# Retriever Advisory Committee Rule Change Proposals



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

*The Retriever Advisory Subcommittee on Rules Report for 2012*

*CONCERN*
We are continuing to experience confusion as to the interpretation of the rule defining the difference between an Amateur handler and a Professional handler. 
*DISCUSSION*
Over the past years there have been a number of enterprising individuals who have used their skills in various ways which has allowed them to produce some income from the sport of Retriever Field Trials. Many of these efforts have gone a long way in educating amateur trainers in methods of training their dogs for field trials. The subcommittee feels that people partaking in these educational tools should not be considered professionals; therefore, writing books, making videos and taking part in seminars would not classify a person as a professional. The committee believes that the clearest line that can be drawn between the amateur and the professional is the real life handling of a dog for compensation. 
That being said, we recognize that someone who instructs an individual on the handling and training of their dog(s), and is compensated for that instruction, is acting as a professional. 
*Proposal No. 1*
Under STANDING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE RETRIEVER ADVISORY COMMITTEE page 36
Under 3. Amateur Definition (a.) after the words _“the trial in question has not”_ delete (a) in its entirety and insert the following: 
_“received compensation from the direct training of a dog for hunting, hunting tests or field trials and/or the handling of a dog in the same, and/or the regular and systematic personal instruction of other individuals regarding the above pursuits at any level.”_
Compensation as provided above is defined as money, goods or services to a person or any member of their household.
Insert the following paragraphs for clarification:
_“Any person participating in an occasional organized seminar or workshop to improve the training and handling of field trial, hunting test or hunting dogs will be exempt from the above provisions as will a person who receives payment for providing educational material, (such as books, videos, etc.), to the public on the training and handling of field trial, hunting test or hunting dogs will not be considered a Professional.”_
So that 3 (a.) in its entirety will now read:
3. Amateur Definition: _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 received compensation from the direct training of 
a dog for hunting, hunting tests or field trials and/or the handling of a dog in the same, and/or the regular and systematic personal instruction of other individuals regarding the above pursuits at any level._
_Compensation as provided above is defined as money, goods or services to a person or any member of their household._
_Any person participating in an occasional organized seminar or workshop to improve the training and handling of field trial, hunting test or hunting dogs will be exempt from the above provisions as will a person who receives payment for providing educational material, (such as books, videos, etc.), to the public on the training and handling of field trial, hunting test or hunting dogs will not be considered a Professional._
*Proposal No. 2*
*CONCERN*
In recent years uncertainty has arisen over amateur status of persons who are living with a professional as family members or who have a virtual spousal relationship with a professional although the are not legally married. Also, some individuals have expressed concern that their very close friendship with a professional might invalidate their amateur status under the present rule.
The subcommittee thus believes that a more definitive description of the family and other relationships which cause the loss of amateur status is needed.
Under 3. (c.) after the words _“No person shall be entitled to status as an Amateur”_ delete the completion of the sentence and insert _“who is residing with a professional as part of his or her immediate family or who has an ongoing intimate personal relationship with a professional beyond that of a friend or client.”_
So that paragraph (c.) in its entirety will read:
_“No person shall be entitled to status as an Amateur who is residing with a professional as part of his or her immediate family or who has an ongoing intimate personal relationship with a professional beyond that of a friend or 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.”_
*CONCERN*
The effect of a field Trial Committee refusing an entry in the Amateur stake.
*DISCUSSION*
In order to clarify a Field Trial Committee’s position in declining an entry in the Amateur stake, (where there is no protest), but because the Field Trial Committee feels the individual lacks Amateur status, we felt some explanatory language was necessary.


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

RE PROPOSAL 4

SEE MY REPLY POSTED TODAY REJECTING THIS RAC PROPOSAL
IN THE RAC THREAD ABOUT OUTLAWING LAYOUT BLINDS.

W. D. Connor


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that changes proposed in Proposal #1 actually *INCREASE* the confusion between Amateur and Professional.

How much _"regular and systematic personal instruction" _is too much? Does providing services as a "bird boy" in exchange for personal instruction on running blinds or helping a newbie train their dog count?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Doug Main said:


> Is it just me, or does anyone else think that changes proposed in Proposal #1 actually *INCREASE* the confusion between Amateur and Professional.
> 
> How much _"regular and systematic personal instruction" _is too much? Does providing services as a "bird boy" in exchange for personal instruction on running blinds or helping a newbie train their dog count?


Or, how occasional is too occasional. I agree with clarification but the clarification provided just provides a greater confusion.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> Or, how occasional is too occasional. I agree with clarification but the clarification provided just provides a greater confusion.


the RAC has been tinkering with the rule/definition for well over 20 years and it seems that each revision merely creates more confusion.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Wow You got to be out of a "intimate personal relationship" with a pro for 2 years before you can be considered an Amateur, wonder if the time goes down if you were to burn the house and kennels down, or get a restraining order? Divorce Court is quicker than that  LOL


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Why change the rules to accommodate a small minority? In the end they are making it harder and harder for the true blue amateurs to play. Someone that has the time to produce videos, seminars ect, is that a true amateur?


----------



## Kyle B (May 5, 2005)

#2 could be named the "Amateurs can't have sex with Pro's" rule. Or if you took the literal term of "Ongoing", you could have sex once but twice would make you a pro.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

After decades of trying to define the Amateur maybe it would be better to define the professional. 

A person will be considered a professional for the purpose of AKC Retriever FTs when:........

Possible criteria: X % of their total income is derived from the training, handling or sale of retrievers(over 6months old/ FT eligible).
$ X have been recieved in the calander year from the training, handling or sale of retrievers(over 6 months).


Tim


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Kyle B said:


> you could have sex once but twice would make you a pro.


hehehe...one night stand and you're still an amateur, 2 or more and you're a pro, but who is going to be the score keeper...;-)


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> After decades of trying to define the Amateur maybe it would be better to define the professional.
> 
> A person will be considered a professional for the purpose of AKC Retriever FTs when:........
> 
> ...


your intentions are good but who would submit their 1040 to scrutiny..

I have never understood the attempts to define amateur status as anything more than you are an amateur if you do not accept compensation for training retrievers for field trials, hunt tests, or hunting or you do not receive compensation for handling them in competition. Seems pretty forthright and simple which doesn't mean that some field trial committee could not decide otherwise but as long as that decision is left to field trial committee there can always be some incorrect interpretation of the rule. We have never considered peoiple who breed dogs, sell dogs, write books, make videos, or give seminars to be professional dog trainers. Professional trainers are people who train dogs for other people for money.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> Professional trainers are people who train dogs for other people for money.


Uh oh, Now I'm scared. I agree with Dr. Ed.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

EdA said:


> your intentions are good but who would submit their 1040 to scrutiny..
> 
> I have never understood the attempts to define amateur status as anything more than you are an amateur if you do not accept compensation for training retrievers for field trials, hunt tests, or hunting or you do not receive compensation for handling them in competition. Seems pretty forthright and simple which doesn't mean that some field trial committee could not decide otherwise but as long as that decision is left to field trial committee there can always be some incorrect interpretation of the rule. We have never considered peoiple who breed dogs, sell dogs, write books, make videos, or give seminars to be professional dog trainers. Professional trainers are people who train dogs for other people for money.


Aren't they also now considering people who raise puppies for others? (i.e. until they are 6 months old and can head off to a trainer)


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Kyle B said:


> #2 could be named the "Amateurs can't have sex with Pro's" rule. Or if you took the literal term of "Ongoing", you could have sex once but twice would make you a pro.


Hmmm a pro might make some money to "accidentally sleep with certain Amateurs" and get them out of a stake for 2 yrs  It could be a new Pro service, to add to that 1040  Amateurs beware, Pros approaching with gifts and booze


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

jeff evans said:


> Why change the rules to accommodate a small minority? In the end they are making it harder and harder for the true blue amateurs to play. Someone that has the time to produce videos, seminars ect, is that a true amateur?


Well, if that person also has and takes the time to train their own dogs 100% and nobody else’s ever for money, takes time to judge dozens and dozens of trials, does judging seminars, serves as President and more for FT clubs, serves as President for National, serves as a Director for such clubs, mentors many newbies for free, also conducts free seminars, my answer would be YES!--- that person is a true Amateur. 

I’d also say if that person trained their own dogs for 30 years while working full-time and achieved much success and then retired and now with more time and more success produced a video and occasional seminars expressly to help the true blue Amateurs become better, I’d say that person is making it easier not harder for Amateurs to play. 

Dr. Ed’s clear understanding of the definition and theRulebook (see post # 12) doesn’t seem to be so clear for everyone. Obviously some can’t see the clarity so, perhaps, RAC might have grounds to clarify the rules to accommodate a minority.


Just sayin’


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

EdA said:


> ...Professional trainers are people who train *(and/or handle)* dogs for other people's for money.


I really don't see what's confusing about the above definition (bold print added by me), but I have to admit that I like Kyle B's 2 poke per night interpretation.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

EdA said:


> Professional trainers are people who train dogs for other people for money.


Agree and it is the minority that will push any non-specfic definition beyond its intended limits when money is involved. As the dollars involved for trained dogs continue to escalate so will the abuses and confusion so long as there is not an objective criteria. 

Tim


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

Could someone please point out to me an instance where this rule has been violated? No names just the facts. Is this really that big of a problem in the sport? I just don't see it, at least not down here. 

And let me get this straight, just because someone is having an intimate relationship (been to the promise land more than once) or even married to a pro, does that automatically make them a better handler with an unfair advantage? Heck there are many gundog and HT trainers that couldnt compete with the average AM FT trainer/handler.

And Dennis, I know of at least one RAC member that agrees wholeheartedly with what you stated above.


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

rboudet said:


> And Dennis, I know of at least one RAC member that agrees wholeheartedly with what you stated above.


Trust me, more than one does!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

rboudet said:


> Could someone please point out to me an instance where this rule has been violated? No names just the facts. Is this really that big of a problem in the sport? I just don't see it, at least not down here.


The National Amateur Retriever Club refused the entries of an individual a few years back.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

This is all a waste of time.

A number of years ago, the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club refused the entries of a person, after receiving deposition testimony from a number of witnesses. That person appealed to the AKC. The AKC shared with that person the club's submission to the AKC. The AKC did not share with the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club that person's submission to the AKC. The club received a letter in the mail telling the club that it needed to accept the person's entries at the next FT. 

I called the AKC to ask what we needed to do better. The AKC rep told me that we did not prove our case "beyond a reasonable doubt." When I asked the rep to explain to me why the AKC imposed a criminal standard (beyond a reasonable doubt), not a civil standard (a preponderance of the evidence), he said "talk to the lawyers." When I asked what we needed to do differently in the future, he said "talk to the lawyers." When I called the AKC lawyers, they said "we're not talking to you."

I told both the AKC rep and the lawyers in a letter - very politely - to go screw themselves.
The moral of this story - the AKC is composed of a bunch of pussies who will back down every time. So, there is no use in imposing a rule that the AKC will not enforce.

Not to mention that the proposed amendment is incomprehensible

What a waste of time


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Now that there was funny! Crooked as a labradoodles hind leg, regards...


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> This is all a waste of time.
> 
> A number of years ago, the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club refused the entries of a person, after receiving deposition testimony from a number of witnesses. That person appealed to the AKC. The AKC shared with that person the club's submission to the AKC. The AKC did not share with the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club that person's submission to the AKC. The club received a letter in the mail telling the club that it needed to accept the person's entries at the next FT.
> 
> ...


Peanuts get your peanuts get your peanuts right over here.......


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Hmmm I believe you just told everyone who may be having dalliances with pros how to get around it, maybe they wanted the club to submit video evidence  Still the AKC is playing it safe on this, these are private affairs, getting a major organization into a lawsuit over privacy affairs, which most people would state they have no real business in is asking for media disaster. A lot to loose nothing for the AKC to gain. He said she said really has no place in court, which is all that lawyers are interested in. The RAC or individual clubs trying to impose such rules is asking for disaster, the burden of proof is on them, one lawsuit will change that rule, and clubs can be sued. Better for all to mind their own business and let people police themselves


----------



## tshuntin (Mar 22, 2003)

Ted, awesome post!!!


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> This is all a waste of time.
> 
> A number of years ago, the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club refused the entries of a person, after receiving deposition testimony from a number of witnesses. That person appealed to the AKC. The AKC shared with that person the club's submission to the AKC. The AKC did not share with the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club that person's submission to the AKC. The club received a letter in the mail telling the club that it needed to accept the person's entries at the next FT.
> 
> ...


But only once... If they do it twice, they will be pro's;-)


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Does anyone know if these proposed rule changes were passed?


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

EdA said:


> the RAC has been tinkering with the rule/definition for well over 20 years and it seems that each revision merely creates more confusion.





Tim Carrion said:


> After decades of trying to define the Amateur maybe it would be better to define the professional.
> 
> A person will be considered a professional for the purpose of AKC Retriever FTs when:........
> 
> ...


The Field Trial Rules for Spaniels defines PRO: 

Definition of A Professional

A professional shall be defined as any person who accepts, or has accepted, *money, or other compensation (defined as anything that has a monetary value)*, for the field training or field trial handling of any breed hunting dog. 

Once a person performs as a professional for a one year period, they cannot run in Amateur stakes thereafter. If they have not run as a professional for a full year, and they want to reclaim their amateur status, they can do so after a one year waiting period.

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.




Tim Carrion said:


> Agree and it is the minority that will push any non-specfic definition beyond its intended limits when money is involved. As the dollars involved for trained dogs continue to escalate so will the abuses and confusion so long as there is not an objective criteria.
> 
> Tim


Tim is right in that when there is money involved there will be those who bend the rules until they break.

Since there is probably no field trial committee around that wants to jump into the furnace and label an AMATEUR as a PRO as the current definitions stand, then just make the definition of an Amateur something simple and easy to enforce without an attorney and a 1040.

Define AMATEUR as individuals who handle 3 dogs or less.

The Pointing Breed Field Trial rulebook already addresses this growing problem.

"An Amateur (as defined above) may run any number of dogs wholly owned by him or her, or members of his or her immediate family (as defined in Chapter 14, Section 5) but shall not run more than three dogs that are not so owned in any amateur stake"


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

huntinman said:


> But only once... If they do it twice, they will be pro's;-)


Only when they accept payment which could be on the 1st go .



