"Champion of the Little Guy". My comments on the 1st post say what
needs to be said. Your dog goes with Danny in the summer I believe,
one of the trials he runs is Minot, club held together by one individual.
That individual only gets to run about 4 or 5 trials a year, when he is
fortunate enough to have a good dog.
What you & those who agree with you are saying is "It's OK if you want
to work your hiney off for my enjoyment, but wanting to share in the spoils
of your efforts should be legislated in a manner that the deck is stacked
Show me where my logic is flawed !
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!
I felt like I should start participating again... As I will be on the line next year in a derby or two... And maybe in the all age in a few years. But, it is my CHOICE.
Will somebody explain what the co-ownership abuse is that has raised this topic? Is it pros co-owning with amateurs? Is it an amateur co-owning with an amateur who is semi-pro? What has RAC received as complaints?
I have gone back through my catalogs for trials on the west coast. I don't see any co-ownership abuse in this region.
I am new to running dogs in FT but have been around the game a while. Even hunted over a Super Chief son. Something to keep in perspective is those of us who don't have the grounds to train on nore the time because of other commitments and use a pro. I have a young dog that winters 500 miles south so I can't run her until they are back up here unless I fly down which for me is prohibitively costly. I have no problem with an amateur who has the bucks to have a string of dogs to envy. I know of people who co-own because of cost etc. There are a few on the West Coast who co-own dogs and run them in the Am as the other owner never would. It all evens out and you have to run against the best any way. I say leave things status quo.
Just a relative newby regards,
working on pelts
Duckponds Prize Package
CK'S Contessa (avatar)
Ice Chilled Juice
One thing I wonder about this proposal is how would one enforce it? I am sure that it will be up to the club but all the information the club gets comes from EE, which information is entirely supplied by the person filling out the form. So, if I had a co-owner that was not part of my family, why could I not just leave that person off the ownership in EE, have only my name show up on the entry and nobody would be any the wiser. Unless the EE information is somehow linked to actual AKC ownership records, it seems that there is no way this proposal would be enforceable.