Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleHaul
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Boy
Are you saying that the OH "Q" is suppose to be less competative than the regular "Q" ?
john
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Boy
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...
No that's not what I'm saying Set-ups should be equal as in any other Q.Quote:
Originally Posted by john fallon
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Boy
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleHaul
Well if there's nothing wrong with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleHaul
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Boy
Thanks
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Boy
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. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Boy