EdA said:


> the RAC has been tinkering with the rule/definition for well over 20 years and it seems that each revision merely creates more confusion.


The rule is fine as it was 20 years ago - if you earn any part of your livelihood from the training or handling of dogs you are not an Amateur. 

But the line has been blurred for many years & is continuously being pushed - there are several reasons for that: the main one being, there are many in the ruling class that are involved in the rule breaking. So, do not expect anything of substance to happen. The makeup of the RAC is in itself, a guarantee nothing will.

In the majority of Co-owner situations, one of the two is, by definition, a professional. If one of the two is a professional then the other one can not have a relationship with that person. Co-ownership of a dog in that situation disqualifies everyone in that relationship from Amateur status. 

As for those relationships outside of ownership - you can't legislate morals, so why try? & furthermore, who cares? 

Is the sale of a dog compensation for training? Is a website advertising started dogs (meaning washouts usually but not always) for sale solicitation of services for renumeration?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

TBell said:


> The Field Trial Rules for Spaniels defines PRO:
> 
> Definition of A Professional
> 
> ...




Seriously ? so earlier this year when Lanse had 4 champions in Eva,Rosa,Sophie and Nora..he would not be considered an Amateur....or at one time when my brother had two AA dogs, one Qual dog and one Derby dog, that would endanger his Amateur status...I could find more owners that have 4 dogs in various stages stakes that would be affected by that arbritary number, but I think you understand my point...it will never fly as long as there are people like Kippy or Dr Aul that own upwards of ten dogs at a particular trial, but yet you want to limit the number some other Amateur can run ??


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Any one person running more than 3 dogs in the Am stake could be considered a non-amateur. It takes away the whole spirit in which the Amateur stake is about.......IMHO.

It wasn't meant that people can't own more than 3 dogs, just can't run more than 3 in any one Amateur. When have you ever seen David Aul, Kippy Swingle, and the other elites out judging, marshaling, riding 4 wheelers setting up tests, shooting flyers, or working a national? That is who the AMATEUR stake is was created for.

BTW I also have never seen Lanse run all four of those dogs in any ONE Amateur event.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

TBell said:


> Any one person running more than 3 dogs in the Am stake could be considered a non-amateur. It takes away the whole spirit in which the Amateur stake is about.......IMHO.
> 
> It wasn't meant that people can't own more than 3 dogs, just can't run more than 3 in any one Amateur. When have you ever seen David Aul, Kippy Swingle, and the other elites out judging, marshaling, riding 4 wheelers setting up tests, shooting flyers, or working a national? That is who the AMATEUR stake is was created for.


you ducked the question...would you have considered Lanse a non Amateur since he had 4 dogs eligible to run the Amateur...as for Dr Aul and Ms Swingle they may not ever_* work a trial*_ but without their combined 20 entries X 20 trials,they help fuel the game by their owner participation..I cant speak for the other so called "elites",because I am not sure that what you consider an elite, I consider the establishment;-)


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Not ducking the question. True AMATEURS don't have 4 dogs to run in the AMATEUR STAKE at one time. I have never seen Lanse run ALL 4 of those dogs in ONE AMATEUR STAKE at one time.

NOBODY can truly know if Lanse, or any of the other elites, receive '*compensation*' for training dogs. It would take a private detective to get the facts and then an attorney to prove it in court which is where a Field Trial Committee would be if they ever declared one of the 'elites' a pro at an event.

I am simply saying make the definition of the AMATEUR STAKE simple and enforceable by saying a true AMATEUR will not run more than 3 of his/her dogs in any one AMATEUR STAKE. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY CAN'T OWN 20 DOGS and run them in the OPEN or other Amateur events all ove the country. Then they can have their whole truck of dogs qualified for the NATIONAL AM.

BTW I have never seen David Aul or Kippy Swingle run a dog in the Am but they can certainly co-own a dog with another Amateur who can then run it in Owner/Handler Amateurs. Is this really where we want the sport to go with co-owned trucks of dogs? It is crossing a fine line.......


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

did a quick check and the first two trials I looked at

Brazosport RC- has Rex Gibson with 4 dogs entered in the Amateur

Middle Tenn ARC - has Alex Washburn with 4 dogs entered in the Amateur


I do not know Mr Gibson but do know Ms Washburn....in a day when FT's seem to have less participation, why on earth would we want to discourage people like this from coming out and entering our trials


and knowing Lanse like I do, it may just prompt him to bring Eva and Sophie out of retirement for one week just to prove that he can indeed enter 4 dogs in the Amateur stake ;-)


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

You mean less workers, not less participation. 

And Bon, down here as Tammy stated, I don't think I have ever seen Lanse run all four in the Am.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

BON, it is NOT ABOUT THE MONEY. We don't care if Alex or Rex enter our home trial. All we want to do is run our dogs and work an AMATEUR that IS FAIR AND SPORTING.

Do those two people work events, shoot flyers and judge? 

CORRECTION: Rex does judge hunt tests. Don't know him though.

The last trial Alex judged was ONE 2011 and ONE in 2010. She ran over 25 trials in 2012. 

It should be the CLUB MEMBERS, WORKERS AND FUTURE JUDGES that we are worried about, not the participants. We don't want to chase someone around a field trial with 4+ dogs in the OPEN, AM and QUAL or worse yet have judges and workers sitting around waiting for them to show up and run their dogs.

I could go on.... but there are many others that are feeling the same way.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

I have nothing to add to this discussion except that I know Rex Gibson. As Tammy stated, he judges and runs hunt tests. He has been a working member of Brazosport RC as well as Greater Houston Golden RC for many years. Rex has a career as a corporate attorney. He has chaired events, shot flyers, marshaled, and done anything and everything that has needed to be done at the tests. I think he has recently begun running field trials. If he owns and maintains 4 or more dogs capable of doing the work, why shouldn't he be allowed to enter them all as an amateur? It seems that it would give a handler a better chance to possibly take home a ribbon.

I feel the real test as to whether a person is a pro is the acceptance of compensation for training or handling dogs, not how many dogs they own and handle.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

TBell said:


> BON, it is NOT ABOUT THE MONEY. We don't care if Alex or Rex enter our home trial. All we want to do is run our dogs and work an AMATEUR that IS FAIR AND SPORTING.
> 
> Do those two people work events, shoot flyers and judge?
> 
> ...


Tammy when Clint was a broke college grad student, nothing , I repeat nothing inspired him more than to compete against the Crows, the Weiss' and the Belmonts and yes even against the Lanse Browns of the world..he went to med school because he knew it would ultimately be the only way to feed his FT habit, he even entertained becoming a pro trainer, but the thought of taking orders from those that he yearned to beat stopped that notion...

my point being the FT game is not fair, its has never been and never will be EXCEPT for one place..the field trial itself, on the place of battle, at the line...

