juliepoudrier Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 BUT the ONLY reason 2 dog handlers have an advantage is because some handlers CHOOSE not to run 2 dogs. I hope that was said tongue in cheek. Not everyone can afford to own or run two dogs. That's not necessarily a choice. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 There are very few one dog handlers running around here, way less than two dog handlers (10%?). By virtue of assigning dog names and removing strategy, you give some two dog handlers an advantage over others based on luck in the drawing. Why enter luck into it for 90% of the handlers? I don't understand this. Are you saying that luck based on a fair drawing is an unfair advantage? One could just as easily have bad luck in the drawing as good. Assigning handlers and dog together eliminates strategy, which would be allowing the handler to inject their own choice into the mix and thereby (in theory) increase their chances of doing better with a particular dog. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it is interesting to see the ramifications of different approaches to the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 There are very few one dog handlers running around here, way less than two dog handlers (10%?). By virtue of assigning dog names and removing strategy, you give some two dog handlers an advantage over others based on luck in the drawing. Why enter luck into it for 90% of the handlers? Robin, I'm not following your reasoning here. Even if everyone has two dogs to run, why is it more fair to let them choose when to run which dog as opposed to assigning when they run each dog? If handler A gets one prime running time and one so-so (or bad) running time, then handler A can choose to put her best dog in the prime running time. If handler B happens to be drawn for two so-so running times, or doG forbid one so-so time and one bad time, then handler A has a distinct advantage over handler B, and I don't think that can be laid down to strategy. Granted, good vs. so-so vs. bad times can change from day to day, but still I'm not getting how it's more fair to let handlers choose when to run a dog vs. just putting a dog's name on the running order and letting it really be the luck of the draw. Are there other sports (like horse racing, maybe) where someone with multiple entries is allowed to choose which one runs/competes where? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debbie Meier Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 I hope that was said tongue in cheek. Not everyone can afford to own or run two dogs. That's not necessarily a choice. J. I'm not speaking for Candy, but I did mention the same philosiphy earlier in this thread, the people that I have heard say it, meant it. And, I have heard the same philosiphy applied to other venues that allowed multiple entries. When we used to team rope, the more you enter the better chances you had (provided you could catch); team penning, enter as many teams as allowed, improve your chances. In all the cases a complaint about those entering multiple times gaining an advantage was met with "It was your choice to not enter as much" When I team penned alot we had a good enough box that we would split the entries between two different divisions as opposed to bumping ourselves out of the money, when you enter too much you run the risk of beating yourself landing teams out of the money. (ETA: I should probably explain a "box", it was four team members, we were limited to three runs each consisting of 3 members and we could never run the same team, by putting a four man team together we could then run four different teams just by switching on hand, we all knew each other and worked well together. At the end of the day we would split entry fees and our winnings four ways. We also did not ride outside of our box if more entries were allowed) Granted, this philosiphy is not about having fun with our horses, it's about winning, cause winning is fun.... You didn't take the pony that couldn't hit the pay window. Much the same as dog trialling, we are now leaving the dogs home that do not have a high probablity of hitting the pay window unless one needs the seasoning or if a trial needs more entries. Some will agree with it while others won't but it does mean that your best dogs are out on the field, is that a bad thing? Deb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoofly Posted November 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 The time of day you draw out is luck, no way around that. But, there's a distinct advantage in running the course once with your lesser dog and then going back to get it right with your better one after your "practice run". That's even more true if you add in rerun sheep. That's the bigger strategy i'm talking about. Time of day/draw might make me do things differently occasionally but all else being equal, i bet most people would run their better dog second. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenajo Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 I hope that was said tongue in cheek. Not everyone can afford to own or run two dogs. That's not necessarily a choice. J. maybe, maybe not. It seems to be commonly agreed upon that the greatest expensive of trialing is transportation to/from - the gas, the RV or hotel. Followed shortly by lost "real" job time away from home and farm The food and training for a second dog pales in comparison. Is there anyone is this conversation that only runs one dog because of financial limitations? No shame in admitting it, and it might be enlightening to the conversation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcollie Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 maybe, maybe not. It seems to be commonly agreed upon that the greatest expensive of trialing is transportation to/from - the gas, the RV or hotel. Followed shortly by lost "real" job time away from home and farm The food and training for a second dog pales in comparison. Is there anyone is this conversation that only runs one dog because of financial limitations? No shame in admitting it, and it might be enlightening to the conversation. You answered that for me :@) Entry fees are the LEAST of the expenses in running 2 dogs instead of 1 unless - you trial very close to home. It's the time/gas/RV/Motel/paying someone to feed at home, etc. that adds up to a LOT more than 1 extra entry fee. Like I said I've traveled and trialed with 1 dog when that was all I had. But I decided if I was going to travel it was better to have 2 10 minute runs for the 10+ hour drive. It's still a choice to run one ... as it's usually not a choice to run 3 (most times ... it's not allowed) ... there is a difference between NOT having a choice (to my way of thinking ... that makes it not fair). Like I said it doesn't bother me either way as I will run where I'm told to. But, I don't think the HA should try and control trials to such an extreme people say it's not worth it to put one on (not saying this is going to do that :@). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcollie Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 If you are running two dogs, you are likely to draw a spot in the top of the order and one in the bottom of the order. If you know the sheep/conditions are going to be more favorable to a better score early, you may choose (if given the choice) to run your better dog in the more favorable spot. That gives you an unfair advantage over anyone else who is not afforded a similar accommodation. That is where the dispute arises. Pearse Is there someone that understands math (NOT ME!) that can come up with a method that would "level the playing field" between the 2/1 senario? Like I said Math and I "don't speak" so don't know if a computer writer could come up with a way that is easy to follow? If so could HA buy the program and send the trial a disc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bo Boop Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 I'm curious as to how many trials (and what part of the country) that it's allowed that you enter handler and 'dog' ? While I don't think this should be an HA rule for sanctioned trials, by the same token, I don't think that should you run multipe dogs, you should be able to manipulate the draw (to your advantage) as to what dog runs when. At all the trials I've been to in Texas, I've never seen a running order with Joe Smith and 'dog'...We send our entries in to Francis, handler and name of dog, as far as I know Francis then does a draw, and about a week out from the trial she posts the running order, and always Handler name and dog name. It always seems to work out ok for us...and yes we have the issue of set out to deal with as well, but our guys always seem to make it work...oh and in our running orders, if the trial is not filled, there will be empty slots in various spots on the running order, and same day/day of handlers can usually plug in there some where... I guess I don't see what all the brooo ha ha is about... Betty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Bo Boop Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 maybe, maybe not. It seems to be commonly agreed upon that the greatest expensive of trialing is transportation to/from - the gas, the RV or hotel. Followed shortly by lost "real" job time away from home and farm The food and training for a second dog pales in comparison. Is there anyone is this conversation that only runs one dog because of financial limitations? No shame in admitting it, and it might be enlightening to the conversation. Is there anyone is this conversation that only runs one dog because of financial limitations? No shame in admitting it, and it might be enlightening to the conversation Uhhmm, hello? Entry fees? writing a check for a couple hundred + bucks (or 300 + if you run 3 dogs) vice $80 or 90 if you only run one dog? In this economy? Yeah, it would seem to me that would make you think twice about how many dogs you run... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abcollie Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 Uhhmm, hello? Entry fees? writing a check for a couple hundred + bucks (or 300 + if you run 3 dogs) vice $80 or 90 if you only run one dog? In this economy? Yeah, it would seem to me that would make you think twice about how many dogs you run... Really we're only talking about 1 extra dog ( as 3 is so unusual and again that's a choice :@). It would be an extra (where I am) $110 (55 a day). Compared to the $500 for gas for the RV, usually $25 a day for someone to come feed, time off from work (as usually the weekends is when I work). So, again for someone that "does" math ... I don't know what the percentage would be ... but it would double my "odds" of winning some back :@) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 You answered that for me :@) Entry fees are the LEAST of the expenses in running 2 dogs instead of 1 unless - you trial very close to home. It's the time/gas/RV/Motel/paying someone to feed at home, etc. that adds up to a LOT more than 1 extra entry fee. Believe it or not, there are still folks out there trialing who don't own an RV, don't pay for the gas to haul/run it, don't pay for a hotel (they camp, in their vehicles or in a tent) and beg friends to look after the stock at home in order to keep expenses down. Trialing on a shoestring does still exist. There was a time when I had just one open dog, but to me driving all that way to a trial was a better investment to run one open dog than to run, say, one pro-novice dog. In this economy there's no way I would even consider spending the money to buy a second open dog just so I could even up my chances with all the rest of the folks out there. Fortunately, I don't have to do that. But it's a sad commentary on the attitudes of people who trial when we blithely say that the second dog is the least of the expenses to be incurred. For some folks it's not. And your comments are akin to stating that if you don't have two dogs then maybe you should just stay home. And as Betty said, there is a big difference between $75 and $150. Maybe I can pay $75 to run one dog and use the other $75 for gas or to pay the farm sitter.... And since Wendy asked and many folks already know this, I'll note that while I do have more than one open dog, the fact that I've been unemployed since April means that expenses are important to me. Right now I'm just entering fewer trials, but there may come a point where I not only enter fewer trials but also enter fewer dogs. I know folks who have just one open dog. They're lucky to come up with the $$ to run that one dog, so why would anyone tell them it's their choice not to have two? J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carson Crazies Posted November 10, 2009 Report Share Posted November 10, 2009 I know folks who have just one open dog. They're lucky to come up with the $$ to run that one dog, so why would anyone tell them it's their choice not to have two? Count me in the one open dog and the can't really afford to buy another contingent. The other dog I have isn't ready yet, and even if he was I couldn't afford to run him in open right now anyway. I'm in the sleeping in the van and scraping money together category - complete with picking and chosing my trials (which incidently at the moment involves NO trials). I'm scraping by to run one dog in open and one in pro-novice at the moment. On the other hand I also don't feel particularly as if I'm being disadvantaged by my circumstances. Maybe I am - but I'm just glad to (yet again) be able to show up and run my dog where I can. But no, I can't just make the choice to go out and get another dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 Really we're only talking about 1 extra dog ( as 3 is so unusual and again that's a choice :@). It would be an extra (where I am) $110 (55 a day). Compared to the $500 for gas for the RV, usually $25 a day for someone to come feed, time off from work (as usually the weekends is when I work). So, again for someone that "does" math ... I don't know what the percentage would be ... but it would double my "odds" of winning some back :@) More than double them, if you can pick which slot to run your best dog in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rac Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 Eileen writes: "More than double them, if you can pick which slot to run your best dog in. smile.gif" Now your talking, Eileen. Ray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debbie Meier Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 More than double them, if you can pick which slot to run your best dog in. Hey, how does that effect the overall odds for getting qualified for finals? I would think your odds of qualifing would get way higher the more often you get to select the best slot for your best dog. Deb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 I wonder if it would be a worthwhile idea for each of us to contact our District Directors and give them the address of this topic, letting them know that there is quite a grassroots discussion of the proposal going on, so they could see what some members think about the issue and what some suggestions are. Couldn't hurt, I don't think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Billadeau Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 Sue, Since Herbert found this thread I'm sure the BoD is aware of it. IMHO it's more important for the BoD to get input from outside the boards since we're a small minority of the members of the HA. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 Of course, I was forgetting that Herbert was actively participating here. Bless his heart, he does listen and communicates. Well, at least folks here are talking about it and not just complaining about the BoD and administration of the organizations involved in the dogs and the trialling. Too many people just complain. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenajo Posted November 11, 2009 Report Share Posted November 11, 2009 Eileen writes:"More than double them, if you can pick which slot to run your best dog in. smile.gif" Now your talking, Eileen. Ray But if you don't win Candy, don't worry, as the change in the running order won't even be mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest herbertholmes Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 the voting on this motion is starting, contact directors if you feel the need. thank you for having a discussion on this issue. As a director I look at what everyone is saying. I may not vote your way,if it comes to that, but I do read what you say and all of it influences me. As president, I look at what you say and try to bring all sides of an issue before the BOD. I cannot get every view specifically before the board, but generally we do get all sides "on the floor" for discussion. I will not debate the issues with you on these forums, but I do try to answer questions and give procedural facts to enhance your debates. The results of your debates are what influence directors in their votes. thanks for being involved, hmh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 Thank you, Herbert! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz P Posted November 12, 2009 Report Share Posted November 12, 2009 I started trialing when I was in college and living on what was essentially minimum wage with side jobs for extra cash to pay for my dog hobby. I camped in a tent ($25 from Target), lived out of a cooler and could only drive as far as my gas budget allowed. Generally that was about 4 to 6 hours max from home (this was when gas in my area was less than $1 a gallon). Entry fees and the cost of gas for my car were the major factors that decided which and how many trials I could enter, and that wasn't many. At that time I could not afford to run a second dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btrent Posted November 16, 2009 Report Share Posted November 16, 2009 The motion failed. http://usbcha.com/09%20-%20Forum%20minutes.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.