RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Should a FT Pro own a dog on his truck?

Should a FT pro OWN a dog on his truck?

33K views 155 replies 61 participants last post by  Golden Boy 
#1 ·
Just a question to liven up the afternoon.
 
#103 ·
It was so hard reading this thread and actually catching the posts. Kept growing on me!

My mentor runs springers, but same difference... 18 spots, and would never consider putting one of his own dogs in the mix. Pro FT business is ALL about pleasing the clients.
 
#104 ·
*sniff, sniff* I soooo miss those days and the ole gang. We had some fun and this thread was a good one...

FT pro's should never be competing against their clients. It's unethical in theory and can lead to hard feelings. Don't be crapping on your own plate.

FWIW

Angie
 
#107 ·
First I've trained with a few of the pros on the west coast
Some have dogs for sale some run and campaign a dog or two
Of there own. Them dogs are considered dead beats and don't get
Trained UNLESS THERE IS TIME AFTER PAYING MUTTS ARE DONE.
Every pro wants too win and they don't care who's dog it is. Yes they root
For the clients dog that is behind the eight ball or needing points for national
But don't fool your self every bullet is a bullet
 
#106 · (Edited)
Gerard trying to stir the pot, no names but the inference was obvious to most, very few contributors to the topic still hang out here, wonder why? An eight year old thread, why revive it when it wasn't a big issue then.
 
#111 ·
Why ???

Around 40 people have voted since the thread was revived and the votes are still divided right down the middle.............
Putting Gerads reasons aside and dealing with the issue in the abstract, it seems that there are two camps on the matter, each with a divergent viewpoint

john
 
#109 ·
I do not see anthing wrong with a pro running his own dog or an assistants dog. It is no different than running the dog that is consistant every weekend and keeps beating the other dogs on the truck. Ownership does not guarantee success. If your dog was beating the other dogs on your Pro's truck would you be ok if your pro pulled your dog to get points with other dogs on the truck. I think most pro's would just as soon run a client dog than one of their own.
 
#110 ·
Everyone wants to find a nice young dog that may become a player. Some pros are given or buy a nice puppy or two to take through the program. The good ones end up being offered to clients and stay on the truck. A win win really. Pro makes some coin and client may have a nice dog. Beyond 16-18 months I think the pro should be cutting these dogs loose.
I don't like to see a pro owning and trialing dogs otherwise.
 
#112 ·
I wasn't going to vote but will - as I see no issue with a pro having a dog on his truck that is for sale that they presently own! But will vote No as I think the original issue was a dog that was not for sale.
 
#113 ·
In my opinion, I do not see if a trainer had a full truck and a waiting list, that they would have the time to train there own dogs, but for those of use that have delusion of grandeur, by Chance got a national prospect the other dog owners would have to respect that. I for one would not give the dog up to no one. It's just politics, if I had a dog that was a national prospect, I would put it with the trainer with the best Chance to win it all, and it would not be a newbie. The old saying is.--- You are only as good as the dogs that you are training.
 
#115 ·
Most would call that cheating :)!!!!!!!!
 
#127 · (Edited)
What is underhanded in this? As long as the pro owns the dog, how is it mean they are not good sportsmen? What is wrong with a HT pro who has a decent dog but can't run FTs since he is at a HT every weekend to run his dog in an OHQ associated with a HT he is also running?
Well if there's nothing wrong with this.
Then here's an idea I'm a fair handler and I've never been paid to train a dog in my life.
Maybe I'll sign on with a good Feild Trial Pro, have him trian me to be a great handler and I'll in turn travel with him and run his client dogs in the AM when ever the client is unavailable. This should give me about 10 shots at the line.
There's nothing under handed about that is there.........
 
#128 ·
Well if there's nothing wrong with this.
Then here's an idea I'm a fair handler and I've never been paid to train a dog in my life.
Maybe I'll sign on with a good Feild Trial Pro, have him trian me to be a great handler and I'll in turn travel with him and run his client dogs in the AM when ever the client is unavailable. This should give me about 10 shots at the line.
There's nothing under handed about that is there.........
We are talking about an owner/handler not an Amature owner/handler. I cannot find the information that states the original intent of the owner/handler Q could you provide the link to this information.

Thanks
 
#117 ·
Now now any smart pro, trains his dog, & sells it to a client, on conditions it stays on his truck. That way the pro still has the dog and the client pays the bill. Best monetary strategy ;)
 
#129 ·
Our last Q had almost half the dogs run by four differnt Professionals. 1st, 2nd went to Amateurs. A few years ago I judged a O/H Q that was run in conjunction with a HT. Again we had about 4 pros running dogs they own or co-own. Again 1st 2nd and 3rd went to Amateurs. Just don't see this as an issue.
 
#134 ·
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
 
#137 ·
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.
 
#138 ·
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
 
#148 ·
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
 
#152 ·
I would guess that in some small entries the trial giving club is glad to have any O/H.

I've seen it and wondered about it too. Other than being eligible to run a dog in an O/H stake, is there any other reason for a pro to co own a dog? Of course other than just wanting to for all the reasons we all own dogs.
 
#153 ·
Those who are interssted in running FT's should work hard, and pay your dues at "real " qualifying stakes, and not bemoan a young dog pro for trying to ply his or her trade.

john
 
#155 ·
Would you REALLY want a trainer that doesn't have his own dogs? Not saying he would necessarily have one on the truck at all times, dogs get old/injured or too young/not ready to run.

What would you say about a FT trainer that put his dog with another FT trainer to not "conflict"? I would think people would say why send my dog there if he doesn't train his own...which would be a direct contradiction to the "shouldn't have one on his truck". You can't make everybody happy.
 
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