Gun Dog Forum

For those of us that are thinking about co-owning some dogs to share travel expenses and perhaps even take turns going to trials. In amateur stakes remember the AFTCA rule:

"(f) No amateur shall handle more than two (2) dogs not solely owned by him or some member of his immediate family in any amateur stake. Should this occur, all dogs handled by this handler in this stake shall be disqualified."

The AKC rule is nearly the same, but is 3.

I know why the rule was made, but it might be time to increase the number to at least 4 or 5.

Also, for AKC, why should not open points when handled by an amateur count toward an AFC?

Neil

I would have to guess and think that was started to help deter those pro amatuer out there from over filling trials. personally I think once a person has FC'd X amount of dogs they shouldn't be considered an amatuer either...i think that would help encourage more beginners to participate...nothing more intimadating then running against a pro amatuer for a beginner and there are quite a few out there.
So though yes it would be nice for a true amatuer to be able to run more dogs their and friends..sad thing is it would be taken advantage of

kninebirddog wrote:I would have to guess and think that was started to help deter those pro amatuer out there from over filling trials. personally I think once a person has FC'd X amount of dogs they shouldn't be considered an amatuer either...i think that would help encourage more beginners to participate...nothing more intimadating then running against a pro amatuer for a beginner and there are quite a few out there.
So though yes it would be nice for a true amatuer to be able to run more dogs their and friends..sad thing is it would be taken advantage of

What, in your opinion, is a true amateur?

Aline
http://sitekreator.com/zzfarms

That really is a fine line question

So one would have to ask...should someone that Judges be considered an amatuer? i hate to even ask that because it is hard to get judges but it should honestly be asked

how long and how much should a handler do before being considered a pro only because they take money? I can state I know quite a few people who take money for working with dogs that have no clue about field trials. but because the take money guiding they are considered a pro...So is it the dog that is an amtuer or is it the handler

if it is the handler then once they have titled 5 dogs to an FC ...not AFC but an FC wouldn't that be an indicator they have more knowledge of handling a dog? what then becomes an Amatuer or pro or is it really all about the $$$$

just some food for thought on different perspectives

My definition of an amateur is someone who predominantly trains and handles his own dogs and doesn't get paid for the occasions that they do work with someone else's dog. $$$ has a lot to do with it, in my book.
If someone wants to bust his butt in his downtime away from his day job, and ends up fielding some darn good dogs, I have a hard time penalizing him for it by telling him that an AFC is now off-limits.

kninebirddog wrote:I would have to guess and think that was started to help deter those pro amatuer out there from over filling trials. personally I think once a person has FC'd X amount of dogs they shouldn't be considered an amatuer either...i think that would help encourage more beginners to participate...nothing more intimadating then running against a pro amatuer for a beginner and there are quite a few out there.
So though yes it would be nice for a true amatuer to be able to run more dogs their and friends..sad thing is it would be taken advantage of

IMO, you are confusing the idea of an "amateur stake" with that of a "novice stake". We have hunt tests, and clubs can run hunting dog stakes or club trials to allow "newbies" opportunities to run dogs.

There are not enough, and never will be enough, "newbies" to support novice stakes at major field trials.

At Field Trials I have only seen Amatuer and Open stakes...never have seen one posted as Novice

http://www.answers.com/topic/amateur

Dictionary: amateur (ăm'ə-tûr', -tər, -chʊr', -chər, -tyʊr')

n.
A person who engages in an art, science, study, or athletic activity as a pastime rather than as a profession.
Sports. An athlete who has never accepted money, or who accepts money under restrictions specified by a regulatory body, for participating in a competition.
One lacking the skill of a professional, as in an art.
adj.
Of or performed by an amateur.
Made up of amateurs: an amateur cast.
Not professional; unskillful.

Most commonly an amateur is understood to be someone who does something without pay or formal training. Conversely, a professional is someone who has received training in a particular area and who also makes a living from it..........

All I am saying there are some who are what I would consider Overskilled amatuers but because they stay under the radar it becomes a fine line and though I can not blame them for doing what they are doing because they can...and they follow a very fine line

Most commonly an amateur is understood to be someone who does something without pay or formal training. Conversely, a professional is someone who has received training in a particular area and who also makes a living from it..........

Formal training has NOTHING to do with it. A person is pro when they take money for services rendered. End of story.

By your standard, someone who goes to a week long Rick Smith training class is a pro, as they've received formal training.

At Field Trials I have only seen Amatuer and Open stakes...never have seen one posted as Novice

I understand, but a "novice" stake is exactly what you described here:

personally I think once a person has FC'd X amount of dogs they shouldn't be considered an amatuer either...i think that would help encourage more beginners to participate...nothing more intimadating then running against a pro amatuer for a beginner and there are quite a few out there.

What I'm saying is that if you removed those "pro amateurs" from the amateur stakes, there wouldn't be enough entries to support the stake.

I've heard this arguement over and over; and the same thing always comes up. Everyone's defination of "pro amateur" are the folks more experienced then them. No one ever defines themselves as a "pro amateur".

There has to be a "line in the sand" that defines what an amateur is and isn't. How "close to the line" you are is irrelevant, just as doing 55mph in a 55 zone is just as legal as doing 45mph in a 55 zone.

Want to make things interesting? How 'bout we take a page from the AKC retriever folks and run "owner handled" amateur stakes?

JMO,
Dave

I couldn't agree with Dave more. It sounds like you are defining people who win as pros and people who don't win as amateurs. But in doing so, it would severely cheapen the AFC title, which BTW is HARDER to achieve than the FC is (at least in Brittanys) as you need 2 blue ribbons...not one.

Oh i know it is those that take it more serious that are going to fill the trials

and yes it is one of those things that can be the proverbial dead horse posts. To which there is the grey area

i do believe the amatuer stake is to HELP entice the inexperience or new person to try

it is hard to fill trials fuel isn't helping either ....

So back to CO Ownership...I don't think they should change it

i do think it helps to keep the more even I know it is easy to get around by someone registering a dog in their name only until the title is done if they want to run more dogs....So in one way it doesn't matter but makes it look better in the books

kninebirddog wrote:i do believe the amatuer stake is to HELP entice the inexperience or new person to try

If this were truly the case, performance standards would be different between open and amateur stakes. They are not. An amateur stake was never intended to entice the inexperienced or new people to play the game. That's what puppy and derby stakes are for.

And I have to say, there is no grey area. You either take money for training and/or handling and are a pro, or you don't take money and are an amateur. In pointing breeds, don't take money for 2 years, and you're an amateur again. Pretty cut and dry.

Man Arlette, you got a dictionary? I AM IMPRESSED!

snips wrote:Man Arlette, you got a dictionary? I AM IMPRESSED!

yep got that online one going LOL ...been known to pull up a definition or two as to what something should be versus what it has turned in to being ...