 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
Keith is right on. It is a free enterprise system and I know up front what the costs are above the normal montly fee. There seems to be a moral issue among some of the contributors on this thread that making a profit for handling is unethical. If someone does not like the terms of the pro they use, then go elsewhere. I note some of the critical people do not use a pro at all or at least not to handle their dogs. What is their gripe?
Russ
You got it.....Originally Posted by Patrick Johndrow
Geeze Gerard,
And you thought you were just throwing an idea out there......
Angie
Are you kidding? There is ALWAYS a motive for a post like this one and the motive is NEVER an innocent inquiry into what people think.
WRL....and the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round, and the wheels on the bus go round and round....all day long!
HaHaHaHa!!!!!You got it.....Geeze Gerard,
And you thought you were just throwing an idea out there......
Angie
Are you kidding? There is ALWAYS a motive for a post like this one and the motive is NEVER an innocent inquiry into what people think.
WRL....and the wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, round and round, and the wheels on the bus go round and round....all day long!
Angie
Not all pros charge handlers fees. As clients, we split the expenses for the trial (gas, motel, food). If our pro wants to run his dog at the same trial it's fine with us. We train with our pro and we know that our dogs are like his own dogs. All the dogs get the same attention, training, etc. I think if you choose the pro that is right for you, his having a dog on the truck will not be an issue.
Point, Set, Match
Pro's with dogs
Question of the night...
If you don't trust a Pro who has his/her own dog in for training/campaigning why would you pay that Pro?
Mark
P.S. With the exception of a few Pro's, the majority of the income made is from training fees, not from handling fees or selling dogs. In other words, there aren't enough good/great dogs out there to sell to make up for lost training fees!
So putting the dog in someone else's name - and then you running against a "Kennel-owned" dog in the Am is preferred over the pro leaving it in his name? As an Amateur, i'd be more bothered by running against "kennel-owned" dogs in the Am.
"Kennel-owned" dog = i don't care who's name it's in, it can't be pulled and put with another pro. I just made that up.
FYI - I WORSHIP Bill Gates, Jack Welsh, and Jenifer Aniston. I QUESTION the scrupples of anyone who would want to train field trial dogs for a living.
The poll is pretty even because it's a moot point and only the client, who may feel like their getting the shaft because the pro would rather win with his own dog, should have a problem with that. I don't think there are any.
As a client of a pro (which i am not) I think i'd also be more concerned that a Pro would give the nod to the dog owned by a 4-hole, long-term, grounds owning client than my 1 dog. Or the client dog that hasn't done anything in a while or the "superstar" dog on the truck in a high-point running. The pro-owned dog would be the least of my concerns.
Shayne
I know I said this before but it bears hearing again.
The wheels on the bus go round and round, round and round, the wheels on the bus go round and round....all day long.
WRL
I thought it was "all the live long day" or something. Or is that a different song? hehehe
Shayne
Or maybe it is all through the town.....
WRL
Danny didn't sell "Pete". Danny didn't own "Pete". "Pete" was owned by John Larkin and was in training with Danny when I got him from John Larkin.
"Julie" was owned by Mike Park, not Danny.
Lets try to keep our facts straight.
Jerry
"Where The Hell Is Bedias, TX?"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote