RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Retriever Advisory Committee Rule Change Proposals

23K views 84 replies 38 participants last post by  Howard N 
#1 ·
The Retriever Advisory Subcommittee on Rules Report for 2012

CONCERN
We are continuing to experience confusion as to the interpretation of the rule defining the difference between an Amateur handler and a Professional handler.
DISCUSSION
Over the past years there have been a number of enterprising individuals who have used their skills in various ways which has allowed them to produce some income from the sport of Retriever Field Trials. Many of these efforts have gone a long way in educating amateur trainers in methods of training their dogs for field trials. The subcommittee feels that people partaking in these educational tools should not be considered professionals; therefore, writing books, making videos and taking part in seminars would not classify a person as a professional. The committee believes that the clearest line that can be drawn between the amateur and the professional is the real life handling of a dog for compensation.
That being said, we recognize that someone who instructs an individual on the handling and training of their dog(s), and is compensated for that instruction, is acting as a professional.
Proposal No. 1
Under STANDING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE RETRIEVER ADVISORY COMMITTEE page 36
Under 3. Amateur Definition (a.) after the words “the trial in question has not” delete (a) in its entirety and insert the following:
“received compensation from the direct training of a dog for hunting, hunting tests or field trials and/or the handling of a dog in the same, and/or the regular and systematic personal instruction of other individuals regarding the above pursuits at any level.”
Compensation as provided above is defined as money, goods or services to a person or any member of their household.
Insert the following paragraphs for clarification:
“Any person participating in an occasional organized seminar or workshop to improve the training and handling of field trial, hunting test or hunting dogs will be exempt from the above provisions as will a person who receives payment for providing educational material, (such as books, videos, etc.), to the public on the training and handling of field trial, hunting test or hunting dogs will not be considered a Professional.”
So that 3 (a.) in its entirety will now read:
3. Amateur Definition: The following definitions and standards should be followed in determining the status of any person to be an Amateur:
(a.) For purposes of eligibility to judge under Section 3 of Chapter 14 of the Rules for Retriever trials, a person shall be considered an Amateur who, during the period of two years preceding the trial in question, has not received compensation from the direct training of
a dog for hunting, hunting tests or field trials and/or the handling of a dog in the same, and/or the regular and systematic personal instruction of other individuals regarding the above pursuits at any level.

Compensation as provided above is defined as money, goods or services to a person or any member of their household.
Any person participating in an occasional organized seminar or workshop to improve the training and handling of field trial, hunting test or hunting dogs will be exempt from the above provisions as will a person who receives payment for providing educational material, (such as books, videos, etc.), to the public on the training and handling of field trial, hunting test or hunting dogs will not be considered a Professional.
Proposal No. 2
CONCERN
In recent years uncertainty has arisen over amateur status of persons who are living with a professional as family members or who have a virtual spousal relationship with a professional although the are not legally married. Also, some individuals have expressed concern that their very close friendship with a professional might invalidate their amateur status under the present rule.
The subcommittee thus believes that a more definitive description of the family and other relationships which cause the loss of amateur status is needed.
Under 3. (c.) after the words “No person shall be entitled to status as an Amateur” delete the completion of the sentence and insert “who is residing with a professional as part of his or her immediate family or who has an ongoing intimate personal relationship with a professional beyond that of a friend or client.”
So that paragraph (c.) in its entirety will read:
“No person shall be entitled to status as an Amateur who is residing with a professional as part of his or her immediate family or who has an ongoing intimate personal relationship with a professional beyond that of a friend or client.”
The time periods for any disqualification from Amateur status
under this section shall be the same as those fixed by paragraphs
(a.) and (b.) above.”

CONCERN
The effect of a field Trial Committee refusing an entry in the Amateur stake.
DISCUSSION
In order to clarify a Field Trial Committee’s position in declining an entry in the Amateur stake, (where there is no protest), but because the Field Trial Committee feels the individual lacks Amateur status, we felt some explanatory language was necessary.
 
See less See more
#3 ·
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that changes proposed in Proposal #1 actually INCREASE the confusion between Amateur and Professional.

How much "regular and systematic personal instruction" is too much? Does providing services as a "bird boy" in exchange for personal instruction on running blinds or helping a newbie train their dog count?
 
#4 ·
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that changes proposed in Proposal #1 actually INCREASE the confusion between Amateur and Professional.

How much "regular and systematic personal instruction" is too much? Does providing services as a "bird boy" in exchange for personal instruction on running blinds or helping a newbie train their dog count?
Or, how occasional is too occasional. I agree with clarification but the clarification provided just provides a greater confusion.
 
#6 ·
Wow You got to be out of a "intimate personal relationship" with a pro for 2 years before you can be considered an Amateur, wonder if the time goes down if you were to burn the house and kennels down, or get a restraining order? Divorce Court is quicker than that ;) LOL
 
#15 ·
Well, if that person also has and takes the time to train their own dogs 100% and nobody else’s ever for money, takes time to judge dozens and dozens of trials, does judging seminars, serves as President and more for FT clubs, serves as President for National, serves as a Director for such clubs, mentors many newbies for free, also conducts free seminars, my answer would be YES!--- that person is a true Amateur.

I’d also say if that person trained their own dogs for 30 years while working full-time and achieved much success and then retired and now with more time and more success produced a video and occasional seminars expressly to help the true blue Amateurs become better, I’d say that person is making it easier not harder for Amateurs to play.

Dr. Ed’s clear understanding of the definition and theRulebook (see post # 12) doesn’t seem to be so clear for everyone. Obviously some can’t see the clarity so, perhaps, RAC might have grounds to clarify the rules to accommodate a minority.


Just sayin’
 
#9 · (Edited)
After decades of trying to define the Amateur maybe it would be better to define the professional.

A person will be considered a professional for the purpose of AKC Retriever FTs when:........

Possible criteria: X % of their total income is derived from the training, handling or sale of retrievers(over 6months old/ FT eligible).
$ X have been recieved in the calander year from the training, handling or sale of retrievers(over 6 months).


Tim
 
#11 ·
After decades of trying to define the Amateur maybe it would be better to define the professional.

A person will be considered a professional for the purpose of AKC Retriever FTs when:........

Possible criteria: X % of their total income is derived from the training, handling or sale of retrievers(over 6months old/ FT eligible).
$ X have been recieved in the calander year from the training, handling or sale of retrievers(over 6 months).


Tim
your intentions are good but who would submit their 1040 to scrutiny..

I have never understood the attempts to define amateur status as anything more than you are an amateur if you do not accept compensation for training retrievers for field trials, hunt tests, or hunting or you do not receive compensation for handling them in competition. Seems pretty forthright and simple which doesn't mean that some field trial committee could not decide otherwise but as long as that decision is left to field trial committee there can always be some incorrect interpretation of the rule. We have never considered peoiple who breed dogs, sell dogs, write books, make videos, or give seminars to be professional dog trainers. Professional trainers are people who train dogs for other people for money.
 
#12 ·
Professional trainers are people who train dogs for other people for money.
Uh oh, Now I'm scared. I agree with Dr. Ed.
 
#18 ·
Could someone please point out to me an instance where this rule has been violated? No names just the facts. Is this really that big of a problem in the sport? I just don't see it, at least not down here.

And let me get this straight, just because someone is having an intimate relationship (been to the promise land more than once) or even married to a pro, does that automatically make them a better handler with an unfair advantage? Heck there are many gundog and HT trainers that couldnt compete with the average AM FT trainer/handler.

And Dennis, I know of at least one RAC member that agrees wholeheartedly with what you stated above.
 
#21 ·
This is all a waste of time.

A number of years ago, the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club refused the entries of a person, after receiving deposition testimony from a number of witnesses. That person appealed to the AKC. The AKC shared with that person the club's submission to the AKC. The AKC did not share with the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club that person's submission to the AKC. The club received a letter in the mail telling the club that it needed to accept the person's entries at the next FT.

I called the AKC to ask what we needed to do better. The AKC rep told me that we did not prove our case "beyond a reasonable doubt." When I asked the rep to explain to me why the AKC imposed a criminal standard (beyond a reasonable doubt), not a civil standard (a preponderance of the evidence), he said "talk to the lawyers." When I asked what we needed to do differently in the future, he said "talk to the lawyers." When I called the AKC lawyers, they said "we're not talking to you."

I told both the AKC rep and the lawyers in a letter - very politely - to go screw themselves.
The moral of this story - the AKC is composed of a bunch of pussies who will back down every time. So, there is no use in imposing a rule that the AKC will not enforce.

Not to mention that the proposed amendment is incomprehensible

What a waste of time
 
#24 ·
Hmmm I believe you just told everyone who may be having dalliances with pros how to get around it, maybe they wanted the club to submit video evidence ;) Still the AKC is playing it safe on this, these are private affairs, getting a major organization into a lawsuit over privacy affairs, which most people would state they have no real business in is asking for media disaster. A lot to loose nothing for the AKC to gain. He said she said really has no place in court, which is all that lawyers are interested in. The RAC or individual clubs trying to impose such rules is asking for disaster, the burden of proof is on them, one lawsuit will change that rule, and clubs can be sued. Better for all to mind their own business and let people police themselves
 
#27 ·
Does anyone know if these proposed rule changes were passed?
 
