# Should a FT pro OWN a dog on his truck?



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

Just a question to liven up the afternoon.


----------



## South Bay (Aug 17, 2003)

Own a dog, no problem

Competing one he/she owns wouldn't thrill most clients


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

Southbay,

I figured if the dog had a hole on the truck - then it was being trained and trialed.

This does not apply to generiatic or cab-mutts. :lol: :lol:


----------



## South Bay (Aug 17, 2003)

Gerard,

What I'm trying to say is that if the dog is going through basics and transition, then sold at a fairly early age clients should have nothing to say. 
If the dog is competing every weekend against client dogs, I don't think that's kosher.

G


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

Gerard,
If the pro has his own dog on his own truck and he trains and trials the dog, if that dog only competes in Opens and never in Ams, how many points does that dog have to have to almost become an FC.


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

NO. Not in FTs. A pro could certainly have an outcome on the effect of his dogs. Not that a pro would do it, but it has the look of impropriety about it.


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

Has nothing to do with impropiety.

Just a statement of job function.

When you pay a pro - esp pay him a handling fee - you are really paying him to win with your dog.

If he wins with his own dog - he simply is not doing his job.

I.E. His job is not just to win - his job is to win with his client's dog.


----------



## Richard Cheatham (Feb 25, 2003)

How a pro runs his business is his business. The market place will always settle this issue. 

If I place my dog on ?X? pros truck and he?s beating me with his dog on weekends how do you think it?ll take me to pull my dog and say, ?Adios.?

RC


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

That's the point. If I am paying the Pro to win with my dog, if he runs his own and it wins, would the pro want to put himself in the position of the owner saying, you had your dog win on purpose... why would a pro even want to put himself in that position? Obviously, he is being paid by every client on the truck to win with their dog.


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

He he he - did not take long to get things rolling! :wink:


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)




----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

No.

Besides, if every Pro did it, then the Opens would be even bigger. :wink: 

Lisa


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Gerard Rozas said:


> ...I.E. His job is not just to win - his job is to win with his client's dog.


If he has a truck full, which client?

Joe Miano


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

> which client?


MEMEMEMEMEMEMEME!

But seriously, whichever client owns the dog that has its head screwed on right that weekend, and all the luck running with it.

Bringing this back to biggish trials, but how DO other clients feel about the mega-winners sucking up all the points and continuing to run? Not sure how I'd feel if my dog got beat week in and week out by some mega-star ALSO on my same Pro's truck. I'd be thinking "OK, great, FC Wonderdog won his gazillionth Open, but WHEN'S IT MY TURN?" 

Maybe Pros should turn the megastars back over to their owners to continue running after thay have qualified for that year's nationals. I don't know.

I think a Pro running his own dog is just a mine field for that Pro.

Lisa


----------



## Kevin Mays (Feb 20, 2003)

I am perfectly fine loosing to other dogs own my pros truck owned by his clients

BUT

I would not take it very good if i was loosing to the pros personal dog!!!!


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Gerard Rozas said:


> When you pay a pro - esp pay him a handling fee - you are really paying him to win with your dog.
> 
> If he wins with his own dog - he simply is not doing his job.
> 
> I.E. His job is not just to win - his job is to win with his client's dog.



A Pro's job is train the dog to the best of his/her ability. Period. Nothing more, nothing less. It fails the logic test to think one is paying a Pro to win an event where 99% of those entering will finish the event as losers.

CLIENTS decide if the dog they are paying to be trained should be competed. If competed, EVERY dog coming off the Pro's truck SHOULD have been trained to maximum extent possible and EVERY DOG should be put in the BEST position to win the event, reardless of ownership.

Given a limited amount of time in the day, a limited amount of dogs being able to be trained, and an almost unlimited need for cash flow (client dog = cash flow) if a Pro wants a hole on his truck, it's the Pro's decision.

Having said this, if you send a dog to a Pro, and the Pro has a dog on the truck, and you are the LEAST bit concerned the Pro maybe be spending more time with their dog than yours, you need to find a new Pro. ASAP.

Having run my own dogs in HT's and made the "I'm sorry, your dog didn't but yes my dog did, and thank you for asking." call, it was most uncomfortable for me. I can't imagine what it would be like to have to do that at the FT level...but, having the greatest clients in the whole wide world, they have told me if I elect to run a dog I own, they are all for it.

Return of Service Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

Joe wrote:



> A Pro's job is train the dog to the best of his/her ability. Period. Nothing more, nothing less


I could not disagree with you more on this Joe. We are discussing a competative FT pro active on the circuit. How many of these clients pay him only to go a series or two? Or just to get 2 out of the 3 birds?

Clients want to win. If they are smart, they know they will not win every weekend - but at some point they want that call on Sunday night.

What you say is true of a gundog pro or a HT pro. But for a FT pro - its a different animal.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

If I am paying a handling fee, then I bloody well do so with an expectation that it will give my dog an edge (e.g better change of winning). Otherwise, I can keep my hard-earned dinero in my chinos and run the dog myself. I can lose all by my ownself!

Lisa


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

I love the smell of napalm at 3:43 in the afternoon!


----------



## Latisha (Feb 2, 2004)

Lisa Van Loo said:


> Bringing this back to biggish trials, but how DO other clients feel about the mega-winners sucking up all the points and continuing to run? Not sure how I'd feel if my dog got beat week in and week out by some mega-star ALSO on my same Pro's truck. I'd be thinking "OK, great, FC Wonderdog won his gazillionth Open, but WHEN'S IT MY TURN?"


For all you FT number crunchers out there.... How many titled dogs continue to campaign for points vs taking the title and saying that's it?

What's the percentage of titled vs non-titled dogs in an average open/am? 

And just for speculation - what would happen if titled dogs could no longer compete in opens & ams - say they had a special titled stake or something so they could still play, but did not take points away from the not yet titled dogs? Bad idea????

Latisha


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Gerard Rozas said:


> Joe wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Logically, it can't be true.

How can someone logically justify paying someone 12K - 15K a year to _win_ a sport when 99% of the entrants are, by definition, _losers_!!!

You a pay a Pro to train a dog to the best of their ability IN HOPES they are good enough to win...those that win more often get more/better dogs = more cash flow. Which gives them more experience. Which gives them more chances. 

I wouldn't send a dog to Mr. Farmer _expecting_ him to win with the dog. I'd expect him to do the best he can with raw material I've provided to him. He has experience. (I'd pay for that.) He has knowledge of the task to be completed. (I'd pay for that.) He also has the experience and the knowledge to know if the dog, when trained to the best of his ability, is capable of winning an event. I'm damn sure paying for that. 

I'm not paying him to win. I'm paying him to do the best he can. If he can't win with what I've provided him, then I'll provide him with some better raw materials.

Powerful Slicing Cross-Court Backhand Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

Joe,

With waiting lists of new clients and with old established clients getting new pups - How long do you think a dog that does not win will last on Danny's truck? Mike's truck?

Patton rode on Mike's truck for a long time before the wins came, but a lot of people knew it was possible.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Gerard Rozas said:


> Joe,
> 
> With waiting lists of new clients and with old established clients getting new pups - How long do you think a dog that does not win will last on Danny's truck? Mike's truck?
> 
> Patton rode on Mike's truck for a long time before the wins came, but a lot of people knew it was possible.


GMan,

I've no idea, right now, how long a non-winning dog will last on Mr. Farmer or Mr. Lardy's truck. So...what's the answer?

Patton stayed on Mr. Lardy's truck for a long time before the wins came, I would guess, because the client and the Pro agreed, given enough time, it was a very good possibility.

When does the "average" FT start to bloom? 2.75/3.5...I've run against A BUNCH of 3 - 4 year olds in the Q this year.

Lobbing Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## BIG DOG (Apr 17, 2003)

let me get my internet bus proof jacket on
well what if the same dogs on the pro's truck are the ones placing everyweekend and yours isn't?

Are you gonna pull the dog?

or MAYBE you should re-dog and buy a better one


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

> If he can't win with what I've provided him, then I'll provide him with some better raw materials.


If it is all about raw materials and the shaping thereof, then why do they charge _handling_ fees over and above monthly training fees? Huh? Huh?

148 MPH blazing serve regards;

Lisa


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Lisa Van Loo said:


> If it is all about raw materials and the shaping thereof, then why do they charge _handling_ fees over and above monthly training fees? Huh? Huh?
> 
> 148 MPH blazing serve regards;
> 
> Lisa


Don't know why some Pro's charge a handling fee.

I'd suggest you ask one that does...

Baseline Forehand Return w/Topspin Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> I am perfectly fine loosing to other dogs own my pros truck owned by his clients
> 
> BUT
> 
> I would not take it very good if i was loosing to the pros personal dog!!!!


IMHO That is a distinction without a difference.
If there were any doubt that the pro was doing his best for all concerned you included.
It would be time to pull the dog.
Getting dogs titled or qualified for the National on a particular weekend with wins or placements on that particular particular weekend (one needs a placement to title one needs a placement to qualify and one needs a placement to..........) and they are all at the water marks along with your dog, and being run by your pro .
Then what does it matter who owns the other dogs.
You just better trust your pro to do right by you.
john


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

Baseline Forehand Return w/Topspin Regards
148 MPH blazing serve regards
Lobbing Regards, 

:lol: :lol: :lol: 
Been watch too much US Open?


----------



## Brian Cockfield (Jun 4, 2003)

This tennis stuff is killing me. Keep it coming Lisa, Joe, Gerard, I'm enjoying this. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Arturo (Jan 10, 2004)

Gerard Rozas said:


> He he he - did not take long to get things rolling! :wink:


If you wanted to get it rolling in a hurry, you could have gone to the May,16 post "Ownership of FT Dogs" and continued!
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=97712&highlight=#97704


WAH - How many points do I have?


----------



## BIG DOG (Apr 17, 2003)

why charge handler fees

uhhhhh he's gotta get there (fuel), gotta sleep (motel), plus he has to put up with you (in general)


----------



## D. Johnson (Aug 5, 2004)

Actually -- I have found humor in this thread -- I am fairly new to the dog game - and will ask a lot of basic questions -- however, I have been self-employed for 10 years -- so I ask you this --

Who really cares if the Pro has his own dogs on the truck -- he can do whatever he wants -- if it creates more business and better reputation, more cash flow and personal achievment -- so be it 

OR 

If his clients call YOU Know whAT -- and leave and find another pro-- Well he (or She) will be a hunt test pro trying to find the time and money to run his dogs in the FT's

OR 

His dogs will do so well and that stud fee's and puppy prices will far outwiegh Pro training 

OR 

He has decided what will be will be -- if you leave and that guy doesn't well maybe he doesn't need the money --


Point is this -- let him do what he thinks works for him -- his need to feed clothe, and save for the future -- big or small will drive his decision to train or not to train his own dogs -- Whichever scenario it may fall under -- but if he has a truck full of top flight field dogs and being paid to train them 

THEN HE ALREADY KNOWS WHAT WORKS FOR HIM


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

It would not bother me if a pro ran his own dog. I would not be with a pro I did not completely trust. Most pros treat client dogs as their own and want to place as many as possible in any given weekend.


----------



## Bob Gutermuth (Aug 8, 2004)

I have seen this on occasion in the minor stakes. The pro buys a pup & puts it thru basics. They then will run the D and Q in hopes of finding a buyer. If the dog is a hot prospect they don't stay in the pros name for long and if they are a dud, who cares?


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

No Way!!! It's hard enogh to beat the truck. Plus, why would I, as a pro, want to compete against the people who sign my check?????

Angie


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Bob Gutermuth said:


> I have seen this on occasion in the minor stakes. The pro buys a pup & puts it thru basics. They then will run the D and Q in hopes of finding a buyer. If the dog is a hot prospect they don't stay in the pros name for long and if they are a dud, who cares?


It happens at all levels.

Lots of circumstances are possible.

1. Client wants out of the game, pro wants the dog to stay in his camp. Pro buys dog and continues to campaign until a new buyer is found.

2. Pro trains dog up through D/Q with hopes of selling it and keeping it in his camp.

3. The turn pro while in the middle of a nice dogs career.

I can think of a few actual instances where each of the above has happened, and certainly not just to the pro that Gerard is attempting to run over with the internet bus.

My responses...

A. As hard as field trials are, the ability to loosen or tighten to make sure your dog finishes 1st and a client dog is 2nd is pretty much impossible.

B. The only person affected by this is the client who thinks this may be happening to them.

C. The "do it yourself" amateur should be happy not having to run against the pro-owned dog in the Am.

D. Under no "ownership" circumstances should a National caliber field champion go uncampaigned.

Shayne


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> ....... and certainly not just to the pro that Gerard is attempting to run over with the internet bus.



OK, and here I thought we were really talking hypothetical here..... Does this pro live in texas? Someone tell me... inquiring minds want to know.


Susan - jumping over the net wearing a biker/tennis outfit.


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Any Pro with half a brain will sell or give the dog to a PAYING client!!! And this usually happens LONG before they reach All Age level.

Jerry


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

> 1. Client wants out of the game, pro wants the dog to stay in his camp. Pro buys dog and continues to campaign until a new buyer is found.


Sells to a client with a contract or for a commission, he doesn't own the dog.



> 2. Pro trains dog up through D/Q with hopes of selling it and keeping it in his camp.


They run a trial or two, they're not campaigned



> 3. The turn pro while in the middle of a nice dogs career.


No one will begrudge them that.



My responses...


> A. As hard as field trials are, the ability to loosen or tighten to make sure your dog finishes 1st and a client dog is 2nd is pretty much impossible.


True, but if you wear green weekend after weekend or play to the end and pro's dog does well, what would you think???? One get's tired of kissing one's cousin.



> B. The only person affected by this is the client who thinks this may be happening to them.


That quickly could become a whole lot of clients. Not worth it.



> C. The "do it yourself" amateur should be happy not having to run against the pro-owned dog in the Am.


ya think????



> D. Under no "ownership" circumstances should a National caliber field champion go uncampaigned.


 No, he's sold to a client, 

Angie


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

Jerry said:


> Any Pro with half a brain will sell or give the dog to a PAYING client!!! And this usually happens LONG before they reach All Age level.
> 
> Jerry


Right on Jer-Jer. Why would a pro own a dog that could win, when he could sell him and charge handling and training fees. :? 

Lose is to win as loose is to tight.


----------



## W Knight (Sep 2, 2003)

Gerard

I think Shaynes calling you out.......

8) 8) 8) 

And this says a lot to me

C. The *"do it yourself" amateur *should be happy not having to run against the pro-owned dog in the Am.

8) 8) 8) Night


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2004)

> Right on Jer-Jer. Why would a pro own a dog that could win, when he could sell him and charge handling and training fees.


1. Stud fees.
2. Potential National finalist/winner without the chance that owner will yank dog and send to another pro.

Think West Coast Lean Mac son owned by a pro trainer/breeder.

