Believe it. It happens.Originally Posted by scott spalding
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
Believe it. It happens.
Last edited by cakaiser; 12-11-2012 at 01:12 PM.
Charlotte Kaiser: " The Problem Lies In The Talent."
Quick question...
Can a dog that is pro trained be ran in an Amatuer Q?
Pro trained dogs run in amateur stakes all the time. Pro or Amateur is based on the handler, not who trained the dog.
I see no problem for a pro that owns/co-owns a dog to run a O/H Q. if you are going to let pro-trained dogs run in a AM Q.
No such thing as a "Am Q" Did I help much?
Carol,
Owned and handled by Cruisin' with Indiana Jones, JH
Alternate Handler: Westwind Buffalo Soldier
Apprentice Handler: Snake River Medicine Man, JH
http://newhoperetrievers.com
Did not know that, got it from this post so I thought that there was. I guess I was then thinking of amature stake.No such thing as a "Am Q" Did I help much?
Come on guys just how pervasive is this practice.
I can see pros co-owning dogs for various reasons but, just so they can run them in an O/H Q?? There is a conspiracy theory just around every corner (just hang out in the gallery of any FT on any given weekend) but I am not buying it.
QAA lite should be a designation recognized by the AKC. Should it come before or after the dogs name.
Quick thought - I didnt respond to this post in 2004, why on earth am I responding now.
Mark
Last edited by Mark; 12-11-2012 at 02:41 PM.
I really don't understand the fuss, again very new to this but in the case of a pro running Quals, regardless if it O/H or not, I have no problem. Take for example, I am training my first FT dog, she is 2 1/2. I ran two quals with her this fall and she finished 3rd in both of them and in both trials 1st and 2nd went to pros. However I welcome pros bc I learned so much. In both trials I seen how the pro's adjusted to the test and it got me saying to myself "damn, I wish I would have thought of that". My goal is not to get her QAA, even though I would love that, but its to use the Q to learn the game as a handler and I learned alot in those two trials by watching the pros. If the Q is suppose to be about getting folks like me into the game, then to me pros bring alot to the table. I dont have the money to go to a pro to learn, I use my money for dvds, stickmen, launchers, etc., train and run trials, so I watch and learn at the event. Knowing if I would have done something a little different, it could have been my girl taking 1st or 2nd but I now have more tools in my toolbox watching the pros run the same test I had to run.
Just my thoughts,
Jason
I can see that it was confusing but I was pointing out that an owner handler Q requires that the owner be the handler. Whether the owner is a pro or an amateur is not considered for eligibility. It does not require a the handler to be an amateur, nor do the dogs have to be amateur or owner trained.
Several of you have pointed out that it does sometimes happen that a pro will become co-owner of a dog for the sole reason of being able to run it in an OHQ. While I can't believe this is widespread--the Q is just not that important--I have no reason to doubt y'all and I would think less of someone who did that. However, there are pros who own or co-own dogs for very valid reasons and have every right to run them in an OHQ and I would hope folks would not assume those motivations on anyone doing so. Face it, the Q is a joke in the FT world. Most pros and serious ams run it once when the dog is getting out of derby, get their first or second and move on. Those of us who run it more frequently are sort of like the breakfast club of FTs. We hang out with our equally less successful friends, rib each other, pop over to the Am or Open to have our lunch money stolen then come back and drink beer in the gallery of the Q. It is fun, but it sure isn't worth the AKC paperwork to sneak in a ringer.
Ya'll been arguing about this for eight years. I'm calling hung jury.
I have learned I need these dogs much more than they need me. Tim Bockmon
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote