Retriever Advisory Committee Rule Change Proposals

[Ted Shih]

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

[jeff evans]

Now that there was funny! Crooked as a labradoodles hind leg, regards...

[duk4me]

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

Peanuts get your peanuts get your peanuts right over here.......

[Hunt'EmUp]

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

[tshuntin]

Ted, awesome post!!!

[huntinman]

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

But only once... If they do it twice, they will be pro's

[Wayne Nutt]

Does anyone know if these proposed rule changes were passed?

[TBell]

the RAC has been tinkering with the rule/definition for well over 20 years and it seems that each revision merely creates more confusion.

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

The Field Trial Rules for Spaniels defines PRO:

Definition of A Professional

A professional shall be defined as any person who accepts, or has accepted, money, or other compensation (defined as anything that has a monetary value), for the field training or field trial handling of any breed hunting dog.

Once a person performs as a professional for a one year period, they cannot run in Amateur stakes thereafter. If they have not run as a professional for a full year, and they want to reclaim their amateur status, they can do so after a one year waiting period.

The determination of amateur status under these directives for the purpose of any particular field trial shall be
made by the Field Trial Committee for that trial.

Agree and it is the minority that will push any non-specfic definition beyond its intended limits when money is involved. As the dollars involved for trained dogs continue to escalate so will the abuses and confusion so long as there is not an objective criteria.

Tim

Tim is right in that when there is money involved there will be those who bend the rules until they break.

Since there is probably no field trial committee around that wants to jump into the furnace and label an AMATEUR as a PRO as the current definitions stand, then just make the definition of an Amateur something simple and easy to enforce without an attorney and a 1040.

Define AMATEUR as individuals who handle 3 dogs or less.

The Pointing Breed Field Trial rulebook already addresses this growing problem.

"An Amateur (as defined above) may run any number of dogs wholly owned by him or her, or members of his or her immediate family (as defined in Chapter 14, Section 5) but shall not run more than three dogs that are not so owned in any amateur stake"

[Marvin S]

But only once... If they do it twice, they will be pro's

Only when they accept payment which could be on the 1st go .

the RAC has been tinkering with the rule/definition for well over 20 years and it seems that each revision merely creates more confusion.

The rule is fine as it was 20 years ago - if you earn any part of your livelihood from the training or handling of dogs you are not an Amateur.

But the line has been blurred for many years & is continuously being pushed - there are several reasons for that: the main one being, there are many in the ruling class that are involved in the rule breaking. So, do not expect anything of substance to happen. The makeup of the RAC is in itself, a guarantee nothing will.

In the majority of Co-owner situations, one of the two is, by definition, a professional. If one of the two is a professional then the other one can not have a relationship with that person. Co-ownership of a dog in that situation disqualifies everyone in that relationship from Amateur status.

As for those relationships outside of ownership - you can't legislate morals, so why try? & furthermore, who cares?

Is the sale of a dog compensation for training? Is a website advertising started dogs (meaning washouts usually but not always) for sale solicitation of services for renumeration?

[BonMallari]

The Field Trial Rules for Spaniels defines PRO:

Definition of A Professional

A professional shall be defined as any person who accepts, or has accepted, money, or other compensation (defined as anything that has a monetary value), for the field training or field trial handling of any breed hunting dog.

Once a person performs as a professional for a one year period, they cannot run in Amateur stakes thereafter. If they have not run as a professional for a full year, and they want to reclaim their amateur status, they can do so after a one year waiting period.

The determination of amateur status under these directives for the purpose of any particular field trial shall be
made by the Field Trial Committee for that trial.




Tim is right in that when there is money involved there will be those who bend the rules until they break.

Since there is probably no field trial committee around that wants to jump into the furnace and label an AMATEUR as a PRO as the current definitions stand, then just make the definition of an Amateur something simple and easy to enforce without an attorney and a 1040.

Define AMATEUR as individuals who handle 3 dogs or less.

The Pointing Breed Field Trial rulebook already addresses this growing problem.

"An Amateur (as defined above) may run any number of dogs wholly owned by him or her, or members of his or her immediate family (as defined in Chapter 14, Section 5) but shall not run more than three dogs that are not so owned in any amateur stake"

Seriously ? so earlier this year when Lanse had 4 champions in Eva,Rosa,Sophie and Nora..he would not be considered an Amateur....or at one time when my brother had two AA dogs, one Qual dog and one Derby dog, that would endanger his Amateur status...I could find more owners that have 4 dogs in various stages stakes that would be affected by that arbritary number, but I think you understand my point...it will never fly as long as there are people like Kippy or Dr Aul that own upwards of ten dogs at a particular trial, but yet you want to limit the number some other Amateur can run ??