Melanie


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Jerry said:


> Any Pro with half a brain will sell or give the dog to a PAYING client!!! And this usually happens LONG before they reach All Age level.
> 
> Jerry


LOL! If it were me, I would think it not to be in my best interest to run my own dog besides it costing me a paying client. In a sense, isn't it kind of like they are "your" dogs anyhow. I see more potential for negative than positive coming from it.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

BIG DOG said:


> why charge handler fees
> 
> uhhhhh he's gotta get there (fuel), gotta sleep (motel), plus he has to put up with you (in general)


Uhhhhh...you are already paying him/her a goodly (is that a real word?) sum of money to train the dog every month. Why pay an additional fee to handle the dog in an event? Under the thought process of some, the Pro's job is to WIN the event anyway. Why should someone be paid twice to do what they are already being paid to do...

Why not just divide the expenses of getting to/from the event equally among those owners with a dog in the event?

When the client made the decision to send the dog to Pro X, Pro X accepted the dog knowing they would have to "put up" with the client. So, for some Pro's, it's back to doing what you've been paid to do...

The "correct" answer, IMHDAO (ubp, K2, Inc.), has already been posted in this thread and it wasn't by any ex-Army, ex-Cop, chessie owning, hard-a$$ed Judging guy from Maryland's Eastern Shore that goes by a three (3) letter first name with the first and last letter matching...hypothetically speaking, ya' understand. :wink:

Baseline Volley Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Angie B said:


> > D. Under no "ownership" circumstances should a National caliber field champion go uncampaigned.
> 
> 
> No, he's sold to a client,
> ...


I totally agree, if that is a possibility.

Kissing your cousin ain't bad, as long as she's hot and no one knows about it.

Off to Tulsa to watch dogs. I hope everyone has a wonderful weekend.

Shayne


----------



## Brian Cockfield (Jun 4, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> BIG DOG said:
> 
> 
> > why charge handler fees
> ...


I'm kind of with Joe on the handler fee thing. I hate paying handler's fees. I do understand the reason for charging them though. Three nights in a hotel, food, fuel etc. can get pretty darn expensive over a weekend; it adds up quick.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Brian Cockfield said



> I'm kind of with Joe on the handler fee thing. I hate paying handler's fees. I do understand the reason for charging them though. Three nights in a hotel, food, fuel etc. can get pretty darn expensive over a weekend; it adds up quick.



I think when you do the math, you will discover that the total charged for handling fee exceeds expenses. So, there is a component of that fee that is a "handling" fee


----------



## Brian Cockfield (Jun 4, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Brian Cockfield said
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No doubt.


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

Who really cares if the Pro has his own dogs on the truck -- he can do whatever he wants -- if it creates more business and better reputation, more cash flow and personal achievment.

My dogs are with Steve Yozamp, an experienced field trial pro who has yet had the right dog to provide him with the national attention he deserves. He has trained several dogs to their AFC/FC titles. We, his clients, believe in him. He has a dog on his truck now that is having(had) a stellar Derby run, "Razor". Steve needs that one dog to provide him with that national recognition that will attract additional clients that wil keep the holes on his truck full. As long as Steve operates his business professionally - I'm happy. And when that success comes I'll always have "my holes". 
Lyle


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

I can't believe this thing is so even.

You guys will understand when your dog misses qualifing for a National because the Pros dog got the place that would of Qed you.

And Shayne - I am not trying to internet bus anyone - They are lots of examples of this around - NOT JUST THE PRO YOU WORSHIP.

I don't know a A class pro that does this.

Schrader "sold" Stepper.
Danny "sold" Pete, Julie, Kirby and many others.

And if you think the fact that your dog in on the same truck as dog that won is on makes your dog better - I got some fine property south of Galveston.

As for most clients - if they are going to buy a $3000 dog and spend another $15K a year to run 25 trials - it is because THEY want to win - NOT watch Another dog win.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Gerard Rozas said:


> I don't know a A class pro that does this.


Find out who owns, I think, Fargo II...

If I send a dog to a Pro and his dogs wins, I'm happy for him. I feel good because I've selected a Pro can get to where I want my dog to go.

If the slightes thought crosses my mind the Pro is providing less than the agreed upon work ethic...it's time to find a new Pro.

Drop Shot Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

Gerard,

What is the difference if he is beating you with his dog or one that is client owned. If one believes the trainer is working harder on his own dog than the others on the truck, then it is time to move on. The clients work and train together. They are able to share info on training and the pro's handling. If the pro is going to screw you by putting his own dog ahead of yours, then he is likely going to screw you in many other ways. 

I have observed several dogs come back after extensive time with talented pros and not be able to complete Hunt Test Senior even though the dogs had been entered in Quals. These dogs were trainable and have been rehabilitated. It was obvious they had not been getting regular work even though the trainers had all been cashing the clients' checks. Those trainers would not be trustworthy to run their own dogs but I would not put a dog with them anyway.

I do not have to deal with the problem as the field trial pro we use does not own a trial dog.

Russ


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

Joe,

I would send my dog to the owners of Fargo II without a second thought.

Russ


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Fargo is owned by Jane and Jerry Patopea. 

Jerry allows Jane one hole on the box. They have started and sold many promising puppies/started dogs and even a couple of FCs. 

A lot of the dogs on the Patopea's truck are by Fargo.

I would not give it a second thought to place a dog with the Patopea's. Like many have said, if you think your pro is not doing your dog justice then move to a different pro. Personally, whether the dog is owned by the pro or another client if a dog on the same truck beats your dog, its the same deal. Your dog did not win.

WRL


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Russ said:


> Joe,
> 
> I would send my dog to the owners of Fargo II without a second thought.
> 
> Russ


Me too, Russ.

It's not about the Pro owning and running a dog. It's about a basic belief in my Pro. If I don't trust him/her to do teh right thing, it's time to find a new one.

Forehand Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Lyle Harne (Jul 7, 2004)

Gerard Rozas said:


> I can't believe this thing is so even.
> 
> And if you think the fact that your dog in on the same truck as dog that won is on makes your dog better - I got some fine property south of Galveston.
> 
> ...


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Geeze Gerard,

And you thought you were just throwing an idea out there...... :shock: 

Angie


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Angie B said:


> Geeze Gerard,
> 
> And you thought you were just throwing an idea out there...... :shock:
> 
> Angie



Are you kidding? There is ALWAYS a motive for a post like this one and the motive is NEVER an innocent inquiry into what people think. 

:wink:


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Ted Shih wrote:



> I think when you do the math, you will discover that the total charged for handling fee exceeds expenses. So, there is a component of that fee that is a "handling" fee


I doubt that there's an owner out there who employs a pro who didn't know in advance what the handling fees were, regardless of if there's any "profit" involved in taking the fee X number of dogs per event less that event's expenses. It's an accepted convention and comes with the territory. If a person doesn't like it, they can find a trainer that doesn't charge one.... :roll: 

Sorta like the "doc" fee when you buy a car, except when you pay a pro a handling fee, you know what you're getting in return...or you _should_, anyway.

Keith Griffith.....who's _exceedingly_ proud to be associated with another well-respected professional retriever trainer again, as of today! :wink:


----------



## Brian Cockfield (Jun 4, 2003)

Keith, to be honest with you I don't know any FT pros that don't charge a handler's fee. I know there are probably some out there but none that I know of. It's just another part of the deal when your dog is being professionally trained. If you want the dog campaigned then you gotta pay those handler's fees. I still hate paying them though. They add up too quick during trial season along with those flyers. :wink:


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

Keith is right on. It is a free enterprise system and I know up front what the costs are above the normal montly fee. There seems to be a moral issue among some of the contributors on this thread that making a profit for handling is unethical. If someone does not like the terms of the pro they use, then go elsewhere. I note some of the critical people do not use a pro at all or at least not to handle their dogs. What is their gripe?

Russ


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Angie B said:
> 
> 
> > Geeze Gerard,
> ...


You got it.....

WRL....and the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round, and the wheels on the bus go round and round....all day long!


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

WRL said:


> Patrick Johndrow said:
> 
> 
> > Angie B said:
> ...


HaHaHaHa!!!!!

Angie


----------



## Pi (Mar 11, 2004)

Not all pros charge handlers fees. As clients, we split the expenses for the trial (gas, motel, food). If our pro wants to run his dog at the same trial it's fine with us. We train with our pro and we know that our dogs are like his own dogs. All the dogs get the same attention, training, etc. I think if you choose the pro that is right for you, his having a dog on the truck will not be an issue. 

Point, Set, Match


----------



## RetrieverNut (Jan 8, 2004)

*Pro's with dogs*

Question of the night...

If you don't trust a Pro who has his/her own dog in for training/campaigning why would you pay that Pro?

Mark

P.S. With the exception of a few Pro's, the majority of the income made is from training fees, not from handling fees or selling dogs. In other words, there aren't enough good/great dogs out there to sell to make up for lost training fees!


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Gerard Rozas said:


> I don't know a A class pro that does this.
> 
> Schrader "sold" Stepper.
> Danny "sold" Pete, Julie, Kirby and many others.


So putting the dog in someone else's name - and then you running against a "Kennel-owned" dog in the Am is preferred over the pro leaving it in his name? As an Amateur, i'd be more bothered by running against "kennel-owned" dogs in the Am.

"Kennel-owned" dog = i don't care who's name it's in, it can't be pulled and put with another pro. I just made that up.  

FYI - I WORSHIP Bill Gates, Jack Welsh, and Jenifer Aniston. I QUESTION the scrupples of anyone who would want to train field trial dogs for a living. :lol: 

The poll is pretty even because it's a moot point and only the client, who may feel like their getting the shaft because the pro would rather win with his own dog, should have a problem with that. I don't think there are any.

As a client of a pro (which i am not) I think i'd also be more concerned that a Pro would give the nod to the dog owned by a 4-hole, long-term, grounds owning client than my 1 dog. Or the client dog that hasn't done anything in a while or the "superstar" dog on the truck in a high-point running. The pro-owned dog would be the least of my concerns.

Shayne


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

I know I said this before but it bears hearing again.

The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, the wheels on the bus go round and round....all day long.

WRL


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

WRL said:


> I know I said this before but it bears hearing again.
> 
> The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, the wheels on the bus go round and round....all day long.
> 
> WRL


I thought it was "all the live long day" or something. Or is that a different song? hehehe

Shayne


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Or maybe it is all through the town.....

WRL


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Gerard Rozas said:


> Danny "sold" Pete, Julie, Kirby and many others.


Danny didn't sell "Pete". Danny didn't own "Pete". "Pete" was owned by John Larkin and was in training with Danny when I got him from John Larkin.

"Julie" was owned by Mike Park, not Danny.

Lets try to keep our facts straight.

Jerry


----------



## D. Johnson (Aug 5, 2004)

The poll is pretty even because it's a moot point and only the client, who may feel like their getting the shaft because the pro would rather win with his own dog, should have a problem with that. I don't think there are any.

As a client of a pro (which i am not) I think i'd also be more concerned that a Pro would give the nod to the dog owned by a 4-hole, long-term, grounds owning client than my 1 dog. Or the client dog that hasn't done anything in a while or the "superstar" dog on the truck in a high-point running. The pro-owned dog would be the least of my concerns.

Shayne[/quote]

That is exactly the point -- so client and pro will work it all out -- if you dog's not on that truck -- your problem is what ???


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

J Bar J said:


> -- if you dog's not on that truck -- your problem is what ???


Exactly.

Shayne


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

1 If I were a pro I would not gamble away a hole on my truck in hopes that I could sell the dog and recoupe my lost money.

2 If my dog is on a pros truck and his dog is pulling places away from my dog I would compete with my dog from another pros truck.

3 If my dog is with a pro and after a reasonable amount of time the dog doesnt finish there are 2 problems 1 my dog cant cut it or 2 the dog is not getting the level of training to win.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

*Pro-Owned Dogs*

I've been in this situation before--even with young dogs who are not yet competing. If the pro is bringing a hot young prospect along to sell to a client for substantial dollars, whose dog do you think is going to get the most attention in training--even at the basics level.

I've had young dogs in training with a professional who also raised/trained/sold young dogs at early ages--ready for the Derby or after running a Derby or two. The client dogs definitely did not get the same level of concern or attention! In fact, for several years only the dogs owned by the professional made it to the serious competition level. If the pro had a dog that advanced quickly, then the rest of the pack had to work at that level--ready or not. If the pro had a slow dog, the rest of the crew had to slow down. If a client had a slow dog, it was sent home!

I now prefer to send my dogs to someone that won't be owning their own dogs where I end up competing for training time now or placements later in trials!

I'm not saying it should NEVER happen, but not regularly.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

*Re: Pro-Owned Dogs*



Vicki Worthington said:


> I've been in this situation before--even with young dogs who are not yet competing. If the pro is bringing a hot young prospect along to sell to a client for substantial dollars, whose dog do you think is going to get the most attention in training--even at the basics level.
> 
> I've had young dogs in training with a professional who also raised/trained/sold young dogs at early ages--ready for the Derby or after running a Derby or two. The client dogs definitely did not get the same level of concern or attention! In fact, for several years only the dogs owned by the professional made it to the serious competition level. If the pro had a dog that advanced quickly, then the rest of the pack had to work at that level--ready or not. If the pro had a slow dog, the rest of the crew had to slow down. If a client had a slow dog, it was sent home!
> 
> ...


Vicki -

How long did you stay with the Pro in question?

I'd go so far as to consider if the word "Professional" actually applied in this case.

Oh...just in case no one has done it yet, welcome to RTF!

Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

*Pro Owned Dogs*

Joe.

FYI. I was with this pro for a long time. I didn't send that many young dogs on a regular basis, so I was a "slow learner". But...another client actually did a winter trip training "vacation" and performed some pretty intensive time study analysis. It was overwhelmingly conclusive that client dogs took a back seat!

On the other side of the coin...I purchased some pretty good young dogs ready, or nearly ready for competition--the pro's dogs. I did well with them. For quite a while I decided I was just choosing the wrong pups. But...the last one that they had was VERY talented. He got into the keep up with the superstar puppy & was completely ruined. Another pro took him and turned him around--won Open & Amateur with placements.


----------



## D. Johnson (Aug 5, 2004)

*Re: Pro Owned Dogs*



Vicki Worthington said:


> Joe.
> 
> He got into the keep up with the superstar puppy & was completely ruined.
> 
> Meaning ? I dont quite get "into the keep up"


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

J Bar

As I understand it, the pro wouldn't let the dogs develop at their own pace, but instead insisted that they all keep up with the superstar pup.

As a result, some dogs were pushed too hard, too fast, and never had the chance to live up to their potential

Ted


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

*Should Pro Own Dogs*

Exactly, Ted.

The dogs that were pushed through ended up with poor basics that eventually caught up with them as they were "advanced". It's just like building a house--construct it on a shabby foundation & it eventually collapses!

