# QAA Title - Yes or No



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Do we need an AKC recognized title for QAA dogs or some "intermediate" type title?

See LVLs and WRLs thoughts here... 

http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4278


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

I think it would be a good thing and I will quote Lee here since my opinion is identical....



WRL said:


> I would think Lisa that a QAA title would be great. I DO think it would help keep people in the game and would "hopefully" create more workers for the events.
> 
> I would also think that you would get a greater percentage of HTers moving to the FT avenue if there were such a title.
> 
> ...


Shayne


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

I voted No!!

I guess the question is: Why?

What is missing form the current structure that warrants a change?

Does the need to give "real amateurs" an opportunity to compete in FT justify the addition of a QAA title?

Joe Miano


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Why?....the better question Why NOT?

Besides the points that have already been made. Many people are advertising the dogs as QAA, its good info on the pedigree. SO for breeding purposes, or buying a pup, it could be good to know.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I voted yes. What is missing from the current structure is a recognition that virtually all of us refer to a QAA dog as a dog who has met the qualifications necessary to participate in a Limited AA stake.

Also for that reason, I would not change the qualifications.

To me, it is not so much the creation of a new structure as it is the recognition of an informally recognized previous structure.

Ted


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Definately YES. Have had QAA dogs for over 10 years and it's difficult to explain why a JH, SH, and MH have titles and QAA that means something to field trialers and should as a producer, but does not register as a title on a pedigree. Unless you have competed in a qual, you don't realize the competition out there. Not only would it draw more hunt testers and workers to field trials, it would recognize excellence, particularly in non-Black Labs and non-Labs


----------



## A J (Sep 7, 2003)

I voted yes!
Correct me I'm wrong(I usually am), but doesn't *** after the name mean QAA. If so, why not make it in front?


----------



## Brian Cockfield (Jun 4, 2003)

Shayne said:


> I think it would be a good thing and I will quote Lee here since my opinion is identical....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ditto again.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

I agree with Ted, we should move toward official recognition of something that has been both "understood" as well as "misunderstood" since the 1940s. 

I know of more than one person who, in looking for something beyond the MH, ventured into FT. Several had the luck (or misfortune) to WIN their first two Quals. This automatically knocks them out of ever running in the Qual again. Recognizing that they have neither the time nor the grounds to go after an AA title FTB, they dropped back out of the game as fast as they came up ino it. 

Some people aren't even interested in doing much more than putter around in the Q and the Am. Some people aren't interested in getting rid of their current dog to pursue the FC title. Surely there is a place for people like this, many of whom are dedicated workers. I think a QAA title might just keep this type of person involved. 

*Lee wrote:*


> But I would think something like QAA-8 would be excellent as it would designate the dog is QAA and has 8 AA pts vs a dog that is QAA but has no points because they won a Q.


This is interesting. Would we want to redefine QAA (the way CKC did), or keep it the same (equal to the definition of "qualified to run Limited")? I vote keep it the same...for now. But there may be a need for a QAA title, AND some kind of a "point dog" title. In my breed, there have been dogs that achieved QAA status by virtue of getting a red ribbon in a 12-dog Qual. Contrast this to the dog that has all his/her points but just needs a win, or the dog with the all-breed win that got injured before it could get the title. Which is more valuable? Under the present, unofficial "system", they are all known as QAA. 

In a breed like mine, where the gene pool is SO small, it becomes very important to identify the marginal QAA dogs from the more consistent performers. That's why I posted the FULL QAA records of all QAA dogs from the last 22 years. All QAA dogs are not alike.

Lisa


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

subroc said:


> What is missing form the current structure that warrants a change?


The attraction of people like me is missing. HT titled Qual level dog that will never be an all age player. The field trial public's perception of success is a title. If i know i'm not going to title or do anything beyond Q level work, why bother? The possibility of attaining a recognized field trial title with my current dog would likely result in me entering several trials a year... and a huge movement into trials from the "been there done that" hunt test folk.

Qual level title = a LOT of new blood in the sport.

Shayne


----------



## Chris Kingrea (Jan 3, 2003)

I vote YES for the reason Ted mentioned. Making the informal formal.

I need to think more if any tweaking of the current "requirements" would be necessary. 

As Lisa said "All QAA dogs are not alike", but couldn't the same be said for any FC, AFC, MH, SH, champion butt sniffer ?


----------



## clipper (May 11, 2003)

A definite YES... it would certainly get my training group's interest. 
My only question would be, what would it do to the size of the qual? I would imagine that it would increase significantly.. And that may not be a bad thing. 
It is pretty hard for an amatuer trained and handled dog to compete at the open and Am level, regardless of the talent level of the dog. yeah, give us a level to play at too.. it wont detract from the FC and AFC titles in the least.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I vote just go for the QAA title and don't muddle it up with a point system. People can look up the points just like they do on all age dogs. The qual is a competition and yet has no real title and the Hunt tests have titles but are judged against the standard. I know what QAA really means but people are title conscious since the hunt tests came into existence, and it's time to recognize it as a title.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> I vote just go for the QAA title and don't muddle it up with a point system. People can look up the points just like they do on all age dogs. The qual is a competition and yet has no real title and the Hunt tests have titles but are judged against the standard. I know what QAA really means but people are title conscious since the hunt tests came into existence, and it's time to recognize it as a title.


This sounds like a plan...

Joe S.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

*QAA*

I would like to see it with a disclaimer.
QAA-Gold Qualified under 25 months of age.
QAA-Silver Qualified under 31 months of age.
QAA-Bronze Qualified under 36 months of age.
QAA-Wood Qualified over 36 months of age.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

a QAA title would be a good thing, and doesn't take anything away ffrom the existing structure while identifying dogs that we might want to see in a breeding program.-paul


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I voted yes. What is missing from the current structure is a recognition that virtually all of us refer to a QAA dog as a dog who has met the qualifications necessary to participate in a Limited AA stake.
> 
> Also for that reason, I would not change the qualifications.
> 
> ...





Erins Edge said:


> I vote just go for the QAA title and don't muddle it up with a point system. People can look up the points just like they do on all age dogs. The qual is a competition and yet has no real title and the Hunt tests have titles but are judged against the standard. I know what QAA really means but people are title conscious since the hunt tests came into existence, and it's time to recognize it as a title.
> _________________
> Nancy


Combine these two ideas.I won't have to add anything :!: 
John


----------



## Chris Kingrea (Jan 3, 2003)

paul young said:


> a QAA title .... identifying dogs that we might want to see in a breeding program.-paul


Dang straight ! A QAA female holds a LOT of weight in my eyes. Having a certified record/title to verify legitimacy would be welcomed.

What's it gonna take to get it done ?


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

I'll send Keith a PM and he should have it implented and the new rulebooks on the press by close of business tomorrow.

So tell us Keith, who do we need polariods of to get this off the ground?

Shayne


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

I would assume that AKC already has the info on dogs to verify it or not ,and don't see any reason why it couldn't be included as a suffix.

I have to mark a box on every entry stating that my dog is or is not Qualified for a Limited, etc. Why not just have it as part of the dogs name?

Jerry


----------



## fetchitgold (Feb 28, 2003)

Shayne said:


> Qual level title = a LOT of new blood in the sport.
> 
> Shayne



Including mine, since I probably won't go on to AA either! :roll: Not enough time or $$


Tracy


----------



## Debbie (Jun 26, 2003)

Most definitely . . . and as a prefix because the dogs are competing against each other and not the standard.

We first got into the field trial game in 1980 and ran 2 lab bitches competitively as amateurs for six years through all four stakes. One was QAA with a Qual 2nd and an Open Jam. The other had an Amat 2nd and 4th. Neither had any *official* designation to recognize these accomplishments which came in competition against such dogs as Watergator Will, Honcho's Harvey Hipockets, and some dog named Trumarc's Zip Code.

Job circumstances kept us out of field trials until 2001. We now have a 3 1/2 year old lab bitch (Derby 1st and 3rd) who is now running in Quals and Amats. She is 100% completely Amateur trained by only myself and my husband and two Bumper Boy Derby Doubles.

Let me tell you that some of the Quals we're seeing today would have made a 1980s Open look like a cakewalk.

She's doing things at her age that our previous dogs couldn't do until they were 5 or 6 years old. It was just incredible to see her complete a recent Qual land series - an indented triple with an out-of-order flyer where the indented bird landed almost in line with the flyer station and where you had to try to get that bird second and leave that tempting flyer until last. 

The blinds were equally challenging. She 4-whistled the land blind in fine style with all the correct responses to my handles to bring her back online. Her poor showing on the water blind was probably more my handling than hers but we did hack our way through and get the bird. I didn't see the water series because I wanted to make the 4 1/2 hour back home before dark, but I am sure it was very challenging, too.

Any dog that QAA'ed at that trial should definitely have earned some sort of official recognition for the training and teamwork which was required to complete the stake. 

Debbie


----------



## BIG DOG (Apr 17, 2003)

I would get more envolved in it (once my wife graduates in Dec!!)
but funds and grounds are limited now! It would be cool to have a GRHRCH/MH/QAA dawg around.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

If you are going to install some sort of QAA title - in part to draw more participation - are you also going to modify the rule that prevents a dog from continuing to run in the Qual once it has reached certain performance standards?


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> If you are going to install some sort of QAA title - in part to draw more participation - are you also going to modify the rule that prevents a dog from continuing to run in the Qual once it has reached certain performance standards?


You pull 100 people who wouldn't normally run trials, but start because of the new title. How many of them will actually win 2 Quals? Lets say 10 for grins. Of those 10... 9 will be hooked and be moving into AA stakes.

Leave the rules as they stand. (cept add the title)

Shayne


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Ok. so what exactly has to happen for this to become reality? Is it likely that those who can make it happen would support a QAA title?


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

> A Qualifying Stake at a Retriever trial shall be for dogs which have never won first, second, third, or fourth place or a Judges' Award of Merit in an Open All-Age, Limited All-Age or Special All-Age Stake, or won first, second, third or fourth place in an Amateur All-Age Stake, or Owner-Handler Amateur All-Age Stake, or Restricted All-Age Stake won two first places in Qualifying Stakes at licensed or member club trials. In determining whether a dog is eligible for the Qualifying Stake, no award received on or after the date of closing of entries shall be counted.



I guess I am in the minority on this but how does an eligibility to compete warrant a title? If I am understanding what the poll is asking and reading the rules correctly any dog that met the above criteria would receive a QAA Title automatically. That title would make the dog eligible to compete in the Open All-Age. It seems to me that this is tantamount to giving golfers that make the Friday cut a title.

If I understand what the ?Q? is, it is used qualify dogs to run in one of the above stakes and not meant to be an end in itself.

Where am I reading this wrong?

Joe Miano - who has never even attended a FT.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

The title does not transfer to the papers as do the HT titles. If the titles aren't on the papers, people don't view them as titles. Since the Q is more difficult than ever (last one I ran had 6 pro handled dogs with wins competing and the judges admitted the opening series was a big test that was amateur caliber), it IS very meaningful.


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

> What's it gonna take to get it done ?


I am already working with the American Chesapeake Club President on this. The current plan is for me to write a draft proposal, send it to the ACC FT committee, who will then kick it around, the ACC board will kick it around, and then it's off to the RAC. Although it sounds complicated, the process probably won't take that long. I just need to polish up my regulatory-speak (no problemo, as regulatory-speak is what I do in my day job), and write the additional clarification/change as part of the existing regulatory structure. Add to that a cover letter with my reasoning behind why I think this is a good idea, and we are good to go. Should be in committee by the end of the week.

Lisa


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

I think it would be a great idea, if nothing else than something to appear on the pedigree. The fact that it would perhaps entice more HT people in the FT game would be an added bonus. Interesting topic!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Joe M

I must say that I am amazed that you - or others - who have never attended or participated - feel qualified to offer opinions on all matter of aspects relating to FT. 

Isn't that more than a little presumptious?

I suppose you can respond with the well used rejoinder - well, I am entitled to my opinion, aren't I? 

- or this other favorite - 

this is a discussion board, isn't it? 

But, really, don't you think you ought to do more research before spouting off an opinion on a subject that clearly means alot to a number of people who do actually attend, participate, and work at FT?

If you had attended the Q's that I have this year, you might have seen that they are now frequently as difficult as the Amateurs were four years ago.

If you had been reading the posts on this board with any scrutiny whatsoever, you would have noticed that many people want to participate in FT, want to train their own dogs, but do not feel that they have the horsepower to compete in the AA stakes.

They want somewhere that they can play on a level that is competitive - more difficult in their eyes than the hunt tests (I do not make this opinion for myself, as I have not attended a hunt test in several years, but simply report what I see in the posts I read), and would like to earn a title for their dog that reflects their accomplishment (and in my opinion, it is an accomplishment)

What in God's green earth is wrong with that?


----------



## Ducks and Dogs (May 12, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> ErinsEdge said:
> 
> 
> > I vote just go for the QAA title and don't muddle it up with a point system. People can look up the points just like they do on all age dogs. The qual is a competition and yet has no real title and the Hunt tests have titles but are judged against the standard. I know what QAA really means but people are title conscious since the hunt tests came into existence, and it's time to recognize it as a title.
> ...



Ditto


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted

Thanks for the thoughts.

The best to you and yours during this holiday season.

Joe Miano


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

*dogs*



subroc said:


> I guess I am in the minority on this but how does an eligibility to compete warrant a title? Where am I reading this wrong?


Subroc, let me reverse your question and ask, "How does eligibility to NOT compete warrent a title?" This reminds me of a controversial thread I started sometime back on what is a true or real title? To me, titles go before the name and a designation goes after the name. I'd like to think of it as a QAA designation. In HT the dogs do not compete and MH is refered to as a title. Competition warrents the name "Title" because a dog WINS championships or stakes!


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

It's just semantics.

Championships, IMHO, should require defeating somebody (anybody!) Yet AKC changed their long-standing definition of the Championship concept when they instituted the Champion Tracker title. I was against that, but the delegate vbody saw fit to pass it. Now there are several non-competitive Championships available.

A title is a title. It used to be that conformation dogs earned "titles", while obedience dogs earned "degrees". Now, I believe they are all known as titles, with the ones going in front of the name bing Championships (of one kind or another) and everything else being a title.

As for me, I am the kind of person who says "let's get something going, and then tweak it in the later drafts". Ergo, rather than debate endlessly as to whether the QAA should go in front or behind, title/degree/designation, I'll leave that to the RAC pundits. Ergo, from concept to submitted proposal in slightly over 24 hours. Plenty of time for all clubs to weigh in on the details once it hits the RAC, gets published in RFTN, etc. That's where the tweaking comes in. 

This is how working in a team/committee environment works. Draft...to committee, and the kicking-around starts. Neither the original author, nor any individual committee member, should hold too closely to any sacred cows, lest the entire good idea be lost. Therefore, I decided early on that I am not going to get tizzied either way the RAC decides it. In front of name, or behind? If you read my proposal closely, you notice that I didn't even say which it should be. Machs nichts, so long as the title exists! Keep track of the bigger picture, or risk losing your goal by getting bogged down in the details. 

Lisa


----------



## subroc (Jan 3, 2003)

Booty

I agree!!

The word champion means winner. I have said in past posts on this board that it is used far too loosely in the retriever games. A HRC champion didn?t win anything. The new NAHRA champion, didn?t win anything.

Your statement about title, with respect to HT, I can?t disagree with either. Designation is probably more proper.

I guess my respect for winning and the winner, after being on the losing end so much, exceeds what is the norm. I personally am not comfortable using such terms loosely. It appears many are, even at the organization level.

As far as the QAA title or designation, I think Lisa has a well thought out proposal and I hope for many that it flies, considering I am in the minority on this issue. Where it gets placed appears to be the minor point. If it gets accepted is the first hurdle.

Joe Miano


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I am with Lisa on this.

I do not understand why there is such concern about whether it is a title or a designation. It certainly does not matter to me.

I believe that those of us who are part of the FT game would have little difficulty making the distinction between NFC, NAFC, FC, AFC, and QAA (or whatever you call it). The designation - whether a title or otherwise is shorthand for the minimum the dog has accomplished. From there, the sophisticated individual can inquire further. The unsophisticated individual will not know the difference.

For example, the title - designation - whatever - of FC tells you that a dog has an Open win and 5 points. If you want to know about the quality of that FC, you need to find out 

at what age the dog attained its FC
how many trials the dog ran
its completion percentage
its handler
its circuit
etc
etc

The fact that a dog is a FC or an AFC is nice, but if you want to know more about the quality of the dog, you have to dig around some.

The same is true for QAA

It allows someone to look at a pedigree and determine what the minimum accomplishments of the dog are. 

More importantly, it allows entry level people an attainable target.


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

I feel that some additional research is lacking for your Proposal Lisa.

Like the CKC has already impemented a title - What do they use? How is it earned? How is it shown on a CKC pedigree?

I still have a bunch of questions - and none of this is meant to say that I am opposed to a title. Or even in favor of one.

The first issue is that needs to be resolved is : What exactly is "Qualified All Age". As Jack so abilily explained - the term actually has no meaning in the current AKC FT rules. Are you QAA if you are qualified for a Special? A Limited? A Restricted? 

Right now the premium asks two questions - Are you currently qualified for a Special or Limited? I think everyone needs to be be on the same page as to at what level QAA is and why before it goes to RAC. Because it takes a well thought out proposal, with all the arguements Pro and Con, and support already lined up to make it in the rule book. You only have one shot every year. It is in your best interest to have all your ducks in a row before it goes before the board and out to member clubs.

As to the issue of wether it is a title or a designation is a serious question and should no be blown off as a matter of symantics. Prefix titles and Suffix letters are very important to the AKC and the organizations that award them. How they will appear in an AKC pedigree is not a simple question and is not one that does not consider alot of thought. 

I hate to say it, but if a QAA title were adopted, I would be think the current speciality breed way of using *** deserves serious consideration.
Its as system that currently has a following. It would be easy to implement on pedigrees. And it would not clutter up the current FT or HT letters.


----------



## Canman (Jan 24, 2003)

The CKC has approved a similar title for their field trial dogs. What is their requirements. I thought they had established a point system as well as a win similar to our championship titles.

The one problem with our current QAA designation is that it does not require the dog to perform consistently at a high level. If a title/designation is going to be attached to the registered name, some consistency would be nice. Establish a point system (10 pts, and the dogs must have a 1st or 2nd in a qual). I think a JAM in an all-age stake by itself is sufficient to earn a QAA designation.

Now that there is a O/H qual, does this mean the title or designation should read AQAA instead of QAA?


----------



## Lisa Van Loo (Jan 7, 2003)

Gerard;

Part of the reason I posted this here was to get input from a wide range of people. I expect that the proposal will be changed to a greater or lesser degree before it ever gets to the RAC. I plan to summarize all comments, and present those to the ACC FT committee later this week. Remember, this was a draft proposal. Drafts get revised. Sometimes quite a lot.

Let me reiterate my position re: front of name or back of name. I'm not blowing this off. Rather, I'm not going to let the position relative to the dog's name be a deal breaker. In other words, if the general concensus is it should be behind the name, I'm cool with that, and it will get written into the final proposal. Likewise, if the majority of folks feel it should be in front of the name, I'm fine with that. Actually, I prefer behind the name. But this is not about what *I* want, it is about what is good for development of an intermediate-level title. Development of parameters should start wide, and become refined over various drafts of the proposal. If we bog down in details in the beginning, the whole project risks getting hopelessly mired in minutiae. get the framework nailed down, then zero in on the fine points. That's all I am saying. Very different from "blowing off" anything!

As far as my comments re: semantics, I was referring to what words are used to describe what title. The word "designation" is not used in ANY AKC programs, to date. So the word "designation" would need defining. Why not utilize the verbiage already in use at AKC? Generally, in front of the name is Champion, or perhaps title. behind the name has generally been degree. So QAA degree? Or title? But "title" has also been used to describe those letters that come behind a dog's name. So you see, semantics. Because it doesn't matter whether you call it title, degree, or (as yet undefined) designation, the larger issue is whether it goes in front or behind the name. 

Anyway, as far as defining QAA, if you read my proposal, you will see that it defines QAA. That is the whole point of the proposal. The definition of QAA isn't in the rule book because nobody has proposed that it get put in there. It has to start somewhere. The proposed definition is in line with the definition of a dog that is qualified to run a Limited stake, with the additional qualifier that the first or second place has to be in a Qual with at least 12 starters. Again, broad definition, open to fine-tuning. But (other than the inclusion of the qual rider), this seems to be the generally-accepted definition of QAA. I'm not sure using Canada's new title as a template is such a good idea. We have a generally-accepted sense of what a QAA dog is in this country, and Canada's definition is substantially different.

Essentially, what I am looking at is getting into black-and-white an unwritten rule. I view this as being somewhat similar to the "handling in derby" ruling just passed. It was an unwritten rule, followed by most (but not all) as more or less understood. Or not. It's that "or not" part that causes us to have to go back and put into writing those things that originally "went without saying". Things that "go without saying" are subject to abuse, like the dog that gets handled in derby. Call back, or drop? Now we know for sure. Same thing with QAA. Get a definition, decide what it means for the majority, submit the proposal to RAC to bat around. Again, do we really want to propose something that is drastically different from what already exists, risking getting shot down, or simply define something that already exists, so that everyone is on the same page? I vote the latter.

Lisa


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Lisa Van Loo said:


> Generally, in front of the name is Champion, or perhaps title. behind the name has generally been degree. So QAA degree? Or title? But "title" has also been used to describe those letters that come behind a dog's name. So you see, semantics. Because it doesn't matter whether you call it title, degree, or (as yet undefined) designation, the larger issue is whether it goes in front or behind the name.
> 
> 
> Lisa


Lisa, I admire your dedication to this whole issue. Gerard too! I have a question; Does the AKC in fact refer to MH as a title? Does anyone know how the AKC actually refers to suffix letters? I've always thought that the word "title"was loosely used.This was never resolved in a previous thread. Just curious.


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Yes they (JH, SH, MH) are referred to as titles by AKC.

Jerry


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

> have a question; Does the AKC in fact refer to MH as a title? Does anyone know how the AKC actually refers to suffix letters?


Yes AKC refers to Hunt Test titles as "titles".

The Certificate I got from the AKC says:

"The American Kennel Club Hunting Test Title Certificate"

I hope that clarifies things.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

subroc said:


> I guess my respect for winning and the winner, after being on the losing end so much, exceeds what is the norm.


Amen Bro! They say that Field Trailing builds character. I guess that is from being humbled so much. Afterall, they are just dogs. I guess also that is why winning is so sweet, because it truly means something when you win against the best in the world.


----------



## Chris Kingrea (Jan 3, 2003)

In my pondering, I'm wondering if we really want to "keep it the way it is" as Shayne has suggested and award a title to a dog that may only get one 2nd place Qual finish.

I'm still supportive of a title, just not exactly sure on the requirements yet.

Subroc Joe, I think you're interpretation of the intent of QAA as it stands NOW is right on. We're discussing changing that intent though. No longer would Quals just be the means of eligibility to compete, but also as an end in itself.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

YES, YES, a million times YES!

As a HTer, let me tell you right now it would be in instantaneous shot in the arm for FTs!!!


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

RE: "titles"

As I have said before, I will say again, many moons ago the AKC was very clear with their nomenclature. "Titles" went before the name and signified the defeating of other dogs. "Degrees" came after the name and signified a demonstrated a level of proficiency at some ability. Much like in the human world.

But for the last twenty-plus years, the terminology has become muddled. It is a shame.

In any case, I am on the side of making the QAA a "title" given that the venue meant defeating other dogs.

What it will be worth, will be determined by what it will be worth. I have no problem with that.

Kevin


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Chris Kingrea said:


> I'm still supportive of a title, just not exactly sure on the requirements yet.


I agree. I don't think that a dog that wins in a O/H Qualifying should be considered QAA. And, if they are to earn the QAA designation/degree, it is not equal to a dog that earns QQA in a non-O/H Qualifying! There needs to be a distinction here. Or, re-define as mentioned earlier what QAA will now mean.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

No, that dog that only got a 2nd in a 12 dog O/H qualifying is not the same as the 30+ all-age pointed dog that can't get the win for its FC or AFC. So what!!!!!! No-one ever said all QAA dogs were equal.

That QAA title for the dog without the win for the FC is better than the nothing that it gets now.

If they add the QAA title, Just how many 12 dog Qualifyings do you really think there will be? I think 30+ will be the norm for a Friday Start. Who knows for Sat. starts. Around here, 50+ dog Quals are already the norm for starting on Sat.


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

You don't think that a dog that wins an O/H Qual should not be considered as QAA???? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

Hell, I can have a dog with a top flight Pro that might win a Qual. Means a LOT more to me if I happen to win it.

Jerry


----------



## Steve (Jan 4, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> If they add the QAA title, Just how many 12 dog Qualifyings do you really think there will be? I think 30+ will be the norm for a Friday Start. Who knows for Sat. starts. Around here, 50+ dog Quals are already the norm for starting on Sat.


I can imagine several hunt test pros showing up with a full truck and driving the entries into the sixties and seventies for some trials. The upside might be that some clubs who do hunt tests instead do a derby/qual.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

It seems as though some people are advocating a handicap system. That is, a regular Q is worth more than an O/H Q. Once we start doing this are we going to start valuing the AA stakes similarly? Are we going to weight your AA points by strength of competition? Are we going to need a computer to calculate BCS points? Where does this end?

Is all this complexity necessary when all most people are seeking to do is confirm formally what we currently use informally?

To my mind, a QAA designation - title - whatever - is simply 

(1) a mechanism to reward people whose dogs have met a given standard of performance (that is, they are no qualified for a Limited)

(2) a means to encourage an influx of new people

(3) confirmation of a previous informal practice


----------



## Gerard Rozas (Jan 7, 2003)

I told ya it was not ready to fly yet. Lots of discussion even here among a limited forum.

What will happen if this proposal get submitted now, the RAC will dig in to all the little bugs need to be worked out before hand, they will not recommend it and then it will be twice as hard to get them to consider it again. 

Best to work with a RAC member once things are worked out to finalize the wording - it does pay to have buy in in advance.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Kevin Walker wrote:



> As a HTer, let me tell you right now it would be in instantaneous shot in the arm for FTs!!!


While I understand the sentiment, I'm not quite sure what sort of "shot in the arm" it would be.

From all I'm hearing, all it would do is put more people into the Qualifying and cause too many dogs to be entered so that clubs would be overburdened with new people running their trials. I mean, if this works out, then more people will eventually enter the Amateur and God _knows_ we can't stand any more entries there!

:wink: !!

Keith Griffith...with tongue planted _firmly_ in cheek....


----------



## Canman (Jan 24, 2003)

We already have differentiation in the all-age stakes based on the handler ( FC vs. AFC). When you eliminate the pro from the qual, you guys are trying to say the level of competition is the same in an O/H qual as in a pro attended qual? Please.

A title should recognize a certain level of proficiency. Otherwise, the accomplishment is diminished and the title becomes meaningless.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

rockytopkg said:


> Kevin Walker wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Shoulda known you would go "there".

Hopefully Joe HTer with Mallard Muncher MH will go out and get a 3rd in his first Qual. Then go back to his AKC HT club and say "we are puttin on a trial this fall!!!"

The immediate shot in the arm would be new blood in the minor stakes. New blood to help at trials and to put on new trials. It would be a few years before we have a 150 dog Open and Teds takes up "Curling".

Shayne - Thinks curling looks fun.


----------



## Mark Copeland (Mar 5, 2003)

> Shayne - Thinks curling looks fun.


Shayne, you've confused "curling" with "hurling", again.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Canman said:


> We already have differentiation in the all-age stakes based on the handler ( FC vs. AFC). When you eliminate the pro from the qual, you guys are trying to say the level of competition is the same in an O/H qual as in a pro attended qual? Please.
> 
> A title should recognize a certain level of proficiency. Otherwise, the accomplishment is diminished and the title becomes meaningless.


Actually, I'm not so sure it matters if pros run the Qual or not. Many times the pros are running dogs that are out of Derby and not as seasoned as some of the amateur run dogs. Usually the real talented dogs skip the Qual unless they are run by amateurs. The last trial I ran was an exception in that there were pro run dogs looking for a second win which I thought was unusual, but also amateur run dogs and yes, this q was really challenging on all it's tests, looking very much like an Amateur. I view the qual as a stake that amateurs can learn with their dogs and ready them for the all age. When your dog wins 2 quals you both are ready for the all age, but no need to designate how quickly they got the 2 wins, or whether they got one 2nd. By restricting the QAA to 1st or 2nd place is enough IMHO.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> It seems as though some people are advocating a handicap system. That is, a regular Q is worth more than an O/H Q. Once we start doing this are we going to start valuing the AA stakes similarly? Are we going to weight your AA points by strength of competition? Are we going to need a computer to calculate BCS points? Where does this end?
> 
> Is all this complexity necessary when all most people are seeking to do is confirm formally what we currently use informally?
> 
> ...


Well said Ted!!!!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Shayne wrote:



> Hopefully Joe HTer with Mallard Muncher MH will go out and get a 3rd in his first Qual. Then go back to his AKC HT club and say "we are puttin on a trial this fall!!!"
> 
> The immediate shot in the arm would be new blood in the minor stakes. New blood to help at trials and to put on new trials.


Now *that* is a solution that I can agree with! 

How's about we start targeting HT only clubs for a little informal education?

Keith G.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Jerry said:


> You don't think that a dog that wins an O/H Qual should not be considered as QAA???? That makes absolutely no sense to me.
> Hell, I can have a dog with a top flight Pro that might win a Qual. Means a LOT more to me if I happen to win it.
> Jerry


I think that it would mean more if Pros were allowed to handle in all Q! Winning against all eligible as oppose to just other Amateurs has more meaning to it.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

*dogs*

Question; If a pro owns the dog, will they be able to compete in an O/H Qualifying?


----------



## junbe (Apr 12, 2003)

YES

Rule passed by AKC delegates Sept. 9, 2003, reads "An Owner-Handler Qualifying Stake may be run in place of a Qualifying Stake at the election of the trial giving club and shall be open to all dogs eligible to run a Qualifying Stake provided that each entered dog is handled by the registered owner or co-owner of such dog or a member of said owner or co-owner's family as defined in Section 2 of this chapter."

Jack


----------



## TimArruda (Jan 4, 2003)

I realize that this post is late to the party, and may seem a little odd to be posted at this time. I wrote it yesterday, and slept on it as I did not want to post it in anger.

I thought about it again this morning, and have decided to post it.

**********************
Ted,

What in God's Green Earth was wrong with Joe's question? I read it, and then re-read it, and do not see where Joe's post warranted your response. He clearly asked where he was reading it wrong. So he disagrees with you. And yes, this is a public board, and the responses you belittled are both perfectly valid for a public board. I believe it incredibly presumptious of you to be telling people whether they are entitled to comment on an issue on a public board. If you don't care for people commenting on FT issues who have not been involved in FT's, I have a suggestion for you.

For $7.95 per month you can go to the following url, http://www.lunarpages.com/index.shtml, register your own domain and create your own private retriever training site. They offer the same software this board is run on and they will set it up for you. You can then invite only those people who you feel are qualified to comment on FT issues and need not listen to the comments of the uninformed. Alternately, you could have take a step back for a moment, and try to educate Joe on why you feel he is wrong, instead of belittling his opinion. 

Also, if you care as much as you profess for your game, perhaps you might want to consider how you come across to the vast majority of people who are only reading the board, and not posting. In that manner you might avoid reinforcing the stereotype of Field Trialers as arrogant jack a$$es, which I am relatively confident from reading this board with scrutiny that they are not. I am glad that Chris chose Shayne and Chris K. as moderators on this board, as they seem to give much more latitude regarding people's opinions than you appear to. Then again, what value does my opinion have? I have barely any experience with hunt tests, never mind field trials..... 

Tim Arruda


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Tim, I think that maybe Joe doesn't understand that a dog earning certain placements or JAM's is ALREADY considered to be Qualified to run a Limited AA state, and remains qualified for it's entire life. 

The poll, as I understand it, is simply should some letters be added to the Registered name to denote this fact, like FC/AFC/MH/SH etc.

Just looks a little more official to see "Duck Muncher QAA" than "my dog is QAA but it doesn't show on the papers".

Jerry


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Tim

Yes, this is America where everyone gets to express his or her opinion.

Yes, you and Joe M can say whatever you please - regardless of the basis of knowledge that underlies your opinions.

However, it seems to me that you, Joe, and others have some obligation to educate yourself before pronouncing your opinions about matters that you know little to nothing about.

If my words strike you as arrogant, conceited, or overbearing - I am sorry - they are not meant to be so.

But, I make it a point not to express opinions about matters of which I know little 

And I don't know why others are willing to do the same.

Tell me - Tim

Is it more arrogant to express opinions when you are ignorant?

Or when you know something about the subject of which you are expressing an opinion?

If you - or Joe M. - knew anything about the Q, the history of the Q, the movement to use the Q as a method to bring newcomers to the sport (hence, the O/H Q), then the proposal that LVL brought could be understood in context.

But, neither you - nor Joe M. - do, he because - among other things he has never run a field trial - you on similar grounds.

Hence, why should your opinions be given any weight?


----------



## TimArruda (Jan 4, 2003)

I agree with you Jerry, and found this thread incredibly interesting, even though I have no experience with field trials, and no intention of being involved with them anytime in the near future. 

From what I have read, I certainly understand the push to recognize QAA as a title in and of itself. I completely agreed with Ted's first post, and disagree with Joe on this issue. However, that is not my point. I have read quite a few posts regarding bringing hunt test people into the field trial world, or encouraging hunt test only clubs to hold field trial events. That is all well and good, but I find it incredibly hypocritical to state these as goals(and obviously not the *only* goals), and then belittle the opinion of one who openly admits he has no field trial experience, for nothing more than stating his opinion regarding the matter. For cryin' out loud, Joe is someone you(meaning FT people) should be trying to educate!

How well do you think that will go down with hunt test people who have *zero* FT experience, are probably intimidated by the whole FT thing(although perhaps not willing to admit it), and only have stereotypes of field trial people to go by? For some reason I don't believe that will do much to further the field trial game. Lastly, regardless of whether one of the goals is to bring HT people and clubs into the FT fold or not, belittling someone's opinion because you don't think they are entitled to comment on a particular issue is arrogant and offensive.

Tim


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Tim,

I would suggest that on this or any other message board, one person's opinion is just that: *one person's opinion*.

Whether it's yours, mine, or anyone else's, it would be weak-minded to indict a whole genre of people because you chose to interpret one person's attitude as arrogant. Whether it is or not is not the point. The point is, this is just an internet message board, no more no less. It _does not_ mean any more than words on a page.

While I do understand your attitude, and Ted's as well, please do not overblow the entire situation into an "us vs. them" scenario. It's not, and it won't be...

...not on this board, anyway...

Keith G.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Well..... I DO think people that don't compete in field trials have a right to express an opinion on this--and if I read Ted's post correctly, he does not.
And that's fine, that's his opinion but: We are all consumers of the end product this new title would recognize--the dogs.

I am a lowly HT novice. I have only watched & volunteered, not participated in FTs (and I made a particular point to watch ALL of the Q at the last one I attended, mainly because that would be the logical place to start, if I ever get to that point). I don't know enough to offer advice on the tweaking of a QAA title, so I will leave that one alone. However, I think I speak for many HT/hunters/average Joe's (pun intended!) when I say: I would like to know, when looking at a pedigree for purposes of breeding or buying, that a dog that might appear as untitled, actually had some meaure of success in the FT game. Whether or not I ever get there myself!


----------



## W Knight (Sep 2, 2003)

> I think that it would mean more if Pros were allowed to handle in all Q! Winning against all eligible as oppose to just other Amateurs has more meaning to it.


BULL

THAT?S THE SAME OLD HIDDEN AGENDA. USING THE SAME OLD ARGUMENT.

When do the *Amateurs* GET A CHANCE:?: :?: :?: :?: :?: 8)


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Julie R. said:


> Well..... I DO think people that don't compete in field trials have a right to express an opinion on this--and if I read Ted's post correctly, he does not.
> 
> I am a lowly HT novice. I have only watched & volunteered, not participated in FTs (and I made a particular point to watch ALL of the Q at the last one I attended, mainly because that would be the logical place to start, if I ever get to that point). I don't know enough to offer advice on the tweaking of a QAA title, so I will leave that one alone.


Julie

I do not dispute everyone's right to express his or her opinion. That is a given.

However, I do dispute the wisdom of offering opinions where one has no knowledge.

If you are willing to limit your opinions to those areas where you have expertise or experience - which you did in your post - why should others not do the same?

Ted


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Tim
> 
> Yes, this is America where everyone gets to express his or her opinion.
> 
> ...


One of my favorite sayings is:

"It is better to remain silent, and appear the fool, than to speak up and remove all doubt."


----------



## TimArruda (Jan 4, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> If my words strike you as arrogant, conceited, or overbearing - I am sorry - they are not meant to be so.


I am glad that they are not meant to be so Ted, perhaps you might choose your words a little more carefully in the future.



Ted Shih said:


> However, it seems to me that you, Joe, and others have some obligation to educate yourself before pronouncing your opinions about matters that you know little to nothing about.


First of all Ted, I *am* expressing my opinion regarding something I know intimately, people. I know precious little about field trialing and it's history, but I was not expressing an opinion about field trialing and it's history, or it's future for that sake. To be quite honest, I'm completely neutral on the whole game, having no interest or experience regarding it. I was expressing an opinion about you belittling, and it clearly was belittling, someone else's opinion, and having the gall to suggest they are not entitled to an opinion on the subject.



Ted Shih said:


> But, I make it a point not to express opinions about matters of which I know little
> 
> And I don't know why others are willing to do the same.


I also make it a point not to express opinions about matters of which I know little, the difference being that I don't feel qualified to tell others what they may or may not be qualified to render an opinion on.



Ted Shih said:


> Tell me - Tim
> 
> Is it more arrogant to express opinions when you are ignorant?
> 
> Or when you know something about the subject of which you are expressing an opinion?


I don't believe that arrogance has anything to do with it Ted. Ignorance perhaps, arrogance no. Joe was expressing his opinion based on what he has read on this board. I did not see him belittling field trialers, nor the game, just expressing his opinion, whether based on ignorance of the field trial game or not. Arrogance is telling Joe he is not entitled to express that opinion.



Ted Shih said:


> If you - or Joe M. - knew anything about the Q, the history of the Q, the movement to use the Q as a method to bring newcomers to the sport (hence, the O/H Q), then the proposal that LVL brought could be understood in context.
> 
> But, neither you - nor Joe M. - do, he because - among other things he has never run a field trial - you on similar grounds.
> 
> Hence, why should your opinions be given any weight?


I believe from what I read here that I did understand the proposal that LVL brought in context. Roughly perhaps, but I did understand it. That is neither here nor there though, because my comments have nothing to do with the issue, nor her proposal. My comments are only regarding you deciding who may or may not express an opinion on any given subject.

Experience creates credibility on any given subject. You obviously have much experience regarding field trials, at least from what I can glean reading here. Let your experience speak for itself Ted, and let the readers make their decision. Your actions do yourself and your game a disservice.

Tim


----------



## TimArruda (Jan 4, 2003)

rockytopkg said:


> While I do understand your attitude, and Ted's as well, please do not overblow the entire situation into an "us vs. them" scenario. It's not, and it won't be...
> 
> ...not on this board, anyway...
> 
> Keith G.


Keith,

I did not mean to turn the situation into an "us vs. them" scenario. If that is how my posts come across then I apologize to all those I might have offended. I tried in my first post do differentiate between a stereotype and reality, as in from my reading here I do not go in for the stereotype of FT people as arrogant jack a$$es. My post was meant as a commentary on Ted telling Joe he had no business commenting on field trials and their issues.

I have no experience with field trials, and have no ill will towards those for whom it is their chosen game. In my follow up post I was merely trying to point out that Ted is not doing the FT game any favors with his preaching, but instead reinforcing stereotypes, wrong though they may be. I'm sure the FT game doesn't need my help and I suppose it was unnecessary, sorry about that.

Tim


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Tim

Obviously, you and others feel that I belittled Joe M. 

I apologize if my words offended you, Joe, or anyone else.

However, my underlying concern remains.

Why should people who know nothing about a particular topic - in this case, the Qualifying - offer their opinions on that topic?

Why am I not entitled to point out that someone who has offerred an opinion on the Qualifying - without ever having attended a FT - has offered an opinion without basis? 

Ted


----------



## TimArruda (Jan 4, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Tim
> 
> Obviously, you and others feel that I belittled Joe M.
> 
> I apologize if my words offended you, Joe, or anyone else.


Apology accepted. And I hope you accept my apology if I have offended you, and the FT community at large.




Ted Shih said:


> However, my underlying concern remains.
> 
> Why should people who know nothing about a particular topic - in this case, the Qualifying - offer their opinions on that topic?


Because this is a public board Ted. Like I said in my previous post, let your experience speak for itself. If people are interested enough, they will be reading a variety of threads, and make up their own minds about who has credibility on any particular subject.




Ted Shih said:


> Why am I not entitled to point out that someone who has offerred an opinion on the Qualifying - without ever having attended a FT - has offered an opinion without basis?


You most certainly are entitled to point that out Ted. Unfortunately, at least in my case, you did it in somewhat of a condescending manner in which your underlying point is lost because of the style in which it was delivered. In the end, it comes down to a disagreement in how best to deliver that message I believe. I think you are much better off staying on subject and sticking to that which you know instead of trying to police what others may have to say about it.

Tim


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> However, I do dispute the wisdom of offering opinions where one has no knowledge.
> 
> Ted


Oh how I wish I could enforce that one at home


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Tim

Let me deliver my message in a clear fashion which I hope will not be lost in a debate about style

In my opinion, before people venture to offer an opinion about any given subject - 

They ought to have some basis for their opinions.

The fact that everyone has the right to express their opinions does not mean that they should exercise the right without cause.

Nor, do I believe that my pointing out this lack of experience in some who opine about matters about which they know little or nothing - so long as it is done in an acceptable stylistic fashion - is unacceptable.

Ted


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Why am I not entitled to point out that someone who has offerred an opinion on the Qualifying - without ever having attended a FT - has offered an opinion without basis?
> 
> Ted


For the same reason I'm able to sit on a Jury to hear a murder case even though I've never murdered anyone. :wink: 

Joe S.


----------



## Joe S. (Jan 8, 2003)

rockytopkg said:


> While I do understand your attitude, and Ted's as well, please do not overblow the entire situation into an "us vs. them" scenario. It's not, and it won't be...
> 
> *...not on this board, anyway...*
> 
> Keith G.



I suggest we ALL get together and drink adult beverages of choice and celebrate this point.

Well said!

Joe S.


----------



## Qui Chang Trainer (Jan 3, 2003)

[quote="Shayne]

Hopefully Joe HTer with Mallard Muncher MH will go out and get a 3rd in his first Qual. Then go back to his AKC HT club and say "we are puttin on a trial this fall!!!"

The immediate shot in the arm would be new blood in the minor stakes. New blood to help at trials and to put on new trials. It would be a few years before we have a 150 dog Open and Teds takes up "Curling".

Shayne - Thinks curling looks fun.[/quote]

Most Honourable Shayne -

Lowly Qui Chang, short-sighted as I am, sings your praise from the highest mountain in my native Switzerland.

Your vision in this situation is to be commended.

I remain,

Your Faithful Servant,

Qui Chang Trainer


----------



## TimArruda (Jan 4, 2003)

Joe S. said:


> I suggest we ALL get together and drink adult beverages of choice and celebrate this point.
> 
> Well said!
> 
> Joe S.


I'll drink to that!

Tim


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

A QAA title?
What a novel ideal

john


----------



## Pepper Dawg (Sep 26, 2007)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> The attraction of people like me is missing. HT titled Qual level dog that will never be an all age player. The field trial public's perception of success is a title. If i know i'm not going to title or do anything beyond Q level work, why bother? The possibility of attaining a recognized field trial title with my current dog would likely result in me entering several trials a year... and a huge movement into trials from the "been there done that" hunt test folk.
> 
> Qual level title = a LOT of new blood in the sport.
> 
> Shayne


I agree. I am a HT'er and would consider running the Q if there were a title!


----------



## Wild Sky (Jan 7, 2008)

Why the difference between QAA or OH QAA.

Last weekend judges Buck and Huck judged the Q for a Field Trial club
Dog 33 Wins (QAA Hot To Trot)

The following weekend Buck and Huck judged the Q for a O/Handler Trial
Dog 44 Wins (QAA Have No Chance)

I see NO Difference.

Jim


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

what about o/h Q's? What if a dog gets both wins in this type of trial? is that the same as getting two wins against pros?

I voted yes, I think it's a great idea. 

And why not have titles for derby dogs too? DBL - made the derby list

Juli


----------



## j towne (Jul 27, 2006)

I think it should be a title. If a dog is getting 2nd, 3rds and Jams in opens and Amateurs and never earn a win the dog has nothing on paper. Even a Junior hunter looks better on paper then this dog. 

All you have to see if a dog is QAA is someones word. You have to find out what trial the dog Q'ed in and look it up for your self. Entry Express does make it easier but still a pain.
________
WELLBUTRIN ATTORNEY


----------



## LabLady101 (Mar 17, 2006)

I'd vote for it! I still put it on my own written pedigrees even though it's not offically recognized because I feel there is something to be said about the achievement. I also know of several folks who have worked their butts off just to get to that QAA status and who would be very deserving of an offical title for their efforts.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

john fallon said:


> A QAA title?
> What a novel ideal
> 
> john


the field trial community has many more serious issues to deal with which have not been dealt with for a decade or more, if it happens it will not be in your lifetime and probably not mine..........


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

EdA said:


> the field trial community has many more serious issues to deal with which have not been dealt with for a decade or more, if it happens it will not be in your lifetime and probably not mine..........


You seem to think that the FT community cannot deal with more than one issue at a time. Bull-hockey.

The Midwest FTC voted to make the QAA a title, and the paperwork was submitted to Lisa Van Loo so she could combine it with the work of the American Chesapeake Club and submit it all together to the RAC. That was a couple years ago, about the time LVL disappeared.

Pete Simonds is our club's Rep. I am told that AKC rules are that the Rep must act on the desires of the club s/he represents. It could have been interesting if LVL had done it.


----------



## BIG DOG (Apr 17, 2003)

this threads almost 5 yrs old


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

BIG DOG said:


> this threads almost 5 yrs old


Kinda tells you how responsive the RAC and the rest of the AKC are.

I'd guess it's been put on a back burner somewhere and if you want to see the QAA title come about it should be dusted off and resubmitted.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Mark Jones said:


> Another playing the games just for a title?


Don't knock it. The reason I support the move is because there are too many dogs entered in AA stakes and not enough FT workers. At the same time the Master stake at HTs is overflowing with entries.

If FTs were to offer a QAA title, this may draw more interest in FTs, which could mean more club members and workers. The drawback is that it would mean larger entries, but at the Q level, not the AA.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

If you're a trialer you better love the training cause the titles will be few and far between.

I don't see anything wrong with earning a title.


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

If it going to be a title you should up the requirements to get QAA like to 10 points with a win. This may also get the #s down in limited AA events also.


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

Mark Jones said:


> I'm not knocking it. I just don't think we run our dogs strictly for the titles. At least not the majority.


Yeah I sit in my treestand because I love the solitude, I go to church because I like the people, I talk nice to my wife after a few drinks because that's the kind of guy I am.

Lets get serious. If you don't have your eye on the ball you will never hit it!

Adding rewards for a lot of hard work is never going to be a bad thing. Sure, for some, this will only be a stepping stone. For others this is the reward.


----------



## Alan Sandifer (Oct 17, 2007)

I know i will get bashed but , most FT handler's do not want more dog's entered ,,,the compition goes up with more dog's ,,,making it harder to get the QAA 

But i voted yes , even though i have a QAA dog with an amature 2nd .


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

I originally voted no but after reading some of the posts i have changed my mind to yes if it means keeping more people in the game, there is a reason there is a qualifying stake so we should recognize that level. I would make a provision that once your dog achieves FC or AFC status that the QAA would drop off otherwise your dogs titles would be longer than their name...could you imagine NFC NAFC CNAFTCH CNFTCH QAA (insert dogs name)


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

I could put up with it ......Bwahhhha


----------



## cgoeson (Jan 22, 2008)

Why, we all know what QAA means...


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

BIG DOG said:


> this threads almost 5 yrs old


Welcome to John's world! 


Howard Niemi wrote:



> Kinda tells you how responsive the RAC and the rest of the AKC are.
> 
> I'd guess it's been put on a back burner somewhere and if you want to see the QAA title come about it should be dusted off and resubmitted.


_That_'s it....blame it *all* on the RAC and AKC. How con-_veeeeeen_-ient...... They're the ones that make the rules, right? It must be their fault, right? They (AKC) should be able to anticipate the needs of *all* performance events divisions and act upon them forthwith, right?

..............

My guess is there was _no_ "back burner" in this situation. There was, more than likely, _no burner at all_. Anybody here belong to a club that submitted a proposal with another club (takes 2, y'know....) with the criteria they would propose explaining the merits of a QAA title and WHY it would be _beneficial to the AKC_ (and to the sport...gotta throw that in for good measure...) to adopt one???? _Hmmmmmm_????

Didn't _think_ so......and unless someone(s) steps up and takes the action forward through the required steps, all that's being done here is giving Fallon something to do 5 years from now.....

kg


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

bonbonjovi said:


> I originally voted no but after reading some of the posts i have changed my mind to yes if it means keeping more people in the game, there is a reason there is a qualifying stake so we should recognize that level. I would make a provision that once your dog achieves FC or AFC status that the QAA would drop off otherwise your dogs titles would be longer than their name...could you imagine NFC NAFC CNAFTCH CNFTCH QAA (insert dogs name)


The QAA is redundant once you achieve FC status just like you wouldn't see Blah Blah JH SH MH. Only the title crazy people would do that.


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> > Qual level title = a LOT of new blood in the sport.
> 
> 
> Shayne


In my opinion the AKC should recognize an intermediate title for QAA in my opinion it's much harder to obtain then the MH,SH,JH titles that they now give away to 80% of the dogs that run the hunt test. Not a dig just a fact. 

I also think that the AKC should change the rules pertaining to the Qualifying, they should change it to an age limit and get rid of the two qual wins and your out. This in my opinion would bring people back into the sport as well as attracting new people. 

I think now the hunt test people can have a Qual at the hunt test, but I have yet to see it.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Barry said:


> I think now the hunt test people can have a Qual at the hunt test, but I have yet to see it.


Middle Tenn doing one this fall, I believe.

What age limit did you have in mind?


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Mr Booty said:


> I would like to see it with a disclaimer.
> QAA-Gold Qualified under 25 months of age.
> QAA-Silver Qualified under 31 months of age.
> QAA-Bronze Qualified under 36 months of age.
> QAA-Wood Qualified over 36 months of age.



I'm not sure why you'd want to do this. Some people start running qual right out of derby. I'm going to wait till my recently aged out derby dog is ready to run AA stakes (if ever) before she runs any Q's. Why punish me for being smart with my high powered youngster by making it look like she couldn't compete in Q till a later age when she could have likely been competitive at under 24 months?

Sounds too complicated regards...

Edit: wow, just noticed how old this thread is.


----------



## Henry V (Apr 7, 2004)

ErinsEdge said:


> The QAA is redundant once you achieve FC status just like you wouldn't see Blah Blah JH SH MH. Only the title crazy people would do that.


Agreed. As someone else said, most folks know what QAA means already. I don't think a title will attract more people.



> Barry said:
> In my opinion the AKC should recognize an intermediate title for QAA in my opinion it's much harder to obtain then the _MH,SH,JH titles that they now give away to 80% of the dogs that run the hunt test. Not a dig just a fact._


Please provide the data to back up this fact.


> Barry also said:I think now the hunt test people can have a Qual at the hunt test, but I have yet to see it.


You just missed entering one last night. Second time in three years we have held one. You are welcomed to come watch and see one in 8 days.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

K G said:


> Welcome to John's world!
> 
> 
> Howard Niemi wrote:
> ...


How do you know it hasn't been done? Just, like the limited entry proposal. I'd be willing to bet even if it was proposed by multiple clubs, it would die.

Does it really matter if 2 clubs sponsor a rule change???

Do you think every rule proposed by the RAC has come from the submitssion of 2 clubs? *I don't*.

I have ZERO confidence in the RAC. What they want they keep proposing untill it passes, what they don't have interest in dies in committee.


----------



## Excaliber (Apr 4, 2007)

I'd like to see QAA as a title and so do better than 81% of the people who voted on this poll. I had no idea this post was 5 years old until I started reading it but I still agree that it should be a title.

Does anyone know for sure if this ever officially proposed to the RAC? What if more than 2 clubs proposed this change? Would that have any more weight in their decision?


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Barry said:


> In my opinion the AKC should recognize an intermediate title for QAA in my opinion it's much harder to obtain *than the MH,SH,JH titles that they now give away to 80% of the dogs that run the hunt test.* Not a dig just a fact.
> 
> (snip)


Where are you getting your data?

I think the titling rate for Master Hunter is significantly lower that 80% !!

JS


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

I was wondering how long it would be before you found one of my posts evocative enough to comment on, Doug.



Doug Main said:


> How do you know it hasn't been done? Just, like the limited entry proposal. I'd be willing to bet even if it was proposed by multiple clubs, it would die.


I don't, Doug. Just like you don't. If you have a defeatist attitude about it, _why do you care_?



> Does it really matter if 2 clubs sponsor a rule change???


Only if you want the rule change to be considered.



> Do you think every rule proposed by the RAC has come from the submission of 2 clubs? *I don't*.


I'm sure they haven't. That's probably one of the reasons they don't get anywhere. We've been talking about the process here for YEARS. If folks want their ideas to be considered seriously, they learn about the process and follow it, at least as a starting point. The "Ed/Ted" limited entry open idea _finally_ got published in The Retriever News. If they hadn't started the process and rattled a BUNCH of chains, do you thing THAT would have _ever_ happened? ;-)



> I have ZERO confidence in the RAC. What they want they keep proposing until it passes, what they don't have interest in dies in committee.


I have stated both here and elsewhere that a loud-and-clear message needs to be sent to the RAC. _Every_ club needs to vote down *EVERY* proposal that will be coming up for consideration by the RAC, whether it has merit or not, until they get the message of "no confidence." Can't hurt to try.....




Excaliber said:


> Does anyone know for sure if this ever officially proposed to the RAC? What if more than 2 clubs proposed this change? Would that have any more weight in their decision?


I'm a BIG fan of "strength in numbers." More than two clubs plus additional correspondence will help ANY proposal get more attention. Some folks would simply rather bitch about the process than to take supplementary action.

kg


----------



## Barry (Dec 11, 2007)

JS said:


> Where are you getting your data?
> 
> I think the titling rate for Master Hunter is significantly lower that 80% !!
> 
> JS


You may be right.Like I said it wasn't a dig. And the 80% thing was off the top. Just looking at all the MH, SH, JH titled dogs finishing the hunt test in the Ret News, and I'm sure that there is a lot that didn't finish. In some hunt test allmost half are titled. Compared to FT you are lucky to see 25% of the entries titled.


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

I thought I saw where LVL recently rejoined the forum... Perhaps she can comment on whether a formal proposal was ever finalized and/or submitted to the RAC.

When this thread started, I had just put my first JH on my first dog (a Flat-Coated Retriever) so didn't have much of an opinion on FT titles or designations at that time. That same dog is now a MH who ran the Master National last year and earned a Qual JAM with very limited trialing. Unfortunately she is no longer with me, but I have another MH FCR that is one pass away from qualifying for the MN this year. I enjoy hunt tests, but have started to venture into trials for the additional challenges and the competition factor. I don't believe my current dog could be competitive in the AA stakes, but QAA is a worthy goal for this dog. 

I don't necessarily need a title or a designation as incentive to enter and run qualifying stakes, but it may provide others with a sense of accomplishment and the desire to strive for more advanced goals. If hunt tests only offered a title at the Master level with an informal qualifying requirement to run Master, do you think as many people would be encouraged to get into the sport and strive for the title? In business, this is commonly referred to as "a barrier to entry".

From a pedigree and breeding perspective, it would be nice to be able to identify dogs that have the talent and training to have qualified to run at the AA level. I know some of the minority breeds informally use the *** to designate a QAA achievement. Why not make it official so in can be included in catalogs and other AKC publications as well? I think a title for the QAA level of work, regardless of whether it is a prefix to the name or a suffix, is a great idea.

LVL - If you choose to resurrect the propsal and need another club to support it, I would be happy to share it with the National Field Committee for the FCRSA for consideration and/or comment.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

I think I could get the Chattanooga Retriever Club behind it, too! ;-)

kg


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> You seem to think that the FT community cannot deal with more than one issue at a time. Bull-hockey.
> .


a thought that is supported by recent history of inaction on proposals by the Subcommittee On Rules


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

This horse has been beaten before. I voted NO for the following reasons:

There again is no designation between a 14 1/2 point almost AFC vrs a QAA 2nd in the Qualifying. 

WE have enough field trial titles with the FC and AFC prefix's , next they will want it in front of the dog's name

Again for the umpteenth time as far as I am concerned there is a vast difference in recieving a JAM in a all-age stake then a 1st or 2nd in a licensed Qualifying. Some will say I ran a Qual that was "like a AA stake" sure and I have won a Qual where we never did see three birds and the blinds were pathetic Did I give my placement back, NO, but a 54 dog qualifying won with another dog was much more gratifying, as was a second place in a Amateur all-age with a Derby dog with another! 

Rather run the Quals forever without ANY title no matter what the placements are AND have a qualifying list! at the end of they year for those dogs who place!? Then have a title as top qualifying dog if you so desire or better yet a top National Qual list. AND it's an OLD POST


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

*YES! *For reasons already stated.


----------



## Tom D (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted is right on the mark


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

Criquetpas said:


> This horse has been beaten before. I voted NO for the following reasons:
> 
> There again is no designation between a 14 1/2 point almost AFC vrs a QAA 2nd in the Qualifying.
> 
> ...


With the exception of the National Qual list , I agree with Earl and would encourage my club to vote no if a referendum were ever proffered. Simply FC and/or AFC are fine with me.

Soon we'll be handing out "participant" ribbons and making _everyone_ a winner.


----------



## GONEHUNTIN' (Sep 21, 2006)

I also agree that there is absolutely no need for an intermediate title. If you want a title, you'll just have to work harder to get that FC-AFC.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Earl and Mark, 

You think there are enough FT titles already? Except for the NFC and NAFC which are awarded each year to one lucky and talented dog, there are only two FT titles......FC and AFC! These beginner FT titles are ranked higher in significance than any other AKC title that I am aware of (with the exception of DC which includes FC).

Earl, I agree that not all quals are created equal. Using your logic I guess that winning a small AA should not count as much, or at least be noted? 

There is also no different designation between a dog that has ten points and won a 20 dog Open and a dog with 100+ AA points. So what! We all know about the 100+ point dogs.

What about more specific titles? How about DL for Derby list. QAA for a first or second in Quals, QE for dogs that can no longer run quals, AA for dogs that haved placed in AA stakes, OE and AE for dogs that have accumulated so many points in Opens and Ams, etc.?

OK, maybe this is overkill but, clearly the vast majority would like to see the AKC accept suffix titles that breed clubs already recognize.


John


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I'll take it one step farther and say that not only is there no need for a QAA title, but also there is no need for an AFC title.

"If you want a title, you'll just have to work harder to get that FC...";-)

john


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

john fallon said:


> I'll take it one step farther and say that not only is there no need for a QAA title, but also there is no need for an AFC title.
> 
> "If you want a title, you'll just have to work harder to get that FC...";-)
> 
> john


Why not limit it to just NFC?


John


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Would it make any difference if QAA was a title?


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

It appears that the answer to that would depend on who you ask.

It might get some more HT-only clubs to hold 0/H Quals, which might then grow into full 3 or 4 stake field trials that might compete with some of the trials that have 80+ dog Opens and 60+ dog Amateur stakes. _That_ wouldn't be a bad thing.

JMHO.

kg


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

John Gassner said:


> Why not limit it to just NFC?
> 
> 
> John


No.For that achievement (NFC) we should simply embellish the title letters FC with an asterisk as a connotation of NFC status it in this fashion. FC*

Here is a 16 page thread on keeping the Amature or not
http://retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9787&highlight=Amature
john


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

I voted NO for the following reasons - the SOR has enough pressing issues to deal with, so we don't want them sidetracked further making sure someone gets a nickel's worth of recognition for an accomplishment which while significant to some is fairly miniscule in the FT world. A title in front of your dog's name indicates you were willing to put out a lot of effort. IF you are an Amateur who trains their own dog it is even more significant. Let's leave it that way for those among the 400 or so who do train their own dogs that are mentioned each year in the RFTN summary.


----------



## DeWitt Boice (Aug 26, 2005)

Curious what QAA means
AA stakes need no qualifying to enter
just be over 6 months of age
a dog becomes "Qualified," when they can no longer enter the Q
shouldn’t the title just be a Q


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Would it make any difference if QAA was a title?


More HT participants would be tempted to come over and try FTs on a minor stake level, not All-Age.

This could possibly help solve the need for more FT workers.

And every little bit helps.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

DeWitt Boice said:


> Curious what QAA means. . . .


I cannot answer that question.

But I can tell you it was originally referred to as the "Hunter's Stake." Back in the day when all the AA stakes were full of rich folks and their pros, the Hunter's Stake was there for the average Joe to take part in FTs, and maybe become interested enough to move up. Imagine that -- the founders were actually thinking less about themselves, and more about the health of their sport.

How ironic it would be if FTers were to embrace it for what it was originally intended, and use it to draw in to FTs those who have reached the pinnacle of the HT game and are looking for something more.

It hurts me to see so many down on this idea. Perhaps their clubs already have enough members, and their trials enough workers. Perhaps they like AA stakes of 100+ dogs, and do not see a need for growth in FT membership that could result in a few more clubs offering trials thereby shrinking entries at others.

At the same time the Master test at HTs is overflowing, literally. Judges are are being accused of setting up so-called elimination tests in order to finish the test on time. And once you attain a Master (unless you want to get caught up in the Master National farce) you get to sit there spinning your wheels at the Master level. Trying the Q makes so much sense! FTs need warm bodies, and HTs have them at their top level!!!

But maybe it is like someone said earlier -- the truth is FTers don't want HTers because they don't want the competition. Even in the minor stakes. The modern FTer is not like the founders. The modern FTer is concerned only about more competition, and not about the health of the sport.

However I am always open to being proved wrong. I am open to seeing FTers open their arms to more participants in FTs to help the sport, even if it means more competition for them. 

I hope we get a chance to see. Wake up LVL.


----------



## DeWitt Boice (Aug 26, 2005)

Hi Amiable Labs

Every Amateur and most Opens welcomes any dog that applies
as long as it is a registered retriever 

if HTers don’t feel welcome
its probably because FT are interested in improving the breed
and I don’t feel HT’s are

When a handler brings their dog to a FT
and they don’t understand the rules
when they are dropped, they feel dissed

most Judges are from out of town
they don’t know if you are new to a FT

I assure you a new face with only one dog 
it’s a dream come true for Ted & Ed


you seem to be a historian
when and where was the first Q held?


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

There appear to be plenty of hunt test folks running the minor stakes on the East Coast. 21 of the 43 dogs entered in the Q at Westchester this spring had hunt test titles associated with their names, more than a third of the Q field at Colonial. The spring trial season in the East coincides with a lull in local hunt tests. More of the dogs entered probably have hunt test experience but don't have titles associated with their names in the catalogs.


----------



## GONEHUNTIN' (Sep 21, 2006)

The hunt tests were basically started some 25 or so years ago for handlers that did not want to compete on a field trial circuit where there can only be, one winner. It was felt that by competing against a standard, more people would be happy from their perceived success, and they were right.

However, there is and always will be a certain number of us that don't enjoy a win unless it's against another dog and not a standard. There is not joy in meeting a standard, buy much gratification in "whuppin' " another dog. Our ultimate goal has always been an FC or AFC, with FC certainly being the most coveted title. On the way there, you may Derby List a dog and make that dog a Qualified All Age Dog. I never thought of actually needing a title in writing to tell what the dog accomplished. Most field trialers keep track of dog's and know who's been Derby Listed and who the QAA dog's are. When you are looking at buying a pup do you look for a sire that is QAA? I certainly don't. Unless they can finish, QAA means little to me; it's an intermediary step.

So I guess to me at least, I can't see why there is this "itch" to have a title put in writing when it means so little. That's is why the hunting tests have their follower; because of the easy titles. If you don't want to compete in the extremely competitive world of the field trial dog, then don't complain and try to change it, stay in the lesser stakes where you're happy and successful. Leave those field trial titles to those who so passionately pursue them. Don't cheapen them.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> More HT participants would be tempted to come over and try FTs on a minor stake level, not All-Age.
> 
> This could possibly help solve the need for more FT workers.
> 
> And every little bit helps.




Heck FT are whining about numbers and HTers are whining about not being able to pass a Master test...dont think you all need it.


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

AmiableLabs said:


> I cannot answer that question.
> 
> ...But maybe it is like someone said earlier -- the truth is FTers don't want HTers because they don't want the competition. Even in the minor stakes. The modern FTer is not like the founders. The modern FTer is concerned only about more competition, and not about the health of the sport....



Kevin, 

Don't put all FT'ers in this group. IMO, a QAA title would bring more people/dogs/contestants/competition/workers/judges/ideas into the sport- growth in a positive, manageable form. There would certainly be some growing pains, but isn't the field trial community experiencing growing pains anyway? Why not try a new approach? I'd like to see a QAA title implemented. 

Lack of workers is a primary burden of putting on a trial. At least this is the case for many clubs. This shortage can be viewed in terms of a ratio (# of dogs running/# of handlers). Many people adamantly blame the big truck pros for creating an unmanageable trial, and they are seeking ways to restrict entries, and therefore, competition. Would the addition of a QAA title bring lower dog/hander ratios or raise it? A QAA title would attract the 1-2 dog handler thereby lowering the dog/handler ratio. This would have a significant affect on the number of trial participants that could, and more importantly would, work and judge at trials. The potential for more conflicting trials would follow – positive manageable growth in some form is possible. It’s up to us to find a workable solution. IMO, a QAA title could be at least in part a solution.

Frank Price


----------



## ducksoup (Oct 3, 2005)

Haven't read through all 14 pages of this thread so this might have already been discussed -- but here in Canada the Canadian Kennel Club now awards a JFTR (Junior Field Trial Retriever) title for our Derby age dogs and a QFTR (Qualifying Field Trial Retriever) title as well -- this seems to be the result of people wanting to be able to have a "title" for their field trial dogs other than FTCH or AFTCH (Canadian equivalents of FC and AFC) -- there was obviously a "need" seen for these titles by CKC -- and I suppose it does seem to mean enough to some people to even possibly "keep" them in the FT game up here -- for whatever reason, I think the JFTR and QFTR titles are valuable enough to have -- especially if they "generate" more interest in our FT game here in Canada


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> But maybe it is like someone said earlier -- the truth is FTers don't want HTers because they don't want the competition. Even in the minor stakes. The modern FTer is not like the founders. The modern FTer is concerned only about more competition, and not about the health of the sport.


Nothing like gross generalization

What drivel


----------



## ducksoup (Oct 3, 2005)

AmiableLabs said:


> I cannot answer that question.
> 
> But I can tell you it was originally referred to as the "Hunter's Stake." Back in the day when all the AA stakes were full of rich folks and their pros, the Hunter's Stake was there for the average Joe to take part in FTs, and maybe become interested enough to move up. Imagine that -- the founders were actually thinking less about themselves, and more about the health of their sport.
> 
> ...





Reply by Ted:



Ted Shih said:


> Nothing like gross generalization
> 
> What drivel



Ted, you said it all -- couldn't have said it better -- when are we going to get over these stupid "FT vs. HT" arguments????


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

AmiableLabs said:


> But maybe it is like someone said earlier -- the truth is FTers don't want HTers because they don't want the competition. Even in the minor stakes. The modern FTer is not like the founders. The modern FTer is concerned only about more competition, and not about the health of the sport.


If you believe that you are mistaken. In the beginning of AKC Hunt Tests most FT clubs tried the concept for greater participation in the sport of dogs. Many dropped the HT portion as it became the same people working as did the FT's & the participants in the HT's were in the gallery doing nothing. 

The old time trialers had developed a rapport with many organizations that were critical to the survival of the sport. An individual with good political connections was as valuable to a club as someone who had an FC & they were treated thusly. The modern FT'er does not value or respect that tradition & that is the reason for the drops in long term members. I look forward to going to trials where there is an opportunity to get together with people I have associated with for many years but even they are falling by the wayside.



Am Labs said:


> However I am always open to being proved wrong. I am open to seeing FTers open their arms to more participants in FTs to help the sport, even if it means more competition for them.


If we didn't like competition we wouldn't play this game. The adage "Old Age & Knowledge will overcome Youth & Enthusiasm every time" probably still holds true. What is the real problem with more participants - not only in the Retriever venue but in all venues that require large tracts of Open Space is the dwindling supply of suitable training facilities. That would be the only reason for not welcoming more participants. Most of us thrive on the adrenalin rush that goes with doing something very difficult & doing it well.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

DeWitt Boice said:


> if HTers don’t feel welcome
> its probably because FT are interested improving the breed
> and I don’t feel HT’s are


DeWitt, I think breeders are more concerned with improving the breed. I think both HT and FT people want dogs that can do the work at high levels and/or win. They are more willing to tolerate bad traits and breed to dogs with bad traits to get that all important blue ribbon. Personally I'd like to see QAA recognized even if AKC insisted it go behind the name instead of infront. It shows the dog has accomplished a high level of performance and since they insist you check a box on the entry form pertaining to it, making it recognized would put some actual tracking structure around it.

/Paul


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Nothing like gross generalization What drivel


Take it up with the person who first said it. I am just speculating it may some credence. Looking at it practically, I see no logical explanation for opposing the QAA title. It certainly could do some good for FTs and it would do no harm. Therefore, unless there is some overriding principle I am not aware of, I must postulate its opposition is based on emotion. 

Besides, you said you had me mechanically "Ignored." :lol: ;-)


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> Take it up with the person who first said it. I am just speculating it may some credence. Looking at it practically, I see no logical explanation for opposing the QAA title. It certainly could do some good for FTs and it would do no harm. Therefore, unless there is some overriding principle I am not aware of, I must postulate its opposition is based on emotion.
> 
> Besides, you said you had me mechanically "Ignored." :lol: ;-)


You shouldn't give yourself so much credit

I saw the quote posted by someone else

It shouldn't surprise me that a person who doesn't run a dog in the All Age stakes should
- Make a statement based on what someone else has said
- When pressed, push responsibility off on that person
- Claim that it must have some validity
- But, offer no proof

Hey, it's the internet

Anyone can have an opinion


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> But maybe it is like someone said earlier -- the truth is FTers don't want HTers because they don't want the competition. Even in the minor stakes. The modern FTer is not like the founders. The modern FTer is concerned only about more competition, and not about the health of the sport.


I think that statement can be said about some of the most vocal people in the game that cry constantly whining about numbers but I think there are a lots of people who would disagree with the statement. 

Personally I just don’t see why a QAA title would be needed…if the dog is QAA he is QAA. What is the draw to getting a QAA to become a title? Is it so you can appear on a pedigree?


----------



## JeffLusk (Oct 23, 2007)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> I think that statement can be said about some of the most vocal people in the game that cry constantly whining about numbers but I think there are a lots of people who would disagree with the statement.
> 
> Personally I just don’t see why a QAA title would be needed…if the dog is QAA he is QAA. What is the draw to getting a QAA to become a title? Is it so you can appear on a pedigree?


Thats what i wanna know.. Seems to me everyone lists their dog as QAA if the are.. so who cares if its "official." Then again why does it matter to AKC if its official? 

Not at Qual level so could care less


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Personally I just don’t see why a QAA title would be needed…


As I said, then you must have enough club members and enough workers at your trials. You must see a bumper crop of young upstarts taking over the old-timers places to keep the sport alive. We don't see those things here. My reason for the QAA title is to get some more warm (and hopefully younger) bodies into the FT game. 

Now if you ask the Chessie and Golden people, they have different reasons for the QAA title. I'll let them reply on that.



Ted Shih said:


> Hey, it's the internet Anyone can have an opinion


Yup! And ad_hominem's aside, as you demonstrate time and time again.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Wow this is an old one.

Couple thoughts based on the recent posts....

Kevin, you cannot split field trialers up into "founders" and "modern"... it's more like "founders", "current leaders", and "modern".

The "modern" field trialer is MOST concerned with the health of our sport. We don't bitch about numbers near as much as we bitch about lack of help. 

The number of "field trialers" is shrinking - the number of dogs is growing. THAT is a big concern. We need new, eager, energetic, people to get involved with the sport if we are going to survive the current trend. The qualifying stake IS the conduit for new blood in this sport. It's not the AA stakes and it's dang sure not the derby.

SM


----------



## Bayou Magic (Feb 7, 2004)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> Wow this is an old one.
> 
> Couple thoughts based on the recent posts....
> 
> ...


RIGHT ON TARGET!

FP


----------



## Warren Flynt (Nov 14, 2007)

subroc said:


> I voted No!!
> 
> I guess the question is: Why?
> 
> ...


maybe................


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Personally I just don’t see why a QAA title would be needed…if the dog is QAA he is QAA. What is the draw to getting a QAA to become a title? Is it so you can appear on a pedigree?


Like our presidential candidate - CHANGE - like the old way isn't good enough. If the impetus for this was coming from some who had been there it would have some credibility. But that's our new society - you don't have to accomplish much to feel good about yourself, or in this case your dog.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> As I said, then you must have enough club members and enough workers at your trials. You must see a bumper crop of young upstarts taking over the old-timers places to keep the sport alive. We don't see those things here. My reason for the QAA title is to get some more warm (and hopefully younger) bodies into the FT game.
> 
> Now if you ask the Chessie and Golden people, they have different reasons for the QAA title. I'll let them reply on that.



I don’t think making QAA a title will bring young people into the sport. The sport is relatively expensive, time consuming and quite frankly damned boring from a spectator perspective.


Maybe the SRS needs to develop their organization for titling dogs…they have a vested interest in keeping handlers and good dogs coming their way.


As a guy having goldens and one of the being a QAA dog, I see no advantage to having QAA as a title


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Maybe the SRS needs to develop their organization for titling dogs…they have a vested interest in keeping handlers and good dogs coming their way.


They'd have to grow in order to do that, Patrick. Too much risk of losing control over the "product."

kg


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

K G said:


> They'd have to grow in order to do that, Patrick. Too much risk of losing control over the "product."
> 
> kg


Well at least they seem to get people excited about what they are doing....

Look at what the PBR is doing with bulls...bought the old Rodeo Stock Registry and created the ABBI. They have complete control over the Futurity and Classic events…both created and designed to keep finding the best bulls to feed the PBR bull riding events. There are those bitch and moan about the ABBI/PBR and how they have absolute control…but the events are judged fairly, lots of money to win, full of bulls and fun as hell.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Well at least they seem to get people excited about what they are doing....


It's all about selling product, merchandising, and marketing. Nothin' wrong with that at all....let's just not make it into something it's not intended to be.



> Look at what the PBR is doing with bulls...full of bulls and fun as hell.


PBR is still a brand of _beer_ to me, Patrick....and the description fit about as well 30 or so years ago! 

kg


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

K G said:


> It's all about selling product, merchandising, and marketing. Nothin' wrong with that at all....let's just not make it into something it's not intended to be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Let them sell their merchandise, sell commercial time and market their videos…if you had a quality product, provides a venue to run…what the heck would be the problem? Is AKC doing such a great job preserving the retrievers or any field dog for that matter?

Maybe a profit motive would create a better game.

Just an idea.



Ya ole drunk....The Professional Bull Riders...not the old Pabst Blue Ribbon that you prolly killed all you weak brain cells with and apparently some of the good ones as well.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Let them sell their merchandise, sell commercial time and market their videos…if you had a quality product, provides a venue to run…what the heck would be the problem? Is AKC doing such a great job preserving the retrievers or any field dog for that matter?
> 
> Maybe a profit motive would create a better game.
> 
> Just an idea.


When it grows, you lose control....'s all I'm sayin'........their "vested interest in keeping handlers and good dogs coming their way" is all about the Benjamins. Not sayin' at all that AKC's _isn't_....but the SRS was built about the PRESENTATION. Anyway....it's all good....for the most part....




> Ya ole drunk....The Professional Bull Riders...not the old Pabst Blue Ribbon that you prolly killed all you weak brain cells with and apparently some of the good ones as well.


I was speaking somewhat tongue in cheek. The PBR is all over the Versus network, one of the many I sell advertising on. It was all of the GDG that followed that you lost me on.........;-) 

kg


----------



## Paul Johnson (May 6, 2008)

I vote no for the following reasons:

1. The function of the Qual is to provide a means of limiting the number of entries in the Amateur and the Open. Currently, there are major stakes in the mid-west with 100 plus dogs. Drawing more people into the field trials because they can earn another degree without making the commitment to campaign their dogs would do nothing more than increase the number of dogs in the major stakes. More dogs in the major stakes would require simplier or trick tests which do nothing to find the best marking dog with the greatest degree of trainability.

2. QAA does not qualify as an earned title (which goes after the name) or as a competitive title (which goes before the name). For a dog to be QAA, they must either place or earn a JAM in a major stake or earn a 1st or 2nd in the Qual.

If the hunt test folks want a competitive title all they need to do is to get the AKC to use their hunt test scores.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> I don’t think making QAA a title will bring young people into the sport. The sport is relatively expensive, time consuming and quite frankly damned boring from a spectator perspective.


There is little to no difference in those things between a Master test at a HT and a Q at a FT. And _generally speaking_ HTers are younger than FTers.

Patrick, first off I am not saying FTs need SRS numbers nor that a QAA title would provide them. Second, I am not suggesting that offering a QAA title is the final solution to the ranks of FTers growing older and smaller (in numbers), I am saying I believe it would be helpful.

And I am still waiting for someone to tell me WHAT HARM it does?! I believe it would be good for FTs, where is the harm? If it does no harm, then where is the overriding principle it violates?



> As a guy having goldens and one of the being a QAA dog, I see no advantage to having QAA as a title


I am not a Golden or Chessie person but I seem to recall that LVL described it as useful in their breed pedigrees to delineate FT dogs because so few actually FC or AFC. As I said, one of them will have to fill in what I don't know.



Paul Johnson said:


> I vote no for the following reasons:. . . .


Drawing people into the minor stakes will not increase the numbers in the majors; QAA is already a designation it could be an earned title if we want it to be; there are no HTers on here that I am aware of seeking the QAA title because they "want a competitive title." It appears to me you didn't even read the thread.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Paul Johnson said:


> I vote no for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. The function of the Qual is to provide a means of limiting the number of entries in the Amateur and the Open. Currently, there are major stakes in the mid-west with 100 plus dogs. Drawing more people into the field trials because they can earn another degree without making the commitment to campaign their dogs would do nothing more than increase the number of dogs in the major stakes. More dogs in the major stakes would require simplier or trick tests which do nothing to find the best marking dog with the greatest degree of trainability.


I'm not sure i agree with that, at least not anymore.

There is a huge gap between your average Q and your average Amateur stake.

The more we try to make field trials all about the all-age, the more we make it an elitist game. If all the non-elite suddenly dropped out of the game, there wouldn't be many trials to run.

The qualifying is not a means for limiting all-age entries, it's a means for new folks to take a legit shot at field trials. It's a means to have a whole new genre of folks at your event - and most all of them are willing to work!

SM


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> The number of "field trialers" is shrinking - the number of dogs is growing. THAT is a big concern. We need new, eager, energetic, people to get involved with the sport if we are going to survive the current trend. The qualifying stake IS the conduit for new blood in this sport. It's not the AA stakes and it's dang sure not the derby.


Succinct, true, and to the point. Well done.


----------



## DeWitt Boice (Aug 26, 2005)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> DeWitt, I think breeders are more concerned with improving the breed. I think both HT and FT people want dogs that can do the work at high levels and/or win. They are more willing to tolerate bad traits and breed to dogs with bad traits to get that all important blue ribbon. Personally I'd like to see QAA recognized even if AKC insisted it go behind the name instead of infront. It shows the dog has accomplished a high level of performance and since they insist you check a box on the entry form pertaining to it, making it recognized would put some actual tracking structure around it.
> 
> /Paul


 
Hi Paul
your are probably right
every one is trying to better the breed
that was an over statement, sorry

I have never even been to a HT
but I have watched SRS on TV and that is punk
and it is my understanding HT don’t follow their own rules
but this issue has been debated before
I was just letting people know where I stand


----------



## DeWitt Boice (Aug 26, 2005)

DeWitt Boice said:


> Curious what QAA means
> AA stakes need no qualifying to enter
> just be over 6 months of age
> a dog becomes "Qualified," when they can no longer enter the Q
> shouldn’t the title just be a Q


 
will some one tell me what QAA means ?????????????


----------



## Paul Johnson (May 6, 2008)

I'm curious, just how many of the folks that want a title for QAA run dogs in the field trials and of those that run dogs in the field trials, how many have put an FC or AFC or your dogs?


----------



## lablover (Dec 17, 2003)

DeWitt Boice said:


> will some one tell me what QAA means ?????????????


Qualified All Age = QAA


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

If we should decide to have a QAA title, Shouldn't it take 10 or 15 points and a win to get and should the points garnered at OH/Q's be counted ? 

john


----------



## Lynn Moore (May 30, 2005)

john fallon said:


> If we should decide to have a QAA title, Shouldn't it take 10 or 15 points and a win to get and should the points garnered at OH/Q's be counted ?
> 
> john


This is exactly why there are no titles in the minors.....there is no Derby "title" and no Qualifying "title" because there are no points counted in the minors, and for good reason.
Like someone said earlier, keep on working for those titles that actually exist.
LM


----------



## DeWitt Boice (Aug 26, 2005)

lablover said:


> Qualified All Age = QAA


 
I get it, it’s a joke hahahaha

look I’m serious 
I could care less if you make a new title or not
I don’t care if it is a suffix or prefix
obviously, it is a title that should be dropped upon achieving a championship 
just as championship titles are dropped in lieu of national titles
but the title should be Q not QAA
QAA means nothing
in fact it is idiotic
and yet everyone is using it 
are these people just so ignorant of FT’s that they think it mean something.
In this thread people continue to use the term 
STOP

Lynn understand, John is obviously oblivious as to the rules of FT’s.

PS Lablover your avatar is a great picture, very cool


----------



## Paul Johnson (May 6, 2008)

Really -- and I thought that QAA (Qualified All-Age) was a term that people used to signify that their dog is qualified to run in the Limited All-Age stakes.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Paul Johnson said:


> I'm curious, just how many of the folks that want a title for QAA run dogs in the field trials and of those that run dogs in the field trials, how many have put an FC or AFC or your dogs?


Read the whole thread.


----------



## Guest (Jul 6, 2008)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> We need new, eager, energetic, people to get involved


Not to mention some more cute ones.


----------



## Paul Johnson (May 6, 2008)

Kevin,
I have read the whole thread and I do not recall anyone stating that they have put FC or AFC on their dogs. While it is clear that there are a number of FT folks responding to this thread, it is also clear that there a number of HT folks that want a "competitive" title without having to spend the time and energy it takes to put an FC or AFC on a dog (assuming that they have a competitive dog). I think that the poll would be far more significant if it were limited to people that actually compete in the field trials.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Paul Johnson said:


> Kevin, I have read the whole thread and . . . .it is also clear that there a number of HT folks that want a "competitive" title without having to spend the time and energy it takes to put an FC or AFC on a dog....


There is not one single HT person on this thread arguing for the QAA title because they are seeking a competitive title. And you claim to have read the thread?

Try again?


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

DeWitt Boice said:


> I get it, it’s a joke hahahaha
> 
> look I’m serious
> I could care less if you make a new title or not
> ...


Read my signature line!

john


----------



## GONEHUNTIN' (Sep 21, 2006)

Kind of interesting to me to read the views on this thread. Let me preface by saying that my field trial days have been over for some time and I no longer compete, but once, it was all I lived for. 

Back when these hunt tests were started, and if memory serves me correctly it was sometime in the early 80's, people wanted the format so they wouldn't have to have a dog pro trained, wouldn't have to spend every free hour training their dog, and would get a trophy upon satisfactory completion of an event. Even if 20 dogs had a satisfactory completion. It gave them a sense of accomplishment in an atmosphere that was at the time, not as competitive as the field trial venue.

Now these Hunt Test people want back into the field trial game but they want to change the format. I don't get it. We Field Trialers didn't come over to the hunt test's and try to mandate change. Why in the world would you, after now having your own very successful format, want to come back but only if you can change a format that has existed for half a century? Makes no sense to me.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

GONEHUNTIN' said:


> Now these Hunt Test people want back into the field trial game but they want to change the format. I don't get it.


I give up. :roll: 

There are no HTers wanting to get back in the FT game or to change its format! *READ THE THREAD!*

This is about people who are concerned about the health of FTs looking for a way to draw more people into the sport! More (and younger) club members; More workers.

(I think this is also about Chessie and Golden FTers wanting to be able to recognize their FT dogs on official pedigrees, but none of them seem to be around at the moment.)


----------



## j towne (Jul 27, 2006)

For the people that dont think that QAA shoudl be a title then why do you put the *** after your dogs name on your signatures.

FOM Not mad at you just using you as a example. You voted against the QAA title. But in your signature and your website you marked the *** dogs. If you dont think it should be a title then why are you making it a point to show other people if a dog is QAA?
________
LAMBORGHINI ATHON SPECIFICATIONS


----------



## Lynn Moore (May 30, 2005)

I was trying to cross post a quote that Franco (Mr. Booty) made about this very point, but I don't know how to quote from another thread and put it here. Search Booty and QAA. Anyway, I also find it very irritating that this Mike guy has gone on www.gooddoginfo and put the asterisks after one of our dogs and apparently many others as well.
I did not want that one there either, but he has gone in to that website and put that on Franco's dog, too. WTF!!! It is not a real title and should not be with the dogs name, unless it is a golden.;-)
LM


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

A.K.A. Whats up with all these OH/Q's ? 

Let me see if I got this right. Not only do you guys want to get a title by getting as little a single second at a minor stakes event, you also want it to be able to happen with very few or no Pros with their A list string to compete against.

john


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

john fallon said:


> A.K.A. Whats up with all these OH/Q's?


"'Also known as' what's up with all these OH/Q's?"  



> Let me see if I got this right. Not only do you guys want to get a title by getting as little a single second at a minor stakes event, you also want it to be able to happen with very few or no Pros with their A list string to compete against.


Who you talking to John? Who are "you guys?"


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Now that this thread, previously hashed and rehashed *over 4 1/2 YEARS AGO* (it got nowhere then either....), has been hashed and rehased here yet _*AGAIN*_......who's going to draw up a proposal (for whatever the point/points are that are trying to be made......find two clubs to sponsor "it," and send "it" to the RAC once and for all..........???

*Hmmmmmmm???????* Who's ready to put their *prose and postage* in the place of their *posts*????????????

kg


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

AmiableLabs said:


> I give up. :roll:
> 
> There are no HTers wanting to get back in the FT game or to change its format! *READ THE THREAD!*
> 
> ...


Is this really a moot point? QAA is a level of achievement that is already recognized by AKC; and according to its own rules it has to keep track of QAA dogs.

The only question might be whether the AKC would issue some kind of acknowledgement (certificate?) when a dog reaches that level of achievement. Heck, you get something when you get a "canine good citizen" award ... and that's a heckuva lot less impressive than QAA status;-)

Seems it would just be a matter of AKC allowing you to put such a notation on your dog's pedigree; and AKC putting such a notation on the pedigrees they prepare. They don't even have to recognize it as a "title", per se. It's simply a way to identify a dog that has reached that level of achievement.

And, yes, it is true ... because there are far fewer dogs who get the coveted FC and AFC titles in the "minority" breeds, breeders of Goldens did look for a way to quickly identify those dogs who reached QAA. One does need to pay some attention to the genetic diversity of the the field-bred minority breeds. Lab breeders may have many more sires to choose from.

And for QAA (or the *** notation on Golden pedigrees), you have to get 1st or 2nd in a Qual, or any placement or JAM in Amat or Open. Even at the Golden Natl Spec, that JAM in the major stakes should not be considered "cheap" ... that dog will still likely be competing with finished FCs or AFCs. So, any dog that can hang in there to the end is still not a dog to discount too quickly.

Let's not forget that the QAA also represents a large number of very good dogs who may have had many placements, but simply lacked the win for the final title. There could have been varied reasons why the dog never got the win.

For Goldens I think that was the point of the *** notation ... not to "overlook" talented dogs who would be worth breeding to. We can look back in a lot of pedigrees (of all breeds) and find dogs that never had the titles in front of their names, but whose production record would later prove that they had some good working genes to contribute. And, it should not lessen the prestige of seeing FC or AFC in front of a dog's name.


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

People have been using QAA in ads and promotions on the dogs for a long time,and though its not official,it can help describe he dog in question as to the competitive level of the dog.If there is a question as to the truth regarding the description QAA by someone it can be verified.If the dog has not run hunting tests ,but has gone through Derby and then qualified to run AA .....the only way to know where the dog is ....is to describe him/ her as QAA.That gets my attention in an ad,whereas without it ...it may not.Bottom line is that it is an abbreviated description that just about everyone knows what it takes for the dog to get.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

K G said:


> Now that this thread, previously hashed and rehashed *over 4 1/2 YEARS AGO* (it got nowhere then either....), has been hashed and rehased here yet _*AGAIN*_......who's going to draw up a proposal (for whatever the point/points are that are trying to be made......find two clubs to sponsor "it," and send "it" to the RAC once and for all..........??? *Hmmmmmmm???????* Who's ready to put their *prose and postage* in the place of their *posts*???????????


As I said, *LVL and I already did it.* She got the ACC to vote for it, I got the membership of the Midwest FTC (AKC Rep. Pete Simonds) to vote for it. All the paperwork was submitted to LVL for her to submit to the RAC then she fell off the face of the Earth.

She should still have the paperwork. She has not replied to my emails or PMs. Does anyone have her phone number?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> (AKC Rep. Pete Simonds) ?


Kevin, if Pete was in onboard with it, it would have already happened


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

EdA said:


> Kevin, if Pete was in onboard with it, it would have already happened


And if he was not, it would not matter how many clubs presented the proposal


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> As I said, *LVL and I already did it.* She got the ACC to vote for it, I got the membership of the Midwest FTC (AKC Rep. Pete Simonds) to vote for it. All the paperwork was submitted to LVL for her to submit to the RAC then she fell off the face of the Earth.
> 
> She should still have the paperwork. She has not replied to my emails or PMs. Does anyone have her phone number?


Was any follow-up done on the "submission?" Anybody try to step into Lisa's stead and push forward with this hot-button, front-burner, savior-of-the-field-trial-game piece of "legislation?" I mean...._c'mon_....4 and a half *YEARS?????????????????*



EdA said:


> Kevin, if Pete was in onboard with it, it would have already happened


You sure know how to spoil a surprise, Ed.................;-)

Everyone needs a _dream_ regards,

kg


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

K G said:


> You sure know how to spoil a surprise, Ed.................;-)
> 
> Everyone needs a _dream_ regards,
> 
> kg


Sometimes folks just need a good dose of reality....


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

EdA said:


> Kevin, if Pete was in onboard with it, it would have already happened


a. LVL never submitted it, so I don't know if Pete even knows about the proposal.

b. I am told that it is AKC rules that the Rep must act on the behalf of the wishes of the club he represents. So if LVL HAD submitted it, it would have been interesting!


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

So there you go....I stand by post #181....

Dose of reality _indeed_ regards, ;-)

kg


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

K G said:


> Was any follow-up done on the "submission?" Anybody try to step into Lisa's stead and push forward with this hot-button, front-burner, savior-of-the-field-trial-game piece of "legislation?" I mean...._c'mon_....4 and a half *YEARS?????????????????*


First off, at least for me, the fire for the issue burned hotter years ago. It appears it did for LVL too.

Second, NO ONE I know of thinks this is in any way, shape, or form, the "savior of the FT game." That is a straw man. This is a small, harmless but helpful part in aiding the FT game.

As has already been said, people have been saying "QAA" and *** for years, on unofficial pedigrees and in advertisements. It does no harm and some good to make it official -- so the person gets a certificate from the AKC and it appears on official pedigrees. Big deal. It does no harm. It violates no principles.

To some it is meaningless. To others it means a lot.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

EdA said:


> Sometimes folks just need a good dose of reality....


Don't count your chickens before they hatch. The AKC is bending over backwards to look for new titles to hand out in others games like Agility and Obedience. Titles are why people play, and playing makes the coffers grow.

On the other hand, reports are that the AKC loses money on FTs. The game is supported by money from conformation. 

Then again, the AKC might see this as a way to increase revenue from FTs. :-?

Who knows. Who knows. But it has to be first submitted. And it has to get past the RAC. And one must presume the RAC is versed in what the AKC is up to regarding adding titles.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> Who knows. Who knows. But it has to be first submitted. And it has to get past the RAC. And one must presume the RAC is versed in what the AKC is up to regarding adding titles.


But it's all LVL's fault that didn't happen, right?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Melanie Foster said:


> But it's all LVL's fault that didn't happen, right?


You'd have to ask her.

Personally, I don't see anyone at "fault." As KG said, no one else took any initiative, and it was not like it was our job or even responsibility. So the only people LVL and I directly let down by not getting it done were us two. And I am not sure it is a dead issue yet.


----------



## GONEHUNTIN' (Sep 21, 2006)

Gosh, maybe everyone should ask for a Derby designation too. Like DL, or DC if he makes the Derby list. We want to make sure all of the dog's accomplishment's are listed. I never realized this was such a hot topic.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

IMHO anything used to drive the price or sale of puppies is something that should be officially tracked by the AKC, since after all, they are charged with tracking pedigrees and looking after the health of the breed as a whole.

I'm not saying every last little attribute a breeder will mention in an add should be part of the AKC record system, but things like making the derby list or becoming QAA seem to be recognizable milestones that represent value to puppy buyers. 

I personally think those things should be easy for the average person to see in the official AKC pedigree.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

I remembered this reading the erosion of FT clubs thread.


----------



## Roger Perry (Nov 6, 2003)

It sure would be nice for the novice to be recognized in achieving some level short of a FC or AFC. Also would make it easier for the secretaries and clubs to know who is eligeble to run the limited open.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

subroc said:


> I voted No!!
> 
> I guess the question is: Why?
> 
> ...


I also voted "No". When titles were few, it meant more to own a "titled" dog. Just an old timer's view, I suppose. 

Evan


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Evan said:


> I also voted "No". When titles were few, it meant more to own a "titled" dog. Just an old timer's view, I suppose.
> 
> Evan


 
Evan,
Would you go along if it took a Win and ten additional points?

john


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

John,

I like the way you're thinking. My posted opinion was based on qualification as it now stands. I would have to give it some further thought, but it would be more meaningful if such a title were earned via higher standards like a championship points standard.

We're just so overloaded with titles in the retriever sports right now that I'm a little numb to it. I didn't stay on the circuit long enough to FC or AFC a dog, but made quite a few QAA. I never felt I had distinguished those dogs or myself as a trainer nearly to the level that champions do. 

Ultimately, I just feel a title should designate a champion, and a champion should win his way to said title against top competition. If Q's had points, I think it might be worthy of a serious look.

Good thought, John.

Evan


----------



## Pat Puwal (Dec 22, 2004)

Hmm, the AKC has been dangling the promise of a QAA title for over 30 years and the Master National Hunter title for at least 10 years. Don't expect it will ever happen.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

If JH, SH and MH are titles to most people, then why not QAA as it stands now? Seems like it's a lot harder to make than an MH.

I don't think that people who know the games would ever think FC, AFC and QAA were the same accomplishment but people would know that the dog had some field accomplishment.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Howard N said:


> If JH, SH and MH are titles to most people, then why not QAA as it stands now? Seems like it's a lot harder to make than an MH.
> 
> I don't think that people who know the games would ever think FC, AFC and QAA were the same accomplishment but people would know that the dog had some field accomplishment.


You should have a discussion with TJ Lindbroom about what it takes to get a MH title vs QAA title. I always get a kick out of it....

/Paul


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Evan said:


> ...
> We're just so overloaded with titles in the retriever sports right now that I'm a little numb to it. I didn't stay on the circuit long enough to FC or AFC a dog, but made quite a few QAA. I never felt I had distinguished those dogs or myself as a trainer nearly to the level that champions do.
> ...
> Evan


If you think the retriever sports are overloaded with titles, I'd hate to hear what you think about the other breeds; for example coonhound, beagles, pointing breeds, and (my favorite) dachshunds; especially considering that these breeds have extremely smaller numbers registered by AKC and the entries to their trials are also significantly less than retriever trials. Dachshunds had 88 FCs in 2007 compared to 80 for all retrievers. Granted Dachshunds were ranked 7th in AKC registration, but Labs were ranked 1st and Goldens were ranked 3rd! Also note, Dachshunds had a total 2007 field trial entry of 4474 dogs in a total of 65 trials for an average entry of 69 dogs/trial compared to retrievers with a total entry of 39385 dogs in 268 trials or an average of 147 dogs per trial.


T. Mac


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

I think the _other breeds_ issue misses the point. Howard is more in line with the point of this. I absolutely agree that training and handling a QAA dog is a greater achievement than a hunt test title, simply by virtue of a Qualifying dog having to win or take second to earn that distinction. 

I do, however think if _QAA_ is to become an officially recognized title that John's suggestion would give it more weight. The reason why I see it that way is two-fold. 

Of course the owner of a dog in field trials is always eager for their dog to win and place often. But one of the reasons why titles are important is breeding purposes. I don't ever buy or recommend a litter without parents (or at least one parent) bearing anything less than an FC and/or AFC. 

Because I also think that too many people already participate in less than selective breeding that they do far less to promote and maintain the higher qualities in the retriever breeds. In short, this is going to spur another demographic toward breeding more animals with less accomplishment because they have "titles".

I got into retriever training in the mid 1970's, and did some trialing for a while at local trials. I did enough study to learn fast that a titled dog was a rarity, and for the right reasons. The only titles for field performance were FC, AFC or a national title, and those titles really distinguished a dog as having a high level of talent and trainability.

If we continue to water down the distinction and weight of a performance title, it blurs the line of distinction for those who aren't "people who know the games", but who eagerly breed dogs that have not distinguished themselves against the best - thereby preserving the better traits, as best a selective breeder can.

Old poop regards...

Evan


----------



## Warren Flynt (Nov 14, 2007)

subroc said:


> I guess I am in the minority on this but how does an eligibility to compete warrant a title? If I am understanding what the poll is asking and reading the rules correctly any dog that met the above criteria would receive a QAA Title automatically. That title would make the dog eligible to compete in the Open All-Age. It seems to me that this is tantamount to giving golfers that make the Friday cut a title.
> 
> If I understand what the ?Q? is, it is used qualify dogs to run in one of the above stakes and not meant to be an end in itself.
> 
> ...


Yes. You do have it wrong IMHO. It is in no way equal to a golfer making the cut; more equivalent to a golfer getting his tour card. Which is sort of a big thing on the PGA. Just as a dog IMHO getting qualified.



To me, it gives the average guy (and a good dog) a better opportunity to get _recognition_, in the ft game.


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

I voted no, It's a Qualifying event pure and simple. A concept concieved so the meat dog people would not waste the judges time in all age stakes.


----------



## JamesTannery (Jul 29, 2006)

I voted no. Why change it after all this time. 

About the comparison of Master and Qualifying dogs...I've seen Qual dogs come to Master Tests and do poorly...I realize Qual dogs are competing against other dogs(at least 12), but that doesn't always mean the competition was that tough. Just about any dog can have their day depending on the circumstances, at hunt tests you better do well every test or you won't pass.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, IMO there is not much difference between a Master dog and a Qual dog.
________
Honda Ape specifications


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

greg magee said:


> I voted no, It's a Qualifying event pure and simple. A concept concieved so the meat dog people would not waste the judges time in all age stakes.


With that kind of attitude is it any wonder the FT clubs are having problems!!!

I have yet to meet a dog that cared about the titles. ;-)



JamesTannery said:


> I voted no. Why change it after all this time.
> 
> About the comparison of Master and Qualifying dogs...I've seen Qual dogs come to Master Tests and do poorly...I realize Qual dogs are competing against other dogs(at least 12), but that doesn't always mean the competition was that tough. Just about any dog can have their day depending on the circumstances, at hunt tests you better do well every test or you won't pass.
> 
> I guess what I'm trying to say is, IMO there is not much difference between a Master dog and a Qual dog.


In the 5 All-age trials my MH dogs ran against Lean Mac, he never got out of the 1st series and my MH dogs got to the last series of 4 and water blind of the other. I guess by that logic. A MH dog is better than a 2x NAFC 2xCNAFC.  

So how many QAA dogs do you have?


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

greg magee said:


> I voted no, It's a Qualifying event pure and simple. A concept concieved so the meat dog people would not waste the judges time in all age stakes.


The Qualifying stake originated at the beginning of field trials to assure that championship points were awarded with competition of merit.

A specified number of "qualified all-age" dogs must be entered in the trial in order for championship points to be awarded in the major stakes.

This may not seem significant today with 90-dog Opens, with many of the entrants already titled, but in when field trials were first conceived there was a very specific reason for the Qualifying stake.


----------



## ReedCreek (Dec 30, 2007)

> I would also think that you would get a greater percentage of HTers moving to the FT avenue if there were such a title.


I agree with Shayne on this. Plus, I think it might begin to bring FT and HT a bit closer on what a Lab should look like; HT (and I am looking at a narrow group within the HT group - conformation) would need to take a long look at structure/weight to accomplish the task at hand.
________
MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Doug Main said:


> With that kind of attitude is it any wonder the FT clubs are having problems!!!
> 
> I'm paraphrasing from the James Lamb free book" How to Train Your Retriever"
> It's not really my attitude. But it really is only a proving ground and in my opinion should remain that way. I personally don't think we shouldn't make anymore of it than what it really is, and what it was designed for.


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> The Qualifying stake originated at the beginning of field trials to assure that championship points were awarded with competition of merit.
> .



Yea, thats what I said, but you said it with a little more refinement.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

It is easy to tell who answers the poll question without reading the various arguments for both sides. :roll:

"My mind is already made up, don't confuse me with the facts." :roll:


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

JamesTannery said:


> I voted no. Why change it after all this time.
> 
> About the comparison of Master and Qualifying dogs...I've seen Qual dogs come to Master Tests and do poorly...I realize Qual dogs are competing against other dogs(at least 12), but that doesn't always mean the competition was that tough. Just about any dog can have their day depending on the circumstances, at hunt tests you better do well every test or you won't pass.
> 
> I guess what I'm trying to say is, IMO there is not much difference between a Master dog and a Qual dog.


I think pretty much the opposite of you James. The dogs that are placing in the Q's are usually finishing the master near the top of the standard. The qualified dog has gotten a 1st or 2nd in a Q (or jamed or placed in an aa stake). They've had a good day in front of judges and have proven to be at the top of a field of dogs at least for one day. I think it's much easier to scrape out 5 passes in MH than it is to finish a Q in 1st or 2nd. You can be middle of the pack in a MH and pass but it would only get you a greenie at best, in a Q.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Evan said:


> ...
> I do, however think if _QAA_ is to become an officially recognized title that John's suggestion would give it more weight. The reason why I see it that way is two-fold.
> 
> Of course the owner of a dog in field trials is always eager for their dog to win and place often. But one of the reasons why titles are important is breeding purposes. I don't ever buy or recommend a litter without parents (or at least one parent) bearing anything less than an FC and/or AFC.
> ...


Evan,

The question becomes at what level and to what degree a dog distinguises themselves in order to become worthy of breeding. And that is one of the reasons that titles and titles alone is not the answer. If you look back to your first introduction to FTs in the 70's, how many dogs were running in the Open? Depending on your location, my guess is that it wouldn't have been more than 40. And what did the tests look like? Probably pretty close to what the qual looks like today. Any title that AKC awards is purely arbitrary in its origin. The number of points needed, the number of points earned per event, the number of dogs in competition, the style and type of judging, etc. From the bench CH to the FC, AKC's rules as to what makes a champion is arbitrary and somewhat designed to maintain an equal number of titled dogs each year. This can be done by altering the number of points required for the title, or the number of points earned per placement. This is best seen in the bench shows where AKC annually revises the points schedule for placement to balance the number of points available each year. I am not that up on FT history, but seem to remember that the points schedule has also been altered a few times in previous years although not near the frequency that the shoe points are altered. 

As is, QAA is already an unofficial title. It is a recognized achievement by AKC, who mandate that FTs must have a set number of QAA dogs in competition in order to award points. If you look at EE or an many pedigrees you will see notations for QAA dogs, either the *** or QAA designation. So in this way, the QAA title is very similar to what the NFC and NAFC titles were several years ago before AKC adopted them. 

The significance of having a title to recognize QAA status merely formalizes what is there but also makes the sport more appealing to the fresh blood amatures. As is, if you give a newcomer a FC x FC 8 week old puppy, the probability of them earning a field title on that pup without the use of a pro is nearly zero, not to mention the time and cash required to get to the AA level. Yes, they might get enthusiastically involved for several years, however slowly but surely they will become very jaded as they realize that the likelyhood of their getting a title is very slim. And that no matter how hard they work, even getting to the AA level, they will not have any title to show for it. Most realizing this will drop out or move back to the HT game where their work will be recognized. And the FT game is left with its declining club memberships and growing involvement by the pros. 

As to the notion that somehow the lack of a field title is going to prevent someone from breeding their dog is mind boggling. Please take the time some day and find a copy of AKC's Stud Book. This is a publication that AKC used to produce on a monthly basis that listed the first time a dog was bred. For Labs, the listings each month numbered in the thousands. And if they are like my breed, at best only 10% had any title at all. And if you are lucky, maybe 15% had any health clearances. So obviously lack of titles does not preclude a dog from being bred. At best, titles parents give an indication of the potential of the pups. However, not all pups of a FC x FC litter will go on the title. And in some (many) cases, none of the pups may title. Titles are just an indication of abilty of the title owner. Obviously a NFC is a very accomplished dog, as that title indicates that the dog has done some amazing work. Likewise a FC titled dog has performed admirably in several trials. All a title recognizes is the achievement the animal has made. It does not gurantee anything beyound that, whether it be a good producer of pups, or the ability to continue to compete at that or any other level. 

A QAA title gives a least tacit acknowledgement to the dog who meets the requirements for that title. One could argue that the requirements for QAA status could be raised, but doing so would effect the potential for several breed clubs from holding specialties, and clubs in certain locales where QAA dogs are limited (AK) from holding trials. Beyoud that what does the awarding of a QAA title cost? As AKC presumably already keeps track of them, the only cost would be the mailing out of the paper certificate and the listing and addition of the number of titles awarded in the Events catalogue and annual statistics. No new rules, no new venues, no new judging requirements, it is probably the cheapest new title AKC could offer. And it would serve several functions in drawinf new blood to FTs and giving the MH dog something else that it can compete for after the MH without the crushing realization of what is required to earn a FC/AFC. 

T. Mac


----------



## MC Boulais (Feb 22, 2005)

I realize I am jumping into this fray a little late but how about this: in order for a dog to acquire the QAA title they must WIN, say three qualifyings. Most people, I think, would jump up and run the am or open but the title would be there for those that wanted to pursue it.


----------



## Chris Miller (Dec 16, 2005)

ReedCreek said:


> I agree with Shayne on this. Plus, I think it might begin to bring FT and HT a bit closer on what a Lab should look like; HT (and I am looking at a narrow group within the HT group - conformation) would need to take a long look at structure/weight to accomplish the task at hand.


Doubt it the conformation dogs are only at a hunt test for the JH.


----------



## Engine2Josh (Mar 17, 2006)

I say yes. Having a dog that competes at this level is an accomplishment and should be recognized.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

MC Boulais said:


> I realize I am jumping into this fray a little late but how about this: in order for a dog to acquire the QAA title they must WIN, say three qualifying. Most people, I think, would jump up and run the am or open but the title would be there for those that wanted to pursue it.


If there were a "hard row to hoe" to get a QAA title, and the clubs also exercised their two OH option.........It would not take long 'till the Limited/Special/Restricted would have a meaningful impact on the Open numbers

Absentee owner problem solved regards

john


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

T. Mac said:


> Evan,
> 
> The question becomes at what level and to what degree a dog distinguises themselves in order to become worthy of breeding. And that is one of the reasons that titles and titles alone is not the answer. If you look back to your first introduction to FTs in the 70's, how many dogs were running in the Open? Depending on your location, my guess is that it wouldn't have been more than 40.


If someone feels a dog is backed up by a strong pedigree, and a noteworthy record of achievement at a high enough level to conduct a breeding with another worthy candidate, it may be worthy of an experiment. If it pans out by virtue of those pups whinning big, it's worthy of a repeat - at least for some breeders. It's a gamble in all breedings, and I'm too old to gamble with the investment of time, money, and hard work on any breeding that doesn't narrow the odds against success by virtue of not only titled parents, but some track record of either previous matings of the two, but other factors. I'm not so new at this that merely having some titles present make me jump at a pup.

At the trials in our area, KCRC, Topeka, Jayhawk, Misssissippi Valley, etc, they run pretty much constant at about 70-100 in the Open. I don't ever recall one of KC or St.Louis being fewer that 65, although there may have been.


T. Mac said:


> And what did the tests look like? Probably pretty close to what the qual looks like today.


I know it's popular fodder for disussion to pretend that yesterday's Open tests are today's Q's, but I don't think that holds water across the board. Some of today's Q's rival even some of today's Open or Am tests, and probably more of those in the 70's. But don't kid yourself. Those dogs ran tough marks and blinds. It's gotten harder as time has gone on, and for good reason. But I think it's a stretch to really assert equity between them overall.


T. Mac said:


> Any title that AKC awards is purely arbitrary in its origin. The number of points needed, the number of points earned per event, the number of dogs in competition, the style and type of judging, etc.


Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion about that. If FC's were awarded for a single lucky placement on a single weekend, or if all of the points earned by a dog came by running under the same set of judges time after time, I could by a more abitrary nature to such titles. But it doesn't work like that. And we're straying from the question about QAA becoming a title, and the initial assumption (I believe) is that it would be given on current rationale of a 1st or 2nd. No FC's or AFC's have been awared on that basis.


T. Mac said:


> I am not that up on FT history, but seem to remember that the points schedule has also been altered a few times in previous years although not near the frequency that the shoe points are altered.


I'm familiar with a fair amount of FT history, at least from the late 1960's on, and better acquainted with the point assignments from the early 1970's when I began to attend. They are the same as today, and I only know one way to earn them; win & place...and keep doing it.


T. Mac said:


> And it would serve several functions in drawinf new blood to FTs and giving the MH dog something else that it can compete for after the MH without the crushing realization of what is required to earn a FC/AFC.
> 
> T. Mac


It's easy to see your level of interest, but you're making an awful lot of assumptions that I just don't think hold water. If you need a title to keep going in the competetive game, you probably won't stick with it. It's always been that way, that's why there is such a great distinction in earning a real title. 

I went at it with a truck load of almost entirely Derby dogs for about 3 1/2 years, and made numerous derby list dogs. Nearly all my derby dogs became QAA either while still in the derby or shortly after derby-ing out. I ran a handful of others in all-age stakes...good dogs, at least 4 of which did end up titling later on. I placed several times, but no wins personally. Close was not good enough. There was no such thing as "good enough" being good enough. Only the best will do in that arena, and I have only the highest respect for that kind of achievement. It seems many of us seek to make the attaining of a field trial title cheaper so more also-ran competitors will stick with it. I would prefer to maintain the distinction of existing titles.

There is no such thing as a dog being "good enough" to be as good as all the other dogs that ran on a few weekends, and ending up with an FC or AFC. They had to be a bird or two away from winning several times, and at least once they were the best of the best...better than any other dog at that event. If you think they accumulate the points & a win needed for one of those titles by accident you _really_ need to go pursue it.

*** has never had any meaning to me on any pedigree. Even in 2009, one of the most recognizeable faces in all the world is Mohammed Ali. That isn't because he sparred well. He won, and won, and won, and became a true champion. Titles _should_ be _won_. A champion should be a champion by virtue of winning.

Yeah, I know...I'm old fashioned!

Evan


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Evan said:


> I went at it with a truck load of almost entirely Derby dogs for about 3 1/2 years, and made numerous derby list dogs. Nearly all my derby dogs became QAA either while still in the derby or shortly after derby-ing out. I ran a handful of others in all-age stakes...good dogs, at least 4 of which did end up titling later on. I placed several times, but no wins personally. Close was not good enough. There was no such thing as "good enough" being good enough. Only the best will do in that arena, and I have only the highest respect for that kind of achievement. It seems many of us seek to make the attaining of a field trial title cheaper so more also-ran competitors will stick with it. I would prefer to maintain the distinction of existing titles.


How long ago was that?

When I first started running FTs about 10 years ago. My MH dogs were consistently finishing quals and Amateurs. 

I don't think you can do that today. IMO It is significantly more difficult. 

Now, I don't buy the argument that recognizing a QAA would somehow cheapen a real title. I've got news for you. The only people that undersand what it talks to acheive a real title are those that have put the work into doing it. 

They already have JH, SH and MH. 

Everyone thinks of the minimum that it takes to make QAA.

I know a dog that doesn't have any titles. She has an Amateur Win, 2-2nds and something like 10 all-age JAMs. Don't ya think that is at least as good as a lowly JH. ;-)


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> I know a dog that doesn't have any titles. She has an Amateur Win, 2-2nds and something like 10 all-age JAMs. *Don't ya think that is at least as good as a lowly JH.* :wink:


Bold added by me.

Ya know, that to some people's mind,,,,, she isn't. And that's a shame.

Hope she get's 4 more points regards,


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Howard N said:


> Bold added by me.
> 
> Ya know, that to some people's mind,,,,, she isn't. And that's a shame.
> 
> Hope she get's 4 more points regards,


Ya you got it!!!

Thanks, I hope she gets those 4 points too. ;-) She's still young, but ya never know. They can have a career ending injury any time.


----------



## torg (Feb 21, 2005)

Yes, yes, yes. A stepping stone from hunt tests to field trials.


----------



## JamesTannery (Jul 29, 2006)

Howard N said:


> I think pretty much the opposite of you James. The dogs that are placing in the Q's are usually finishing the master near the top of the standard. The qualified dog has gotten a 1st or 2nd in a Q (or jamed or placed in an aa stake). They've had a good day in front of judges and have proven to be at the top of a field of dogs at least for one day. I think it's much easier to scrape out 5 passes in MH than it is to finish a Q in 1st or 2nd. You can be middle of the pack in a MH and pass but it would only get you a greenie at best, in a Q.


Maybe a greenie THAT day but could be blue or red the next time, as I said before, every dog has his/her day.
________
vapir air one vaporizer


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Evan said:


> . If you need a title to keep going in the competetive game, you probably won't stick with it.
> Evan


I couldn't agree more with Evan. There is enough muddy water out there. I don't think offering the enticement of another title or designation is going to attract the type of people who are in it for the long haul. They will get disappointed that their Q.A.A. champion, Master National Champion, Jh champion, Hunting retriever champion, Srs champion, National Pheasant Champion, ect....... won't be able to hang with the dog that has 5 hard earned all age points and not a single title in it's name. And if that’s the type people we are trying to draw, our euphoria will be as short lived as a Hunting Retriever Champion’s time in the Open


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

greg magee said:


> I couldn't agree more with Evan. There is enough muddy water out there. I don't think offering the enticement of another title or designation is going to attract the type of people who are in it for the long haul.


I think we make an error in referring to the QAA status as a "title". It is already a "designation" that the AKC assigns to a dog who has attained a certain level of achievement. It is an intrinsic part of the field trial rule book, i.e. you must have a specified number of QAA dogs competing in a major stake to allow the stake to carry championship points. While this may no longer have great significance in today's FT environment, it remains in the rule book. Thus, the AKC is duty bound to keep track of dogs who attain the QAA status.

Historically, the *** notation came from the first editor of the Golden Retriever Club of America Yearbook. Each year the GRCA records all the titles earned by Golden Retrievers during that year. The information is verified through AKC records. WRT Goldens the *** is used to indicate not just the dog who has won just one Qual, but also dogs who have JAM'd or had any placement in major stakes. That also includes the dogs who might have been just the "win" short of finishing an FC or AFC. 

The *** was a "heads up" to, perhaps, look further into that dog's field career. With relatively few Goldens competing in FTs (compared to conformation), for those breeders who wished to retain field capabilities, it was a convenient "shorthand" for noting dogs who performed at a more advanced level in the field. Perhaps the fellow who came up with the *** knew that he should stay away from anything that resembled an AKC title, and that was why he didn't use "QAA." (We also use ** for lics Derby achievement or lesser placements in Qual; * was originally used to indicate GRCA Working Certificate, but after the WCX was added the * notation went out of use). 

Years ago my good friend, training partner and Lab owner , remarked that she and some of her Lab friends wished that Lab people used the *** notation so that QAA dogs could easily be recognized. (Seems like now they do, as I see that QAA and *** are being used interchangeably on this thread). 

In Labs you have MANY good field achievers to choose from. There may be some extenuating circumstances why some other very good dogs do not get their FC or AFC title, i.e. injury, accidental death, owner's lack of funds to continue, etc. 

Even if not breeding that dog (or to that dog), it can be useful to know that it was related to other dogs that had other similar or higher achievements. If this QAA dog had 7 FT points, and was also part of a litter with other similar QAA dogs and maybe one or two titled siblings, that gene combo would get my attention. This can become even more useful if you're evaluating a pedigree for a prospective mating 10 or 15 years later. Vertical pedigrees play an important part in assessments, and after several years our memories can begin to fail us (I speak from experience on the latter!)

It's really not about having such a notation called a "title" of any sort. It is about gathering information to make more informed breeding decisions

By AKC putting such a notation on AKC pedigrees, and on their website, it can provide "information". As mentioned by someone else, if this piece of information is something that we use among ourselves as a measure of a level of competence, why can it not be acknowledged in a more formal way? 

How can this information be used? In researching a pedigree, for example, if a dog received two 2nds in AAA stakes, and 7 JAMS, that dog might be of some worth. When you pull the dog's name up on the AKC website there would be nothing shown except the dog's name (or on an AKC pedigree). You would have to take the next step to see the dog's achievement record to see that he had some AAA points. Most people wouldn't go that extra step unless they had some special interest in that particular dog. If there was some notation about the dog's QAA status with the dog's name, it would be a "heads up" to pursue the research to the next step.

In announcing the breeding of a bitch that is 2-1/2 yrs old and is also QAA, that is worth paying attention to, as well. How do we know? Because people mention it all the time  It may be a few years before that bitch titles, but it's worth noting that she has already shown promise for higher achievement.

There may be others who are after a "title" of some sort, but I would simply view notating QAA status as a breeder's tool in researching pedigrees. It would simply be an acknowledgment of a level of achievement that the AKC already recognizes. No question that it would be more useful to minority breeds where FCs and AFCs are far less numerous than they are in Labs. 

It is also possible that this acknowledgment might provide some encouragement to newcomers to progress further. That's not, in and of itself, a bad thing for the sport.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I think its to bad they don't recognize the QAA title. I also think that like other proposals that have fallen on def ears have done as much to discourage new comers and the ability t keep newbies. I say newbies like people that have been around 10 years or so. If a dog gets a win in a Q than the next logical step would be the AM or open. Sorry to say but the reasons given to not have a QAA title are pretty short sited. This is just one more reason for Lanses thread. To say that folks cant tell the difference between QAA and AFC is insulting at best. 

The definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> How long ago was that?
> 
> When I first started running FTs about 10 years ago. My MH dogs were consistently finishing quals and Amateurs. I don't think you can do that today. IMO It is significantly more difficult.


I agree, and previously mentioned, that many of today's tests are progressively harder as the years go by. But in making the assessment that an MH today finishing Quals & Ams cannot be done would depend on which MH you're referring to. I first met Larry Calvert (owner of *FC AFC CFC CAFC Jazztime MHR*)at a hunt test. It doesn't happen often that someone goes that far into both sports with an FC quality dog. But it's happened.


Doug Main said:


> Now, I don't buy the argument that recognizing a QAA would somehow cheapen a real title. I've got news for you. The only people that undersand what it talks to acheive a real title are those that have put the work into doing it.


And what makes you think that's news? Why would it be?


Doug Main said:


> I know a dog that doesn't have any titles. She has an Amateur Win, 2-2nds and something like 10 all-age JAMs. Don't ya think that is at least as good as a lowly JH. ;-)


Did you know Bing Grunwald? (owner of many FC-AFC's + NFC Butte's Blue Moon)

One of Bing's last dogs was a dog named Orville Redenbacher (Kernel). As best I can recall, Kernel had over 40 All Age points, and died without titling because he never got a win. Lots of seconds, but no win. Do you actually think I didn't believe he was a great dog? Is all you can see in my statements the perception that a title is everything?

On the other hand, don't you think Bing wished fervently that Kernel had gotten that win? He knew of the distinction in those titles as well as anyone who has ever played the game. Bing and Brownie were royalty in the sport.

We retired one of our client's dogs that had two Amatuer wins, but broke a leg in such a way that it could never heal properly in order to allow her to run any more trials. She had 19 derby points, and won a junior double header in MN (won the derby and Q at the same trial). We knew and respected what she was. Things like that happen.

But too many CD/CDXer's huddle around hunt tests and plot the breeding futures of animals that just finished a JH...barely. Too much of that. Just too many "titles" for my taste. I'll live with whatever happens, but my opinion is that the shine has already been dimmed in the phrase "My dog is titled". I hope for the best that can happen in the future of the dogs, and that we never arrive at a point when it's hard to tell what the best is anymore.

Evan


----------



## KLC (Dec 25, 2008)

I voted YES , in hunt test you have your JH, SH, MH. all great titles & people should be proud of them....

Field Trial you have Derby List, AFC & FC, it would not hurt to add the QAA.

May $.02


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Years ago my good friend, training partner and Lab owner :smile:, remarked that she and some of her Lab friends wished that Lab people used the *** notation so that QAA dogs could easily be recognized. (Seems like now they do, as I see that QAA and *** are being used interchangeably on this thread).


I do not believe that the LRC has adopted the stars in the same way the Goldens have where it is verified through AKC. Labrador people may use it as a universal designation of QAA but it would not be verified by the parent club.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

ErinsEdge said:


> I do not believe that the LRC has adopted the stars in the same way the Goldens have where it is verified through AKC. Labrador people may use it as a universal designation of QAA but it would not be verified by the parent club.


Nancy, I'd be 99.9% sure that the LRC hasn't adopted the "star" system, but it does seem that it is such a handy "shorthand" that more Lab people have become familiar with its use by Golden people.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> Nancy, I'd be 99.9% sure that the LRC hasn't adopted the "star" system, but it does seem that it is such a handy "shorthand" that more Lab people have become familiar with its use by Golden people.


I think they should, but then they are not real pro-field to begin with.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

LOL! Evan gave the same examples in his post that I used in favor of a QAA formal notation as I dreamed up generically ... a broken leg, and the talented dog who just couldn't get the "win" needed to finish the title.

I don't favor calling QAA status a "title", but rather some formal pedigree notation of a status the AKC _already_ acknowledges as a specific level of achievement, albeit a bit "secretly". 

The only difference is that I'd like to preserve, in some formal way, the information about the dogs Evan mentioned so that it could inform other people in the future.

I would also totally agree with everyone who says that there are some MH dogs who might be able to "graduate" to compete respectably in Qual or major stakes, and there are others who could not do this.

I would also totally agree that anyone who runs even a few FTs would never confuse a QAA "notation" with fully titling as an FC or AFC.

Interestingly, I hadn't even thought of the fact that there could be many dogs who reach QAA today that had to out-perform FCs and AFCs of many years ago. But I would have to agree with that as well (presuming, of course, that it wasn't just one lucky day & I could gather more information on the dog's career). 

None of us even mentioned trainer/handler ineptitude. I can recall a certain dog of years ago where very FT savvy people said of the dog, "He would have been an AFC if his owner wasn't so impossibly poor at it."

I wouldn't totally discount the


> CD/CDXer's huddle around hunt tests and plot the breeding futures of animals that just finished a JH...barely.


 Everybody has to start somewhere. Not all of them will persevere; maybe only 1 of 100 (or less!), but at least there will be one more. And none of the retriever breeds will be worse off for the owners improving the field capability of their breeding programs inch by inch.