#31 · (Edited)
Any one person running more than 3 dogs in the Am stake could be considered a non-amateur. It takes away the whole spirit in which the Amateur stake is about.......IMHO.

It wasn't meant that people can't own more than 3 dogs, just can't run more than 3 in any one Amateur. When have you ever seen David Aul, Kippy Swingle, and the other elites out judging, marshaling, riding 4 wheelers setting up tests, shooting flyers, or working a national? That is who the AMATEUR stake is was created for.

BTW I also have never seen Lanse run all four of those dogs in any ONE Amateur event.
 
#32 ·
Any one person running more than 3 dogs in the Am stake could be considered a non-amateur. It takes away the whole spirit in which the Amateur stake is about.......IMHO.

It wasn't meant that people can't own more than 3 dogs, just can't run more than 3 in any one Amateur. When have you ever seen David Aul, Kippy Swingle, and the other elites out judging, marshaling, riding 4 wheelers setting up tests, shooting flyers, or working a national? That is who the AMATEUR stake is was created for.
you ducked the question...would you have considered Lanse a non Amateur since he had 4 dogs eligible to run the Amateur...as for Dr Aul and Ms Swingle they may not ever work a trial but without their combined 20 entries X 20 trials,they help fuel the game by their owner participation..I cant speak for the other so called "elites",because I am not sure that what you consider an elite, I consider the establishment;-)
 
#33 · (Edited)
Not ducking the question. True AMATEURS don't have 4 dogs to run in the AMATEUR STAKE at one time. I have never seen Lanse run ALL 4 of those dogs in ONE AMATEUR STAKE at one time.

NOBODY can truly know if Lanse, or any of the other elites, receive 'compensation' for training dogs. It would take a private detective to get the facts and then an attorney to prove it in court which is where a Field Trial Committee would be if they ever declared one of the 'elites' a pro at an event.

I am simply saying make the definition of the AMATEUR STAKE simple and enforceable by saying a true AMATEUR will not run more than 3 of his/her dogs in any one AMATEUR STAKE. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY CAN'T OWN 20 DOGS and run them in the OPEN or other Amateur events all ove the country. Then they can have their whole truck of dogs qualified for the NATIONAL AM.

BTW I have never seen David Aul or Kippy Swingle run a dog in the Am but they can certainly co-own a dog with another Amateur who can then run it in Owner/Handler Amateurs. Is this really where we want the sport to go with co-owned trucks of dogs? It is crossing a fine line.......
 
#34 ·
did a quick check and the first two trials I looked at

Brazosport RC- has Rex Gibson with 4 dogs entered in the Amateur

Middle Tenn ARC - has Alex Washburn with 4 dogs entered in the Amateur


I do not know Mr Gibson but do know Ms Washburn....in a day when FT's seem to have less participation, why on earth would we want to discourage people like this from coming out and entering our trials


and knowing Lanse like I do, it may just prompt him to bring Eva and Sophie out of retirement for one week just to prove that he can indeed enter 4 dogs in the Amateur stake ;-)
 
#36 · (Edited)
BON, it is NOT ABOUT THE MONEY. We don't care if Alex or Rex enter our home trial. All we want to do is run our dogs and work an AMATEUR that IS FAIR AND SPORTING.

Do those two people work events, shoot flyers and judge?

CORRECTION: Rex does judge hunt tests. Don't know him though.

The last trial Alex judged was ONE 2011 and ONE in 2010. She ran over 25 trials in 2012.

It should be the CLUB MEMBERS, WORKERS AND FUTURE JUDGES that we are worried about, not the participants. We don't want to chase someone around a field trial with 4+ dogs in the OPEN, AM and QUAL or worse yet have judges and workers sitting around waiting for them to show up and run their dogs.

I could go on.... but there are many others that are feeling the same way.
 
#38 ·
Tammy when Clint was a broke college grad student, nothing , I repeat nothing inspired him more than to compete against the Crows, the Weiss' and the Belmonts and yes even against the Lanse Browns of the world..he went to med school because he knew it would ultimately be the only way to feed his FT habit, he even entertained becoming a pro trainer, but the thought of taking orders from those that he yearned to beat stopped that notion...

my point being the FT game is not fair, its has never been and never will be EXCEPT for one place..the field trial itself, on the place of battle, at the line...

