[metalone67]

After reading another thread, Do you think that a client should have to pay if the dog fails the test?

My reasoning behind this is that a am or pro trainer are being paid to an expected level per the client. If the trainer is doing his/her job there is no reason the dog should fail. I know there could be some exceptions to this like the dog passes the first 3 but failed the 4th, but if the trainer runs the dog again and still fails the 4th should the client be responsible for this run? I know sometimes we don't know what dog is coming off the truck.

I know I'll take some butt chewing but it would only make sense to me. Like in the other thread the dog failed 3 times in a row, I don't think I should have to pay because parts of training were overlooked. I would say the trainer knows what to expect from a test and should train for it.

Am I making any sense?

 

[bjoiner]

If the owner OK's it, then they should pay.

 

[Shelby]

The trainer should know where the dog is in training. He/she should be able to judge if the said dog is ready or not to run. If the trainer says the dog is ready and fails. Well that would be a no pay or should be.

In these times we need to do our work . If we dont work or do our job right we should not get paid. Not every one can be the weather man

 

[metalone67]

If the owner OK's it, then they should pay.

The owner is going on the trainers word that the pup is read to test, if the owner is blind to what is expected then how will they know if the dog is ready to test?
If the trainer says the dog can do JH work and fails 2-3 times in a row the owner should pay for this?

 

[Angie B]

The owner is going on the trainers word that the pup is read to test, if the owner is blind to what is expected then how will they know if the dog is ready to test?
If the trainer says the dog can do JH work and fails 2-3 times in a row the owner should pay for this?

Of course the owner should pay for it. The alternative is the owner runs the dog and the trainer can stay home with his client dogs training. What you pay for is training and board which does not include extra's. That means hunt tests or trials.

There's lots of reasons why the dog could be not passing. I think ya'll are drawing a lot of conclusions on very little information.

Is your salary performance based?? Is your income strictly on commission??

Angie

 

[bjoiner]

The owner is going on the trainers word that the pup is read to test, if the owner is blind to what is expected then how will they know if the dog is ready to test?
If the trainer says the dog can do JH work and fails 2-3 times in a row the owner should pay for this?

In that situation, the owner should reevaluate if they need a new trainer. (probably do need a new trainer).

In higher level test, anything can happen. A dog can be 100% ready and still fail because of a bad break. What about the HRC Grand? A very low % of dogs pass. I think its unreasonable to ask a trainer to "guarantee" test results in order to get paid. FT pros would all go on welfare if that were the case. They are dogs.

My son plays on a travel baseball team with a paid coach. Should we not pay him if the team doesn't place, even though he says they are ready?

The situation of non-performance is usually one of two things. Either a new trainer is needed or the owner may not have the dog for it (which the trainer should know and tell the owner). I don't usually see many good pros running a lot of lower level hunt tests. If they do, they usually smack them.

 

[JS]

After reading another thread, Do you think that a client should have to pay if the dog fails the test?

My reasoning behind this is that a am or pro trainer are being paid to an expected level per the client. If the trainer is doing his/her job there is no reason the dog should fail. I know there could be some exceptions to this like the dog passes the first 3 but failed the 4th, but if the trainer runs the dog again and still fails the 4th should the client be responsible for this run? I know sometimes we don't know what dog is coming off the truck.

I know I'll take some butt chewing but it would only make sense to me. Like in the other thread the dog failed 3 times in a row, I don't think I should have to pay because parts of training were overlooked. I would say the trainer knows what to expect from a test and should train for it.

Am I making any sense?

No. (you are not making sense.)

JS

 

[Howard N]

Did the pro go to work that day?

 

[Larry Thompson1]

Dog fails 3 times in junior? Should you pay the trainer?

If my dog failed 3 JH tests something would have to go, either the trainer or the dog or both. These test are set up for a dog that is just begining but have some formal training. If a dog can't pass a JH test, (3 in a row) then there is deffintly something very wrong here.

I wouldn't pay that trainer anymore, and would seek some help to evaluate the dog. Wouldn't be the first dog to washout. And wouldn't be the first trainer to get canned either.

If I don't do my job I know I would get fired, I don't work for the fed gov.

 

[FOM]

If a person is unhappy with the results of the Pro they are using to handle their dog then they have a few options:

1) Handle the dog yourself
2) Find a different Pro
3) Stop using a Pro - train and handle the dog yourself
4) Wash the dog and start over
5) Find a different hobby

FOM

 

[Justin Allen]

My trainer has a no pass no pay deal for seasoned I know, not sure about other venues or levels.

 

[whitefoot]

I don't think you can make any blanket assumptions in these situations, but ultimately, it's the owner who gives the go ahead and should be responsible for the outcome and fees. If the trainer misread, or was dishonest, about where the dog was in training, then just find a new trainer. If the dog can't do the work and the trainer didn't tell the owner, then find a new dog AND a new trainer.

