The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 12 of 15 FirstFirst ... 21011121314 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 142

Thread: Correction - New Designation for Owner/Handler Amateur

  1. #111
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    4,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gun_Dog2002 View Post
    Every trained a dog yourself or do you just housebreak puppies? /Paul
    I have to say that is one of the funnier things you have posted on this forum .
    As it's your saying "Request permission to use it at some time ".
    __________________________

    Marvin S

    Everyone's friend is No One's friend

    Someday your life will flash before your eyes. It's your responsibility to make sure it's worth watching!

  2. #112
    Member russell.jason2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Bossier City, LA
    Posts
    43

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Robinson View Post
    I think it's regional. Out here we have a bigger problem getting enough dogs entered to break even. Sure there are some big 90 dog plus summer trials, but overall amateurs running a lot of dogs is a nonissue. I think that unless a person has experienced the problem first hand, I haven't, we tend to not understand what the big deal is.
    John, I think you are right. It's interesting as I look at EE how trials across the country are different in regards to the number of entries in the Amateur. With as many dogs as I see co-owned (which I am not against) what is the reason to have a owner/handler Amateur anyway, limit entries? I guess the problem I would have is running against a amateur who brings 6+ dogs which atleast half of them co-owned. I see an issue with that in the Amateur, this is just my opinion, I think that has its place in the open. What about the person who does not every run their dog (s) but co-owns the dog (s) with an "amateur" that campaigns the dog like a pro, I am just not sure about that. I still have a lot to learn but this is some of my observations.

  3. #113
    Senior Member born2retrieve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    348

    Default

    I guess I'm surprised that more people don't see that this idea of a co owned dog can not be ran in a owner handler is taking their rights away. I do understand that it is sometimes abused but it is still their right to do what they are doing.

  4. #114
    Senior Member BBnumber1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Falcon, CO
    Posts
    883

    Default

    First, let me say that I am leaning towards opposition to this rule change because of the affect on legitimate co-owners. I might be in favor of the same thing as an option for clubs in addition to the current owner handler.

    In regard to the 'rights' comment, I disagree. Running a dog at an event is a priviledge afforded us by the AKC and the hosting club, not a right. There have been restrictions on running specific events for a long time. The Amatuer restricts who can handle a dog, the O/H further restricts that. The Open has 4 levels of restriction, Open, Limited, Restricted, and Special. The question is whether the restrictions are good or bad for the sport, the AKC, the clubs, and the participants.
    Quote Originally Posted by born2retrieve View Post
    I guess I'm surprised that more people don't see that this idea of a co owned dog can not be ran in a owner handler is taking their rights away. I do understand that it is sometimes abused but it is still their right to do what they are doing.
    Last edited by BBnumber1; 04-22-2014 at 08:06 AM.
    -=#David

    Well, this started off as a really interesting thread. Too bad we couldn't keep it that way. (Rick_C 2009, Classic RTF)
    __________________________________________________ _
    Take what you get and thank them (the Judges) afterwards no matter what the outcome. (Moira Sheehan)

  5. #115
    Senior Member BonMallari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    LV/CenTex/Idaho
    Posts
    12,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by born2retrieve View Post
    I guess I'm surprised that more people don't see that this idea of a co owned dog can not be ran in a owner handler is taking their rights away. I do understand that it is sometimes abused but it is still their right to do what they are doing.
    As a current co owner of a legit FT dog, I am not opposed to the proposal because I knew that when I took possession of Sophie that it was the twilight of her career and probably wont affect me...BUT had the same offer came up say 4-5 years ago I may not have been so willing to accept the change...

    If the proposal passes, it will impact any future thought of any co ownership with family and probably eliminate any co ownership with non family, but its not a deal breaker and if the trials we choose to attend adopt an O/H then we will adjust accordingly

    IMHO the measure goes the same route as the limited entry
    All my Exes live in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by lanse brown View Post
    A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

  6. #116
    Senior Member EdA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,621

    Default

    I do not like the idea of changing ownership rules part way through the journey. There are many legitimate co-owner arrangements and to suddenly deny those individuals the right to participate in an Owner Handler stake because of the supposed abuse of the ownership status of a few punishes the wrong people. Leave the Owner Handler Amateur Stake alone, if there is some perceived abuse that makes some clubs feel the need to restrict find another way to do that. This does not seem to be a widespread issue or one that many people are concerned about. We are in a time when we have many clubs with few if any field trial participants voting on matters that do not pertain to or affect them, leave the rulebook alone, PLEASE!!!!!

  7. #117
    Senior Member born2retrieve's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    348

    Default

    Thank you Ed!!!

  8. #118
    Senior Member Sabireley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Culpeper VA
    Posts
    1,067

    Default

    I agree. This is not worth spending any time on. Let's run our dogs against whoever shows up and try to win.


    Quote Originally Posted by EdA View Post
    I do not like the idea of changing ownership rules part way through the journey. There are many legitimate co-owner arrangements and to suddenly deny those individuals the right to participate in an Owner Handler stake because of the supposed abuse of the ownership status of a few punishes the wrong people. Leave the Owner Handler Amateur Stake alone, if there is some perceived abuse that makes some clubs feel the need to restrict find another way to do that. This does not seem to be a widespread issue or one that many people are concerned about. We are in a time when we have many clubs with few if any field trial participants voting on matters that do not pertain to or affect them, leave the rulebook alone, PLEASE!!!!!

  9. #119
    Senior Member Erin O'Brien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    242

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BonMallari View Post
    That just made me go back and look at your previous explanation:

    so a (husband/wife) owned dog would be eligible
    but a (brother/brother) owned dog would not be eligible


    Thanks for clarifying that....not that it effects us now but could with the new pups a couple of years down the road
    Unless they change the rules on who constitutes a family member also, I think you would still be ok.

    For purposes of this SECTION, the words “any member
    of his family’’ shall include a spouse, a sibling, a parent
    or a child, whether natural or adopted, of the judge in
    question; but shall not extend to other blood or legal
    relationships.

  10. #120
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdA View Post
    I do not like the idea of changing ownership rules part way through the journey. There are many legitimate co-owner arrangements and to suddenly deny those individuals the right to participate in an Owner Handler stake because of the supposed abuse of the ownership status of a few punishes the wrong people. Leave the Owner Handler Amateur Stake alone, if there is some perceived abuse that makes some clubs feel the need to restrict find another way to do that. This does not seem to be a widespread issue or one that many people are concerned about. We are in a time when we have many clubs with few if any field trial participants voting on matters that do not pertain to or affect them, leave the rulebook alone, PLEASE!!!!!

    Exactly.......
    Bill Davis

Posting Permissions

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