I have been hearing for the last 30 years from people in the gallery and beyond and sometimes even at home, comments like yours and others saying stuff like " if I had _______ type of money I could compete like they do" or " If I was like Lanse and trained dogs all day I could compete with him"...its all hogwash...people cant compete with the elites of the game's lifestyle, unless you hit the lotto or some other financial windfall one can never match their financial resources...but you can compete with them on the field and if you are good enough and your dog is up to the task sometimes you not only compete but you win...as John Luther used to tell us when Clint would compete against multiple dog entries from the heavy hitters of the day " they only give out ONE blue ribbon, make them use all four of their dogs trying to beat your dog to get it"



and FTR the real reason Lanse doesnt run all the dogs in the Amateur...its not an efficient way for him to use his funds..He actually plans to leave this world dead azz broke....plus in the case of Sophie and Eva, Amateur placings do him virtually no good since the dogs already have their AFC...he figures that by placing in Open's its like double staking the dogs because points earned count toward qualifying for both Nationals..now that Nora has qualified for the NARC she will not run any Am's until fall..Rosa is running Am's because Lanse is trying to win and qualify her too
 
#37 ·
I have nothing to add to this discussion except that I know Rex Gibson. As Tammy stated, he judges and runs hunt tests. He has been a working member of Brazosport RC as well as Greater Houston Golden RC for many years. Rex has a career as a corporate attorney. He has chaired events, shot flyers, marshaled, and done anything and everything that has needed to be done at the tests. I think he has recently begun running field trials. If he owns and maintains 4 or more dogs capable of doing the work, why shouldn't he be allowed to enter them all as an amateur? It seems that it would give a handler a better chance to possibly take home a ribbon.

I feel the real test as to whether a person is a pro is the acceptance of compensation for training or handling dogs, not how many dogs they own and handle.
 
#47 ·
We only run the occasional O/H Q for fun - we mainly run HT. I know this conversation is about FT AM status, and my view is from HT. But - I am most DEFINITELY an Amateur. But don't be surprised if I show up at a HT and have 6 dogs running in MH. They are all MY dogs that my husband and I own. Most of them are puppies that we have raised - we buy one from someone else every few years, but most of our dogs are from our litters. We both work full time jobs. We're not rich. We don't train every day. But we have some pretty nice dogs. This hobby is what my husband and I love to do together. It's our thing that we do together to have fun and relax and get away from the stress of our jobs. To say I'm not an AM based on the number of dogs I'm running is crazy. And don't even go there about people with multiple dogs don't work the stakes. We work our butts off at our club tests and are always willing to help out at other tests.

Regarding Rex Gibson - he is one of the nicest and hardest working guys you will find in our games. I consider it an honor to be running in a HT with him.
 
#40 ·
These type of discussions will go on forever..................and those that get the most heated over how many dogs someone else is running or what dog so and so is running should spend more time worrying about the dogs in their own kennel and less about other peoples dogs.

If these same individuals being crucified for having too many dogs entered had never been successful no one would keep track of their dogs or care how many they were running.

This remind of me of one saying in particular, "Jealousy is an evil emotion, watch how it affects you and those around you".
 
#42 ·
If these same individuals being crucified for having too many dogs entered had never been successful no one would keep track of their dogs or care how many they were running.
LOL. I have never entered more than two in an Am but if I entered 3, 4 or even a dozen, the only thing anyone would say is "thanks for the donation" :)
 
#41 ·
A handler with more than three dogs entered in a stake would mean more revenue for the club, it could be more hassle for the club and more competition for the other handlers, but it has nothing to do with the handler's amateur status. You are either working dogs for compensation or not, if not, how would the number of dogs you run alter that?

I also don't see it as a big problem that needs fixing, how many trials a year does one amateur enter more than three dogs in a stake? If it is a problem that needs to be solved, make a rule limiting the number of dogs anyone can enter in the amateur. Though I would be against such a rule, it at least doesn't try to redefine amateur in a way that has nothing to do with amateur-professional status.

John
 
#45 ·
I received a PM from someone who pointed out that back east, that's anywhere east of New Mexico for us westerners, there are quite a number of amateurs who enter anywhere from four to nine dogs. I had no idea, we have the very rare handler with over three dogs out here. I still say it would be better to address the issue with a rule directly rather than trying to redefine Amateur.

John
 
#46 ·
My thoughts on a beautiful training day in Valley View, Texas.

First, there have always been people who contribute to the sport and those who do not. Changing the definition of Amateur is: a) not an appropriate way to address the problem; and b) not an effective manner of addressing the issue.