I have been hearing for the last 30 years from people in the gallery and beyond and sometimes even at home, comments like yours and others saying stuff like " if I had _______ type of money I could compete like they do" or " If I was like Lanse and trained dogs all day I could compete with him"...its all hogwash...people cant compete with the elites of the game's lifestyle, unless you hit the lotto or some other financial windfall one can never match their financial resources...but you can compete with them on the field and if you are good enough and your dog is up to the task sometimes you not only compete but you win...as John Luther used to tell us when Clint would compete against multiple dog entries from the heavy hitters of the day *" they only give out ONE blue ribbon, make them use all four of their dogs trying to beat your dog to get it"*



and FTR the real reason Lanse doesnt run all the dogs in the Amateur...its not an efficient way for him to use his funds..He actually plans to leave this world dead azz broke....plus in the case of Sophie and Eva, Amateur placings do him virtually no good since the dogs already have their AFC...he figures that by placing in Open's its like double staking the dogs because points earned count toward qualifying for both Nationals..now that Nora has qualified for the NARC she will not run any Am's until fall..Rosa is running Am's because Lanse is trying to win and qualify her too


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

BonMallari said:


> my point being the FT game is not fair, its has never been and never will be EXCEPT for one place..the field trial itself, on the place of battle, at the line...
> 
> I have been hearing for the last 30 years from people in the gallery and beyond and sometimes even at home, comments like yours and others saying stuff like " if I had _______ type of money I could compete like they do" or " If I was like Lanse and trained dogs all day I could compete with him"...


I find your arguments the same as the folks who came in, took, did nothing for the sport & left. To a point I agree with Tammy's presentation - there is a reason the owner handler Am was instituted & through poor oversight has been allowed to deteriorate, which IMO is to the detriment of the sport. 

Lanse & your brother, for the most part, train their own dogs from puppies - I am familiar with Lanse's regimen & believe I know some of the reasons why, but it's no different than what he did when fully engaged in the working world - Rosa would have a sibling running mate if early on she had not been ID'd as not having the necessary bottom . Sophie was a once in a lifetime opportunity. The fact that Lanse & Clint hit the success jackpot is also against the odds, regardless of how well prepared they were. 

The other recently competitive folks you talk of mostly buy their dogs or are serial co owners. A chessy was run at ID many years back that had 5 co owners for that trial, wonder if the paperwork was submitted ? I judged at ID & one of the Am's had 9 dogs in a 51 dog entry, his pro was told there would be an honor in the 1st series & we would only be using one bye dog at the end. To their credit they got all dogs there on time & in order. I've seen too many trials w/o an honor due to more than 1/2 the dogs in the last series being with one handler. The way trials are run today & with large individual entries, judges have to be prepared for the possibility that the majority of dogs in the last series will have one handler. I believe an honor to be an essential part of Non-Slip .


----------



## C. Johnson (Mar 21, 2004)

These type of discussions will go on forever..................and those that get the most heated over how many dogs someone else is running or what dog so and so is running should spend more time worrying about the dogs in their own kennel and less about other peoples dogs. 

If these same individuals being crucified for having too many dogs entered had never been successful no one would keep track of their dogs or care how many they were running. 

This remind of me of one saying in particular, "Jealousy is an evil emotion, watch how it affects you and those around you".


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

A handler with more than three dogs entered in a stake would mean more revenue for the club, it could be more hassle for the club and more competition for the other handlers, but it has nothing to do with the handler's amateur status. You are either working dogs for compensation or not, if not, how would the number of dogs you run alter that?

I also don't see it as a big problem that needs fixing, how many trials a year does one amateur enter more than three dogs in a stake? If it is a problem that needs to be solved, make a rule limiting the number of dogs anyone can enter in the amateur. Though I would be against such a rule, it at least doesn't try to redefine amateur in a way that has nothing to do with amateur-professional status.

John


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

C. Johnson said:


> If these same individuals being crucified for having too many dogs entered had never been successful no one would keep track of their dogs or care how many they were running.


LOL. I have never entered more than two in an Am but if I entered 3, 4 or even a dozen, the only thing anyone would say is "thanks for the donation"


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

DoubleHaul said:


> LOL. I have never entered more than two in an Am but if I entered 3, 4 or even a dozen, the only thing anyone would say is "thanks for the donation"


I'm right there with ya on this! If EVER, I could have three healthy dogs who were READY to enter any stake of a FT at one time, I would call it a great day. If anyone even noticed, I think they would thank me too for the donation.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

EdA said:


> your intentions are good but who would submit their 1040 to scrutiny..
> 
> I have never understood the attempts to define amateur status as anything more than you are an amateur if you do not accept compensation for training retrievers for field trials, hunt tests, or hunting or you do not receive compensation for handling them in competition. Seems pretty forthright and simple which doesn't mean that some field trial committee could not decide otherwise but as long as that decision is left to field trial committee there can always be some incorrect interpretation of the rule. We have never considered peoiple who breed dogs, sell dogs, write books, make videos, or give seminars to be professional dog trainers. Professional trainers are people who train dogs for other people for money.


I agree. We have left out first rights of refusal, buying selling dog for a dollar, raising a puppy , pre basics, etc., etc, are you training dogs or handling dogs for money? I have been on club boards and field trial committees that have had to make this decision. It's the bottom line ,kinda like labeling someone an amateur pro such as a retired person training for?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> A handler with more than three dogs entered in a stake would mean more revenue for the club, it could be more hassle for the club and more competition for the other handlers, but it has nothing to do with the handler's amateur status. You are either working dogs for compensation or not, if not, how would the number of dogs you run alter that?
> 
> I also don't see it as a big problem that needs fixing, how many trials a year does one amateur enter more than three dogs in a stake? If it is a problem that needs to be solved, make a rule limiting the number of dogs anyone can enter in the amateur. Though I would be against such a rule, it at least doesn't try to redefine amateur in a way that has nothing to do with amateur-professional status.
> 
> John


I received a PM from someone who pointed out that back east, that's anywhere east of New Mexico for us westerners, there are quite a number of amateurs who enter anywhere from four to nine dogs. I had no idea, we have the very rare handler with over three dogs out here. I still say it would be better to address the issue with a rule directly rather than trying to redefine Amateur.

John


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

My thoughts on a beautiful training day in Valley View, Texas. 

First, there have always been people who contribute to the sport and those who do not. Changing the definition of Amateur is: a) not an appropriate way to address the problem; and b) not an effective manner of addressing the issue.

Second, to the extent that the concern is one of Field Trial efficiency, that is, amateur handlers with multiple dogs are making the judges wait, the rules aalready empower the Field Trial Committee to address those issues.

Third, to the extent that the concern is competitive inequity - are you going to limit the number of dogs per handler in the Open? As an All Age competitor, I am more concerned about running against a pro with 15 dogs in the Open than running against an amateur with 4 dogs in the Am.

In short, I don't think there is any benefit to changing the definition of an "Amateur."


----------



## hughest (Oct 5, 2007)

Lady Duck Hunter said:


> I have nothing to add to this discussion except that I know Rex Gibson. As Tammy stated, he judges and runs hunt tests. He has been a working member of Brazosport RC as well as Greater Houston Golden RC for many years. Rex has a career as a corporate attorney. He has chaired events, shot flyers, marshaled, and done anything and everything that has needed to be done at the tests. I think he has recently begun running field trials. If he owns and maintains 4 or more dogs capable of doing the work, why shouldn't he be allowed to enter them all as an amateur? It seems that it would give a handler a better chance to possibly take home a ribbon.
> 
> I feel the real test as to whether a person is a pro is the acceptance of compensation for training or handling dogs, not how many dogs they own and handle.