I believe that when a pro begins training and running dogs for themselves they undercut their clients in the training arena. It is a total conflict of interest. Their total attention should be on training the dogs they are being paid to train, not their own dogs.


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

Totally agree Vicki!


----------



## bull (Apr 9, 2004)

First I want to know about Shayne kissing his cousin.

I think the real problem with a pro owning his own dog is not at the
trial but what he does during the week. The pro's derby dog
runs the bank so on Monday all the dogs on the truck do
cheating singles. Next week the dog creeps so all of the
dogs on the truck have steadying drills. The following week
his poor dog goes back to an old fall so Monday everydog 
on the truck is doing over/under marks hoping to get a correction.
What is happening is that all of the dogs are being trained
based upon what the pro's dog needs not what the individual dog
needs. 

An old time field trialer told me that he didn't mind his pro training on
the things the pro's favorite dog needed as long as long as the favorite dog was his.

Bull


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

I think some of this discussion does Pros a disservice.

Certainly, there are individuals who don't handle this sitaution well (see Vicki's example). But I think most Pros will set up training to benefit the majority of what the dogs on their truck need.

When working a large number of dogs, it simply is not possible to set up a specific training situation for each individual dog. So most will set things up that the majority of dogs need work on, and then simplify, modify, change-up what needs changing for those that have slightly different needs.

I've encountered identical situations in a training group of strictly amateurs. Someone will set up something with a gazillion concepts in it to "test" their dog, and the rest of us are left to struggle with making it work for our dogs. 

Lisa


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Lisa Van Loo said:


> > When working a large number of dogs, it simply is not possible to set up a specific training situation for each individual dog. So most will set things up that the majority of dogs need work on, and then simplify, modify, change-up what needs changing for those that have slightly different needs.
> 
> 
> Dogs of a variety of skill levels and/or problems can be trained for with the same set of marks
> ...


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

I can see the rub here but I have to ask, what if the pro in question has 4...5...6 or more client owned FC's on his/her truck. So what if he/she owns a dog or two(especially if they are for sale) if the other dogs are still winning. I would think it should only matter to the owners of the other dogs and if they don't care, why should you?!?!?! Seems like "taint, nobody's bidness but dey own"


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

Russ,

Most Pro's (esp ones that have several FCs) trucks are full.

If they take a space on their truck for one of their dogs - then they are denying a space for a client dog. Which client/dog is going to be told - "No room on this winter/summer trip."

How would that make you feel as an owner who has been waiting for a year for the breeding and shelled out $4K for the pup? Esp. if it was a pup you were very excited about?


----------



## Anthony Heath (Jan 3, 2003)

Ultimately I think you have to like, trust, and respect your trainer as a person and a professional. More than likely they did/did not have dogs of their own when you decided to pick them as a trainer. 

You in the above being no particular individual. 8)


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Gerard Rozas said:


> How would that make you feel as an owner who has been waiting for a year for the breeding and shelled out $4K for the pup? Esp. if it was a pup you were very excited about?


There is no such thing as "full" for a field trial pro running the Open. Gun dog trainers, hunt test trainers, and young dog trainers might get "full". But a field trial pro will always make room for another possible bullet in the last series.

They just want the best possible dogs and they want to win... and they don't care which dog they do it with.

Shayne


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> There is no such thing as "full" for a field trial pro running the Open. Gun dog trainers, hunt test trainers, and young dog trainers might get "full". But a field trial pro will always make room for another possible bullet in the last series.
> 
> They just want the best possible dogs and they want to win... and they don't care which dog they do it with.
> 
> Shayne


No truer words have been spoken on this subject.


----------



## Noah (Apr 6, 2003)

I understand the superstar puppy syndrome...but if a pro trainer were so inclined wouldn't it occur wether he owned the puppy/dog or one of his clients???


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> There is no such thing as "full" for a field trial pro running the Open.


Not so fast there, Byteman...

No such thing as full? Really? So...how many hours in a day are there in your world? :wink: 

IMHDAO (ubp, K2, Inc.) there comes a point in time where The Good Pro has to evaluate the requirements for training against those that need the training. Over the long term, it's VERY difficult to stick 30 training dogs in a 20 training dog day.

The "always room for one more" syndrome can lead to a very slippery slope where the quality of product can suffer. The Good Pro can find themselves doing things, or not doing things, because of all the dogs requiring training. It's easy, in the moment, to think, "I'll get that next time...just let me finish up here with the others." The problem becomes when the "next time" thay have as many or MORE dogs that need work.

I feel the client, or prospective client, needs to evaluate the number of dogs the Pro has and balance that against the time required to train a dog, the level of the dog being trained, the location of the grounds, the number of people helping the Pro and the daily requirments (professional and personal) in the life of a Pro.

Gotten Up After A Fall Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Joe your post is 100% logical and makes perfect sense. But there is not an A-List pro in the country that would turn down an "Auggie" or other dog they think will bring them more wins and the best shot at a National.

Farmer runs up to 19 Open dogs a weekend. 

Even though his truck is full, you approach Danny with a big time dog that he thinks he'll win another National with... he'll put Ethel in the front seat and make a hole for your dog and have 20 at the next trial. Applying your logic, Guthrie is going to think that is to many dogs and his dog won't get enough training. He'll pull his dog. Viola - back to 19 and you've just improved the truck as a whole.

Shayne


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Joe your post is 100% logical and makes perfect sense. But there is not an A-List pro in the country that would turn down an "Auggie" or other dog they think will bring them more wins and the best shot at a National.
> 
> Farmer runs up to 19 Open dogs a weekend.
> 
> ...


Dang man, did you just dis Dozer!?!?!?!


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

*Dozer*

Ain't no trainer gonna kick Dozer out of his hole.

1. He is the best looking dog on the circut.

2. He is the biggest, strongest, and fastest dog.

3. He has the record for most open jams before age 4.  

4. Cause Bowen told me so.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

*achiro*

Don't worry Achiro,

I got something for Shayne this weekend.

No one disses the Dozer.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

> *Guthrie* is going to think that is to many dogs and his dog won't get enough training. *He'll pull his dog*. Viola - back to 19 and you've *just improved the truck as a whole*.



Yo, KEN! Looks like you just got bitch-slapped!!!!

Lisa


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Joe your post is 100% logical and makes perfect sense. But there is not an A-List pro in the country that would turn down an "Auggie" or other dog they think will bring them more wins and the best shot at a National.
> 
> Farmer runs up to 19 Open dogs a weekend.
> 
> ...


Shayne -

To be brutally candid, a quality job CAN'T be done with more dogs than a quality job can be done with and that* is *a finite number.

A Good Pro knows this going in or learned it sometime during the course of becoming A Good Pro.

Something has to give:

Dogs
Personal Health
Cash Flow
Childern
Spouse
Washing the truck
Cutting the Grass
Doing Paperwork
Fixing the House
Cutting Around the Ponds
Sleep
Extended Family
Recreation
Self

Something has to give...

Got Off At The First Exit Regards,

Joe S.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

*Re: Dozer*



Ken Guthrie said:


> 4. Cause Bowen told me so.
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol:


HAHAHAHAHAHA

I figured throwin Guthrie's name in there would get a little attention.

Shayne


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

*yo*

Shayne,

My name never has got me attention,

but my "big dog" does. :lol:


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> Shayne -
> 
> To be brutally candid, a quality job CAN'T be done with more dogs than a quality job can be done with and that* is *a finite number.
> 
> ...



Joe 

*If we lived in a rational world*

September 11 would never have happened
Northern Ireland and Israel would be vacation meccas
Child abuse would be a fantasy

They are not 

*Because the world is not rational * 

You are correct, something has to give

And it frequently does.

My rough observation of FT professionals is many of them do not have the best personal relationships

Many of them do not have their finances in order

Etc., etc., etc.

There are very few *competing* pros I know that would not find a way .... one way or another to get a great - or even a very good - dog on their truck.

After all, the *competing* pro gets accolades - more clients, better dogs, and potentially more money - by winning the Open

So for most *competing* pros I know, space gets made for hot dogs

There are some competing pros that I have watched try to solicit clients from another pro to join them.

I have watched clients jump from one pro to another, trying to get on-board the "hot" truck

So, I have to agree with Shayne on this one


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

Ted and Shayne,

That is fine if you OWN the hot dog.

But what if your dog is, well, not so hot?

Or worst - what if your dog is transitional and is not ready to win an Open or finish a national?

You pay the same US dollars as everyone else.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Gerard

I was simply responding to Shayne's post about pros holding the line on the number of dogs they have

As for the initial issue


1) I think if you don't trust your pro, find another one
2) I would be uncomfortable if my pro were competing against me with his/her own dog

But, since I don't have a pro running my dogs, my opinions on the subject are in large part, irrelevant

You pays your money
You takes your chances

People get to spend money however they see fit

Ted


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Here is some old school RTF
john


----------



## Bartona500 (May 23, 2011)

It was so hard reading this thread and actually catching the posts. Kept growing on me!

My mentor runs springers, but same difference... 18 spots, and would never consider putting one of his own dogs in the mix. Pro FT business is ALL about pleasing the clients.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

*sniff, sniff* I soooo miss those days and the ole gang. We had some fun and this thread was a good one...

FT pro's should never be competing against their clients. It's unethical in theory and can lead to hard feelings. Don't be crapping on your own plate.

FWIW

Angie


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

JusticeDog said:


> OK, and here I thought we were really talking hypothetical here..... Does this pro live in texas? Someone tell me... inquiring minds want to know.
> 
> 
> Susan - jumping over the net *wearing a biker/tennis outfit*.


 Is that leather??


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Gerard trying to stir the pot, no names but the inference was obvious to most, very few contributors to the topic still hang out here, wonder why? An eight year old thread, why revive it when it wasn't a big issue then.


----------



## Jeff Bartlett (Jan 7, 2006)

Angie B said:


> *sniff, sniff* I soooo miss those days and the ole gang. We had some fun and this thread was a good one...
> 
> FT pro's should never be competing against their clients. It's unethical in theory and can lead to hard feelings. Don't be crapping on your own plate.
> 
> ...


First I've trained with a few of the pros on the west coast 
Some have dogs for sale some run and campaign a dog or two 
Of there own. Them dogs are considered dead beats and don't get 
Trained UNLESS THERE IS TIME AFTER PAYING MUTTS ARE DONE. 
Every pro wants too win and they don't care who's dog it is. Yes they root 
For the clients dog that is behind the eight ball or needing points for national 
But don't fool your self every bullet is a bullet


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Jeff Bartlett said:


> First I've trained with a few of the pros on the west coast
> Some have dogs for sale some run and campaign a dog or two
> Of there own. Them dogs are considered dead beats and don't get
> Trained UNLESS THERE IS TIME AFTER PAYING MUTTS ARE DONE.
> ...


We agree to disagree.. They can train dogs that they own after the other dogs are done training but why would they do that?? Isn't there day long enough?? Who wants to own and run dead beats?? 

I guess I'm missing something... 

Angie


----------



## Waterdogs (Jan 20, 2006)

I do not see anthing wrong with a pro running his own dog or an assistants dog. It is no different than running the dog that is consistant every weekend and keeps beating the other dogs on the truck. Ownership does not guarantee success. If your dog was beating the other dogs on your Pro's truck would you be ok if your pro pulled your dog to get points with other dogs on the truck. I think most pro's would just as soon run a client dog than one of their own.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Everyone wants to find a nice young dog that may become a player. Some pros are given or buy a nice puppy or two to take through the program. The good ones end up being offered to clients and stay on the truck. A win win really. Pro makes some coin and client may have a nice dog. Beyond 16-18 months I think the pro should be cutting these dogs loose.
I don't like to see a pro owning and trialing dogs otherwise.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> Gerard trying to stir the pot, no names but the inference was obvious to most, very few contributors to the topic still hang out here, wonder why? An eight year old thread, why revive it when it wasn't a big issue then.


Why ??? 

Around 40 people have voted since the thread was revived and the votes are still divided right down the middle.............
Putting Gerads reasons aside and dealing with the issue in the abstract, it seems that there are two camps on the matter, each with a divergent viewpoint 

john


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

I wasn't going to vote but will - as I see no issue with a pro having a dog on his truck that is for sale that they presently own! But will vote No as I think the original issue was a dog that was not for sale.


----------



## truthseeker (Feb 2, 2012)

In my opinion, I do not see if a trainer had a full truck and a waiting list, that they would have the time to train there own dogs, but for those of use that have delusion of grandeur, by Chance got a national prospect the other dog owners would have to respect that. I for one would not give the dog up to no one. It's just politics, if I had a dog that was a national prospect, I would put it with the trainer with the best Chance to win it all, and it would not be a newbie. The old saying is.--- You are only as good as the dogs that you are training.


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

The biggest issue I've seen with a pro owning and running a dog in a field trial. Has been with hunt test pros running dogs they co-own in a Owner Handler Q. I have always felt this is complete BS.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Golden Boy said:


> The biggest issue I've seen with a pro owning and running a dog in a field trial. Has been with hunt test pros running dogs they co-own in a Owner Handler Q. I have always felt this is complete BS.


Most would call that cheating !!!!!!!!


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

Marvin S said:


> Most would call that cheating !!!!!!!!


It is and I've seen it more than a time or two!!!!!!!!

It also shows no class on behalf of the pro & the owner doing it.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Now now any smart pro, trains his dog, & sells it to a client, on conditions it stays on his truck. That way the pro still has the dog and the client pays the bill. Best monetary strategy


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Golden Boy said:


> The biggest issue I've seen with a pro owning and running a dog in a field trial. Has been with hunt test pros running dogs they co-own in a Owner Handler Q. I have always felt this is complete BS.


A hunt test pro can't have a hobby?


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> A hunt test pro can't have a hobby?


Sure he can have a hobby.....running Q's against other pro's!!!! 
Co-owning a 6 to 8 year old MH so he or she can win a owner handler Q running against Am's shows a lack of class and no true training ability.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Golden Boy said:


> Sure he can have a hobby.....running Q's against other pro's!!!!
> Co-owning a 6 to 8 year old MH so he or she can win a owner handler Q running against Am's shows a lack of class and no true training ability.


As long as the pro is an owner, it doesn't bother me. It is an Owner Handler Q, not an Amateur Q. In every OHQ I have run, the Ams do just fine against HT pros.


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> As long as the pro is an owner, it doesn't bother me. It is an Owner Handler Q, not an Amateur Q. In every OHQ I have run, the Ams do just fine against HT pros.


Well that's good and I hope you beat every hunt test pro you run against....Because I still feel the same that is shows a lack of class on the part of the pro and the client doing this. I say the hunt test pro should go run a regular Q against other pros and that's good with me.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Golden Boy said:


> Well that's good and I hope you beat every hunt test pro you run against....Because I still feel the same that is shows a lack of class on the part of the pro and the client doing this.* I say the hunt test pro should go run a regular Q against other pros and that's good with me*.



