, I suggest you support a limit on the number of dogs that a person can run in the Amateur.

It would be easy to enforce, and thus, possible to promulgate. 

All these other proposals - if someone actually did something other than type on RTF - are doomed to failure

The RAC is considering limits on the number of dogs a person can run in the Amateur - that is something doable


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Ted, for some reason you think because you have done something, you are the only one to have the experience? Maybe the hot air is coming from your end... Give me a break. 

As for your story, you have told it here at least a half dozen times since I've been here. It must have made an impact on you. 

You are not the first guy to get shot down by AKC. Nor the last. Get over it.


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

huntinman said:


> Ted, for some reason you think because you have done something, you are the only one to have the experience? Maybe the hot air is coming from your end... Give me a break.
> 
> As for your story, you have told it here at least a half dozen times since I've been here. It must have made an impact on you.
> 
> You are not the first guy to get shot down by AKC. Nor the last. Get over it.


Looks like somebody poked the Teddy bear!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

huntinman said:


> Ted, for some reason you think because you have done something, you are the only one to have the experience? Maybe the hot air is coming from your end... Give me a break.
> 
> As for your story, you have told it here at least a half dozen times since I've been here. It must have made an impact on you.
> 
> You are not the first guy to get shot down by AKC. Nor the last. Get over it.



fine, Bill

why don't you and the other posters on this thread tell us what you have done with the AKC on this subject

Because if you haven't done anything but rant on RTF, I don't give much credence to your comments

Ted


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> I know we're talking about "co-owned" dogs but at least they go to the trouble of changing ownership papers, I really don't like it when an amateur tags along to run every other dog off a Pro's truck. I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, but I don't like the idea even if it's legal. For the most part it's a non-issue, but I just judged an Am where it happened. I wish there was a way to outlaw it without making it illegal for a guy to run his buddy's dog when he can't make it for one reason or another.


John, the situation you describe is that of a designated handler - probably the most famous being John Parrott who showed to a trial driving Danny Farmer's truck & ran all his dogs winning all 8 places in the AA stakes. Apparently Danny had a commitment that weekend but his clients still wanted the dogs ran . 

In the 80's Lanse ran a series of very humorous ads in RFTN about Rent-a-Handler. I will not name names as they are still active as are others who went to many trials with their pro & ran whatever dogs off the truck the owners wanted to pay to enter. 

I put a stop to that as a judge - telling the folks there is an honor in the 1st series & there will be one bye dog at the end - maybe that's one of the myriad of reasons my popularity as a judge suffered .


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> fine, Bill
> 
> why don't you and the other posters on this thread tell us what you have done with the AKC on this subject
> 
> ...


Back when I was doing the judges website folks got no credit for placing a co-owned dog in the weekly postings & folks who ran more than 2 dogs were excluding from having their record posted. One of the biggest whiners about those rules was yourself with your string of owned & co-owned dogs. 

I also offered what I was doing to the poobah's on the RAC - no result other than by their disinterest they were not interested in knowing facts. I could tell from the database & the e-mails I received from folks just who the cheaters were. 

Don't think for one minute that you have all or the only answers to this issue.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Marvin S said:


> Back when I was doing the judges website folks got no credit for placing a co-owned dog in the weekly postings & folks who ran more than 2 dogs were excluding from having their record posted. One of the biggest whiners about those rules was yourself with your string of owned & co-owned dogs.
> 
> I also offered what I was doing to the poobah's on the RAC - no result other than by their disinterest they were not interested in knowing facts. I could tell from the database & the e-mails I received from folks just who the cheaters were.
> 
> Don't think for one minute that you have all or the only answers to this issue.


Your seven minute rebuttal can begin, now.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Marvin I think your historical aaccount is flawed, I am fairly certain that John never took Danny's truck to a field trial and ran all the dogs in both stakes and won all 8 placements, I could be wrong but it doesn't happen often. John did run a number of trials handling one or more dogs off of Danny's truck. The primary person who began discussions about the Owner Handler Amateur was Eugene Corona who ran a number of dogs off of Don Remien's truck and did quite well on the West Coast. And don't indict Lanse for to my knowledge did not do what you allege, indeed he had no relationship with a pro that would have made that possible.

This entire thread has gone from innuendo to wild speculation and anonymous finger pointing which does little to improve the many problems we have. This discussion would cause an observer to think that this is a huge problem in field trials when in fact it is not. This discussion is about one person and two dogs who have not violated any rules only the sensibilities of some people.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> fine, Bill
> 
> why don't you and the other posters on this thread tell us what you have done with the AKC on this subject
> 
> ...


Frankly I'm not worried about your credence. I've been involved with enough of these AKC issues and hearings as a witness, once as the accused, and as a committee member to know that it is usually an exercise in futility. 

One of our Alaska clubs had an issue once with an out of state pro showing up with a bunch of dogs entered in the AM to be ran by a friend. (Even though the non handling owner was present). The club committee objected to it and the owner went to the line with the dogs. (For the first series). 

Another time, I was a witness when one club member physically assaulted another in front of the entire gallery. The AKC, actually threw out the suspension on that one due to a minor technicality... And allowed the offending member to compete the very next weekend. 

Another time I was the only witness to an alleged unsportsmanlike conduct. I testified truthfully as to what happened. The committee, and AKC chose to not believe my testimony on that one. 

I've seen people suspended for literally nothing. And I've seen folks who should have been banned for life get a pat on the back and run the next trial. There's your hot air. I could go on for an hour with names... But that would serve no purpose.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

huntinman said:


> Frankly I'm not worried about your credence. I've been involved with enough of these AKC issues and hearings as a witness, once as the accused, and as a committee member to know that it is usually an exercise in futility.
> 
> One of our Alaska clubs had an issue once with an out of state pro showing up with a bunch of dogs entered in the AM to be ran by a friend. (Even though the non handling owner was present). The club committee objected to it and the owner went to the line with the dogs. (For the first series).
> 
> ...


So, tell us what you are going to do to address Barry's problem. Because I think you have made my point.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Ted is still awaiting his 7 minute rebuttal all others please present your final arguments in two minutes or less. Thank you.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

EdA said:


> Marvin I think your historical aaccount is flawed, I am fairly certain that John never took Danny's truck to a field trial and ran all the dogs in both stakes and won all 8 placements, I could be wrong but it doesn't happen often. John did run a number of trials handling one or more dogs off of Danny's truck. The primary person who began discussions about the Owner Handler Amateur was Eugene Corona who ran a number of dogs off of Don Remien's truck and did quite well on the West Coast. And don't indict Lanse for to my knowledge did not do what you allege, indeed he had no relationship with a pro that would have made that possible.
> 
> This entire thread has gone from innuendo to wild speculation and anonymous finger pointing which does little to improve the many problems we have. This discussion would cause an observer to think that this is a huge problem in field trials when in fact it is not. This discussion is about one person and two dogs who have not violated any rules only the sensibilities of some people.


Ed - I only posted that because I thought it different, something like that has a way of catching one's attention - I have every RFTN ever published & could look it up were it important - this would have been when John was very active as a handler & prior to him taking on the duties of domestic bliss - if you doubt me, ask John or Danny yourself, I'm sure they would remember the circumstance.

As for Lanse his Rent a Handler ads were to call attention to those who were doing just that - I could get copies if necessary, truly humorous - they were not about Lanse doing that - until recently he has not had a relationship with a pro that would put him in that category - I know Lanse reasonably well & we occasionally break bread when our paths cross, which is rarely these days.

As long as you brought up Gene Corona - why did he never judge a National - certainly qualified, more so than many who have had the book in that status from our area.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Not in the field trials yet...sooo a really stupid question, what is the issue? Are the co-owners amateurs also?


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

Lack of moral character will show its ugly face when given opportunity.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> So, tell us what you are going to do to address Barry's problem. Because I think you have made my point.


Ted, you came on and insulted everyone on the thread by telling us we were all full of hot air and that unlike us, you actually did something about the problem (or attempted to anyway). If that's your idea of making your point, that's pretty weak.

Read the earlier posts a little closer and you will see that I have offered a suggestion to help solve the problem from the angle I think could help. No need to say it again.


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

Marvin -

Gene Corona ... a 'hell-of-a-dog-man'! Dessa's Willie-B-Good ... 
Gene was a "money handler"; Willie was a fine animal; one who could never be 'counted out'! He came from way back & won the Phoenix
Open under G.W. Faulhaber & me 11/76!

Gene had 5 or 6 major points when we judged Sierra Nevada R.C. 
3/26/78 and Walker won with a fine Golden ...Sungold Lad's Talisman.

The '85-'90 Performance Book says Gene had at least 36 All-Age points.
Certainly adequate to judge a National, & he should have but for that 'silent spoiler' ... politics.

Willie qualified for 10 nationals, a finalest twice - Nat. Am. 1974 & 1978.
Willie ended up with 74.5 Open points & 78 Amateur points.

The last time(s) I saw Gene was at the '77 Bong Nat. Am. & the next year at Sierra Nevada & Sauvie Island, OR. Nat. Am. June '78.

Both two of the Best in my Book!!

Bill Connor


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Bridget Bodine said:


> Not in the field trials yet...sooo a really stupid question, what is the issue? Are the co-owners amateurs also?


It is about a pro who became an amateur and currently co-owns a couple of dogs with former clients. Nothing illegal, a tempest in a teapot.

The secondary issue, which is a recurring theme here, is the concept of co-ownership.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

canuckkiller said:


> Marvin -
> 
> Gene Corona ... a 'hell-of-a-dog-man'! Dessa's Willie-B-Good ...
> Gene was a "money handler"; Willie was a fine animal; one who could never be 'counted out'! He came from way back & won the Phoenix
> ...


I judged with Gene & ran a couple of trials that he judged - I felt he exemplified all we ask of a judge. Paranoid about running tests from a fresh perspective. We whacked a lot of foliage to make that happen .

Among other things a real gentleman & one of the weekends I truly felt comfortable working with someone you did not really know!!


----------



## counciloak (Mar 26, 2008)

Go ahead change the rule, I'll make my co-owner the full owner, he will continue to run her, and she (the dog) will still live at my house. Is that more truthful or is that a bigger scam?

J.O.


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

Bridget Bodine said:


> Not in the field trials yet...sooo a really stupid question, what is the issue? Are the co-owners amateurs also?


The way I take it ,is when someone puts their pro on the registration as a co-owner so the pro can handle said dog in the AM with intentions of getting AA points and-or AFC title.So its not about the game .but the title and $$

The AM was created to help AM trainers be able to compete in their own league.

If I put my wife or son down as co-owner I see no harm done.


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

I guess I need to shut up and read the rules before I go assuming .


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

As an "outsider" and only marginal player in the FT games, I have seen that any rule in the book can and will be broken if someone has the connections and chutzpah to do so. Fortunately, this is pretty rare. Most I have met play for the love of the game and the dogs. For it to make sense and remain enjoyable for me, I have chosen to look at what my dogs and I do each time out and see if at the end of the day I enjoyed it, they enjoyed it and we both learned something. I will let those that are in a position where it REALLY matters to haggle out the politics.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

I suppose a lot of this is like 6' tall 12 yr olds in the Little League World Series...It apparently is hard to prove or uninteresting. Good thing there isn't HRC FT's too...


----------



## truthseeker (Feb 2, 2012)

In our game (FT Springer's ) these are treated as two different issues.

The first, running dogs and taking money is treated vary seriously. I remember when I first went over to the dark side. Really, Now that I take money for training theirs many FT FRIENDS...... That treat me like I just landed here from another planet. (It not aliens But it's aliens  ) 

I remember back, I sent a entry in for a trial and put one of my friends name in there for the AM. I did this because she only had a few point for her title.

It wasn't more than a hour after the running order was sent out when my phone was ringing off the hook and before I could get a hold of the secretary and point out his mistake he was lambasted by the inter- club chair.

The second, friends running my dogs is not even talked about.
What's the difference. 

Client dog, I feed, house and train them 5 to 6 days a week. Then come Saturday and I open my truck and they pull their dog out and run them.

My dog, I feed, house, pay their vet bills and train them 5 to 6 days a week and a friend run them.

I also have let new comers run my dogs, just to get them into the game and find out how fun it is. 

Keith


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

JTS said:


> Even if a Pro Trainer is on the registration as a co-owner does not allow said person to handle the co-owned dog in the Amtr.


THAT is what puzzled me....


----------



## Brad Turner (Mar 17, 2010)

I believe the issue is in regards to an owner/hander AA


----------

