Originally Posted by Jennifer Henion
This is flawed logic. There are only so many competitive Derby age dogs in a given area. It seems as if you are suggesting that the test need to be dumbed down. It really means that you need to train harder. Pros in a derby? Pros in an open? Pros in a qualifying? Bring it on baby! It just makes the victory even sweeter.
This is really not a bad idea, maybe 20 months but not 18. I do not like the idea of OH derby. Don't particularly care for OH quals either. I am technically a pro but not full time and nowhere near the caliber of some of the big boys. This would put me out of running the two or three client dogs I get that are capable and I don't have the ability to travel all over to other trials. I think DQ's fill the notch just as well as an OH event especially held by a hunt test club in conjunction with their HT, at least in my part of the country. Most pros aren't going to bother attending a DQ when they have a truck load of AA dogs. I also agree with Susan I don't want to see a derby or qual dumbed down just to attract new people. FT are for people that are serious about training their dogs to compete at a higher level so if your not serious enough to put in the effort to run at that level then stay in HT, that is what they were designed for.
Originally Posted by russell.jason2
I should have added "you need 10 dogs for the points to count."
In recent years if a pro didn't come to your Derby you didn't have one. I guess you could have one with 4 dogs if you wanted but no one would.
Derby dogs are with Pros 'cause it's hard as hell to get a dog ready for one if you work full time and live where it's cold.
I have heard of clubs trying to have an O/H Derby along with their O/H Qual at a Hunt test and in some areas that may work.
Let's not forget that most, if not all the Pro handled dogs in a Derby are actually owned by amateurs. Most of the Ams are quite capable of running the dog but don't for many reasons. Time and distance being a big reason. The concept of a Field Trial is to find the best dogs. If you limit the entries to exclude the best dogs from entering you kind of take away what winning a Derby means.
(I agree with Susan, didn't see her post before I hit submit.)
I am in favor giving clubs choices when it comes to events (O/H Qual)
I am in favor in promoting the introduction of newcomers to the sport
I am in favor of trying new concepts
I voted for the O/H Q - even though my club will likely never hold one
I would vote for the O/H Derby - even though my club will likely never hold one
I would vote for a Rule change which would allow clubs to hold Opens without needing to hold an Amateur - even though my club would likely never do so
I think the derbies are the one stake where the pros are at a disadvantage.
-Pros spend a lot of time traveling, during trial season Derby dogs are missing out on at least 3 days a week of training.
-Training on the road often gets more assembly lined, where all the marks are setup for all the dogs.
-And, Pros are always having to hurry with their derby dogs at the trials.
Holding an Amateur without an Open would be what would really shake up the status quo..... and actually reward the worker bees who actually are hands on and are the life blood of the sport and make the trials happen.
Originally Posted by Ted Shih
I don't see it happening though
It's been like this forever. The Ams work, and the Open provides the additional $$$ to be able to do it again next year.
Without the Open most clubs would lose about $4000. 50 entries X $80. Of course without the Amateur you'd lose the same amount.
Agree.Why do anything to make it harder for new blood in the sport.Its hard enough as it is.
Originally Posted by russhardy
Susan, beginner amateurs like me don't want anything "dumbed down". Our biggest obstacle is the lack of grounds/water to train on for some of the more complex and challenging set ups these days. The need for more complexity/challenge is mostly due to the number of dogs being well trained and run by pros that have the most access to grounds/water. By providing a stake for O/H, maybe we would be running against those limited only by the same lack of access to grounds? On the other hand, having run a grand total of two derbies, I have listened to a lot of instant experts extolling the gallery with all kinds of advice while watching their dog being run by their pro along with 5 other dogs. Is this really "bringing new blood into the sport" or is it just providing more bullets for the pros? In my trips to the line, which are few and far between, I have never griped about the set up, the judges and most certainly not against the pros and their dogs. For me it is all about did my dog please me? Have we improved? Can we find a way/place to work on what we failed? I would like to do well, but winning is not why I go. I go to run the set ups. If they become so outrageous that I can not approach them with my limited training facilities, I will not spend the money to go and just stay home and play with my dogs. Mostly what I do these days, and I'm not blaming the sport, I'm blaming lack of grounds within a day's drive.
Originally Posted by JusticeDog
BTW, there are two guys on this forum that cant even spell cojones!:razz::p:p
Originally Posted by 2tall
there is a misconception that adding an O/H stake eliminates the pros, well it does BUT, then you end up competing against some well financed amateurs with nothing more on their hands than time and resources to train dogs...pick your poison
blaming the lack of grounds, is something that you can do something about...we all make choices on where we live and choose to work...would I like to live in Montana, sure would, but could I make a living in Montana similar to what I currently make...Not a chance..There are very few places in the country where you can live, have a quality of lifestyle, and train dogs..That will lead to the demise of the sport. Look at how many venues where trials are held on properties owned by fellow FT competitors, if you dont have access to those properties then beating someone in their backyard is a lesson in futility..Look at how many pros that have a "sugar daddy" client with grounds for them to train, grounds that the average FT will never have access to, it very hard to compete against a stacked deck