# o/h qualifying



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

what exactly is involved with this, and what does it get you?

type of test, rules, etc


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

same rules as the owner /handler amateur...must be registered owner and as someone informed me can be immediate family or spouse...


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

And if you finish 1st or 2nd, it gets your dog qualified to run limited & special AA stakes just like a normal Q.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

so regular FT type test? i saw where they are allowed to run them in hunt tests, and Bryan-college station is doing on friday of their test weekend. so it would be triples and blinds?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

the O/H qualifying basically cuts out the use of a pro


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

david gibson said:


> so regular FT type test? i saw where they are allowed to run them in hunt tests, and Bryan-college station is doing on friday of their test weekend. so it would be triples and blinds?


Yes David, it is a normal field trial Q, triples and blind retrieves, with a winner and placements. Held at a hunt test!!!

.


----------



## junbe (Apr 12, 2003)

For several years AKC has allowed clubs with member/licensed hunting test to have an owner/handler qualifying as long as the event has a Master. The O/H Qualifying in all respects is identical to a Qualifying except it does restrict who can handle a dog. Pros can handle the dog if they are an owner (co-owner) of said dog. 

Jack


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

I think the intent is to give more hunt test participants the oppurtunity to experience a Field Trial.

John Lash


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

junbe said:


> ...The O/H Qualifying in all respects is identical to a Qualifying except it does restrict who can handle a dog. Pros can handle the dog if they are an owner (co-owner) of said dog.
> 
> Jack


Maybe it's just me, but I'm disappointed to see how many pros are being listed as co-owners on dogs just so they can run them in O/H events. I run Qualifying stakes at regular field trials and am perfectly fine with taking my chances against them, but I feel for the first time handlers that enter an O/H Qual at a HT and show up to find a few pros running co-owned dogs for their clients. 

I THOUGHT the intent of the O/H stake was to give the average working Joe, who only trains in their spare time, a chance to try their hand at against others in a similar situation.

Whether you consider it bending the rules or downright wrong, it just smells like poor sportsmanship, to me.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

I also believe it's poor taste on the part of the pro who runs there dog or a co-owner dog in the owner handler qual. When I see a pro do that my respect for them goes down and I would not recommend sending a dog to them for many reasons.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Dan Wegner said:


> Maybe it's just me, but I'm disappointed to see how many pros are being listed as co-owners on dogs just so they can run them in O/H events. I run Qualifying stakes at regular field trials and am perfectly fine with taking my chances against them, but I feel for the first time handlers that enter an O/H Qual at a HT and show up to find a few pros running co-owned dogs for their clients.
> 
> I THOUGHT the intent of the O/H stake was to give the average working Joe, who only trains in their spare time, a chance to try their hand at against others in a similar situation.
> 
> Whether you consider it bending the rules or downright wrong, it just smells like poor sportsmanship, to me.


They maybe listed as a co-handler but they can't run the dog. It happens a lot. The dog is listed as the owner and the pro being the handler but in this case only the owner can handle the dog.

Angie


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

moscowitz said:


> I also believe it's poor taste on the part of the pro who runs there dog or a co-owner dog in the owner handler qual. When I see a pro do that my respect for them goes down and I would not recommend sending a dog to them for many reasons.


I totally agree. By the nature of EE, some pros come up as handlers by default because the entrant doesn't change it, but if the owner and pro actually send the papers in to AKC to change them to co-owner, that really looks unsprtsmanlike.


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

Angie B said:


> They maybe listed as a co-handler but they can't run the dog. It happens a lot. The dog is listed as the owner and the pro being the handler but in this case only the owner can handle the dog.
> 
> Angie


I'm not talking about being listed as a handler only. I'm talking about pros who become co-owners for the sole purpose of being able to run client dogs in O/H events. Unfortunately, it happens quite a bit. I don't take issue with a pro running their own personal dogs, but when it's blatantly obvious they are only listed as a co-owner for this reason, like Moscowitcz, I lose allot of respect for them.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Dan Wegner said:


> Maybe it's just me, but I'm disappointed to see how many pros are being listed as co-owners on dogs just so they can run them in O/H events. I run Qualifying stakes at regular field trials and am perfectly fine with taking my chances against them, but I feel for the first time handlers that enter an O/H Qual at a HT and show up to find a few pros running co-owned dogs for their clients. * I THOUGHT the intent of the O/H stake was to give the average working Joe, who only trains in their spare time, a chance to try their hand at against others in a similar situation. *
> 
> 
> Whether you consider it bending the rules or downright wrong, it just smells like poor sportsmanship, to me.


Tell me again why there is a NEED for a Qualifying stake the intent of which is to restrict the compition ?

john


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

john fallon said:


> Tell me again why there is a NEED for a Qualifying stake the intent of which is to restrict the compition ?
> 
> john


John - Tell ME why there is a NEED to divide All-Age into Open and Amateur stakes!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

You did not answer the question, Is it that you have no good answer? 

The pros that frequent the HT circuit and the dogs they have on their truck are not the same pros and dogs that one regularly sees on the FT circuits. Why shouldn't they and their dogs be given the opportunity to "break in" if opportunity to experience FT's is what it was all about.

No Dan the qualifying stake is to qualify a *dog* to run a limited access stake at a FT and as such should be open to all there wanting to qualify these dogs.



john


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Dan Wegner said:


> I'm not talking about being listed as a handler only. I'm talking about pros who become co-owners for the *sole purpose* of being able to run client dogs in O/H events. Unfortunately, it happens quite a bit. I don't take issue with a pro running their own personal dogs, but when it's blatantly obvious they are only listed as a co-owner for this reason, like Moscowitcz, I lose allot of respect for them.


I would agree that doing that would bother me. However, I haven't seen it very often around these parts. I do know pros who own or co-own dogs who would run in an OHQ from time to time (obviously they cant run an OHA) but in all cases I have seen they were legitimate owners or co-owners. Perhaps I just don't pay close enough attention, but I certainly would want to know the details before I trashed a pro just for running in an OHQ. From what I have seen, there are more folks who use a loophole in the definition of a Pro to run as Ams.


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

john fallon said:


> ...The pros that frequent the HT circuit and the dogs they have on their truck are not the same pros and dogs that one regularly sees on the FT circuits. Why shouldn't they and their dogs be given the opportunity to "break in" if opportunity to experience FT's is what it was all about.
> 
> No Dan the qualifying stake is to qualify a *dog* to run a limited access stake at a FT and as such should be open to all there wanting to qualify these dogs.


I can't speak to the original intent of the AKC when the O/H Qual was first developed, but it seems the intent was to offer a stake at a HT where amateur owners had to chance to compete against other amateur owners. I don't think many hunt test amateurs are willing to spend the money to "try" a normal Qualifying stake at a field trial, where they are likely to encounter experienced pro's who train dogs daily, for that very purpose. It's not a very inviting environment for many first timers, hence the advent of the O/H Qual at hunt tests. Does it restrict competition? Yes. Do many of those dogs that get QAA in an O/H go on to compete in restricted or limited AA stakes? I highly doubt it. Doesn't an Amateur All-Age stake restrict competition in the same way by not allowing pro's to run? You bet it does!

I don't personally have an issue running against pro's, but it seems that if a stake is advertised as an O/H, pro's should not be running client dogs in it, even if they are registered as co-owners. If a HT pro want's to "break in", they should have to do so at a regular FT.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Angie B said:


> They maybe listed as a co-handler but they can't run the dog. It happens a lot. The dog is listed as the owner and the pro being the handler but in this case only the owner can handle the dog.
> 
> Angie





ErinsEdge said:


> I totally agree. By the nature of EE, some pros come up as handlers by default because the entrant doesn't change it, but if the owner and pro actually send the papers in to AKC to change them to co-owner, that really looks unsprtsmanlike.


For Owner-Handler events, the handlers need to be accurate - From Section 3. of the rule book "For a dog to be eligible to enter an owner-handler stake, the handler must be the owner at the time entries close." Technically the entry could be challenged by the FTS and denied. I'm very, very tempted to reject the entries by people who think it's cute to put pseudo handlers on their entry forms, also. It's an electronic entry these days, it isn't that difficult to list the owner and handlers properly. Granted EE has a glitch, but there is a work around for that.