When hunt tests started a lot (if not all) of the judges came from FT background. Others maybe from hunting background? Today hunt tests "feed" the FT game in many ways. Shooters, workers, dogs moving up into FT from advanced HT work; and for some clubs the HT they offer helps offset losses from the FTs they host. Even some FT judges today originally entered the "game" through HTs. Not to mention the common love of the retriever breeds & respect for their remarkable talents; being responsible dog owners; appreciating the value of a trained retriever; preserving the breeds' field capabilities and good health. There is a lot more in common than at odds, I think, between the two groups.


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

I think it would be sweet to put those letters on my dog's name. Makes it look fancy!


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> ...I don't favor calling QAA status a "title", but rather some formal pedigree notation of a status the AKC _already_ acknowledges as a specific level of achievement, albeit a bit "secretly"...


Since it's not a title, that's a good thought. It's a "qualification" which if recognized by the LRC/AKC should be noted behind the name. Either by stars or "QAA". But LRC/AKC would just be confirming what already happens in practice. Since anyone who breeds a QAA dog uses the term to signify the dog's achievements.



Gerry Clinchy said:


> ...The only difference is that I'd like to preserve, in some formal way, the information about the dogs Evan mentioned so that it could inform other people in the future...


This is probably the rub. It would require additional record keeping which means labor/money. LRC/AKC & the nat'l clubs would have to find a way to cover costs on the record keeping before it would be approved. So unless they can find a way to charge for the record keeping it won't get done. Of course an alternative is to look on EE, where results are kept & available instantly over the internet.




Gerry Clinchy said:


> ...I would also totally agree with everyone who says that there are some MH dogs who might be able to "graduate" to compete respectably in Qual or major stakes, and there are others who could not do this...


 
IMO, the more successful path is to recognize the dog's talent at a younger age before he has done any advanced HT training. Then begin training longer distances for marks on recognized concepts with white coats - and much longer blind concepts/patterns w/poison birds etc beginning when the dog is just out of force work & between 12-18 mos old. There are many field trialers who use this path who have still run junior tests with their young dogs (under 12 months) to have fun & also get an early idea of the dog's attitude & personality under "trial" conditions before they begin derbies.

The problem with going down the HT route achieving a MH then transitioning to FTs is that the early imprinting of distance is much harder to attain. Many, otherwise talented, dogs are very difficult to transition to running much longer distances with their heads up, running long retired birds, running past a short standout, running long blinds without putting their noses on the ground at the 100 yd mark, etc. I have such a talented dog that has been very difficult to transition. She had her MH at 18 mos, we won a Q at 24 mos but she was far from being ready or able to succeed at AA levels (notwithstanding the Q win). Even now at 3 1/2 she still has difficulty with long retired guns. But I think had she been trained from 12 mos as a FT dog she would already be well equipped to succeed at AA levels. Interestingly, I have other less talented dogs of the same or younger age trained for FTs from the beginning who have had little difficulty with distance & long retried guns, long blinds etc.

My point is I believe that good training departure takes place at approx 12-18 mos of age. At that point even good trainers begin to train on concepts specific to the games they play. At that point is when the decision should be made to provide the best opportunity for success.



Gerry Clinchy said:


> Interestingly, I hadn't even thought of the fact that there could be many dogs who reach QAA today that had to out-perform FCs and AFCs of many years ago. But I would have to agree with that as well (presuming, of course, that it wasn't just one lucky day & I could gather more information on the dog's career)....


I judged a Q this past weekend where the longest bird was under 200 yds in a triple set-up. In discussing this with some who noted the "short distances", we all agreed even with the short distance that the set-up was on par with an open set-up of the late 60s. The FT game has changed dramatically over the last 40 yrs.

So I'm OK with noting the QAA status officially but it is a qualification not a title, IMO.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> So I'm OK with noting the QAA status officially but it is a qualification not a title, IMO.


Point well made, David. And I agree.

This conversation reminds me of a comment often repeated in galleries, weekend after weekend at trials where the judges have constructed an especially stiff first series. Someone always says "This looks like an Open", or something along those lines.

Then someone else will say, "Well, if you win a couple of these, you'll have to compete at that level anyway". My consistent response to that was "If I felt my Q dogs were _really_ ready to compete at that level I'd be down the road doing it for points". It's not the same thing, and it need not be. It's a qualification.

Evan


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

*Granddaddy *wrote:


> This is probably the rub. It would require additional record keeping which means labor/money.


The AKC is already duty-bound to keep these records because of QAA being a requirement for championship stakes. Perhaps a bit of code-writing needed to get the info onto their pedigree forms?

*Granddaddy *wrote:


> But LRC/AKC would just be confirming what already happens in practice. Since anyone who breeds a QAA dog uses the term to signify the dog's achievements


The difference would be that by formalizing the "notation" officially the information would remain available ad infinitum. Long after the ads and litter listings are "history", the "notation" would still appear on pedigrees. Unless the records are "public" (by AKC notation on the pedigree) this information is more easily lost over time.

In fact. the notation could simply be: "Qualified for All-Age Stakes" on the registration certificate where the date of entry in the stud book is noted.

Then it is up to the person who sees that notation to ask what that means (if they don't know). For those who do know what it means, it would be a helpful notation. 

*Granddaddy *wrote:


> My point is I believe that good training departure takes place at approx 12-18 mos of age. At that point even good trainers begin to train on concepts specific to the games they play. At that point is when the decision should be made to provide the best opportunity for success.


I do think that after one has reached the Master level once, they take a different approach to training their next dog, incorporating FT aspects as well as HT concepts. My sense is that training for FTs does not "hurt" the HT training, and can actually help. 

I would agree with Granddaddy that one can start incorporating concepts needed for FTs, like longer marks, at a relatively early age. This could give a trainer an idea of whether this particular dog has some of the abilities that will allow it to play both "games" in the future.

Back at the beginning of hunt tests, in our area, we all trained with FT people  Hunt tests were still too "young" to have established their own distinct groups for training (that would have been about 1985 or 1986). 

Many of the hunt test people who train their own dogs around here today still do train often with people who are in, or aspire to FT level dog work. The limitation of graduating out of MH to Qualifying, for these people, is the dog they have to work with  One friend has a young dog with two Qual 4ths and 2 MH legs. Love of the HT game will keep them pursuing the MH title, and after that spend more time with FTs. I also knew an AFC (Lab) who took up HTs later in his life and had a great time playing that game successfully (had no problem adjusting to the shorter marks and blinds).


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> ...The difference would be that by formalizing the "notation" officially the information would remain available ad infinitum. Long after the ads and litter listings are "history", the "notation" would still appear on pedigrees. Unless the records are "public" (by AKC notation on the pedigree) this information is more easily lost over time.
> 
> In fact. the notation could simply be: "Qualified for All-Age Stakes" on the registration certificate where the date of entry in the stud book is noted.
> 
> Then it is up to the person who sees that notation to ask what that means (if they don't know). For those who do know what it means, it would be a helpful notation. ...


Since it is not a title, nor considered a title, it won't happen. You might get a recognition of the qualification by a *** since the Golden community have pioneered that path.



Gerry Clinchy said:


> ...Many of the hunt test people who train their own dogs around here today still do train often with people who are in, or aspire to FT level dog work. The limitation of graduating out of MH to Qualifying, for these people, is the dog they have to work with  One friend has a young dog with two Qual 4ths and 2 MH legs. Love of the HT game will keep them pursuing the MH title, and after that spend more time with FTs. I also knew an AFC (Lab) who took up HTs later in his life and had a great time playing that game successfully (had no problem adjusting to the shorter marks and blinds).


I absolutely agree that a dog can transition from FT training to HTs smoothy. Usually the biggest issue is developing additional control at the line with an in-your-face mark, duck calls etc. IMO, it's the HT trained MH dog transitioning to FTs that is the more difficult path for the reasons I stated previously.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> I absolutely agree that a dog can transition from FT training to HTs smoothy. Usually the biggest issue is developing additional control at the line with an in-your-face mark, duck calls etc.


Looks like I'll test this theory this Summer.....

FOM


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

They have the QFTR (qualified field trial retriever) title in Canada and I personaly think that with the level of competition that we have in all FT stakes today it's worth a look! Not all dogs have what it takes to compete in AA stakes and this atleast gives those owners who do not wash out dogs the ability to play the game gain experience and have the dogs/owners have fun.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Since i posted this thread in 2003, the O/H friday start Qual and O/H Qual at hunt tests have become common place. Has this "watered down" the meaning of QAA?

There is significant difference between jamming an all-age stake and getting 2nd in a 9 dog Q at a hunt test - but both earn the QAA designation.

SM


----------



## Jim Danis (Aug 15, 2008)

My dog an I are going to try that transition this spring. We are going to go from MH to Quals and see how he does. Would I like to add QAA to his name. Sure. Ultimately though that is not the purpose. If we do achieve that designation great, however my goal is to see if my dog can compete in the trial games. To me it's a stepping stone to all age stakes. As a hunt test person it's also great experience for someone wanting to run trials and get a taste of what it really takes. Instead of having to jump completely into the fire I can tip toe around it a bit to get an idea about how hot the fire really is. I don't necessarily think that if QAA were and official title/designation that you would entice more of us MH owners into the trial games though. If your a competitive person your going to go there anyways. Whether it's with your present MH dog or a future dog you've specifically bought for that purpose. In that regards I agree with what Evan said earlier that if it's just the title your looking for you won't be there long anyways. 

I did vote yes by the way because I believe that it does show a specific level of achievement. Sure it isn't an FC or AFC but it does take a bit of talent to earn the QAA designation.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Evan said:


> If we continue to water down the distinction and weight of a performance title, it blurs the line of distinction for those who aren't "people who know the games", but who eagerly breed dogs that have not distinguished themselves against the best - thereby preserving the better traits, as best a selective breeder can.
> 
> Evan


I agree, FT's don't need more titles! Especially for a Q dog! Heck, we already have people making up titles for Derby dogs.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Extremely well-said, Evan!


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Evan, I've read all your recent posts on this and YOU GET IT!!!!! Vicky is right well said!!!!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> I agree, FT's don't need more titles!


me too




Fire N Ice said:


> Evan, I've read all your recent posts on this and YOU GET IT!!!!! Vicky is right well said!!!!


me too


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Mr Booty said:


> I agree, FT's don't need more titles! Especially for a Q dog!


While, as mentioned, Canada may have taken the QAA to the level of a "title", that is not necessarily what we're talking about here.

The AKC already recognizes QAA as a level of achievement required to award points in a championship stake. The AKC's own rules require that AKC keep a record of this. The issue here is that when a dog reaches that level of achievement there seems to be no public (permanent) record of it.

Since someone mentioned that a dog winning a 9-dog Q is not the same as a JAM in a major stake, I also find it interesting that AKC rules require a minimum number of entrants to hold a Derby (is it 12?), but cannot find the same requirement for a Qual. Open to being enlightened on this if I've missed it.

If there is no minimum entry requirement for a Qual, then I might be interested in learning why there isn't one.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> I also find it interesting that AKC rules require a minimum number of entrants to hold a Derby (is it 12?), but cannot find the same requirement for a Qual. Open to being enlightened on this if I've missed it.


There is no AKC rule regarding the number of entrants in either minor stake, 10 entries (starters) are required for derby points to count toward the National Derby Championship (Retriever News award, not AKC)


----------



## pafromga (Jul 16, 2006)

I voted yes.
I believe a dog that is Qualified for All Age competition has achieved a greater honor than a MH. (Not saying that a MH title is not a great achievement.)

Me and dumb old yeller dog will keep working toward his MH title however.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

As I said earlier; The mechanics of getting a QAA Title, if set up and used correctly, would in time be able to force the absentee owner into the field, where it could concevably take then a while to title the dog.
No title, no limited access stakes. In tme this would equate to smaller numbers.

Take this scenario; Make the OH Ams & Q's the norm and have the clubs lmit the use of the Open in favor of their other options.

The absentee owner would then have to something other than just write checks.

Best of both wordls regards
john


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

john fallon said:


> As I said earlier; The mechanics of getting a QAA Title, if set up and used correctly, would in time be able to force the absentee owner into the field, where it could concevably take then a while to title the dog.
> No title, no limited access stakes. In tme this would equate to smaller numbers.
> 
> Take this scenario; Make the OH Ams & Q's the norm and have the clubs lmit the use of the Open in favor of their other options.
> ...


John I read your post three or four times, I have to say one thing for you, I'm laughing, you are one funny guy!!!!


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

Well this has been an interesting read and a good slice of the HT/FT demographic also I guess? Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to be that you either have a more "elitest" attitude towards it (not completly in a bad way) , or a more encouraging, build the sport attitude towards the topic. I can only speak for myself and will preface by saying that I'm not a 15-20 year FT guy but a guy who fell in love with the sport 6 years ago at the age of 31 and started out in the HT program as many today do. I have been lucky enough to have placed multiple national level MH titles on my dogs, grand master hunter (CKC) titles, and placed dogs on the national derby list. In Canada we have a QFTR title (Qual) that you have to get 10 points and a win for the title, we also have a JFTR title for your -2 year old dogs in the junior FT/deby. I do not think that these qualifying titles diminsih, or effect the "championship" levels in anyway, but offer people starting out in the FT world (after the HT stakes) a more comfortable fit to gain some experinece before being thrown into the ring/pit. Not all dogs have AA ability and some may spend a good portion of thier competitive career in the qual trying to get that win and qualified. Does making it a title really effect the AA competitor and what he/she has worked for, I don't think so and think that the benifits to the sport and the people in that level. The arguement that yet another FT title will confuse or mislead potiential puppy buyers into thinking that they are "this or that" is crazy to me as anyone with a clue will have done thier homework. And realistically if we all had unlimited funds to buy and washout dogs, send them to pro's and compete exclusively in the AA that would be wonderful (for some), but that fact is that we do not and a quick look around a local FT will tell you that it's not a young mans sport, but one where you may come back to it later in life when you retire, or have the $$$ to play, that is if you had a positive experince when you were a young man/woman, ortherwise I guess you play golf?


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

The need to attract "new" people to FTs doesn't mean we see health for the sport and FT-giving clubs coming from simply a temporary influx of people simply seeking to obtain some new title that diminishes the spirit of the competition. We want to attract new participants who aspire to FC or AFC titles--which is the whole point of field trial competitions.

If all that is being sought is the readily attainable, why bother. For most dogs who aspire to run all-age, QAA status is attainable if you train hard enough and run enough trials. FC-AFC on the other hand is not that easy to obtain. Those are the FT titles and should remain that way. Quasi-competitive or simply non-competitive people should continue to run against standards. If the standards are too low--raise them and your level of competence will rise with them.


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

I'm all for the title.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Vicki Worthington said:


> The need to attract "new" people to FTs doesn't mean we see health for the sport and FT-giving clubs coming from simply a temporary influx of people simply seeking to obtain some new title that diminishes the spirit of the competition. We want to attract new participants who aspire to FC or AFC titles--which is the whole point of field trial competitions.


If it were a title, don't you think some of the folks who got into it just for the QAA would stick around and try to get that FC/AFC? I know it isn't exactly the same thing, but a number of those folks who start field training just to add a JH to the pedigree do get bitten by the bug.

I don't think you necessarily need a title, since most folks know what QAA or *** means, but I think it is a nice goal for someone new to FTs, precisely because it is attainable. If I am a HT person who trains with some FT folks and has a young dog who shows promise, I might run a derby or a qual to see what happens with a goal of making the dog QAA. If things go well, we may commit to FC/AFC as the goal, but that is a big bite the first time you put on the white coat. I can't see how this would cheapen the sport. We may fail, we may make the dog QAA and not be able to do much more or we may like it so much we jump right in.

A QAA dog is what it is. If I am looking at a pedigree, it is helpful information to have (whether an actual title or not). If I had a dog that was QAA, I would be proud of that and suspect some of my dog game friends would as well, but I also wouldn't go bragging about it to hardcore FT folks--they pick on me and make me cry enough already.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> If all that is being sought is the readily attainable, why bother. For most dogs who aspire to run all-age, QAA status is attainable if you train hard enough and run enough trials. FC-AFC on the other hand is not that easy to obtain. Those are the FT titles and should remain that way. Quasi-competitive or simply non-competitive people should continue to run against standards. If the standards are too low--raise them and your level of competence will rise with them.


It may not make any difference to those already heavily favoring a QAA title, but an analogy came to mind that this reminds me of. As a young soldier stationed in South Korea, I studied Tae Kwon Do. As my tour drew to a close, my instructors, who had become good friends, offered to move up my testing for black belt. They knew I had worked hard toward that goal.

I responded, "I'm not good enough to be a black belt yet. Every day I've seen how good you are and I recognize how long you worked for that rank. I don't ever want to cheapen what it means to be a black belt, so I'll keep working on it when I get home".

Same-o, same-o.

Evan


----------



## Jim Danis (Aug 15, 2008)

In response to your Black Belt analogy Evan, as you know there are many belts along the way to Black Belt. You are awarded those belts based on your proficiency at that level. Those various belts do not lessen in anyway the accomplishment or prestige of being a black belt. I would think that a QAA title would be the same way. It's a signification of a level of achievement.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Posted by Waterdog:



> It's a signification of a level of achievement


And therein lies the rub! To *Field Trial competitors* it IS NOT a significant achievement--it is a tickmark that is necessary to run Limited and Special All-age stakes. Nothing more, nothing less. 

Every milestone in life (or in competitions) doesn't result in another set of initials to put either before or after ones name!


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> The need to attract "new" people to FTs doesn't mean we see health for the sport and FT-giving clubs coming from simply a temporary influx of people simply seeking to obtain some new title that diminishes the spirit of the competition. *We want to attract new participants who aspire to FC or AFC titles--which is the whole point of field trial competitions.*
> *
> If all that is being sought is the readily attainable, why bother*. For most dogs who aspire to run all-age, QAA status is attainable if you train hard enough and run enough trials. FC-AFC on the other hand is not that easy to obtain. Those are the FT titles and should remain that way. Quasi-competitive or simply non-competitive people should continue to run against standards. If the standards are too low--raise them and your level of competence will rise with them.


Obviously, there are a whole bunch of people perusing readily attainable HT titles. ;-) 

Of course the flip side is, as the FC and AFC are so difficult, why bother?

There are a whole bunch of people running FTs that aren't motivated by titles. They enjoy the challenge, and the journey, they may never reach the destination. Why are so many titled dogs running. They can't attain another title. I don't believe it is just for the hope of a NFC or NAFC title. 

Mitch Patterson, told me when he was running Desi for the last time at our Restricted, that it may be the last time he has a dog eligible to run our trial. (I don't believe him.) He may never have another Desi. I don't believe it is just the pursuit of titles that keeps him in the game.

I agree that we already have enough in the FT game that are in the game just for the pursuit of titles. They are the Pro trainer's bread and butter. 



Vicki Worthington said:


> And therein lies the rub! To *Field Trial competitors* it IS NOT a significant achievement--it is a tickmark that is necessary to run Limited and Special All-age stakes. Nothing more, nothing less.
> 
> Every milestone in life (or in competitions) doesn't result in another set of initials to put either before or after ones name!


Maybe that is precisely the problem!!;-)


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Vicki Worthington said:


> Posted by Waterdog:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Following that line of thinking than make it easier for the judges and just award 1st and second place and send all the others that cant place home early and save eveyone some work. Screw that letting everyone play and give out JAMs to all finishers.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

There is a huge difference between making liberal callbacks so that more dogs get to continue in the stake than awarding another title.

Apples vs. oranges,

Regards.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I am just using the reason to not have a QAA title is that to some it has no meaning other than it qualifies them for a restricted open stake. I have seen alot of folks not even pick up a JAM ribbon in a Q. I have also seen new folks cry with joy for the same placement. The reason I thought to have liberal Q callbacks I was always told is it may attract new people to the sport. I feel the same way about the QAA title. If it did not mean anything that even those who have a titled dog often time say " 16 months derby list and QAA at 20 months" so remind me so I can tell them its not a title just a benchmark. The survey sure looks like its favorable. I think the question or proposal will fall on deaf ears anyway so like so many other discussions about common sense change are mere Internet fodder and will be the same long after I am gone from the game.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Never thought that "it didn't mean anything", just that it doesn't merit a title. The placement ribbon or JAM often means a great deal to an individual. It encourages them to try harder and to continue. Still, that doesn't merit a title.

If getting qualified to run all-age limiteds and specials doesn't create enough interest to continue to compete at the highest levels, a title isn't going to do it either. In fact, it will likely serve to be the end objective, not an inspirational milestone.

The proposal was made to the RAC and it did not fly.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

-just one more reason i admire Canada, Canadians, and the CKC! way too many noses in the air down here, in my opinion.-Paul


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Glad you do. I've heard running in Canada is lots of fun. Never been there & live too far away for it to be a viable option.

I suppose you'd like the qualification criteria for nationals to change as well? Simply a placement in an all-age stake?