Second, to the extent that the concern is one of Field Trial efficiency, that is, amateur handlers with multiple dogs are making the judges wait, the rules aalready empower the Field Trial Committee to address those issues.

Third, to the extent that the concern is competitive inequity - are you going to limit the number of dogs per handler in the Open? As an All Age competitor, I am more concerned about running against a pro with 15 dogs in the Open than running against an amateur with 4 dogs in the Am.

In short, I don't think there is any benefit to changing the definition of an "Amateur."



 
#49 ·
Dr. Ed, There is no Am stake in hunt tests but there is in SRS.
 
#52 ·
I am violating my own code of conduct by posting as my views are from the heart and unfortunately are observed every weekend. One co owner who runs 6 dogs every weekend of which two or more are co owned made the statement to a holding blind marshall at a NARCCS "I couldn't stay in this sport if my co-owners didn't pay my expenses." Then there is an individual who runs 6 dogs, 2 they own and 4 are totally owned by an amateur who has no ability to train a dog so the handler trains daily and runs all 6 dogs in both Open& Amateur. Guess where the funds are derived from? The spirit of the game is seriously diminished(in my opinion). As to Augie and Louise- they both trained their own dogs . Every morning Augie would work Soupy, Gumbo, Penrod, Weegy,and my ex wife would meet Louise daily to work Mariah, Paint, Tojo. Is the sport expensive? You bet. Why do I stay at "Red Dot" motels-- because the drugs are best, the hookers are plentiful, and I don't have to feed my dogs as they eat whatever is under the bed. I have never seen myself as a member of the "Elite" since had I been, the politicians who run the National club's would have invited me. The third time in 3 years when the head of the RHOF called me re the ballot for that year I told him not to embarrass himself for this would be the third year where the number of nominations (over 179) each year were ignored by the Elite who decide who on the list they want. Since I have offended many of those by accusing them of dishonesty, manipulation of National judge selections, and a few other nefarious acts that he should wait until I was dead. When I worked in Wall Street when I moved to Montana,and ever since all my dogs go to Jim VanEngen as I do not know how to do basics. My relationship with Rex Carr ended 21 years ago and since then I have trained by myself my dogs.Before work,during lunch hour and till dark after work, then every weekend. Three years ago I went to a Rorem Seminar in Florida and Dennis Voight was there also. Dave asked "what the hell are you guys doing here? Well I had Rosa and Dennis had Odie-both fully amped dogs and we both knew that all the methods we had tried earlier were not effective. Since that time I have been working with Dave Rorem and I am learning so much about how to read and teach these dogs of mine that I told Dave that he will never train a dog for me unless I am n a wheelchair or on a walker, but I am going to have my nose 4 inches from his ass as what I am learning is almost Zen. I am excellent on the Xs and Os after 50 years, that is the "physical" now I am learning the mental. Yes, I am depleting rapidly any liquidity I presently have, but I am having fun, the dogs are having fun and BOTH of us are learning without pressure. On the aside last weekend when Rosa got a 2nd the last series of the Amateur had Lynnne-3 NAFCs, Mac 1NFC, Sutter 1NAFC, Neil 1NFC, !NAFC, Kampo 1 NFC, Powers 2 NAFCs, Hays 1NFC . Hell myself, Duncan and Woodson were orphans-soot covered, and among what I consider a group who all are dedicated to the sport and who next weekend will be putting on a trial so the absentee owners and the co owned can parade their little darlings on the stage and we all can see how nice their dogs are,of course we will have to wait for 30-45 minutes for them to show up,do those "amateur" handlers care that all the stations are sitting in the rain, hot sun etc while we wait? Do they realize that all the contestants and judges are being inconvenienced and their selfishness is destroying the time management that the judges were trying to adhere to? BS all they care about is themselves. Take their entry money but BE PREPARED TO WAIT. This next week I have 3hunt test people coming to train with me, all 3 want to enter Field trials so if we encourage and welcome those who seriously want to learn and then perhaps after all these old elephants like myself kick off there will still be people who are hands on trainers.
 
#53 ·
Lanse ... the message, your remarks, "hit the sweet spot".
In your own indomitable truthful way again you 'set the record in the right
perspective'.

I have known you for over 47 years ... since the early days in the '60's
at Hook Lake & Wisconsin trials. All the years not only have been memorable
and priceless, they reflect everything that the game should be.

I score the Amateur we did for Wilbur Saunders at Treasure State, 9/77, as at the top
of the list of most enjoyable weekends judging with a co-judge.

W. D. Connor
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top