We only run the occasional O/H Q for fun - we mainly run HT. I know this conversation is about FT AM status, and my view is from HT. But - I am most DEFINITELY an Amateur. But don't be surprised if I show up at a HT and have 6 dogs running in MH. They are all MY dogs that my husband and I own. Most of them are puppies that we have raised - we buy one from someone else every few years, but most of our dogs are from our litters. We both work full time jobs. We're not rich. We don't train every day. But we have some pretty nice dogs. This hobby is what my husband and I love to do together. It's our thing that we do together to have fun and relax and get away from the stress of our jobs. To say I'm not an AM based on the number of dogs I'm running is crazy. And don't even go there about people with multiple dogs don't work the stakes. We work our butts off at our club tests and are always willing to help out at other tests. 

Regarding Rex Gibson - he is one of the nicest and hardest working guys you will find in our games. I consider it an honor to be running in a HT with him.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

hughest said:


> We only run the occasional O/H Q for fun - we mainly run HT. I know this conversation is about FT AM status, and my view is from HT. But - I am most DEFINITELY an Amateur. But don't be surprised if I show up at a HT and have 6 dogs running in MH. They are all MY dogs that my husband and I own. Most of them are puppies that we have raised - we buy one from someone else every few years, but most of our dogs are from our litters. We both work full time jobs. We're not rich. We don't train every day. But we have some pretty nice dogs. This hobby is what my husband and I love to do together. It's our thing that we do together to have fun and relax and get away from the stress of our jobs. To say I'm not an AM based on the number of dogs I'm running is crazy. And don't even go there about people with multiple dogs don't work the stakes. We work our butts off at our club tests and are always willing to help out at other tests.
> 
> Regarding Rex Gibson - he is one of the nicest and hardest working guys you will find in our games. I consider it an honor to be running in a HT with him.


I am pretty uninformed about hunt tests, is there an Amateur only stake at hunt tests, since hunt tests are not competitive does anyone care?...just wondering since I am hunt test ignorant.


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

Dr. Ed, There is no Am stake in hunt tests but there is in SRS.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Wayne Nutt said:


> Dr. Ed, There is no Am stake in hunt tests but there is in SRS.


Not yet, anyway........


----------



## hughest (Oct 5, 2007)

EdA said:


> I am pretty uninformed about hunt tests, is there an Amateur only stake at hunt tests, since hunt tests are not competitive does anyone care?...just wondering since I am hunt test ignorant.


No, Dr. Ed there is not. I was just talking in general about AM status being based on the number of dogs someone is running. Surprisingly, you will still hear some folks complain about mh test being harder these days because of the pros, and the amateur guy doesn't have as good a chance to pass as he used to, and..... yadayadayada. Anyway, that's a whole 'nother can of worms.  Didn't mean to derail the thread.


----------



## lanse brown (Apr 22, 2004)

I am violating my own code of conduct by posting as my views are from the heart and unfortunately are observed every weekend. One co owner who runs 6 dogs every weekend of which two or more are co owned made the statement to a holding blind marshall at a NARCCS "I couldn't stay in this sport if my co-owners didn't pay my expenses." Then there is an individual who runs 6 dogs, 2 they own and 4 are totally owned by an amateur who has no ability to train a dog so the handler trains daily and runs all 6 dogs in both Open& Amateur. Guess where the funds are derived from? The spirit of the game is seriously diminished(in my opinion). As to Augie and Louise- they both trained their own dogs . Every morning Augie would work Soupy, Gumbo, Penrod, Weegy,and my ex wife would meet Louise daily to work Mariah, Paint, Tojo. Is the sport expensive? You bet. Why do I stay at "Red Dot" motels-- because the drugs are best, the hookers are plentiful, and I don't have to feed my dogs as they eat whatever is under the bed. I have never seen myself as a member of the "Elite" since had I been, the politicians who run the National club's would have invited me. The third time in 3 years when the head of the RHOF called me re the ballot for that year I told him not to embarrass himself for this would be the third year where the number of nominations (over 179) each year were ignored by the Elite who decide who on the list they want. Since I have offended many of those by accusing them of dishonesty, manipulation of National judge selections, and a few other nefarious acts that he should wait until I was dead. When I worked in Wall Street when I moved to Montana,and ever since all my dogs go to Jim VanEngen as I do not know how to do basics. My relationship with Rex Carr ended 21 years ago and since then I have trained by myself my dogs.Before work,during lunch hour and till dark after work, then every weekend. Three years ago I went to a Rorem Seminar in Florida and Dennis Voight was there also. Dave asked "what the hell are you guys doing here? Well I had Rosa and Dennis had Odie-both fully amped dogs and we both knew that all the methods we had tried earlier were not effective. Since that time I have been working with Dave Rorem and I am learning so much about how to read and teach these dogs of mine that I told Dave that he will never train a dog for me unless I am n a wheelchair or on a walker, but I am going to have my nose 4 inches from his ass as what I am learning is almost Zen. I am excellent on the Xs and Os after 50 years, that is the "physical" now I am learning the mental. Yes, I am depleting rapidly any liquidity I presently have, but I am having fun, the dogs are having fun and BOTH of us are learning without pressure. On the aside last weekend when Rosa got a 2nd the last series of the Amateur had Lynnne-3 NAFCs, Mac 1NFC, Sutter 1NAFC, Neil 1NFC, !NAFC, Kampo 1 NFC, Powers 2 NAFCs, Hays 1NFC . Hell myself, Duncan and Woodson were orphans-soot covered, and among what I consider a group who all are dedicated to the sport and who next weekend will be putting on a trial so the absentee owners and the co owned can parade their little darlings on the stage and we all can see how nice their dogs are,of course we will have to wait for 30-45 minutes for them to show up,do those "amateur" handlers care that all the stations are sitting in the rain, hot sun etc while we wait? Do they realize that all the contestants and judges are being inconvenienced and their selfishness is destroying the time management that the judges were trying to adhere to? BS all they care about is themselves. Take their entry money but BE PREPARED TO WAIT. This next week I have 3hunt test people coming to train with me, all 3 want to enter Field trials so if we encourage and welcome those who seriously want to learn and then perhaps after all these old elephants like myself kick off there will still be people who are hands on trainers.


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

Lanse ... the message, your remarks, "hit the sweet spot".
In your own indomitable truthful way again you 'set the record in the right
perspective'.

I have known you for over 47 years ... since the early days in the '60's 
at Hook Lake & Wisconsin trials. All the years not only have been memorable
and priceless, they reflect everything that the game should be.

I score the Amateur we did for Wilbur Saunders at Treasure State, 9/77, as at the top
of the list of most enjoyable weekends judging with a co-judge.

W. D. Connor


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Thanks Lanse luv it AND YOU as always


----------



## RF2 (May 6, 2008)

Hey Lanse, you don't have that roseberry fella coming down to Ralph, do ya? If so, kick him in the ass!


