[Mike Noel]

Talk about a cumbersome and unnecessary additional burden on the already harried help of the Trial giving club—

Just use the clock

john

I guess that really depends on the attitude of the club members....

The last 2 years I have worked at the Bluebonnet Trial, last year Marshalling the 51 dog Q with a bunch of pro run dogs and judging this years Q, and both times we went INTO the trial with an attitude of doing what we can to get the pro dogs to the minor stakes. All it took was a little communication and a little hustle but hell, it wasn't even enough to make Guthrie sweat. :lol:

 

[EdA]

I for one will not work at or Judge any more events that have any restrictions on entries.john

fortunately this opinion is not shared by many, Limited, Special, and Restricted all have entry restrictions

 

[Lonny Taylor]

1. If a club is going to have a OH qual then the AKC should lift the Limted status so the pro can atleast have a chance to run the dog and QAA the dog via the open.

when the AKC decides to dictate what stakes we cannot hold there will be one less field trial on the Texas circuit :shock:

Restricted Entry Open Regards

Ed,

What I am referring to is that the AKC required a large percentage of the clubs to hold either a limited or special last year. Alot of the clubs atleast on this circuit held a O/H qual and a limited or special open and that was because they were forced into it. Kind of tough to run those stakes when I can not even have a chance to QAA the dogs. I thought the idea of the qualifying was to give the dogs that are in transition a chance to run and the dogs that either take first or second are ready to move up to the AA stakes. Is that really true now with limiting the competition in the qualifying stake? I do agree with the propsal to require handlers to have another handler for the minor stakes that have several dogs in the open. Alot of the bigger pros are doing it anyway. I know that I would want someone else running the minor stakes if I had more than six dogs in the open, not just for the benefit of the mechanics of the club but for the benefit of the dogs I was running in the open.

LT

 

[Jerry]

Guess we won't be seeing John at Trials anymore.

EVERY stake has a restriction of one sort or another on entries.

Can't enter a 3 yr old in the Derby
Can't enter a dog in the Q with two wins.
Can't enter a dog in anything if it's less than six months old.

Jerry

 

[EdA]

sorry Lonny but the mission of MY club does not include providing a way for professional trainers to earn a living by running dogs in the Qualifying, other clubs may choose to do so, to my knowledge no club has been forced to hold a restrictive stake, it is optional and we choose to run the most restrictive open all-age stake 8) (and we still have 72 dogs )

 

[K G]

You also have the most restrictive Am stake available and have 70 entries! :shock: By the way, I reset my return flight and I'm leaving Dallas Monday morning.

Need Piney Woods back in the fold regards, :wink:

kg

 

[EdA]

Need Piney Woods back in the fold regards, :wink: kg

:idea: substitue conflict already arranged

You Can Still Make A Sunday Evening Flight Regards,

The A Team will be on the scene, and the first 10 dogs in the Amateur WILL RUN IN ORDER 8)

 

[Lonny Taylor]

No Ed you still are not getting my point. Yes it has limited my ability to run the minor stakes but because of this I have been running more hunt tests this year. Business decision on my part. My competitive heart belongs in FT, but I have a mortgage and 4 kids to feed. Please do not infer that I feel that the clubs need to support my business.

What I am referring to is are we really still ataining the goal of the qualifying with the O/H stake. Does this not take away from the quality of the dogs that are QAA by restricting who gets to run the qual. I understand well the problems of the mechanics of getting dogs from the open to the qual. I have worked FT's for many years as a club member, chairman, and judge and know the frustration that is endured with the minor stakes.

And you are wrong about the restrictive requirmements by the AKC. I am a board memeber of one of the clubs that was required to hold a limited or special. I do believe that most of the others were informed also. Probably 75%(maybe more) of the trials on this circuit were either limited or special. I do believe the AKC was trying to hold the numbers down on the open entries.

Are you still trying to put together the organization that will allow more trial clubs to form and hold trials? This is the best answer to the large entry problem. I do remember the days when most opens were 40-60 dogs and a 70 dog open was considred a large open entry.

LT

 

[EdA]

No Ed you still are not getting my point.
LT

quite to the contrary I DO GET YOUR POINT, but you don't get mine :wink:

 

[Patrick Johndrow]

The largest issues I see with today's Field Trials in this region is there are large number of pros with a large number of dogs that show up at almost every weekend. As an prior amateur that was involved in a club there is not a worse way to spend a weekend than put on a 100 plus dog Open and have the minor stakes waiting on dogs because a pro is finishing running the last of his 20 dogs at the Open. It has always amazed me that the only people that don't make a living at a trial are the people that do all the work....The AKC and the Pros sure make a few bucks every weekend...and what about the amateurs that just run trials without helping put on a trial or two a year? The game has either gone upside down or maybe that is the way it has always been.

 

[EdA]

The game has either gone upside down or maybe that is the way it has always been.

nope, on my first trip to Colorado in the 70s I was surprised to see that all the people in the field were contestants, everyone showed up and expected to help, the guns were changed at reasonable intervals because many people were willing and eager to help, but then a large string of pro dogs was 10. Today many more people are content to sit in the gallery and chat.

 

[Patrick Johndrow]

The game has either gone upside down or maybe that is the way it has always been.

nope, on my first trip to Colorado in the 70s I was surprised to see that all the people in the field were contestants, everyone showed up and expected to help, the guns were changed at reasonable intervals because many people were willing and eager to help, but then a large string of pro dogs was 10. Today many more people are content to sit in the gallery and chat.

That is the way NAHRA HT use to be in the mid 90s...to many prince and princess today

 

[Jason Brion]

I don't think that the quality of the dogs will suffer. Things always have a way of leveling them selves out. What I do think will happen is that the playing field will be more even. These test are a TEAM effort. And a pro that runs multiple dogs has an advantage over the rest of the field. How many times have you seen a pro running his last dog differently than his first?

 

[NateB]

Even in a OH Qual, I would be interested in how many dogs are still pro trained. Just like in the OH Am, there is a very high % of pro trained dogs. No matter how you try to devise, it the amatuers are still competing against pros. They are doing the training on many of these dogs. I have to enter what ever Qual that is a reasonable distance and starts on Saturday. I cannot take off work to run in a Friday trial. I work till 8pm Thursday night, so to be able to be somewhere to run at 8 Fri morning I would have to take off a good part of Thursday too. So I have to take what I can, but with this spring I will be lucky to run any with the stupid cold weather.
Ran 3- 70-80 yd water marks yesterday, they were all shivering after 2. this s#*ks.

 

[Paul Rainbolt]

My experience with the OH Qual as a FT chairman has only been positive. Keep the pros at the open get the Q done in one day . The OH qual should set up and judged the same as any qual or shame on the judges. The quality of dogs wont be less just advantage a pro has by showing up and running 3 dogs in a row at the end when he was drawn to run early.

What i would really like to change are these sham co owner deals that are starting to plague the Amateur. There s a loop hole here that needs to be fixed.

 

[Trevor Toberny]

do you mean pro's that own dogs and sign them over to an AM so they can run them and get there AFC.I think an AM won a few weeks ago and he used to only have one dog and now he "owns" 4 dogs that used to be owned by his pro and he won or placed with one of his newly owned dogs.

 

[Lonny Taylor]

Hey guys,
A little food for thought. What is to stop the owners from putting their pros name on the papers?

LT

 

[Jerry]

Nothing to stop it but integrity.

Jerry

 

[john fallon]

Nothing to stop it but integrity.

Jerry

I co-own several dogs with a Pro.

What are you saying, you lost me.


john

 

[Lonny Taylor]

You mean like the same integrity used in the O/H Amatuers?

LT