Should a FT pro OWN a dog on his truck?

[john fallon]

No that's not what I'm saying Set-ups should be equal as in any other Q.
The intent of the O/H Q is for the the person that has one or two dogs that they own, weather AM trained or pro trained to have the opportunity to run thier dogs in a more level field. Not against the pro with a truck load of dog to pick from. The O/H Q is to help encourage people to start competing in field trial stakes, and running against the pro who does this type of under handed activity is under mining the propurse of this trial. Just to make him or herself look better, this person adds nothing to the sport of field trialing in my view.
The pros that do are not good sports men or ambassadors to the field trialing games.

This is a team sport. To be competative you must have a good dog and for your dog to be so it must have a good handler.

To eliminate a whole class of good handlers is not "leveling the playing field", it's making that "Q" less competative.


john

[Golden Boy]

If the pro co-owned the dog for the sole purpose of running in an OHQ, that would be a little squirrelly. However, if that is what one needs to do to get a first or second in a Q, I would not worry about the dog much anyway. However, I think it is far more likely that a pro legitimately co-owns a dog in an OHQ rather than it being a sham transaction for such small stakes.
I've seen it and I knew the HT pro that did it.



Bring it on. I run every weekend against far better handlers with far better dogs who train far more frequently than I do. They often have several bullets in every Am and I lose to them every weekend, so what is one more? It doesn't bother me in the least since I am able to keep my dogs and my ego separate. Besides, I know we have the best dogs on the circuit that train only once per week whether they need it or not.

And you got the right additude so I'll get off my soap box. Train my dogs and let them do the speaking for the team.
Best of luck to you and your dogs.

[Golden Boy]

If the pro co-owned the dog for the sole purpose of running in an OHQ, that would be a little squirrelly. However, if that is what one needs to do to get a first or second in a Q, I would not worry about the dog much anyway. However, I think it is far more likely that a pro legitimately co-owns a dog in an OHQ rather than it being a sham transaction for such small stakes.



Bring it on. I run every weekend against far better handlers with far better dogs who train far more frequently than I do. They often have several bullets in every Am and I lose to them every weekend, so what is one more? It doesn't bother me in the least since I am able to keep my dogs and my ego separate. Besides, I know we have the best dogs on the circuit that train only once per week whether they need it or not.

I've seen it and knew the HT Pro that did it.

[FOM]

I think Golden Boy is just stating a loop hole in the O/H Qualifying stake that some Pros take advantage of and he feels it is unsportsmanlike and I agree. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Now with that being said I could personally not care because I run AA stakes and handle my own dog, so it's not like I'm not gonna run into most of the Pros eventually in the Open, so if I can't beat them in a Q I've got others things to worry about.

On the other hand, when Pros take advantage by co-owning dogs just so they can run them in an O/H Q that does detract from what I would consider the intent of the O/H Q especially in conjunction with a HT. Which in my opinion is to try and encourage participation by HTers who normally would not attend a weekend FT.

The issue that Golden Boy is bringing up is no different than the ramblings you hear about Amateurs co-owning dogs just so they can run them in a O/H Am. Co-owning a dog just to skirt the rules is not very sportsmanship like, period. There are and will always be a legitimate reason for co-ownerships, but in the case of a Pro co-owning a dog with a paying client does not pass the sniff test.

FOM

[Golden Boy]

I think Golden Boy is just stating a loop hole in the O/H Qualifying stake that some Pros take advantage of and he feels it is unsportsmanlike and I agree. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

Now with that being said I could personally not care because I run AA stakes and handle my own dog, so it's not like I'm not gonna run into most of the Pros eventually in the Open, so if I can't beat them in a Q I've got others things to worry about.

On the other hand, when Pros take advantage by co-owning dogs just so they can run them in an O/H Q that does detract from what I would consider the intent of the O/H Q especially in conjunction with a HT. Which in my opinion is to try and encourage participation by HTers who normally would not attend a weekend FT.

The issue that Golden Boy is bringing up is no different than the ramblings you hear about Amateurs co-owning dogs just so they can run them in a O/H Am. Co-owning a dog just to skirt the rules is not very sportsmanship like, period. There are and will always be a legitimate reason for co-ownerships, but in the case of a Pro co-owning a dog with a paying client does not pass the sniff test.

FOM

Amen someone got it.
Thank you very much!!!!

[scott spalding]

How is this a loop hole this is not an Amature stake it is an owner/handler.

[cakaiser]

It's a loop hole when the pro really does not own the dog. The name is just on the paper, solely for the purpose of O/H Quals.
Or, sometimes, the name is just on EE as owner. They don't bother to actually change the registration.

Some FT Secs, check this. Some places have been removed.

[scott spalding]

will explain my feelings a little better regarding this issue. Field trials are competitive regardless of the stake. You will be running against pros and amatures and professional amatures there is no way around it. I cannot see any advantage to creating a venue that waters down the reality of the game. Personally I disagree with the idea that owner handler qualifyings bring new handlers to the game I think it just gives field trial credibility to dogs that for the most part are not competing against field trial dogs when the events are held in conjunction with a hunt test.

Just my 2 cents

[scott spalding]

It's a loop hole when the pro really does not own the dog. The name is just on the paper, solely for the purpose of O/H Quals.
Or, sometimes, the name is just on EE as owner. They don't bother to actually change the registration.

Some FT Secs, check this. Some places have been removed.

I agree but I believe the rule requires them to be a registered owner or Co owner. I just can't imagin a Pro that would go through that much trouble to run a clients dog in the Q. Let me restate that a pro worth calling a Pro anyway.

[Golden Boy]

I agree but I believe the rule requires them to be a registered owner or Co owner. I just can't imagin a Pro that would go through that much trouble to run a clients dog in the Q. Let me restate that a pro worth calling a Pro anyway.

Seen it done!!!!!!!