Are you saying that the OH "Q" is suppose to be less competative than the regular "Q" ?

john


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Golden Boy said:


> Well that's good and I hope you beat every hunt test pro you run against....Because I still feel the same that is shows a lack of class on the part of the pro and the client doing this. I say the hunt test pro should go run a regular Q against other pros and that's good with me.



I ran in an O/H qual against Stowski and Farmer. Didn't bother me one bit. Some pros will start a dog and sell it later, hopefully to a client who will keep it on their truck. No big deal...


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

john fallon said:


> Are you saying that the OH "Q" is suppose to be less competative than the regular "Q" ?
> 
> john


No that's not what I'm saying Set-ups should be equal as in any other Q.
The intent of the O/H Q is for the the person that has one or two dogs that they own, weather AM trained or pro trained to have the opportunity to run thier dogs in a more level field. Not against the pro with a truck load of dog to pick from. The O/H Q is to help encourage people to start competing in field trial stakes, and running against the pro who does this type of under handed activity is under mining the propurse of this trial. Just to make him or herself look better, this person adds nothing to the sport of field trialing in my view.
The pros that do are not good sports men or ambassadors to the field trialing games.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Golden Boy said:


> No that's not what I'm saying Set-ups should be equal as in any other Q.
> The intent of the O/H Q is for the the person that has one or two dogs that they own, weather AM trained or pro trained to have the opportunity to run thier dogs in a more level field. Not against the pro with a truck load of dog to pick from. The O/H Q is to help encourage people to start competing in field trial stakes, and running against the pro who does this type of under handed activity is under mining the propurse of this trial. Just to make him or herself look better, this person adds nothing to the sport of field trialing in my view.
> The pros that do are not good sports men or ambassadors to the field trialing games.


What is underhanded in this? As long as the pro owns the dog, how is it mean they are not good sportsmen? What is wrong with a HT pro who has a decent dog but can't run FTs since he is at a HT every weekend to run his dog in an OHQ associated with a HT he is also running?


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> What is underhanded in this? As long as the pro owns the dog, how is it mean they are not good sportsmen? What is wrong with a HT pro who has a decent dog but can't run FTs since he is at a HT every weekend to run his dog in an OHQ associated with a HT he is also running?


The pro isn't the soul owner he or she co-owns the dog for the purpose of running against lesser experinced handlers in the O/H Q.


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> What is underhanded in this? As long as the pro owns the dog, how is it mean they are not good sportsmen? What is wrong with a HT pro who has a decent dog but can't run FTs since he is at a HT every weekend to run his dog in an OHQ associated with a HT he is also running?


Well if there's nothing wrong with this. 
Then here's an idea I'm a fair handler and I've never been paid to train a dog in my life. 
Maybe I'll sign on with a good Feild Trial Pro, have him trian me to be a great handler and I'll in turn travel with him and run his client dogs in the AM when ever the client is unavailable. This should give me about 10 shots at the line.
There's nothing under handed about that is there.........


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

Golden Boy said:


> Well if there's nothing wrong with this.
> Then here's an idea I'm a fair handler and I've never been paid to train a dog in my life.
> Maybe I'll sign on with a good Feild Trial Pro, have him trian me to be a great handler and I'll in turn travel with him and run his client dogs in the AM when ever the client is unavailable. This should give me about 10 shots at the line.
> There's nothing under handed about that is there.........


We are talking about an owner/handler not an Amature owner/handler. I cannot find the information that states the original intent of the owner/handler Q could you provide the link to this information.

Thanks


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

Our last Q had almost half the dogs run by four differnt Professionals. 1st, 2nd went to Amateurs. A few years ago I judged a O/H Q that was run in conjunction with a HT. Again we had about 4 pros running dogs they own or co-own. Again 1st 2nd and 3rd went to Amateurs. Just don't see this as an issue.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Golden Boy said:


> The pro isn't the soul owner he or she co-owns the dog for the purpose of running against lesser experinced handlers in the O/H Q.


If the pro co-owned the dog for the sole purpose of running in an OHQ, that would be a little squirrelly. However, if that is what one needs to do to get a first or second in a Q, I would not worry about the dog much anyway. However, I think it is far more likely that a pro legitimately co-owns a dog in an OHQ rather than it being a sham transaction for such small stakes.



Golden Boy said:


> Well if there's nothing wrong with this.
> Then here's an idea I'm a fair handler and I've never been paid to train a dog in my life.
> Maybe I'll sign on with a good Feild Trial Pro, have him trian me to be a great handler and I'll in turn travel with him and run his client dogs in the AM when ever the client is unavailable. This should give me about 10 shots at the line.
> There's nothing under handed about that is there.........


Bring it on. I run every weekend against far better handlers with far better dogs who train far more frequently than I do. They often have several bullets in every Am and I lose to them every weekend, so what is one more? It doesn't bother me in the least since I am able to keep my dogs and my ego separate. Besides, I know we have the best dogs on the circuit that train only once per week whether they need it or not.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Golden Boy said:


> No that's not what I'm saying Set-ups should be equal as in any other Q.
> The intent of the O/H Q is for the the person that has one or two dogs that they own, weather AM trained or pro trained to have the opportunity to run thier dogs in a more level field. Not against the pro with a truck load of dog to pick from. The O/H Q is to help encourage people to start competing in field trial stakes, and running against the pro who does this type of under handed activity is under mining the propurse of this trial. Just to make him or herself look better, this person adds nothing to the sport of field trialing in my view.
> The pros that do are not good sports men or ambassadors to the field trialing games.


This is a team sport. To be competative you must have a good dog and for your dog to be so it must have a good handler. 

To eliminate a whole class of good handlers is not "leveling the playing field", it's making that "Q" less competative.


john


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> If the pro co-owned the dog for the sole purpose of running in an OHQ, that would be a little squirrelly. However, if that is what one needs to do to get a first or second in a Q, I would not worry about the dog much anyway. However, I think it is far more likely that a pro legitimately co-owns a dog in an OHQ rather than it being a sham transaction for such small stakes.
> I've seen it and I knew the HT pro that did it.
> 
> 
> ...


And you got the right additude so I'll get off my soap box. Train my dogs and let them do the speaking for the team. 
Best of luck to you and your dogs.


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> If the pro co-owned the dog for the sole purpose of running in an OHQ, that would be a little squirrelly. However, if that is what one needs to do to get a first or second in a Q, I would not worry about the dog much anyway. However, I think it is far more likely that a pro legitimately co-owns a dog in an OHQ rather than it being a sham transaction for such small stakes.
> 
> 
> 
> Bring it on. I run every weekend against far better handlers with far better dogs who train far more frequently than I do. They often have several bullets in every Am and I lose to them every weekend, so what is one more? It doesn't bother me in the least since I am able to keep my dogs and my ego separate. Besides, I know we have the best dogs on the circuit that train only once per week whether they need it or not.


I've seen it and knew the HT Pro that did it.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I think Golden Boy is just stating a loop hole in the O/H Qualifying stake that some Pros take advantage of and he feels it is unsportsmanlike and I agree. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Now with that being said I could personally not care because I run AA stakes and handle my own dog, so it's not like I'm not gonna run into most of the Pros eventually in the Open, so if I can't beat them in a Q I've got others things to worry about. 

On the other hand, when Pros take advantage by co-owning dogs just so they can run them in an O/H Q that does detract from what I would consider the intent of the O/H Q especially in conjunction with a HT. Which in my opinion is to try and encourage participation by HTers who normally would not attend a weekend FT. 