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

Why should a O/H Q associated with HT be any different than one at a FT? If the judges water down the test shame on them. Never understood why people are scared to run against the "Pro". What about a HT/gundog pro who owns a dog to compete in FT, should they be able to run and O/H Q?


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

Dan Wegner said:


> If a HT pro want's to "break in", they should have to do so at a regular FT.


Why? If you win don't you want to feel like you have beaten the best that day? Again why is Q at a hunt test any different?


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Dan Wegner said:


> I can't speak to the original intent of the AKC when the O/H Qual was first developed, but it seems the intent was to offer a stake at a HT where amateur owners had to chance to compete against other amateur owners. I don't think many hunt test amateurs are willing to spend the money to "try" a normal Qualifying stake at a field trial, where they are likely to encounter experienced pro's who train dogs daily, for that very purpose. It's not a very inviting environment for many first timers, hence the advent of the O/H Qual at hunt tests. Does it restrict competition? Yes. Do many of those dogs that get QAA in an O/H go on to compete in restricted or limited AA stakes? I highly doubt it. Doesn't an Amateur All-Age stake restrict competition in the same way by not allowing pro's to run? You bet it does!
> 
> I don't personally have an issue running against pro's, but it seems that if a stake is advertised as an O/H, pro's should not be running client dogs in it, even if they are registered as co-owners. *If a HT pro want's to "break in", they should have to do so at a regular FT.*


If the hunt test pro is running their personal dog, why should they not be able to run a O/H qual? It's not an Amateur Qual, it's owner/handler. I do understand your frustration at pro's being listed as co-owners for the sole purpose of being able to run O/H events however.

I've run a grand total of ONE O/H qual. There were at least 2 hunt test pro's running their personal dogs. There were many dogs that were/are pro trained. Including at least one that had something like 34 points during it's derby career. As one of the weekend warrior, hunt test types that was entered, I don't have a problem with this at all. I wanted the test to be every bit as hard as a Qual stake at a field trial would be, otherwise what's the point if you were to place 1st or 2nd? And, IMO, running against a dog that was trained by Gonia, Fangsrud, Erhart, Remien or any of the other top field trial pro's in the area, but handled by their amateur handlers, is a lot different than running against those same dogs with said pro running them so, for me, that satisfied the intent of the O/H event. 

I know that some people already look down at the results of a dog run at an O/H qual because they DIDN'T have to run against pro's. If these events were watered down by only allowing weekend warriors to enter, that feeling would be even stronger. For me, the event did what I believe it was intended to do. It allowed me to experience the competition and higher expectations of a field trial without the added intimidation of running against a handful of very successful pro's. Having finished and jammed, it showed me that my dog and I can, at the very least, do the work so I would be much more comfortable entering and running a regular FT than I would have been before. Which, again, is what I thought the point of the O/H was in the first place.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Amateur or Pro one can not just be listed as a co-owner on an entry. 
To run an OH either AM or Q., one must in fact be a co-owner of the dog with their name on the dogs registration with all the legal rights to the dog that their % of ownership provides. 
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on tv, but it seems to me that signing over an interest in your dog is not something to be taken lightly......

john


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Rick_C said:


> ...
> 
> I know that some people already look down at the results of a dog run at an O/H qual because they DIDN'T have to run against pro's. ...


It's not an issue of running against pros, it's an issue of running against 30 dogs who have been training for Field Trials since they were born. The HT Qual does not draw full time field trial dogs, either pro or amateur handled. So there is less competition at a HT Qual, whether it not it is an owner handler Qual.

Someone posted earlier that folks running these O/H Quals at hunt test want to say they beat the best of the best. Well that's not true at all or they would be running the open at a full FT. IMO, most of the folks run them because they will be running the MH stake anyway, so why not check it out to see how good my dog really is. Many also want that QAA designation, but not so they can enter Limited and Special AA stakes. They want it for the status (most likely to enhance stature for breeding). I Went to a seminar with two very well known hunt test pros. There objective for the dogs on their trucks was GRHRCH MH QAA. No dreams of entering AA FT stakes at all.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

As I recall, a number of clubs - especially in California - were struggling with large (50+ dog) qualifyings during the winter. These clubs wanted to:
(a) reduce number of entries; and (b) encourage amateurs to run their dogs in the qualifying. The matter came for a vote and was passed.

If people want to have an O/H Amateur Qualifying, they would need to follow the same process.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> For me, the event did what I believe it was intended to do. It allowed me to experience the competition and higher expectations of a field trial without the added intimidation of running against a handful of very successful pro's. Having finished and jammed, it showed me that my dog and I can, at the very least, do the work so I would be much more comfortable entering and running a regular FT than I would have been before. Which, again, is what I thought the point of the O/H was in the first place.


I can only say that I have never seen an "easy" O/H Qual. They are set up the same by the judges whether FT qual or HT qual, at least those I have seen set up by veteran FT judges. Sometimes there are only 3 places given out. I think that HT people feel more confident running against HT people they know than all FT people and multiple pros the first time, at least that's what I have heard, and like Rick C the next time won't hesitate to run a regular FT Qual.


> The HT Qual does not draw full time field trial dogs, either pro or amateur handled. So there is less competition at a HT Qual, whether it not it is an owner handler Qual.


That's not true here. There are amateurs that have one dog running quals and they go to what ever qual is that weekend. You still have competition. It's a big step up to AA and you can run quals until you win your way out twice. Many amateurs are also looking for handling experience and getting through the first series, doing the wb and water marks.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

rboudet said:


> Why? If you win don't you want to feel like you have beaten the best that day? Again why is Q at a hunt test any different?


Its the field of dogs...


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

ErinsEdge said:


> ...*That's not true here*. There are amateurs that have one dog running quals and they go to what ever qual is that weekend. You still have competition. It's a big step up to AA and you can run quals until you win your way out twice. Many amateurs are also looking for handling experience and getting through the first series, doing the wb and water marks.


It's certainly true here in the Southeast. You'll get the occasional FT guy running a local HT O/H Qual, but for the most part they are at the big trials. Point is, top to bottom, the talent of both dog and handler at a FT Qual is much deeper than at a HT Qual. This would be true whether or not it was an O/H event. And I'll bet that's true even where you are.


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

I think O/H Q's are promoted at Ht's by clubs that wish to encourage Am's to try FT's. This is good for the FT game.
When people try to circumvent the spirit of O/H events, they are only hurting themselves and the game.
The best young FT dogs are getting their QAA status by placing in all-age.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

If, at a FT, the stated purpose of having the Q be an OH is to increase the number of new Amateur participants .... 

With that in mind, what do you all think of an OH/Q with a *Friday* start.

john


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

rboudet said:


> ...What about a HT/gundog pro who owns a dog to compete in FT, should they be able to run and O/H Q?





Rick_C said:


> If the hunt test pro is running their personal dog, why should they not be able to run a O/H qual? It's not an Amateur Qual, it's owner/handler. I do understand your frustration at pro's being listed as co-owners for the sole purpose of being able to run O/H events however.


I don't take issue with HT pro's running their own dogs in an O/H and I don't have an issue running against pro's in a full trial. Sure feels good when things go your way. However, when a pro enters an O/H event with 3 or 4 dogs that all show different owners and said pro is listed as a co-owner and handler on each, well it's not hard to figure out what's going on. What bothers me is the first-time amateur running an O/H may never try again, figuring what's the point.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

john fallon said:


> If, at a FT, the stated purpose of having the Q be an OH is to increase the number of new Amateur participants ....
> 
> With that in mind, what do you all think of an OH/Q with a *Friday* start.
> 
> john


I don't concede the first part of your post. I have no idea what the purpose is.

But I love the Friday starts... No waiting on some sandbagger claiming they are at another stake!


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Dan Wegner said:


> I don't take issue with HT pro's running their own dogs in an O/H and I don't have an issue running against pro's in a full trial. Sure feels good when things go your way. However, when a pro enters an O/H event with 3 or 4 dogs that all show different owners and said pro is listed as a co-owner and handler on each, well it's not hard to figure out what's going on. What bothers me is the first-time amateur running an O/H may never try again, figuring what's the point.


