The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 142

Thread: Correction - New Designation for Owner/Handler Amateur

  1. #121
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    205

    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!!!!!
    I agree....

  2. #122
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Pac NW
    Posts
    4,316

    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!!!!!
    I just started a new thread on POTUS dealing with this issue called
    "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
    against you".

    Show me where my logic is flawed !
    __________________________

    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!

  3. #123
    Senior Member Wade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,263

    Default

    Very nice reply David.


    Quote Originally Posted by BBnumber1 View Post
    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.
    I hate rude behavior in a man, won't tolerate it. Captain Woodrow Call

  4. #124
    Senior Member huntinman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    7,124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marvin S View Post
    I just started a new thread on POTUS dealing with this issue called
    "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
    against you".

    Show me where my logic is flawed !
    Its a free world Marvin. No one makes anyone "work their hiney off". I'm just getting back in the game after being out for a while. I have been judging and recently went to a nearby trial and worked for two days... (With no dog to run)
    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.
    Bill Davis

  5. #125
    Senior Member EdA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marvin S View Post
    I just started a new thread on POTUS dealing with this issue called
    "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
    against you".

    Show me where my logic is flawed !
    And how about the two guys from Tulsa who are aircraft mechanics for AA and co-own a terrific bitch, are they not considered "little guys"? Whether or not my dog spends the summer in MN has no bearing on the changing of a 25 year old rule.

  6. #126
    Senior Member Wade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    1,263

    Default

    Not to change to subject but are you coming up this Summer Ed?


    Quote Originally Posted by EdA View Post
    And how about the two guys from Tulsa who are aircraft mechanics for AA and co-own a terrific bitch, are they not considered "little guys"? Whether or not my dog spends the summer in MN has no bearing on the changing of a 25 year old rule.
    I hate rude behavior in a man, won't tolerate it. Captain Woodrow Call

  7. #127
    Senior Member helencalif's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    in the mountains at Lake Almanor, CA
    Posts
    2,008

    Default

    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.

  8. #128
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Illinois Wisconsin border
    Posts
    934

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdA View Post
    And how about the two guys from Tulsa who are aircraft mechanics for AA and co-own a terrific bitch, are they not considered "little guys"? Whether or not my dog spends the summer in MN has no bearing on the changing of a 25 year old rule.
    They work hard and they can train my dogs any day. I CO-OWN a 2 plus year old bitch out of their bitch with my daughter, a grown woman near AARP age. I have CO-owned several FC/AFC's to alternate the running on different weekends. One with my daughter and one with a old, very old training partner who bares a whistle to his name. Here in the mid-west it is more of a numbers game rather then a co-ownership, multiple dogs, 3 to upwards to infinity, BUT, owned by the same person. Really don't have a problem with it. No different then any other amateur with pro trained dogs. I am a amateur trainer so any complaint by me would be to ban all-pro trained dogs from competing, LOL, leave the rules as they exist.
    Earl Dillow

  9. #129
    Senior Member labsforme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Molalla OR
    Posts
    585

    Default

    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,
    Jeff
    Jeff Gruber
    working on pelts
    Duckponds Prize Package
    CK'S Contessa (avatar)
    Ice Chilled Juice

  10. #130
    Senior Member DoubleHaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    N. Cackalacky
    Posts
    2,595

    Default

    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.

Posting Permissions

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