# HOT dog



## Julie Blanding (Mar 12, 2008)

Hello All,
I know this has been beaten to death regarding the "T" part of the acronym. However, my questions lies in the "O" portion.

Are their any rules with Co-ownership. I see all the time ppl claiming their dogs as HOT, when in fact, they don't actually solely own the animal. They are on a co-ownership.
It isn't HCOT dog after all. :-k

Looking for your opinions as well as any official information, USCA.

Thanks
Julie


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Good question

This is just my opinion and I don't know the rules for this.

If a dog is co-owned and one of the co-owners is trialing the dog and has trained the dog then I see no difference. There is no dog that I know of that has been trained without any form of help. (Helpers for instance)

Rules may state otherwise.


----------



## Julie Blanding (Mar 12, 2008)

Thanks for the reply Jerry.

I agree you can't train a dog all alone. It takes a 'village' as the saying goes.

I'm just curious as to why ppl make such a big deal about it. Who cares? I don't really unless you start claiming it as such, and when they know it is BS.

Can't wait to hear other responses.

Thanks,
Julie


----------



## Courtney Guthrie (Oct 30, 2007)

I wouldn't see anything wrong as saying the dog was HOT in a co-ownership as long as the owner that did the work was the one claiming that. 

IDK- Seems Silly to me. 

Courtney


----------



## Sue DiCero (Sep 2, 2006)

I would check with the USA office. Even if a trainer trained and handled a dog from 8 weeks, it would not be HOT. Not sure of the co-ownership issue.

Have you checked the criteria on the rules on the USA web-site? Use the search function and you should be able to find it.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

*From USA 11/9/06 Board Minutes*
*http://www.germanshepherddog.com/members/minutes/GBMMinutes-2006(watt).pdf*​ 
*5. Revision of H.O.T. Definition*
Motion by Nathaniel Roque to revise the H.O.T. definition
as follows:
To qualify as Handler Owner Trained (H.O.T.), the
following criteria must be met:
1. The dog must be owned and registered in the name of
the handler by two (2) years of age.
2. A significant amount of the training of the dog may not
have been done by someone other than the owner
without the owner being involved in the training; e.g.,
the dog may not have been sent to a trainer for the
retrieve, heeling, protection, or tracking.
3. The dog may not have been trained to the level of being
ready to pass a BH before purchase. When purchasing a
scorebook or entering a trial with a H.O.T. dog, the
handler/owner may be required to sign a statement that
the requirements listed above have been met. Falsely
entering a dog as a Handler Owner Trained (H.O.T.)
will result in the handler being disqualified for
"unsportsmanlike conduct” from the entered event, and
may also result in possible BOI charges that may include
loss of USA membership.​
_Motion amended to delete age restriction. Amended motion_
_---------------------------------------------------------------------------_

_Looks kind of like a grey area to me. If item #2 said "handler/owner" rather than just "owner" then obviously the handler would have to be the one also training the dog. BUT it only says "owner". So doesn't this conceivably mean a dog owned by a first time handler could be listed and compete as HOT when the reality might be the dog was actually trained by Joe Schmoe super trainer as long as Super Trainer was also listed as co-owner?_

_Kind of defeats the purpose of the recognition doesn't it?_


----------



## Julie Blanding (Mar 12, 2008)

Thanks for the info Susan.
I have a terrible time finding anything on the USA website.

I'm wondering if my answer is in #1.

"To qualify as Handler Owner Trained (H.O.T.), the
following criteria must be met:
1. The dog must be owned and registered in the name of
the handler by two (2) years of age."

"the name" not in the names of....
hmmmm what do you all think?


Susan: maybe they are assuming the #1 criteria was met before you go onto #2 criteria. But I agree with you. The wording is a bit confusing.

Thanks
Julie


----------



## Julie Blanding (Mar 12, 2008)

Okay... now I found this using the search function


"E-Ballot #10-06 (Clarification of H.O.T. Definition) 
Motion by Mark Przybylski that to qualify as Handler Owner Trained (H.O.T.), a dog acquired by a 
handler/owner/trainer on or after January 1, 2006 must have been owned by that handler/owner/trainer prior to the dog reaching one year of age, and the same handler/owner/trainer must have trained and titled the dog to BH and current Schutzhund titles. 

Dogs acquired prior to January 1, 2006, regardless of the age of the dog when ownership commenced, 
shall also be considered H.O.T. if the handler/dog team meets the previous H.O.T. criteria of being owned and trained by the handler/owner/trainer to BH and current Schutzhund titles. 
The dog shall not have changed ownership at any point subsequent to acquisition by the handler/ 
owner/trainer. Verification will be done through signed ownership transfer documents and also copies of the scorebook pages showing the titles, trial dates, and judges’ names. 

Vote: Yes–18 (Lyle Roetemeyer, Nathaniel Roque, Sara Wallick, Bill Plumb, Mark Przybylski, Karen MacIntyre, Al Govednik, 
Terry Macias, Howie Rodriguez, Bill Bimrose, Pia Blackwell, Uwe Doose, Jerrold Gray, Randall Hoadley, Randy Kromer, Lynne 
Lewis, John Oliver, Peggy Park), No–2 (Vicki Keller, Mark Scarberry), NFD–1 (Mike Hamilton). Motion carried 6/28/06. "

So, if after Jan 1 2006 (one year) and before then.. whatever age as long as you met the previous criteria. 
Interesting. Still the owner part isn't really focused on...

Julie


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler (Apr 25, 2008)

Julie, check the dates. The motion you cited is dated before Nathaniel's from 11/09/06. From what I remember, Nathaniel's is the one in existence.

I agree, it doesn't directly address the possibility of co-ownership. However, if you want to get technical, the current motion says the owner in the singular, not primary owner or custodial owner or anything fancy like that. The owner. The handler.
Doesn't matter...so many, many dogs are labeled as HOT that aren't. Just look at the roster of competitors from our recent regionals :-$ 

Laura


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

That's a fact!:smile:


----------



## Terry Fisk (Jul 26, 2007)

Laura Bollschweiler said:


> Doesn't matter...so many, many dogs are labeled as HOT that aren't. Just look at the roster of competitors from our recent regionals :-$
> 
> Laura


Here, here Laura and how many times do you think this happens?
"A significant amount of the training of the dog may not have been done by someone other than the owner without the owner being involved in the training; e.g., the dog may not have been sent to a trainer for the retrieve, heeling, protection, or tracking." I wonder if a fellow club member constitutes "trainer" and how "owner being involved" in interpreted? The HOT rules have been pretty sketchy if you ask me.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

I wonder if it counts if you just watch!


----------



## Sue DiCero (Sep 2, 2006)

But, unless the office/org is notified otherwise (the dog is NOT HOT, was titled before or falsification of records, they really can not do anything unless someone files charges.

I was under the impression that is was not applied to co-ownership. 


Contact your RD or Nathanial.


----------



## Julie Blanding (Mar 12, 2008)

Thanks Laura,
Hence my troubles finding things on the USA website.

Julie


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Sue DiCero;109448I was under the impression that is was not applied to co-ownership.
Contact your RD or Nathanial.[/quote said:


> That would sure simplify things!


----------



## Sue DiCero (Sep 2, 2006)

The search on the site is like any other search - you have to then look at the results by date.

If you have suggestions to improve the search, contact the webmaster - Charlie Snyder. He is very open to suggestions.


----------



## Chris Wild (Jan 30, 2008)

I called the USA office asking this same question about a year ago. I was told that as long as the trainer/handler is an owner of the dog, the dog is HOT. Doesn't matter if there are multiple owners, so long as only one of them is the trainer/handler. Obviously if 2 people co-own a dog they can't share the training/handling and both claim the dog as HOT. But if one of them fits the HOT rules, and the other is hand's off, not involved in any training/handling other than from the "village" aspect, and just listed as an owner on the papers, it doesn't affect anything.


----------



## Julie Blanding (Mar 12, 2008)

Chris: Thanks for the clarification.


Sue: I did send out an email per your suggestion. No, I have no suggestions to help improve the search function. Hence why I said "I" have troubles finding things. 

Thanks,
Julie


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

USA's definition of HOT is what it is, and people who qualify can claim the dogs as HOT in trials. That said, I think it's a joke for many of the dogs/handlers. 

It's the rare dog who has made it to 2 years old and not had foundation work done. And IMO the foundation work is the "hardest" part of the training (maybe not hardest, but most important, time consuming, etc). If someone else teaches the dog focus work, correct heel position, does all the puppy tracking foundation, begins article indications, starts the bitework (has the dog barking consistently, doing bark/hold, bites a sleeve) but nothing is "finished", then sells the dog at a year of age, the new owner could argue this dog meets the HOT criteria because "The dog may not have been trained to the level of being ready to pass a BH before purchase" because it's not doing the motion exercises, or it's running tracks but with the handler 10 feet back on the line, not 30. But with that much foundation done, it's not that many steps to have the dog ready and the dog shouldn't be considered HOT. 

At this point the requirements to be HOT are so loose, they may as well just do away with the entire concept. IMO a HOT dog should be a dog the owner raised and trained themselves. Nobody else did foundation work on it, other then basic breeder socialization nobody else did the socializing, ie the owner really did do ALL the work to raise/train this dog to it's titles. Obviously it takes more then just the owner to train the dog, there are helpers/decoys, maybe a training director, etc but the owner should have been involved every step of the way, doing the handling themself. That's a HOT dog.


----------



## Julie Blanding (Mar 12, 2008)

Kadi: Thanks. Yes, I agree.


----------

