AKC's RAC, in their infinite wisdom, has decided that they need to change the definition of "amateur" for the purposes of running in amateur stakes or for judging. Currently, the rule states that a professional is anyone who derives their livlihood from training dogs for others. The new ruling would make anyone who receives "compensation" for training a dog for FT, HT or hunting, or receives "compensation" for handling a dog at a HT or FT as a professional. The proposed rule change further defines "compensation" as not only money, but goods and services, etc. Furthermore, they left a loophole, where they can redefine "compensation" at a later date to include other forms of "compensation" they haven't thought of yet!

Which all leads to:

Scenario #1: I have a friend who wants me to train his dog. He happens to run a boarding kennel. I don't receive $, but he gives me a break on my boarding bill. This would be considered a "service". Compensation, or no?

Scenario #2: My friend wants a bitch trained and run in HT. To avoid "conflict of interest", the bitch is transferred to my name as co-owner. Does the simple fact that I now own a part of this dog as "payment" for my training/handling of this dog now constitute "compensation"? What if I am allowed to keep a pup from this bitch? Are those "goods"? Compensation, or no?

Scenario #3: A friend approaches me with a young male he thinks is a hot prospect. I agree, and he transfers the dog to me on co-ownership while I do the breakout work. After the breakouts are done, he is, indeed a magnificant animal, so the "partnership" continues, with me handling the dog. Stud fees roll in, and we split them 50/50. Maybe this dog is another Lean Mack, and the stud fees REALLY start rolling in. Is this not financial consideration? Compensation, or no?

I could go on and on, but you see where this is going. They are taking a grey area and making it even muddier. Since FT are still a "gentleman's" game, the gentlemen will come forward and declare themselves qualified or not as amateurs. Those who would circumvent the rules will simply find even more creative ways to do so, and continue to cheat.

In the mean time, the Chessie trialers will have an even harder time of it, since most of us have to co-own dogs or make up syndicates to play this game. The existence of such syndicates, where some people pony up the dough, while others handle/train the dog, could land everyone involved in the "pro" corner, with this broad, vague new rule.

I understand there was a lot of discussion at the meeting in K-Falls, and probably lots more discussion going on right now in the gallery. I hope at least some of the more thoughtful comments are taken under consideration, and if these new rules get all the way to the delegate floor of AKC, the ACC delegate is instructed to vote no! Yes, there need to be tighter controls on "professional amateurs", but let's not use bad rule-making to do it!

How do others in the game feel about this? Have you read the proposed new rules?

Lisa

I have read the proposed rule changes and while I think it is well intended it has the potential to hurt the "true amateur" and mentions no specific penalty for a violation.
What constitutes "livlihood" or "compensation" will always be hard to define. Where do you draw the line? Is selling a FT wash-out for $500 the same as selling a top derby dog for $20,000 the same? Is recieving money for handling a dog for another owner that wins an Open equal to handling your dog that wins a DU event and you recieve a shotgun?
The proposal also exempts those that sell books, videos and/or hold seminars, another gray area.
The current rule is not great but the new one can be harmful to many amateurs. Let's leave it alone until a change will be an improvement.
Tim

I agree! It will definitely hurt the amateur, while the "semi-pros" will keep on truckin'. As it is, I put my name on any dog I handle or train for another, just to keep it clear that I am training and handling my own dog. Under the new rule, that would become a grey area. After all, receiving ownership of a dog constitutes a form of "compensation", if you will. I think it creates more grey areas than before.

I also think it will squeeze out the less-than-wealthy trialer. We'll go back to the days when the Long Island elite were the only ones who played the game. Some folks break out dogs on the side to help pay the training bill. Others sell trained dogs and FT prospects. Any of these activities could come under scrutiny with the new ruling. Before you know it, only trust-funders will be able to play the game. Then there won't be any trials at all any more!

Lisa

Have you ever considered that the AKC awards a DOG the title AFC based on the status of the PERSON that may handle the animal on some Sat. and Sundays? There is nothing amateur about most of these dogs. Most dogs that achieve this title have had there abilities created and enhanced by a professional trainer that has also instructed the owner(s) how to handle the dog.
Under the current rules a person is an amateur if they have not recieved part of there livlihood from training or handling retrievers in the last 2 years. Maybe rule changes should deal with the dog not accummulating points towards an AFC until it has not been with a pro trainer for 2 years since it is the dog that becomes the amateur champion? It will never occur but it would sure help the real amateur owner/trainer/handler.
Tim

No, it will never happen. Neither will the proposed ruling do anything about the "camp follower" Amateur with nothing but time on their hands, who travels with the Pro and runs all the dogs on that Pro's truck in the Amateur. I don't know how it is in other parts of the country, but out west, there were quite a few like that. Trained with their dog every day, because their Pro was camped on their property for the winter. Come trial season, these folks then run the dogs. Pretty slick. They don't "live in the same household" nor do they "derive compensation", yet they have the best chance of beating the odds.

Lisa