same rules as the owner /handler amateur...must be registered owner and as someone informed me can be immediate family or spouse...

 

And if you finish 1st or 2nd, it gets your dog qualified to run limited & special AA stakes just like a normal Q.

 

so regular FT type test? i saw where they are allowed to run them in hunt tests, and Bryan-college station is doing on friday of their test weekend. so it would be triples and blinds?

 

so regular FT type test? i saw where they are allowed to run them in hunt tests, and Bryan-college station is doing on friday of their test weekend. so it would be triples and blinds?

Yes David, it is a normal field trial Q, triples and blind retrieves, with a winner and placements. Held at a hunt test!!!

.

 

the O/H qualifying basically cuts out the use of a pro

 

For several years AKC has allowed clubs with member/licensed hunting test to have an owner/handler qualifying as long as the event has a Master. The O/H Qualifying in all respects is identical to a Qualifying except it does restrict who can handle a dog. Pros can handle the dog if they are an owner (co-owner) of said dog.

Jack

 

...The O/H Qualifying in all respects is identical to a Qualifying except it does restrict who can handle a dog. Pros can handle the dog if they are an owner (co-owner) of said dog.

Jack

Maybe it's just me, but I'm disappointed to see how many pros are being listed as co-owners on dogs just so they can run them in O/H events. I run Qualifying stakes at regular field trials and am perfectly fine with taking my chances against them, but I feel for the first time handlers that enter an O/H Qual at a HT and show up to find a few pros running co-owned dogs for their clients.

I THOUGHT the intent of the O/H stake was to give the average working Joe, who only trains in their spare time, a chance to try their hand at against others in a similar situation.

Whether you consider it bending the rules or downright wrong, it just smells like poor sportsmanship, to me.

 

I think the intent is to give more hunt test participants the oppurtunity to experience a Field Trial.

John Lash

 

I also believe it's poor taste on the part of the pro who runs there dog or a co-owner dog in the owner handler qual. When I see a pro do that my respect for them goes down and I would not recommend sending a dog to them for many reasons.

 

I totally agree. By the nature of EE, some pros come up as handlers by default because the entrant doesn't change it, but if the owner and pro actually send the papers in to AKC to change them to co-owner, that really looks unsprtsmanlike.

 

You did not answer the question, Is it that you have no good answer?

The pros that frequent the HT circuit and the dogs they have on their truck are not the same pros and dogs that one regularly sees on the FT circuits. Why shouldn't they and their dogs be given the opportunity to "break in" if opportunity to experience FT's is what it was all about.

No Dan the qualifying stake is to qualify a dog to run a limited access stake at a FT and as such should be open to all there wanting to qualify these dogs.



john

 

...The pros that frequent the HT circuit and the dogs they have on their truck are not the same pros and dogs that one regularly sees on the FT circuits. Why shouldn't they and their dogs be given the opportunity to "break in" if opportunity to experience FT's is what it was all about.

No Dan the qualifying stake is to qualify a dog to run a limited access stake at a FT and as such should be open to all there wanting to qualify these dogs.

I can't speak to the original intent of the AKC when the O/H Qual was first developed, but it seems the intent was to offer a stake at a HT where amateur owners had to chance to compete against other amateur owners. I don't think many hunt test amateurs are willing to spend the money to "try" a normal Qualifying stake at a field trial, where they are likely to encounter experienced pro's who train dogs daily, for that very purpose. It's not a very inviting environment for many first timers, hence the advent of the O/H Qual at hunt tests. Does it restrict competition? Yes. Do many of those dogs that get QAA in an O/H go on to compete in restricted or limited AA stakes? I highly doubt it. Doesn't an Amateur All-Age stake restrict competition in the same way by not allowing pro's to run? You bet it does!

I don't personally have an issue running against pro's, but it seems that if a stake is advertised as an O/H, pro's should not be running client dogs in it, even if they are registered as co-owners. If a HT pro want's to "break in", they should have to do so at a regular FT.

 

Why should a O/H Q associated with HT be any different than one at a FT? If the judges water down the test shame on them. Never understood why people are scared to run against the "Pro". What about a HT/gundog pro who owns a dog to compete in FT, should they be able to run and O/H Q?

 

...What about a HT/gundog pro who owns a dog to compete in FT, should they be able to run and O/H Q?

If the hunt test pro is running their personal dog, why should they not be able to run a O/H qual? It's not an Amateur Qual, it's owner/handler. I do understand your frustration at pro's being listed as co-owners for the sole purpose of being able to run O/H events however.

I don't take issue with HT pro's running their own dogs in an O/H and I don't have an issue running against pro's in a full trial. Sure feels good when things go your way. However, when a pro enters an O/H event with 3 or 4 dogs that all show different owners and said pro is listed as a co-owner and handler on each, well it's not hard to figure out what's going on. What bothers me is the first-time amateur running an O/H may never try again, figuring what's the point.

 

Amateur or Pro one can not just be listed as a co-owner on an entry.
To run an OH either AM or Q., one must in fact be a co-owner of the dog with their name on the dogs registration with all the legal rights to the dog that their % of ownership provides.
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on tv, but it seems to me that signing over an interest in your dog is not something to be taken lightly......

john

 

As I recall, a number of clubs - especially in California - were struggling with large (50+ dog) qualifyings during the winter. These clubs wanted to:
(a) reduce number of entries; and (b) encourage amateurs to run their dogs in the qualifying. The matter came for a vote and was passed.

If people want to have an O/H Amateur Qualifying, they would need to follow the same process.

 

For me, the event did what I believe it was intended to do. It allowed me to experience the competition and higher expectations of a field trial without the added intimidation of running against a handful of very successful pro's. Having finished and jammed, it showed me that my dog and I can, at the very least, do the work so I would be much more comfortable entering and running a regular FT than I would have been before. Which, again, is what I thought the point of the O/H was in the first place.

I can only say that I have never seen an "easy" O/H Qual. They are set up the same by the judges whether FT qual or HT qual, at least those I have seen set up by veteran FT judges. Sometimes there are only 3 places given out. I think that HT people feel more confident running against HT people they know than all FT people and multiple pros the first time, at least that's what I have heard, and like Rick C the next time won't hesitate to run a regular FT Qual.

The HT Qual does not draw full time field trial dogs, either pro or amateur handled. So there is less competition at a HT Qual, whether it not it is an owner handler Qual.

That's not true here. There are amateurs that have one dog running quals and they go to what ever qual is that weekend. You still have competition. It's a big step up to AA and you can run quals until you win your way out twice. Many amateurs are also looking for handling experience and getting through the first series, doing the wb and water marks.

 

...That's not true here. There are amateurs that have one dog running quals and they go to what ever qual is that weekend. You still have competition. It's a big step up to AA and you can run quals until you win your way out twice. Many amateurs are also looking for handling experience and getting through the first series, doing the wb and water marks.

It's certainly true here in the Southeast. You'll get the occasional FT guy running a local HT O/H Qual, but for the most part they are at the big trials. Point is, top to bottom, the talent of both dog and handler at a FT Qual is much deeper than at a HT Qual. This would be true whether or not it was an O/H event. And I'll bet that's true even where you are.

 

I think O/H Q's are promoted at Ht's by clubs that wish to encourage Am's to try FT's. This is good for the FT game.
When people try to circumvent the spirit of O/H events, they are only hurting themselves and the game.
The best young FT dogs are getting their QAA status by placing in all-age.

 

If, at a FT, the stated purpose of having the Q be an OH is to increase the number of new Amateur participants ....

With that in mind, what do you all think of an OH/Q with a Friday start.

john

 

I don't concede the first part of your post. I have no idea what the purpose is.

But I love the Friday starts... No waiting on some sandbagger claiming they are at another stake!

 

A club has to do, what it has to d,o to make a trial run. I think clubs holding Friday starts for Q, are doing so because of manpower limitations.
Not everyone works Mon-Fri 9-5. While a Fri start for a O/H Q may not be the perfect solution, the impact is likely against few. The benefit to the dog games is great.

 

I definitely agree with everything you say Dan. Why does a Pro have to run in an O/H Qual? There are a few handlers in the WNY trial next Friday that appear to be handlers but do not appear to be co-owners, at least according to the profile on Entry Express for the dogs concerned. If handlers are ignoring the rules, then they need to be careful about their status with the AKC.

 

There are plenty of amateurs running their dogs in the Derby as well as the Qualifying. One of them needs to start on Friday. Hard for me to determine whether Friday or Saturday start favors the working person. If you feel strongly about O/H v non-O/H Qual, Amateurs, Limited, Restricted, etc. - then you need to get involved in your local club.

 

Yes but as yet, there is no such thing as a OH/Derby.

There were two minor stake issues that I felt strongly about that were among the many things I got passed while on the BOD of a local club... one was no Friday start for the Q and the other was no Pheasants in the Derby.

john

 

don't take issue with HT pro's running their own dogs in an O/H and I don't have an issue running against pro's in a full trial. Sure feels good when things go your way. However, when a pro enters an O/H event with 3 or 4 dogs that all show different owners and said pro is listed as a co-owner and handler on each, well it's not hard to figure out what's going on. What bothers me is the first-time amateur running an O/H may never try again, figuring what's the point.

Dan,

I really don't see that much up in our neck of the woods, as iv'e stated befor in different threads on this topic, I personally like the OH from a judging and a running point of view, mainly because you can typically finish in one day, putting less stress on the workers and the club. i have NO problem with a pro that is running a OH with a dog he solely owns, it's a OWNER handler and he is the owner, as listed in the rules he/she has every right to run the dog. And if I'm judging a OH whether it's part of a HT or a FT it's certainly not going to be watered down, and i would expect the same if I was the one running.. Nothing worse than a setup that you can only go backwards on..

 

How many people are affected by a Friday start? How many people are affected by a Monday finish?

 

All of them.

 

Todd,

I couldn't agree more. O/H or not, a Qual should be a Qual. No gimmee's. As a judge, I only have 2 marking series to evaluate the dogs, unlike a Derby where you usually have 4. Come out with a good test and see where things fall. The only difference might be in the strength of the field of dogs (whether it's an O/H or not, doesn't really matter), not the test set-ups themselves.

Oddly enough, one of the weakest Q's I've run was at a full trial and one of the toughest was at an O/H Q at a hunt test. Keep the pedal down and hang on for the ride.

 

Never heard of a Q that ended on Monday

 

Late to the party here, but curious as to why so many folks seem to be offended by something that appears to be completely within the rules. If it's allowed then it's allowed. If you think it shouldn't be allowed then wouldn't the proper approach be to work within the system to change the rules?

 

Have you heard the phrases "spirit of the law/rule" and "letter of the law/rule"?
A handler, whether pro or Amateuer, being listed as co-owner if multiple dogs simply to get around the O/H classification may be within the letter of the rule, but it's certainly not within the spirit.

Character matters to a lot of us.

 

I can't imagine a person would list themself as an owner of the dog if they are not in fact listed as an owner of on the dogs AKC registration papers.

bigger fish to fry regards

john

 

Lot of people assuming ht are primarily made up of amature non pro trained dogs. I think people need to rethink that

/paul

 

Exactly right /paul