The issue that Golden Boy is bringing up is no different than the ramblings you hear about Amateurs co-owning dogs just so they can run them in a O/H Am. Co-owning a dog just to skirt the rules is not very sportsmanship like, period. There are and will always be a legitimate reason for co-ownerships, but in the case of a Pro co-owning a dog with a paying client does not pass the sniff test.

FOM


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

FOM said:


> I think Golden Boy is just stating a loop hole in the O/H Qualifying stake that some Pros take advantage of and he feels it is unsportsmanlike and I agree. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
> 
> Now with that being said I could personally not care because I run AA stakes and handle my own dog, so it's not like I'm not gonna run into most of the Pros eventually in the Open, so if I can't beat them in a Q I've got others things to worry about.
> 
> ...


Amen someone got it.
Thank you very much!!!!


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

How is this a loop hole this is not an Amature stake it is an owner/handler.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

It's a loop hole when the pro really does not own the dog. The name is just on the paper, solely for the purpose of O/H Quals.
Or, sometimes, the name is just on EE as owner. They don't bother to actually change the registration.

Some FT Secs, check this. Some places have been removed.


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

will explain my feelings a little better regarding this issue. Field trials are competitive regardless of the stake. You will be running against pros and amatures and professional amatures there is no way around it. I cannot see any advantage to creating a venue that waters down the reality of the game. Personally I disagree with the idea that owner handler qualifyings bring new handlers to the game I think it just gives field trial credibility to dogs that for the most part are not competing against field trial dogs when the events are held in conjunction with a hunt test.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

cakaiser said:


> It's a loop hole when the pro really does not own the dog. The name is just on the paper, solely for the purpose of O/H Quals.
> Or, sometimes, the name is just on EE as owner. They don't bother to actually change the registration.
> 
> Some FT Secs, check this. Some places have been removed.


I agree but I believe the rule requires them to be a registered owner or Co owner. I just can't imagin a Pro that would go through that much trouble to run a clients dog in the Q. Let me restate that a pro worth calling a Pro anyway.


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

scott spalding said:


> I agree but I believe the rule requires them to be a registered owner or Co owner. I just can't imagin a Pro that would go through that much trouble to run a clients dog in the Q. Let me restate that a pro worth calling a Pro anyway.


Seen it done!!!!!!!


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

scott spalding said:


> I agree but I believe the rule requires them to be a registered owner or Co owner. I just can't imagin a Pro that would go through that much trouble to run a clients dog in the Q. Let me restate that a pro worth calling a Pro anyway.


Believe it. It happens.


----------



## CanAmMan (Sep 28, 2007)

Quick question...
Can a dog that is pro trained be ran in an Amatuer Q?


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

CanAmMan said:


> Quick question...
> Can a dog that is pro trained be ran in an Amatuer Q?


Pro trained dogs run in amateur stakes all the time. Pro or Amateur is based on the handler, not who trained the dog.


----------



## CanAmMan (Sep 28, 2007)

I see no problem for a pro that owns/co-owns a dog to run a O/H Q. if you are going to let pro-trained dogs run in a AM Q.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

No such thing as a "Am Q" Did I help much?


----------



## CanAmMan (Sep 28, 2007)

2tall said:


> No such thing as a "Am Q" Did I help much?


Did not know that, got it from this post so I thought that there was. I guess I was then thinking of amature stake.



DoubleHaul said:


> As long as the pro is an owner, it doesn't bother me. It is an Owner Handler Q, not an Amateur Q. In every OHQ I have run, the Ams do just fine against HT pros.


----------



## Mark (Jun 13, 2003)

FOM said:


> On the other hand, when Pros take advantage by co-owning dogs just so they can run them in an O/H Q
> FOM



Come on guys just how pervasive is this practice. 
I can see pros co-owning dogs for various reasons but, just so they can run them in an O/H Q?? There is a conspiracy theory just around every corner (just hang out in the gallery of any FT on any given weekend) but I am not buying it.

QAA lite should be a designation recognized by the AKC. Should it come before or after the dogs name. 

Quick thought - I didnt respond to this post in 2004, why on earth am I responding now.


Mark


----------



## russell.jason2 (Mar 13, 2011)

I really don't understand the fuss, again very new to this but in the case of a pro running Quals, regardless if it O/H or not, I have no problem. Take for example, I am training my first FT dog, she is 2 1/2. I ran two quals with her this fall and she finished 3rd in both of them and in both trials 1st and 2nd went to pros. However I welcome pros bc I learned so much. In both trials I seen how the pro's adjusted to the test and it got me saying to myself "damn, I wish I would have thought of that". My goal is not to get her QAA, even though I would love that, but its to use the Q to learn the game as a handler and I learned alot in those two trials by watching the pros. If the Q is suppose to be about getting folks like me into the game, then to me pros bring alot to the table. I dont have the money to go to a pro to learn, I use my money for dvds, stickmen, launchers, etc., train and run trials, so I watch and learn at the event. Knowing if I would have done something a little different, it could have been my girl taking 1st or 2nd but I now have more tools in my toolbox watching the pros run the same test I had to run. 

Just my thoughts,

Jason


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

CanAmMan said:


> Did not know that, got it from this post so I thought that there was. I guess I was then thinking of amature stake.


I can see that it was confusing but I was pointing out that an owner handler Q requires that the owner be the handler. Whether the owner is a pro or an amateur is not considered for eligibility. It does not require a the handler to be an amateur, nor do the dogs have to be amateur or owner trained.

Several of you have pointed out that it does sometimes happen that a pro will become co-owner of a dog for the sole reason of being able to run it in an OHQ. While I can't believe this is widespread--the Q is just not that important--I have no reason to doubt y'all and I would think less of someone who did that. However, there are pros who own or co-own dogs for very valid reasons and have every right to run them in an OHQ and I would hope folks would not assume those motivations on anyone doing so. Face it, the Q is a joke in the FT world. Most pros and serious ams run it once when the dog is getting out of derby, get their first or second and move on. Those of us who run it more frequently are sort of like the breakfast club of FTs. We hang out with our equally less successful friends, rib each other, pop over to the Am or Open to have our lunch money stolen then come back and drink beer in the gallery of the Q. It is fun, but it sure isn't worth the AKC paperwork to sneak in a ringer.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Ya'll been arguing about this for eight years. I'm calling hung jury.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

I'm just calling headache.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

I would guess that in some small entries the trial giving club is glad to have any O/H.

I've seen it and wondered about it too. Other than being eligible to run a dog in an O/H stake, is there any other reason for a pro to co own a dog? Of course other than just wanting to for all the reasons we all own dogs.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Those who are interssted in running FT's should work hard, and pay your dues at "real " qualifying stakes, and not bemoan a young dog pro for trying to ply his or her trade.

john


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Those who are interssted in running FT's should work hard, and pay your dues at "real " qualifying stakes, and not bemoan a young dog pro for trying to ply his or her trade.
> 
> john


"pay your dues"...does this have anything to do with how dogs are judged?


----------



## Cedarswamp (Apr 29, 2008)

Would you REALLY want a trainer that doesn't have his own dogs? Not saying he would necessarily have one on the truck at all times, dogs get old/injured or too young/not ready to run. 

What would you say about a FT trainer that put his dog with another FT trainer to not "conflict"? I would think people would say why send my dog there if he doesn't train his own...which would be a direct contradiction to the "shouldn't have one on his truck". You can't make everybody happy.


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

Cedarswamp said:


> Would you REALLY want a trainer that doesn't have his own dogs?


A large percentage of dog trainers don't own dogs due to the fact that it's not only a conflict, but it ties up space that a paying client's dog could be in.


----------

