I'm just calling headache. :p :p
Printable View
I'm just calling headache. :p :p
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by john fallon
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cedarswamp