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

As I sit here waiting over an hour for a dog to show up and finish the Q, I'll post one last thought. 

This has been a good discussion about AM status and the Amateur stake's purpose. 

80%+ of the participants play the game in a fair and sporting manor. The rules have to be made for the 20% who don't. (I know these percentages are NOT accurate, but you get the idea.)

BTW C. Johnson, there are many adjectives that describe people in the game and yes 'jealous' is one but so is 'greed' and 'selfish'. There are a handful that have earned the adjective of 'respected'. It is up to each individual to earn their own adjectives.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

lanse brown said:


> I am violating my own code of conduct by posting as my views are from the heart and unfortunately are observed every weekend. One co owner who runs 6 dogs every weekend of which two or more are co owned made the statement to a holding blind marshall at a NARCCS "I couldn't stay in this sport if my co-owners didn't pay my expenses." Then there is an individual who runs 6 dogs, 2 they own and 4 are totally owned by an amateur who has no ability to train a dog so the handler trains daily and runs all 6 dogs in both Open& Amateur. Guess where the funds are derived from? The spirit of the game is seriously diminished(in my opinion). As to Augie and Louise- they both trained their own dogs . Every morning Augie would work Soupy, Gumbo, Penrod, Weegy,and my ex wife would meet Louise daily to work Mariah, Paint, Tojo. Is the sport expensive? You bet. Why do I stay at "Red Dot" motels-- because the drugs are best, the hookers are plentiful, and I don't have to feed my dogs as they eat whatever is under the bed. I have never seen myself as a member of the "Elite" since had I been, the politicians who run the National club's would have invited me. The third time in 3 years when the head of the RHOF called me re the ballot for that year I told him not to embarrass himself for this would be the third year where the number of nominations (over 179) each year were ignored by the Elite who decide who on the list they want. Since I have offended many of those by accusing them of dishonesty, manipulation of National judge selections, and a few other nefarious acts that he should wait until I was dead. When I worked in Wall Street when I moved to Montana,and ever since all my dogs go to Jim VanEngen as I do not know how to do basics. My relationship with Rex Carr ended 21 years ago and since then I have trained by myself my dogs.Before work,during lunch hour and till dark after work, then every weekend. Three years ago I went to a Rorem Seminar in Florida and Dennis Voight was there also. Dave asked "what the hell are you guys doing here? Well I had Rosa and Dennis had Odie-both fully amped dogs and we both knew that all the methods we had tried earlier were not effective. Since that time I have been working with Dave Rorem and I am learning so much about how to read and teach these dogs of mine that I told Dave that he will never train a dog for me unless I am n a wheelchair or on a walker, but I am going to have my nose 4 inches from his ass as what I am learning is almost Zen. I am excellent on the Xs and Os after 50 years, that is the "physical" now I am learning the mental. Yes, I am depleting rapidly any liquidity I presently have, but I am having fun, the dogs are having fun and BOTH of us are learning without pressure. On the aside last weekend when Rosa got a 2nd the last series of the Amateur had Lynnne-3 NAFCs, Mac 1NFC, Sutter 1NAFC, Neil 1NFC, !NAFC, Kampo 1 NFC, Powers 2 NAFCs, Hays 1NFC . Hell myself, Duncan and Woodson were orphans-soot covered, and among what I consider a group who all are dedicated to the sport and who next weekend will be putting on a trial so the absentee owners and the co owned can parade their little darlings on the stage and we all can see how nice their dogs are,of course we will have to wait for 30-45 minutes for them to show up,do those "amateur" handlers care that all the stations are sitting in the rain, hot sun etc while we wait? Do they realize that all the contestants and judges are being inconvenienced and their selfishness is destroying the time management that the judges were trying to adhere to? BS all they care about is themselves. Take their entry money but BE PREPARED TO WAIT. This next week I have 3hunt test people coming to train with me, all 3 want to enter Field trials so if we encourage and welcome those who seriously want to learn and then perhaps after all these old elephants like myself kick off there will still be people who are hands on trainers.


Well said once again Lanse
Love your honesty & passion for our sport!!


----------



## C. Johnson (Mar 21, 2004)

BTW T Bell, I agree that It is up to each individual to earn their own adjectives. 

Here is an adjective that I wish would describe more of the people that post their opinions on the internet: 

"RELEVANT"


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

RF2 said:


> Hey Lanse, you don't have that roseberry fella coming down to Ralph, do ya? If so, kick him in the ass!


i wasn't invited but since i learned about the event i am going anyhow.....just as easy to train four hunt test goobers as it is three.

btw i will be publishing and selling a training book soon. the book will be all photographs and coffee table sized. it will be called, _"the drills and marking setup diagrams of lanse brown, drawn with his finger on my dirty truck"_. could selling this book jeapordize my am status?

btw i have a couple of dogs available for co ownership.......to the right people of course!;-)


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

roseberry said:


> btw i have a couple of dogs available for co ownership.......to the right people of course!;-)


1. Are they any good?
2. How much $$$$$ are you willing to provide in upkeep?
3. Would you be an annoying and obstructive co-owner or would you be satisfied to sit in the corner and keep your mouth shut?
4. Do you have a hot wife or girlfriend?
5. Do you drink or smoke pot?
6. Would you be willing to purchase summer training grounds in Montana?
7. Are you a Democrat?
8. Are you a Crimson Tide fan?


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

LOL @ The Barbara Walters impersonation. Well played.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

EdA said:


> 1. Are they any good?
> 2. How much $$$$$ are you willing to provide in upkeep?
> 3. Would you be an annoying and obstructive co-owner or would you be satisfied to sit in the corner and keep your mouth shut?
> 4. Do you have a hot wife or girlfriend?
> ...


9. If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?


----------



## wayne anderson (Oct 16, 2007)

lanse brown said:


> I am violating my own code of conduct by posting as my views are from the heart and unfortunately are observed every weekend. One co owner who runs 6 dogs every weekend of which two or more are co owned made the statement to a holding blind marshall at a NARCCS "I couldn't stay in this sport if my co-owners didn't pay my expenses." Then there is an individual who runs 6 dogs, 2 they own and 4 are totally owned by an amateur who has no ability to train a dog so the handler trains daily and runs all 6 dogs in both Open& Amateur. Guess where the funds are derived from? The spirit of the game is seriously diminished(in my opinion). As to Augie and Louise- they both trained their own dogs . Every morning Augie would work Soupy, Gumbo, Penrod, Weegy,and my ex wife would meet Louise daily to work Mariah, Paint, Tojo. Is the sport expensive? You bet. Why do I stay at "Red Dot" motels-- because the drugs are best, the hookers are plentiful, and I don't have to feed my dogs as they eat whatever is under the bed. I have never seen myself as a member of the "Elite" since had I been, the politicians who run the National club's would have invited me. The third time in 3 years when the head of the RHOF called me re the ballot for that year I told him not to embarrass himself for this would be the third year where the number of nominations (over 179) each year were ignored by the Elite who decide who on the list they want. Since I have offended many of those by accusing them of dishonesty, manipulation of National judge selections, and a few other nefarious acts that he should wait until I was dead. When I worked in Wall Street when I moved to Montana,and ever since all my dogs go to Jim VanEngen as I do not know how to do basics. My relationship with Rex Carr ended 21 years ago and since then I have trained by myself my dogs.Before work,during lunch hour and till dark after work, then every weekend. Three years ago I went to a Rorem Seminar in Florida and Dennis Voight was there also. Dave asked "what the hell are you guys doing here? Well I had Rosa and Dennis had Odie-both fully amped dogs and we both knew that all the methods we had tried earlier were not effective. Since that time I have been working with Dave Rorem and I am learning so much about how to read and teach these dogs of mine that I told Dave that he will never train a dog for me unless I am n a wheelchair or on a walker, but I am going to have my nose 4 inches from his ass as what I am learning is almost Zen. I am excellent on the Xs and Os after 50 years, that is the "physical" now I am learning the mental. Yes, I am depleting rapidly any liquidity I presently have, but I am having fun, the dogs are having fun and BOTH of us are learning without pressure. On the aside last weekend when Rosa got a 2nd the last series of the Amateur had Lynnne-3 NAFCs, Mac 1NFC, Sutter 1NAFC, Neil 1NFC, !NAFC, Kampo 1 NFC, Powers 2 NAFCs, Hays 1NFC . Hell myself, Duncan and Woodson were orphans-soot covered, and among what I consider a group who all are dedicated to the sport and who next weekend will be putting on a trial so the absentee owners and the co owned can parade their little darlings on the stage and we all can see how nice their dogs are,of course we will have to wait for 30-45 minutes for them to show up,do those "amateur" handlers care that all the stations are sitting in the rain, hot sun etc while we wait? Do they realize that all the contestants and judges are being inconvenienced and their selfishness is destroying the time management that the judges were trying to adhere to? BS all they care about is themselves. Take their entry money but BE PREPARED TO WAIT. This next week I have 3hunt test people coming to train with me, all 3 want to enter Field trials so if we encourage and welcome those who seriously want to learn and then perhaps after all these old elephants like myself kick off there will still be people who are hands on trainers.


Good response as always, Lanse! I love your irreverence to the muck-aty-mucks. (From just another lowly amateur...)


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

1. hell naw! (if they were any good i could train them myself)
2. i got four heartworm pills left out of a box of six i will send along.
3. ...................................................................(that's the silence of my shut mouth)
4. smokin' wife.......aint got no girl friends!
5. good baptist, so.......maybe and maybe?
6. no, but i know some people! training grounds are like swimming pools. it's easier to have a neighbor with one than have your own.
7. see #1.
8. ....................................................................(silent on the matter.............until jacob gets me started)
9. my duck huntin' buddies always call me "king of the pin oak flats". so oak i guess?

ed,
provided my answers meet your approval, i will meet you half way in little rock saturday. i assume you will like the black one best!
jmc


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

roseberry said:


> ed,
> provided my answers meet your approval, i will meet you half way in little rock saturday. i assume you will like the black one best!
> jmc


Dang, now that the Aggies have joined the SEC you boys need a little geography lesson, Little Rock is on the way to Memphis not Birmingham, besides I am tied up this weekend with the North Texas field trial in Southern Oklahoma...


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

gone fishing.....


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I'm curious what the point is? Not knocking you Tammy...but the fact that there are takers and givers in the sport will not go away - I hope some day to have numerous competitive AA dogs, that is why I'm working my arse off now with a desk job...I try and judge a couple times a year (if I'm asked) and support my club's HT and try to put on a FT (may not this year)...but once I get to the age where I can enjoy training multiple dogs, enter multiple dogs I want to have that option available...limiting the amateur is a very, very bad move in my opinion.


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Point

Is this the direction we want the Amateur stake to go?


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

I would worry more about the direction of the Open than the Amateur. Where 1-2 handlers often have 30% or more of the entry. In one of the trials listed 1 handler has 59%!

Tim


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

TBell said:


> Point
> 
> Is this the direction we want the Amateur stake to go?


You can not legislate common courtesy or common sense...if some one has 3+ dogs and doesn't give back to the sport, that's on them, why should you create a rule that hurts those who have 3+ dogs and do give back (by judging, putting on trials, use of land, etc)? Do you want the direction of the sport to drive away those who give back? I think we tend to focus on the negative and not look at the positive and I'd really, really like to believe there is more positive than negative n this sport. Are we trying to create a solution for a "problem" that really isn't a problem?


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

gone fishing....


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Putting Dr And Mrs Heise on that list is in poor taste, they are very nice people and shouldn't have their names singled out with the others listed

The state of the Amateur stake is part of the monster that has been built over the years, if you want to compete against smaller fields try the Utah trials, they could use the support


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

So is the frequency one judges supposed to be the new criteria for how one gives back to the sport and therefore how many dogs one can run? What about the person who doesn't judge but works from before the judges wake up until after they are three sheets to the wind to put on two FTs and two HTs per year? How many dogs would that person be allowed to run?


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

BonMallari said:


> Putting Dr And Mrs Heise on that list is in poor taste, they are very nice people and shouldn't have their names singled out with the others listed
> 
> The state of the Amateur stake is part of the monster that has been built over the years, if you want to compete against smaller fields try the Utah trials, they could use the support



NOT ONE PERSON was singled out FOR ANY REASON and only the facts of 4+ dog handlers for the weekend of 5/17 were stated for discussion purposes. 

I DID mention that Ann was judging, and I'm sure she would have run a dog or two if she wasn't judging. That is why Dr. Heise was running the dogs I'm sure.

Ann and Bob contribute VERY MUCH to the sport as you can see from their judging assignments. My apologies for the confusion.

ADDENDUM: I should have realized mentioning names would create misunderstandings, so they've been removed. 

Aside from how much any one handler contributes to the sport, multidog handlers in the Open, Amateur and Qual create logistical problems for the clubs and their volunteers.

If a multidog handler is only entered in the Open, then there aren't the logistical problems of getting them from stake to stake. 

If a mutlidog handler is entered in the Open and Am, then the club must adjust the running orders accordingly to accomodate them and prevent delays. This creates many inconveniences for not only the club, but other handlers who are forced to run out of order. It can also create a problem for judges in providing an honor in the last series.

Multidog handlers who enter many dogs in the Open, Am and Qual are very hard on the club logistically as it is almost impossible to be at 3 stakes at the same time. Almost everyone at the trial is inconvenienced in these situations.

For the most part the majority of the multidog handlers have been very accommodating. In the past it has been a very minor nuisance, but their numbers are growing. Hopefully there will be a workable solution for all involved.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I know multi dog handlers that work to put on ie: chair, chief marshall and so on that can run dogs be on time and be successful. I also know of multi dog handlers that dont do jack squat. I know single dog owners blah blah blah. Just like the federal gubment the RAc needs to take a step back and let the local folks who put on the trials have some control back. Heck even have term limits and actual elected members. But if they have that much time on to spend on minutia they could add 1 or 2 more trials a year that the RAC puts on.

OK now that I have ranted a bit back to lurking.......


----------



## C. Johnson (Mar 21, 2004)

At a local field trial recently it was discussed about how there are different rules in place for different sporting dog venues (**** hounds, pointers, etc) and in one type; I believe certain **** dog competitions, the competitors are allowed to buy back into the competition if their dog gets dropped from the competition similar to a mulligan in golf.

