The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 103

Thread: New Category of Owner Handler Amateur for FT Being Discussed

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    426

    Default

    I am all for a club having that option. Clubs and members work very hard to put on trials and give them an option if they feel it necessary. No club has to do it just as with limited, special and restricted Opens.

  2. #12
    Senior Member DoubleHaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    N. Cackalacky
    Posts
    2,597

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wade View Post
    I would be curious to get RTFers thoughts on how many dogs this would affect at their respective FT? Are there really that many "co-owned" dogs entered at your trials?
    Around here, versus a regular AM, this would probably affect about five or six dogs per AM. Versus an O/H AM, it would affect perhaps two or three.

    The impact would be felt by folks who sold a dog to someone who doesn't run amateurs and they get to run them in the AM, which would be handled by an O/H am anyway and legitimate co-owners. I am not aware of any bogus co-ownership on our circuit. Given all the noise about it, it must be a much bigger problem on other circuits.

    Nevertheless, I am generally for giving clubs more options, if they feel it makes things better for them.

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    New Haven, CT
    Posts
    1,219

    Default

    We'll a name who owns many dogs but has never run a dog and has many dogs with different pro's who sends several dogs to nationals has just started to run her dogs in amat with a co owner. Is this the reason for this potential policy?. Does it affect me? No . I'm not at that level.
    Gentle in what you do. Firm in how you do it.

    CH SILVERCREEK MURRAY SAMUEL (MURRAY) WDQ CGC MH *** 2/16/00 - 12/26/12
    WESTWIND WHISPERING COVE (LARRY son of Murray) WDQ MH ***
    LPK DELAWARE RIVER WHISPERING COVE **(SAVAGE SAM son of FC Chester MH)
    WESTWIND WHISPERING COVE JAY ** ( Larry's son and Murray's grandson)

  4. #14
    Senior Member Scott Adams's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Southern Ontario
    Posts
    659

    Default

    Get it down to 3 dogs per handler in the Am and at least you are approaching the spirit of it.
    NAFTCH FTCH AFTCH Mjolnir Bluebill Of Allanport
    Flatlands Bayduck of Allanport
    Dakota Creek Teal of Allanport

  5. #15
    Senior Member Ted Shih's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Golden, Colorado
    Posts
    4,992

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Adams View Post
    Get it down to 3 dogs per handler in the Am and at least you are approaching the spirit of it.

    At last year's National Amateur, the RAC floated a proposal that would allow clubs to limit the number of dogs that could be run per handler in the Amateur.

    That proposal died from lack of support by the community.
    Competition does not build character - It reveals it.

    Home of:
    FC/AFC Freeridin Wowie Zowie (2003 NARC Finalist)
    FC/AFC Sky Hy Husker Power
    FC/AFC Freeridin Smooth Operator
    FC/AFC Freeridin Vampire Slayer (2007 NARC Finalist)
    AFC Freeridin Maserati (Double Header Winner)

    www.freeridinretrievers.com

  6. #16
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,130

    Default

    The whole thing is BS. Comes up every year or so... Mainly from folks who feel someone else has an advantage.

    Train harder.
    Bill Davis

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Corinth MS
    Posts
    792

    Default

    You know if you can't compete change the rules.

  8. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    owings mills, md
    Posts
    1,512

    Default

    Will field trial committees have to determine status and dog custody when accepting entries of recently separated or divorced owner/handlers?

    Tim
    You order a Lab; ask a Golden; but negotiate with a Chesapeake!

  9. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Eureka Mo
    Posts
    1,047

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cakaiser View Post
    I don't think that will help anything.
    Just as for O/H, where names went on the paper...for single family O/H, names will come off the paper.
    The name of the owner who doesn't handle.

    The rule is meant to address, those who co-own, solely for the purpose of handling.
    Not going to do that. Those people will just find a way around that rule.
    Instead, it will hurt those who genuinely do co own.
    This pretty much nails it.

  10. #20
    Senior Member EdA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beverly Burns View Post
    I am all for a club having that option. Clubs and members work very hard to put on trials and give them an option if they feel it necessary. No club has to do it just as with limited, special and restricted Opens.
    I wish more clubs had the same attitude about the now illegal use of layout blinds or having a gun retire in the field lying on the ground concealed by a holding blind.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •