[fishduck]

There is one clear advantage to an o/h hunt test Qual. There are normally no other stakes running. The stake runs smoothly without the distraction of skipping handlers because they are at the open or am. Also has lots of help because of the captive audience.

 

[bamajeff]

Does an O/H Qual count towards QA2 title just like a field trial qualifier?

 

[Peter Balzer]

Does an O/H Qual count towards QA2 title just like a field trial qualifier?

Yes and 6 other characters

 

[Tobias]

I agree with Mr Shaver. If the powers that be wanted to limit pros at the O/H Q they would have written it in the rules.

A small hunt test/gun dog pro who has 10-12 dogs on his truck and maybe has a breeding program, probably has a couple of his own dogs that he runs in tests.... Not really much different than a breeder who does not train professionally, but trains and titles their breeding stock for marketing purposes...


I am probably stepping out there when I say it, but I would guess there are more hunt test (gun dog) pros than field trial pros, and of those many, I would guess, are just a little better than the average (successful) amateur trainer who competes and trains for hunt tests or Q's regularly....

 

[Peter Balzer]

I agree with Mr Shaver. If the powers that be wanted to limit pros at the O/H Q they would have written it in the rules..

I think the elimination of pros entering a O/H Qual would eliminate the "co-owner" debacle that has come about. There are shadow co-owners or pros are listed as co-owners in EE for a dog, but not officially co-owned on AKC paperwork. It's kinda on an honor system in my limited understanding. Therefore, you can essentially have a pro run your dog with no proven co-ownership. To be clear I have no preference towards or against pros running in an O/H qual, just prefer the established rules be followed by everyone.

 

[Dave Burton]

I ran several this past fall and spring. Both at a FT and one at a HT. I didn't see any difference except the one at the HT was probably a little tougher than the others. All had 30 some dogs. The one at the HT if I remember right had 4 or 5 dogs already QAA running and one of the judges was someone that had been an open judge at 2 trials few weeks before. As for the OP's question I don't think there is a "spirt of the rule". It's pretty simple, if you own a dog run it. If you can't beat them train harder. Like Steve said,I didn't go because it was at a HT, I went because it was the only one close that weekend.

 

[JoeOverby]

Steve, What is your definition of "major pro"?
Joe, I have never met Daren G. in person but conversed a bunch. He is young but definitely not a snowflake. A different opinion does not call for disparaging remarks but opens the door for discussion/debate.

My response had nothing to do with a differing opinion. Like steve, I too felt the post came across a whining. With all the anti-pro, pros are the reason for the master entry cluster, pros don't help, all pros do is take BS I hear weekly, I frankly get tired of hearing people bitch about pros. An O/HQ is simply that. Regardless of what the entrants do for a profession, if you dont like the competition, don't go. I've run a few "real" ft qualifyings...ive played for green, placed, and had my teeth kicked in by more amateurs than anything. The point is, it doesn't matter what you label the Q...you had better be prepared...thoroughly...before running one...and it ain't the ht pro you need to be worried about.

Lastly, you and I obviously have differing opinions on "disparaging"...

 

[Swampcollie]

The difficulty of any Qual depends upon the quality of the dogs entered as the judges have to determine a winner. The stronger the field of entries, the more difficult the work being asked will be. It doesn't matter one bit if the OH Q is attached to a Hunt Test or a Licensed Trial as the Judges determine the tests. If you have respected Judges from around the Field Trial world sitting in the chair you will have a quality competitive event.



There are a few Professional Trainers that enter the OH Q. There is nothing in the rules to prevent it or require amateurs only. Although one does have to question the business sense of a Pro that would enter a OH Q and compete against his/her own clients/potential clients. If you don't have clients entered and you want to run your own dog, go for it.

 

[EJ]

It's fun- do it!
Ran one after running hunt stakes for a while and got a JAM- Almost pulled the judges arm out of his socket shaking his hand and he must have thought I had lost my mind.
Good way to challenge yourself and your dog with a new game and then run a hunt stake that same weekend. I normally see the O/H Q's in combination with the Hunt Stakes when they happen

 

[BonMallari]

I find a thread like this somewhat amusing because the monster that has been created" the professional dog trainer" was created by Amateurs...they created the problem by abdicating their position of primary dog trainer...You all want Amateur stakes but you all have pro trained dogs or you yourselves are pro trained...

And to clarify things, the O/H stake was NOT designed to encourage more people to get into the game. It was designed to eliminate the absentee owner and discourage an Amateur from running dogs that belonged to someone else . No one used to care about that little detail,until those dogs started placing and winning

 

[Wayne Nutt]

Definition of Snowflake as an excerpt from Merriam-Webster-"....It's developed a new and decidedly less pleasant use as a disparaging term for a person who is seen as overly sensitive and fragile."

 

[Terry Marshall]

Definition of Snowflake as an excerpt from Merriam-Webster-"....It's developed a new and decidedly less pleasant use as a disparaging term for a person who is seen as overly sensitive and fragile."

Wow Wayne, I didn't think anyone still used dictionaries....

 

[Wayne Nutt]

Maybe more should. It's an internet version. Just type in the word. You don't even have to know the alphabet.

 

[JoeOverby]

Definition of Snowflake as an excerpt from Merriam-Webster-"....It's developed a new and decidedly less pleasant use as a disparaging term for a person who is seen as overly sensitive and fragile."

Spade is a spade...

 

[Ted Shih]

And to clarify things, the O/H stake was NOT designed to encourage more people to get into the game. It was designed to eliminate the absentee owner and discourage an Amateur from running dogs that belonged to someone else . No one used to care about that little detail,until those dogs started placing and winning

I disagree with this interpretation of history.

I remember when the issue came up for a vote. The reason the O/H Q was promoted is that several clubs wanted some way to avoid 50+ dog Qualifyings that were populated with huge Pro handled contingents. Amateurs running multiple dogs in the Q were never discussed as an issue at the time.

The Rocky Mountain Retriever Club voted for the change because we believed that clubs needed a tool to manage entries, even though we have never, and probably will never hold an O/H qualifying.

Ted

 

[Ted Shih]

Need a tissue snowflake?

Why the hostility, Joe?

A few comments:

1. Darren is a dedicated young man. He trains his own dog regularly. He works at Field Trials. He judges. He has an opinion that differs from yours. No need to call him names because he disagrees.

2. When the issue of the O/H Qual came up for a vote, the issue was clubs having very large Q with many pro run dogs. Clubs wanted a tool to reduce numbers. They also wanted to promote Amateur participation. I don't remember anyone anticipating the issue of pros running dogs in the O/H Q. I will say that given the arguments for an O/H Q that in my mind pros running in the O/H Q do seem to me to violate the "spirit" of the proposal that the clubs voted on.

3. I think that a similar thing has happened with the National Derby Championship. When it was first proposed, I think that there was a limit of three (3) dogs per handler. The reason for that limitation was to promote the new Amateur, to give him/her the "National" experience, and hook him/her on the sport. Now, the limit is five (5) dogs per handler, which I think is more discouraging to the newcomer, but furthers the economic viability of the event.

I personally think we ought to be looking for ways to encourage newcomers (and especially Amateurs) to become involved in the sport.

Is this a fight that I am emotionally invested in? No.

But, I think Darren is getting a bum rap.

Ted

 

[canuckkiller]

Owner/handler background

And to clarify things, the O/H stake was NOT designed to encourage more people to get into the game. It was designed to eliminate the absentee owner and discourage an Amateur from running dogs that belonged to someone else . No one used to care about that little detail,until those dogs started placing and winning

Bon, you have accurately stated the underlying reason for the birth of the O/H stake in the
Amateur. If ACBIII were with us today, Lance would attest to that, as he was one who promoted it.

Yes, there were members in the Denver club that got on board because good handlers like John
Parrot handling many owner's dogs on Farmer's truck took it's toll & posed a threat - real or imaginary - to local owners. This went on in the '80's, before many of today's participants were present!

As an owner and trainer I never felt threatened. Many in Denver, Ft. Collins, Cheyenne did. While the element of "luck of the draw" and quality judging offset the impact of John's handling absentee owner's dogs, the emergence of the O/H limitation in many instances - RE the Arkansas Valley Retriever Club
entries - suffered and resulted in smaller Entry's (numbers) thus a dilatory B/E! As an officer of the AVRC
the crusade to 'stifle' the Parrot/Farmer approach cost the club and was not appreciated.

WD

 

[swliszka]

Cannuck #57 X 2 ...the trouble is that a lot of people here were not around(as you state)when these "tensions" were apparent as well as what pros ran what circuit for maximum results. The passing of time, memories, dogs and people.

 

[JoeOverby]

Why the hostility, Joe?

A few comments:

1. Darren is a dedicated young man. He trains his own dog regularly. He works at Field Trials. He judges. He has an opinion that differs from yours. No need to call him names because he disagrees.

2. When the issue of the O/H Qual came up for a vote, the issue was clubs having very large Q with many pro run dogs. Clubs wanted a tool to reduce numbers. They also wanted to promote Amateur participation. I don't remember anyone anticipating the issue of pros running dogs in the O/H Q. I will say that given the arguments for an O/H Q that in my mind pros running in the O/H Q do seem to me to violate the "spirit" of the proposal that the clubs voted on.

3. I think that a similar thing has happened with the National Derby Championship. When it was first proposed, I think that there was a limit of three (3) dogs per handler. The reason for that limitation was to promote the new Amateur, to give him/her the "National" experience, and hook him/her on the sport. Now, the limit is five (5) dogs per handler, which I think is more discouraging to the newcomer, but furthers the economic viability of the event.

I personally think we ought to be looking for ways to encourage newcomers (and especially Amateurs) to become involved in the sport.

Is this a fight that I am emotionally invested in? No.

But, I think Darren is getting a bum rap.

Ted

I said my piece in post 47. I don't feel the need to defend myself further. Damn the pro regards.

 

[mjh345]

Why the hostility, Joe?

A few comments:

1. Darren is a dedicated young man. He trains his own dog regularly. He works at Field Trials. He judges. He has an opinion that differs from yours. No need to call him names because he disagrees.

2. When the issue of the O/H Qual came up for a vote, the issue was clubs having very large Q with many pro run dogs. Clubs wanted a tool to reduce numbers. They also wanted to promote Amateur participation. I don't remember anyone anticipating the issue of pros running dogs in the O/H Q. I will say that given the arguments for an O/H Q that in my mind pros running in the O/H Q do seem to me to violate the "spirit" of the proposal that the clubs voted on.

3. I think that a similar thing has happened with the National Derby Championship. When it was first proposed, I think that there was a limit of three (3) dogs per handler. The reason for that limitation was to promote the new Amateur, to give him/her the "National" experience, and hook him/her on the sport. Now, the limit is five (5) dogs per handler, which I think is more discouraging to the newcomer, but furthers the economic viability of the event.

I personally think we ought to be looking for ways to encourage newcomers (and especially Amateurs) to become involved in the sport.

Is this a fight that I am emotionally invested in? No.

But, I think Darren is getting a bum rap.

Ted

I said my piece in post 47. I don't feel the need to defend myself further. Damn the pro regards.

"Damn the pro regards"???
WOW Joe just Wow
A couple of things for you to consider

Do you realize HT' s were created for Ams?
.
Do you realize most hunt tests and field trials wouldn't happen without people like Ted and Darren and myself putting them on free of charge ?

Would it affect your income if we decided to quit doing this thankless non paying jobs?


Did you pay attention to it when Darren told you that he's never run and owner Handler qual?

Don't you believe your clients would be better served with training their dogs now rather than arguing on the internet?

Are you a member of the prta?

Do you think that being a pro involves more than just charging money?