Everyone joked about how it would be good and bad for some as it’s very common to hear competitors say in the gallery, “Man if I only had one more chance at that mark or blind”. But what would the competitor say if after running the second time they got the same results?

So for those in favor of limiting entries I ask what will your excuse be when you don’t win after limiting your competition because that is all that would be accomplished by making that change. Maybe you could change the rules to judge on a curve for those competing with less than 3 dogs?

IF I ever win an AA stake I would want it to be because my dog was better than the other dogs available to compete not because I limited everyone to my personal situation as I don’t know how that would be fair to those being limited. 

As far as logistical issues and people waiting for other competitors at other stakes, that is field trials. If you have never had to get an extra night’s hotel room or waited hours to just run the last dog that has been at another stake you haven’t been around the game very long.

Life is not fair and neither are field trials. 

-Cameron


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

"Life is not fair and neither are field trials."

But we should strive to improve both.


Tim


----------



## Shawn S. (Jan 17, 2005)

TBell,

Do I wish I had a 4 or more dogs to run in a stake? You bet. Am I going to toss the flag and cry foul because someone else has more time and means? Hell no. This is America, We have a right to a flyer. We have the right to enter as many dogs as we can/want. We have the right to enter the trial we wish. We also have the right to run under the judge of our choice. 

Jealousy is an emotion resulting in negative feelings based on insecurities, fear and resentment. We shouldn't hate on people because they have a perceived advantage based on one's self perceived disadvantage It's a game, learn to play it to "your" advantage. Just because some handlers have more bullets than others doesn't mean they are going to hit the target...a bad shot is a bad shot. I've judged/ran/trained with several that couldn't hit with Farmer's truck. On the other hand there's Charlie string, you better be on your A game because that team can play and they raise the bar. Either my dog is better that day or he is not. Field Trials determine a winner, it's the not a sport where they don't keep score and everyone gets a participation ribbon. Line them up and let the best dog win. If you don't win, try harder or find a different sport. 

I've stated this before but I think Field Trials should be a little more like Hockey. If people were allowed to take care of their issues face to face and not take cheap shots from the gallery or on the internet there would be a little more respect given and received on the weekends so that the sport could police itself.

Shawn Stahl


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

Shawn S.

The original theme of the thread is about the RAC rules dictating 'Amateur' status, and my comments were directed toward the current status of the 'Amateur' stake and handlers.

I believe the spirit in which the 'Amateur' stake was created years ago has been lost. If you have been in field trials for any length of time, you know what I am talking about. In years past, the Amateur stake has consisted mainly of Amateurs who owned and ran a couple of dogs (even trained them themselves). Rarely were there handlers with more than two dogs, but now it is becoming commonplace.

The 'Amateur' stake seems to be going in a new direction by having a large number handlers with multiple dogs. Apparently I am old fashioned and need to get with the 'new' trend of the 'Amateur' stake since it seems to be fine with you youngsters, and oh yeah, this is AMERICA!!

Signed with my real name below,


----------



## Shawn S. (Jan 17, 2005)

TBell said:


> Shawn S.
> 
> Signed with my real name below,


Please excuse my lack of posting my name as I had thought I had a signature line. Hardly am I hiding behind a screen name. I'm quit recognizable, in fact we judged separate stakes in Central Ark this past spring, yet we didn't have a chance to officially meet.

Without a doubt the sport has evolved, as all things tend to do. We can choose to keep up with the times, hold back time or let the times pass us by. 

Shawn Stahl


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

TBell said:


> Shawn S.
> 
> The original theme of the thread is about the RAC rules dictating 'Amateur' status, and my comments were directed toward the current status of the 'Amateur' stake and handlers.
> 
> ...


Hey Tammy, I believe in principal that you and I basically agree on the issue of "Amateur" status and how that designation may be being misused by a few people.

I see you use your real name. I met a very nice Tammy Bell at a few trials in the Midwest a year or more ago. My recollection was that she was a friend, training partner and sometime travelling companion of Alex Washburn.

Are you that same Tammy Bell??

Marc Healey


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Shawn S. said:


> TBell,
> 
> 
> .
> ...


I really like your hockey idea.
I think it would be great if we could do the same thingt here on RTF!!


----------



## TBell (Apr 1, 2004)

mjh345 said:


> Hey Tammy, I believe in principal that you and I basically agree on the issue of "Amateur" status and how that designation may be being misused by a few people.
> 
> I see you use your real name. I met a very nice Tammy Bell at a few trials in the Midwest a year or more ago. My recollection was that she was a friend, training partner and sometime travelling companion of Alex Washburn.
> 
> ...


Thanks so much, Marc. Yes that was I. It was at the Tulsa RC Fall Field trial in Stillwater, OK, in 2009.


----------



## Jan Helgoth (Apr 20, 2008)

I really have no problem at all with Amateurs that own several dogs and want to run them all in the Amateur Stake - if they can afford it and have the ability to do it, let them. How lucky are they to have that many well-trained, competitive dogs? They obviously have earned the privilege of running them.

The changes regarding "Amateur" status that I think the RAC really needs to focus on are:

1) A change needs to be made regarding Pro's going back to "Amateur" status. IMHO they not only should have the waiting period already enforced, but they should *not be allowed to handle any dogs in the Amateur stake that they have previously derived income from.* In this area of the country we have two former Pros running dogs that are still owned by former clients. They derived income from training these dogs for years in the past and have now merely slapped their name on them as a co-owner and currently run them in the Amateur stakes. They say that they are now training them "for a co-ownership stake in the dog". This arrangement is too fishy for me and I think this addition to the current rule should be added. Why can't they just go get their own pup and start from scratch like the rest of us or buy a started dog *that they did not train when they were a Pro*.

2) I also think that a change needs to be made regarding people handling other peoples dogs for cash, travel expenses, whatever. I propose that all Amateur stakes should be a modified "owner-handler" stake. I have no problem with someone starting someone's dog for them in the first series because they have to work and I have no problem with someone finishing up the trial because the owner has an emergency. But in the true nature of being an "Amateur", people need to run their own dogs. Maybe the rule could read that an Amateur must handle their dog at the Amateur Stake in at least one series? That would nip a few in the bud. When it is happening at the National Amateur, to me it is a problem. I think the National Amateur stake should most definitely always be "owner/handler" only. I don't care if the money came up-front, in the middle or at the end of the "acquaintance", no one should be running someone else's dog for them exclusively.....especially if the owner never, ever runs the dog themselves. That is one of the things that a Pro can do for you, but the line needs to be drawn in the Amateur stake. In addition, anyone that "co-owns" a dog should have to have their dogs registration listing them as a co-owner in their possession while running the dog at the Field Trial. If there is a question, show the FT Committee that you are legit...and wait until you have the paperwork before running - no problem and sorry for the inconvenience.

Just my take on how to make things more transparent. OK, I will put on my hard hat now and let the comments fly.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> I think the National Amateur stake should most definitely always be "owner/handler"


What about for medical reasons?

I'll always think that what Harvey Peterson did for Karon Webster at the nat'l am many years ago as a very very good, Good Samaritan gesture.


----------