My point is, it is the owner who has the ultimate responsibility for the animal. The owner is the one who is responsible for doing due diligence and finding an honest and capable pro. If you didn't do that research, then that's on you.

 

[Thomas D]

My trainer has a no pass no pay deal for seasoned I know, not sure about other venues or levels.

That's no pass, no pay for the handling fees and expenses right? What about the entry fees?

 

[J. Walker]

You're really talking about two different things. You're combining handling and training as the same thing. How many of us have never made a handling error? I'll be the first to say "Not me!" I've seen young dogs that were trained and handled by well-known, very successful pros that went down the tubes for whatever reason: either because the test tempted them into something on which they were weak or the dogs just got too wound up and lost focus. I saw a dog run a few months ago that JAM'd the first Derby of a double Derby that had to be picked up the next morning for switching back to the go bird right off the bat. The handler is well-known and has been around this stuff for 30+ years. I saw another well-known trainer who has done this stuff for nearly 30 years take three dogs to the very tough third series of a Derby and pick up all three of them for switching or severe cheating, which was hard not to do with the 20+ mph crosswind. My point is that stuff happens and the handler is still spending time running your dog. For that, he should be paid. That said, as a trainer, it seems obvious your trainer either didn't have your dog properly prepared or didn't let you know that your dog wasn't ready to run in a test.

 

[LokiMeister]

I had teachers in high school that went to work that day (most days), but no work was done (most days). Why should they have gotten paid?

Isn't it up to the pro also to enlighten the owner that the dog is/is not ready or simply talented/not talented enough for a test? From what I see in other professions like this, there needs to be a meeting of the minds. Generally, if the "pro" says someone or something is ready, the "amateur" is going to take their word for it.

Did the pro go to work that day?

 

[Jay Dufour]

If a person is unhappy with the results of the Pro they are using to handle their dog then they have a few options:

1) Handle the dog yourself
2) Find a different Pro
3) Stop using a Pro - train and handle the dog yourself
4) Wash the dog and start over
5) Find a different hobby

FOM

Thank You !!!!

 

[bjoiner]

You're really talking about two different things. You're combining handling and training as the same thing. How many of us have never made a handling error? I'll be the first to say "Not me!" I've seen young dogs that were trained and handled by well-known, very successful pros that went down the tubes for whatever reason: either because the test tempted them into something on which they were weak or the dogs just got too wound up and lost focus. I saw a dog run a few months ago that JAM'd the first Derby of a double Derby that had to be picked up the next morning for switching back to the go bird right off the bat. The handler is well-known and has been around this stuff for 30+ years. I saw another well-known trainer who has done this stuff for nearly 30 years take three dogs to the very tough third series of a Derby and pick up all three of them for switching or severe cheating, which was hard not to do with the 20+ mph crosswind. My point is that stuff happens and the handler is still spending time running your dog. For that, he should be paid. That said, as a trainer, it seems obvious your trainer either didn't have your dog properly prepared or didn't let you know that your dog wasn't ready to run in a test.

That made me think about test where the pro is doing the right thing by picking up a dog instead of hacking for a ribbon. It's the right thing to do before starting bad habits that will cost a lot more in training time to fix if you let the dog get its reward. In that case, the pro more than earned his handling fee.

 

[Sundown49 aka Otey B]

I am going to play the Devil's advocate for a minute. Some owners send their "world beater" dogs to a Pro expecting way to much out of their dog than the dog has to give. When told that Miricle dog is NOT doing well they insist on entering a dog ill prepared to do the work in an event. I found out that all trainers ,like all dogs, are not created equal. The good ones will tell you the COLD HARD TRUTH about how your dog is doing. The other bunch will tell you in another month I expect a HUGE break through which in another month the same story again. If a pup has been with a pro for 6 months and goes 1 for 4 at a Junior HT there is only one of two things possible.
1) the dog does not have the talent to do the work
2) the trainer is a member of the second group I mentioned above.

 

[2labs]

Working as a Winger Technician this weekend, I saw great dogs on Saturday that showed up and smacked the test. I saw the same dogs on Sunday four of them acted like they have never seen a duck or heard a whistle. If the same dog doesnt' show up for work on Sunday how is that the pros fault? The dog came to work on Saturday, so in a pros mind the dog was ready. Some dogs just dont' come to work, not up to the human brain to figure out which fido is going to show.
If you buy a brand new pair of golf clubs and you do not make the PGA is it the clubs fault?
Do you get rid of those clubs and buy another set?
This is a HOBBY that cost money like any other hobby, if you don't have the money don't play.
Dave

 

[Jacob Hawkes]

Did the pro go to work that day?

That's the only question that needs to be asked. Nobody works for free.