Same thing happens with top amateurs on occasion.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

captainjack said:


> I don't concede the first part of your post. *I have no idea what the purpose is.*
> But I love the Friday starts... No waiting on some sandbagger claiming they are at another stake!


This thread is about the reason for the OH Q is for giving the Amateur a soft place to try Out the Q

The Friday start for any Q is not the working mans friend . The Friday start for the OH Q means not only can't the working man run his dog but his training buddy can't start the dog on Friday and the owner can pick up the ball late on Friday or or Sat if they are still in.

john


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

A club has to do, what it has to d,o to make a trial run. I think clubs holding Friday starts for Q, are doing so because of manpower limitations.
Not everyone works Mon-Fri 9-5. While a Fri start for a O/H Q may not be the perfect solution, the impact is likely against few. The benefit to the dog games is great.


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

captainjack said:


> It's not an issue of running against pros, it's an issue of running against 30 dogs who have been training for Field Trials since they were born. *The HT Qual does not draw full time field trial dogs*, either pro or amateur handled. So there is less competition at a HT Qual, whether it not it is an owner handler Qual.
> 
> Someone posted earlier that folks running these O/H Quals at hunt test want to say they beat the best of the best. Well that's not true at all or they would be running the open at a full FT. IMO, most of the folks run them because they will be running the MH stake anyway, so why not check it out to see how good my dog really is. Many also want that QAA designation, but not so they can enter Limited and Special AA stakes. They want it for the status (most likely to enhance stature for breeding). I Went to a seminar with two very well known hunt test pros. There objective for the dogs on their trucks was GRHRCH MH QAA. No dreams of entering AA FT stakes at all.


You are painting with a very broad brush that, just in the event I ran, could not be more wrong. Just as an example, one of the dogs, as I previously said, is pro trained, had over 30 derby points and is owned by someone with multiple FC/AFC dogs including Canadian National Champions, both open and AM. That's just ONE of the dogs that was there. 



ErinsEdge said:


> I can only say that I have never seen an "easy" O/H Qual. They are set up the same by the judges whether FT qual or HT qual, at least those I have seen set up by veteran FT judges. Sometimes there are only 3 places given out. I think that HT people feel more confident running against HT people they know than all FT people and multiple pros the first time, at least that's what I have heard, and like Rick C the next time won't hesitate to run a regular FT Qual.
> 
> 
> That's not true here. There are amateurs that have one dog running quals and they go to what ever qual is that weekend. You still have competition. It's a big step up to AA and you can run quals until you win your way out twice. Many amateurs are also looking for handling experience and getting through the first series, doing the wb and water marks.


Here too. One of the O/H qual judges is a very accomplished amateur with several FC and/or AFC dogs in his career. It was no gimmee.



captainjack said:


> It's certainly true here in the Southeast. You'll get the occasional FT guy running a local HT O/H Qual, but for the most part they are at the big trials. Point is, *top to bottom, the talent of both dog and handler at a FT Qual is much deeper than at a HT Qual.* This would be true whether or not it was an O/H event. And I'll bet that's true even where you are.


I don't think anybody has any doubt that this is true, overall.



john fallon said:


> If, at a FT, the stated purpose of having the Q be an OH is to increase the number of new Amateur participants ....
> 
> With that in mind, what do you all think of an OH/Q with a *Friday* start.
> 
> john





john fallon said:


> This thread is about the reason for the OH Q is for giving the Amateur a soft place to try Out the Q
> 
> The Friday start for any Q is not the working mans friend . The Friday start for the OH Q means not only can't the working man run his dog but his training buddy can't start the dog on Friday and the owner can pick up the ball late on Friday or or Sat if they are still in.
> 
> john


It's nice when you save us all the trouble by taking your own bait...


----------



## twentypaws (Mar 5, 2011)

I definitely agree with everything you say Dan. Why does a Pro have to run in an O/H Qual? There are a few handlers in the WNY trial next Friday that appear to be handlers but do not appear to be co-owners, at least according to the profile on Entry Express for the dogs concerned. If handlers are ignoring the rules, then they need to be careful about their status with the AKC.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

john fallon said:


> With that in mind, what do you all think of an OH/Q with a *Friday* start.


I prefer it to start on Saturday since we don't usually run the opens--it means I have to take off one less day. However, I feel for the working man with a young derby dog, so I don't mind that some are on Friday and some on Saturday. It also makes it easier for the much more common non-working man with a derby dog, so he can run two trials in a weekend and chase those points.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

There are plenty of amateurs running their dogs in the Derby as well as the Qualifying. One of them needs to start on Friday. Hard for me to determine whether Friday or Saturday start favors the working person. If you feel strongly about O/H v non-O/H Qual, Amateurs, Limited, Restricted, etc. - then you need to get involved in your local club.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> There are plenty of amateurs running their dogs in the Derby as well as the Qualifying. One of them needs to start on Friday. Hard for me to determine whether Friday or Saturday start favors the working person. If you feel strongly about O/H v non-O/H Qual, Amateurs, Limited, Restricted, etc. - then you need to get involved in your local club.


Yes but as yet, there is no such thing as a OH/Derby. 

There were two minor stake issues that I felt strongly about that were among the many things I got passed while on the BOD of a local club... one was no Friday start for the Q and the other was no Pheasants in the Derby.

john


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

> don't take issue with HT pro's running their own dogs in an O/H and I don't have an issue running against pro's in a full trial. Sure feels good when things go your way. However, when a pro enters an O/H event with 3 or 4 dogs that all show different owners and said pro is listed as a co-owner and handler on each, well it's not hard to figure out what's going on. What bothers me is the first-time amateur running an O/H may never try again, figuring what's the point.


Dan,

I really don't see that much up in our neck of the woods, as iv'e stated befor in different threads on this topic, I personally like the OH from a judging and a running point of view, mainly because you can typically finish in one day, putting less stress on the workers and the club. i have NO problem with a pro that is running a OH with a dog he solely owns, it's a OWNER handler and he is the owner, as listed in the rules he/she has every right to run the dog. And if I'm judging a OH whether it's part of a HT or a FT it's certainly not going to be watered down, and i would expect the same if I was the one running.. Nothing worse than a setup that you can only go backwards on..


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

How many people are affected by a Friday start? How many people are affected by a Monday finish?


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

Todd,

I couldn't agree more. O/H or not, a Qual should be a Qual. No gimmee's. As a judge, I only have 2 marking series to evaluate the dogs, unlike a Derby where you usually have 4. Come out with a good test and see where things fall. The only difference might be in the strength of the field of dogs (whether it's an O/H or not, doesn't really matter), not the test set-ups themselves.

Oddly enough, one of the weakest Q's I've run was at a full trial and one of the toughest was at an O/H Q at a hunt test. Keep the pedal down and hang on for the ride.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Never heard of a Q that ended on Monday


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Late to the party here, but curious as to why so many folks seem to be offended by something that appears to be completely within the rules. If it's allowed then it's allowed. If you think it shouldn't be allowed then wouldn't the proper approach be to work within the system to change the rules?


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

RookieTrainer said:


> Late to the party here, but curious as to why so many folks seem to be offended by something that appears to be completely within the rules. If it's allowed then it's allowed. If you think it shouldn't be allowed then wouldn't the proper approach be to work within the system to change the rules?


Have you heard the phrases "spirit of the law/rule" and "letter of the law/rule"? 
A handler, whether pro or Amateuer, being listed as co-owner if multiple dogs simply to get around the O/H classification may be within the letter of the rule, but it's certainly not within the spirit. 

Character matters to a lot of us.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I can't imagine a person would list themself as an owner of the dog if they are not in fact listed as an owner of on the dogs AKC registration papers.

bigger fish to fry regards

john


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

jeff evans said:


> How many people are affected by a Friday start? How many people are affected by a Monday finish?


All of them.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Lot of people assuming ht are primarily made up of amature non pro trained dogs. I think people need to rethink that

/paul


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

Exactly right /paul


----------



## TIM DOANE (Jul 20, 2008)

Wow lots of speculation as to why folks do what they do. Here are the FACTS as they pertain to me.

I am a pro trainer that trains mostly gun dogs and I get some clients that want HT titles. I run my own dogs in minor stakes at FT's because I really enjoy the game.

I dont have the time to get my dogs ready for AA stakes because I work 12 hr days training dogs to hunt and run HT. Its not that i wouldnt love to train for AA stakes all the time because I would. It's not that I have no asperations its because I spend most of my time doing what I am paid to do and in my very limited spare time what I aspire to do. 

I recently ran my first OH/Q at a HT with a dog I own. It was a ligetimate Q with real FT judges. I saw some dogs and handlers there that were at there first Q and it showed just like at a FT Q. I also saw some dogs that were in full time FT training on pro trucks and came only to run the Q with their owners. One of the dogs had all ready begun to compete in AA stakes with it's pro. I will run them in the future because I will be there anyway, not because I avoid the competition at a FT.

I have run what I would consider and easier Q at a FT than the one I ran at the HT.I have only seen 2 HT Q"s and have run or seen a handfull of FT Q's 

I would never list myself as a co-owner of a client dog just to handle the dog in a OH event of any kind. (remember these are the facts as they pertain to me) I dont think thats what the OH events are for. I would never co-own a dog with a client for any reason other than breeding rights.

It is a goal of mine to get all of the females we own and will breed a MNH GRHRCH title and QAA status. I do belive that it helps to show a dogs TALENT and when I make claims to the talant of the dogs I have bred I have something to prove it by. Its not just to make money because if you add up what those titles cost me its a no brainer on the NOT making money.

I sell started dogs from time to time and when I do I like to try and get them ready for a AA pro so I can place the dog where it will have a chance at an FC/AFC. That is another reason why I run minor FT stakes so I can properly evaluate the dog talent. (wouldn"t want to claim "field trial potential" if I had no proof. Especially as a HT guy)

As a trainer and competitor I like to see a Fri Q if I am double staking a young dog in Q and Derby. I would rather ask for more control on Fri. than Sat if running both days.

I personally have driven 9 hrs with a derby dog when I could have run much closer to home. Reason being I wanted to run against one of the top young dog guys who was there with 11 dogs.

I know this was long but again this is REALITY for me. NOT speculation as to what others are up to. Thats not my concern. 

Sittin in the air conditioned house regards


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> The HT Qual *does not draw full time field trial dogs, either pro or amateur handled.* So there is less competition at a HT Qual, whether it not it is an owner handler Qual.





> It's certainly true here in the Southeast. You'll get the occasional FT guy running a local HT O/H Qual, but for the most part they are at the big trials. Point is, top to bottom, the talent of both dog and handler at a FT Qual is much deeper than at a HT Qual. This would be true whether or not it was an O/H event. And I'll bet that's true even where you are.


 I see you have run a number of trials in the winter in the SE where the pros go south so lots of competition at those, but have you actually run O/H quals to be able to make the statement that it does not draw full time FT dogs and if so which ones? Of course a pro is going to run a FT where he can run his other dogs or a serious amateur with many dogs to run is going to go to the trials, but I still think full time FT amateurs will still have enough presence at any Qual, O/H or not, to dictate tough tests for separation of the 4 places. Like I said, I have never seen a gimme O/H qual.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

As a tax lawyer by occupation, yes I am quite familiar with both of those phrases. I would much rather be arguing with the letter of the law on my side, because that means I really think I am within the statute as it was actually written - i.e., the law. 

Usually if I (or more likely the IRS) is arguing the spirit of the law, what is meant by "spirit of the law" is more likely to mean "what I wish the law said." Which is what I suspect is going on here.

Keep in mind that I well understand your objection to what is going on as a concept. But saying that people have a lack of character because they take advantage of something that appears to be well within the rules on the subject seems to be at least a little on the harsh side. If enough folks don't like it, surely there is a process to change the rule.



captainjack said:


> Have you heard the phrases "spirit of the law/rule" and "letter of the law/rule"?
> A handler, whether pro or Amateuer, being listed as co-owner if multiple dogs simply to get around the O/H classification may be within the letter of the rule, but it's certainly not within the spirit.
> 
> Character matters to a lot of us.


----------