I don't believe that wanting to maintain the integrity of the FC-AFC title is "having my nose in the air". It just means that it is competition that doesn't need to create meaningless titles (not the accomplishment involved--just the "title") to accommodate people who, at least on the surface, appear not to want to really be part of the sport.

As a good friend of mine once advertised in RFTN, "Titles are Made in the USA".

If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. If you can't run with the big dogs, stay under the porch!

Regards,


----------



## Lynn Moore (May 30, 2005)

Doug Main said:


> Why are so many titled dogs running. They can't attain another title. I don't believe it is just for the hope of a NFC or NAFC title.


Qualifying for the Nationals _is_ a big deal. It is an honor to be there and try to make it as a finalist, let alone achieving the highest title. It's the next obvious step after FC AFC....qualifying each year.

LM


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Vicki, what would be your opinion of changing the criteria for the AFC to 3 wins. no other placements would count toward the title. they would only be noted towards high point dog of the year. now there's competition and achievement even you could admire.

and i don't admire Canadians and their game because it's easy; believe me it's not. i admire them because most of them posess and embrace traits that we could use more of down here. humility, friendliness and humor to name a few.-Paul


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

Paul,

If the Field Trial Community (not just a bunch of non-participants with an opinion) and the AKC decide to increase the qualifications for FC or AFC, I will aspire to meet those criteria. Do I think they need to change? Not necessarily. It's still very difficult to get there as it is.

My decision to not support adding a "title" for QAA is because it will be meaningless. The meaning of QAA is already well-established. A dog is or is not qualified all-age by virtue of the criteria for achieving the right to participate in Limiteds and Specials. If the love of the game and aspirations to achieve the titles that have been established for the sport aren't enough to induce new participants, those same people won't rise beyond the status they currently seek. IMO hunt tests decided to provide certificates for nearly every level of competition. That's fine as far as it goes. But...Field Trials are NOT hunt tests. 

As far as Canadian trials/qualifications are concerned, I know that they are different. They don't use flyers, which I think is a travesty. They don't have as many trials there and their seasons are shorter, which may account for the lesser amounts of points/placement ranking needed to qualify. I'm sure they have a difficulty level. I still believe the US trials are the showpieces of the sport. They exemplify what retrievers are supposed to do: retrieve freshly-killed birds, over difficult terrain, and under difficult circumstances. The excitement level for the dog to watch and be sent for a freshly flighted bird is something that should never be denied them. It may also be the reason that Canadian dogs that are QAA in Canada are not eligible to run Limiteds and Specials in the US--no flyers. Since I'm not a Canadian, I don't expect to have input into how they run their trials. 

Just for the record, no I'm not anti-Canadian. My favorite men mostly come from Canada and other countries--the Chicago Blackhawks and others. 

The national clubs have entertained the idea of raising qualifications for eligibility to run nationals. The general opinion and research supported conclusions were that it would not significantly reduce the numbers of dogs entered if the points/win requirements were raised. I think the same would hold true for raising the win requirements for FC or AFC. It would only penalize a number of marginal dogs who may never win more than the single win that earned them their titles. I don't believe it likely that AKC will ever decide that points from placements beneath a win won't count toward titles, so its a moot point. If they did that, it would likely become much like the nationals--a single winner and other finalists.

So after all that long-winded explanation, the short answer is that I would embrace strengthening the competition. I fight lowering it.


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

It might be interesting to know just how many of the "Yes" votes were from people who actually run field trials now.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I voted yes. What is missing from the current structure is a recognition that virtually all of us refer to a QAA dog as a dog who has met the qualifications necessary to participate in a Limited AA stake.
> 
> Also for that reason, I would not change the qualifications.
> 
> ...


That's what I said when this whole thing began

And it remains how I feel about the subject

Ted


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Vicki Worthington said:


> It might be interesting to know just how many of the "Yes" votes were from people who actually run field trials now.


I was one of the yes votes. If you mean running and competing in the open then I don't run field trials. I may never run field trials. I have ran one Qualifier and one derby.

This is a level that I can proficiently train a dog. I have no interest in having a dog trained and campaigned by a professional trainer. 

It is already advertised in litters. Adding a title gives validity to those who recognise the accomplishment. How does this diminish in any way the competative level at the open stake?
Mark L.

P.S. My little green ribbon from the Q means a lot to me and if I ever earn a red or blue one you can expect to see *** at the end of my dogs name.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

I looked at the poll results, and yes, the ones against the title are nearly all active trialers. But what was more interesting is that the ones for it are ALL types on here. I was really surprised to see that many that do compete in trials being for it. Interesting.

I did not vote, as I have yet to enter my first trial. But a title for qual would not change my training plans and program. My goal is to get as far as I can, even if I discover I've already reached it. If the qual had a title to go with it, it would not stop me from trying harder. I'm not the type to say, "Ok, we got the initials, now we can stop". We will be stopped by our own limitations, not a specific title.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> The proposal was made to the RAC and it did not fly.


When was that?

If you are talking about when we (Midwest) along with the American Chesapeake Club voted forth the motion, as far as I know Lisa never actually gave it to the RAC.


----------



## Leitner Farm Labs (May 21, 2006)

I believe the horse is dead ...he as been beaten over and again just as the poll goes 7.5 out of 10 people here dont want to beat the horse they just want QAA title..I wonder if that is a Qualified statement ? wait I voted yes and Ive ran trails


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Watrdawg said:


> In response to your Black Belt analogy Evan, as you know there are many belts along the way to Black Belt. You are awarded those belts based on your proficiency at that level. Those various belts do not lessen in anyway the accomplishment or prestige of being a black belt.


Nor are they esteemed in the same way. They are merely stepping stones that mark incremental progress toward a black belt. As my master instructor told me, historically there were originally only white belts given to beginners, and those belts simply became darkened and stained over time. The uniform would be laundered, but the belts were not as they provided some status for students, showing they'd been at it for a while. It wasn't apportioned as colored belts to show rank. You were either a student, or a black belt. Only over time did belt ranking gain importance, as westerners became more involved, at least in Korea. When I studied there, we had only white, blue, red, and black belts.


Watrdawg said:


> I would think that a QAA title would be the same way. It's a signification of a level of achievement.


Yes, it is. But if you recognize what you and your dog have done as being a step closer to actually titling, why do you need to invent a lesser title to mark what is merely a qualification with a champion-like distinction?

Oh, well. Maybe you guys will not only get your wish, but perhaps they'll make it retroactive! Then I'll have to go back and try to recall all those dogs I qualified and post pictures on the wall commemorating the dogs I've titled!!! 

Evan


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

Oh, well. Maybe you guys will not only get your wish, but perhaps they'll make it retroactive! Then I'll have to go back and try to recall all those dogs I qualified and post pictures on the wall commemorating the dogs I've titled!!! 

Evan


Thanks Evan for the days laugh!!!!!


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Vicki Worthington said:


> There is a huge difference between making liberal callbacks so that more dogs get to continue in the stake than awarding another title.
> 
> Apples vs. oranges,
> 
> Regards.


Also a huge difference with an owner who pays a pro to run his dog 15-20 times a year and the poor stiff who does his own thing as often as he can. Does having deep pockets cheapen a FC or does It mean the same thing to everyone? 

A QAA after a name would be good for everyone who wants to do more and be recognized for a lot of hard work.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Golddogs said:


> Does having deep pockets cheapen a FC or does It mean the same thing to everyone?
> .


There is nothing cheap (figuratively or otherwise) about an FC, it's just alot more satisfying when it is the result of one's own efforts (both training and handling) with the dog.


----------



## kawarthalabs (May 30, 2005)

If there were 2 identical bitches in every way except 1 had Q.A.A AFTER it's name who would you breed to if you had a titled stud? I know I would go with the bitch that had proven itself capable in a field trial competition. I think Q.A.A. should be recognized after the name of the dog and not as a title but perhaps as a designation.
Tony.


----------



## Fire N Ice (Nov 12, 2007)

kawarthalabs said:


> If there were 2 identical bitches in every way except 1 had Q.A.A AFTER it's name who would you breed to if you had a titled stud? I know I would go with the bitch that had proven itself capable in a field trial competition. I think Q.A.A. should be recognized after the name of the dog and not as a title but perhaps as a designation.
> Tony.


Tony your example for breeding purposes makes no sense. If I'm breeding a bitch that is QAA I will state that in my ad or verbally to any prospective buyer whether it is attached by AKC or by me makes no difference.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

To me, if the AKC were to recognize the designation QAA (I don't think as proposed it would be a title), it would be informative

In the same vein that:

WC, WCX, JH, SH, MH, 

Provide a consumer with some information about what the dog has done.

The public can then do with that information what it will in making decisions about breeding dogs.


----------



## kawarthalabs (May 30, 2005)

Fire and Ice-Sorry for the confusion,I was looking at it from the stud dog owner's point of view. I would much rather breed my stud with a bitch that has the Q.A.A as opposed to one that does not.
Tony.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> To me, if the AKC were to recognize the designation QAA (I don't think as proposed it would be a title), it would be informative
> 
> In the same vein that:
> 
> ...


And this is really the only thing that this is about. "Informative" is a very good word. And to record that piece of information so it can be retrieved from permanent record at some later date.

In my mind it's not about a "title", just a public record of the information that is already required to be kept by AKC. If someone has even one leg on any obedience, agility or hunt test title, you will see it recorded on the AKC website when you look up that dog's individual record. I think I'd get more information about knowing that a dog was QAA than had just one leg on a JH  You will only get the information about QAA status on the AKC website record if the dog has any championship points in field trials, but not if achieved through the Qualifying stake.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> To me, if the AKC were to recognize the designation QAA (I don't think as proposed it would be a title), it would be informative


You are spot on. See, I don't care what you call it -- title, degree, designation, whatever. Just as long as it is official recognized and put on official pedigrees by the AKC.

I still have not seen a cogent argument against it. It is nothing more than officially recognizing what we are already unofficially recognizing! 

It doesn't violate any principles, so we must look at it pragmatically. It will encourage new blood into the game, it will be informative, and it will not diminish the FC and AFC titles nor the sport.

To oppose it must be based on emotion, because it sure ain't on reason.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

kawarthalabs said:


> If there were 2 identical bitches in every way except 1 had Q.A.A AFTER it's name who would you breed to if you had a titled stud? I know I would go with the bitch that had proven itself capable in a field trial competition. I think Q.A.A. should be recognized after the name of the dog and not as a title but perhaps as a designation.
> Tony.


The designation already exists. The question isn't whether or not to use it because everyone already does. It's a qualification and that deserves notice and respect. I don't know anyone who has bred a QAA bitch that didn't include that in the pedigree.

But the question is whether or not to make this qualification a title.

Evan


----------



## Jim Danis (Aug 15, 2008)

I see your point Evan and can agree with your side of the debate. 

QAA as a full fledged title? Maybe not. As an officially recognized designation? Sure. I wouldn't think that would downgrade the prestige of the FC/AFC titles. Most everyone in the retriever worlds know how difficult it is to obtain those titles. I would absolutely love to have an AFC and then a FC in front of my dogs name. The reason why I put AFC first is that I would have handled my dog to that title myself. More self satisfaction than anything. 

Would I be happy with just a QAA attached to my dog? Depends upon the dog. My present dog, yes. He's a very solid MH and would do fine in the qualifiers I think. He's definitely not an All Age dog. The future pup I have coming really hope he has what it takes. Based on the breeding I hope takes place, I would be disappointed if that is as far as we go in the Field Trail world.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> If there were 2 identical bitches in every way except 1 had Q.A.A AFTER it's name who would you breed to if you had a titled stud? I know I would go with the bitch that had proven itself capable in a field trial competition. I think Q.A.A. should be recognized after the name of the dog and not as a title but perhaps as a designation.
> Tony.


Believe me now or hear me lata


A person who has a Qaa bitch will mention it to the stud owner ,,, unless its a person who ususally has fc's on his truck then it won't be a big deal to them,,,in which case they already know each other by name

And of coase its on record for verification somewhere. These days everything is recorded by somebody.

Its a nessessary status designation for dogs to run something other than an open. Almost everyone will mention their dog is QAA except possably the ones who have been there done that for most of their life

All us wannabee's will tell you all about the club it qaa at and a blow by blow replay detailing of the test 

Pete.


----------



## Jim Scarborough (May 5, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> To me, if the AKC were to recognize the designation QAA (I don't think as proposed it would be a title), it would be informative
> 
> In the same vein that:
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree with Ted more. The designation, once officially recognized, would be present on pedigrees as a suffix to the dog's name. This kind of information to future breeders and prospective puppy owners would only be an asset, the prestige of the QAA designation not withstanding. 

It would be especially valuable to the pedigrees of Master Hunters, showing their dog could not only meet the high standards required to attain a MH, but were also competitive at the entry level for field trial dogs. QAA just is what it is, a milestone along the path toward a rare and extremely difficult All-Age title. How could it hurt to recognize this?


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

Exactly! We are only talking about the AKC recognising a title that is already widely used to show a dog on it's path hopefully up the stake ladder, be it at 3 years of age or 10 it does show ability. Not sure what the real issue is with this idea/proposal, maybe someday when I'm running AA stakes exclusively I will adopt the "down the nose" look at the qualifying FT and hunt test stakes that seems to be so prevelant?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Misty Marsh said:


> Exactly! We are only talking about the AKC recognising a *title *that is already widely used to show a dog on it's path hopefully up the stake ladder, be it at 3 years of age or 10 it does show ability. Not sure what the real issue is with this idea/proposal, maybe someday when I'm running AA stakes exclusively I will adopt the "down the nose" look at the qualifying FT and hunt test stakes that seems to be so prevelant?


Titles are Prefixes to a dog's Registered name .... FC/AFC Bowser
Or in the show ring .... CH Bowser

If you want the QAA to be a TITLE it would be QAA Bowser
I think most people would be opposed to this .... I would certainly be

However, WCX is a designation ... Bowser, WCX
If you had a QAA dog, it would be Bowser, QAA

The only way there is any hope of gathering sufficient support to obtain change is to refer to QAA as a DESIGNATION, not a TITLE and make the designation part of a dog's pedigree ... Bowser, QAA

Ted


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

And I would fully support such a move.

Evan


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Do designations appear on official AKC pedigrees?

FOM


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

FOM said:


> Do designations appear on official AKC pedigrees?
> 
> FOM


IMO That is really all that those that support it want.


----------



## jeff t. (Jul 24, 2003)

As far as I know, AKC has two types of titles, prefix titles and suffix titles. No such thing as a "designation" in AKC parlance

Prefix titles http://www.akc.org/events/titles.cfm

Suffix titles http://www.akc.org/events/titles.cfm?page=2

All of the above appear on official pedigrees.


----------



## Keith Stroyan (Sep 22, 2005)

I couldn't find the term "designation" on the AKC site for their suffixes. I did find "MH" referred to as a title.

http://www.akc.org/events/titles.cfm?page=2

I believe their policy is that things (they call them all "titles", I used to think they called the suffixes "certificates" like "working certificate") earned competitively go before the dog's name, and things earned non-competitively go after the name. (When NAHRA was afiliated with AKC, MHR went before the name... an exception to the AKC rule.)

I have no position on the question of the thread, but find some of the harsh rhetoric disappointing. (I've enjoyed some small quals.) I love the dogs, especially the top competitors, but some aspects of "competition" are a real turn-off for me. I guess I don't see why a minor title would detract from larger ones.

ADDED: sorry for the slow post, I guess I lost that competition, too. ;-)

(I guess I shouldn't mention my Ph.D. until I get a Nobel Prize.)


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I stand corrected

Suffix title is fine by me


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Just a comment that WC and WCX are "club titles" and not recognized by the AKC.

SM


----------



## Keith Stroyan (Sep 22, 2005)

Ted Shih said:


> Suffix title is fine by me


I believe that would violate their policy unless qual was not run for places.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Titles are Prefixes to a dog's Registered name .... FC/AFC Bowser
> Or in the show ring .... CH Bowser
> 
> If you want the QAA to be a TITLE it would be QAA Bowser
> ...


Not entirely right.

Historically _titles_ came before the name and _degrees_ came after the name. A "title" was earned by defeating other dogs. A "degree" was earned by demonstrating a level of proficiency. Not identical, but much like in the human world.

But that nomenclature was lost somewhere in the 80s when people started, mistakenly, referring to all designations as "titles."

As I said, I don't care what you call it, or where you put it, just as long as it appears on official pedigrees.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Keith Stroyan said:


> I believe that would violate their policy unless qual was not run for places.


In principle you are correct.

But the AKC has already been making exceptions in other games like Agility.

Perhaps that is why they started referring to "degrees" as "suffix titles" so they could make exceptions.


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

Evan said:


> The designation already exists. The question isn't whether or not to use it because everyone already does. It's a qualification and that deserves notice and respect. I don't know anyone who has bred a QAA bitch that didn't include that in the pedigree.
> 
> But the question is whether or not to make this qualification a title.
> 
> Evan


 
The question is not wether or not the person will mention the dog/bitch being QAA in their pedigree, the question is how do you as a potential puppy buyer, validate it. Nearly everything else on a pedigree can be verified by checking either AKC's website of by one of the health registries; OFA, CERF, CHIC, etc. Currently there is absolutely no way one can validate the claim that a dog is QAA, without exhaustive research on a trial by trial basis of the results of each trial the dog may have entered. AKC's support of a postfix notation that the dog has achieved this designation would remedy this and should not cost too much as it is something that AKC must track internally already. 

I don't think anyone is arguing that QAA should be a prefix title similar to the Champion titles as it does not comply with AKCs near universal rule (tracking excepted) that the prefix champions must have defeated all the other dogs in the class/stake at some time to earn that title. 

T. Mac


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> Titles are Prefixes to a dog's Registered name .... FC/AFC Bowser
> Or in the show ring .... CH Bowser
> 
> If you want the QAA to be a TITLE it would be QAA Bowser
> ...


Titles as a prefix carry championship points.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Keith Stroyan said:


> I believe that would violate their policy unless qual was not run for places.


No it would not. A prefix title carries championship points. A suffix AKC title does not. A QAA could fit the suffix title.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Golddogs said:


> Titles as a prefix carry championship points.


That makes a whole buch of sense. 

Maybe a lot of the discord on this thread has been because people are arguing different definitions of what a title means??

For me, title as suffix, no problem, can see the point that it would be useful reference.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

cakaiser said:


> That makes a whole buch of sense.
> 
> Maybe a lot of the discord on this thread has been because people are arguing different definitions of what a title means??
> 
> For me, title as suffix, no problem, can see the pont that it would be useful reference.


It would make it easy on the FT secretary too.........


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Steve Amrein said:


> It would make it easy on the FT secretary too.........


You mean, Shayne?


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

cakaiser said:


> You mean, Shayne?



Someone can put on the EE form that a dog is QAA. EE does not as far as I know verify that this is correct. I thought the FTS still had to verify the dog QAA to run in the restricted stakes. 

Has anyone won such a stake and be found ineligible ?


----------



## Guest (Feb 12, 2009)

cakaiser said:


> That makes a whole buch of sense.


Except that it is not the case. The CT (Champion Tracker) title is a prefix, yet the dog does not have to compete against a single other dog, let alone "win."

I know, kind of a tangent, but just an FYI.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Melanie Foster said:


> Except that it is not the case. The CT (Champion Tracker) title is a prefix, yet the dog does not have to compete against a single other dog, let alone "win."
> 
> I know, kind of a tangent, but just an FYI.


For heavens sake, Melanie, I thought I had it all figured out to everyone's satisfaction!! ;-)

Steve, don't know about Sec duties on restricted, never had to do one.
As far as limited, if had reason to believe dog wasn't qualified, would check it out, but doesn't usually come up.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Steve Amrein said:


> Someone can put on the EE form that a dog is QAA. EE does not as far as I know verify that this is correct. I thought the FTS still had to verify the dog QAA to run in the restricted stakes.
> 
> Has anyone won such a stake and be found ineligible ?


QAA is to run a limited. To run a restricted a dog must have placed in an all-age stake. (which also makes it qualified for a limited)

EE applies business rules that prevent entry of a non-qualified dog... but there is nothing anyone can do about someone listing a dog as qualified for a limited when it is not. Secretaries can verify info with AKC if questioned, but there is no "vehicle" for a secretary to verify anything for "all the dogs" other than emailing a list to AKC and waiting for a response.

I can't remember it ever being an issue on a Limited, but i know several times where dogs were questioned in Restricteds. I would wager that more screw-ups happen in a Special than anything else, since most people running it could not tell you what it means. I say "most"... but it bet it's at least half.

SM


----------



## Vicki Worthington (Jul 9, 2004)

The only time I have ever seen a trial secretary get involved in "verifying" if a dog is qualified for limited, special, or restricted was if someone failed to indicate it on the entry or eligibility was questioned during the trial.

I would have to think that making a false certification on the entry could have recupercussion with AKC in the event it became evident. Could rank right up there with falsifying breeding records or failing to maintain them.


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> The only time I have ever seen a trial secretary get involved in "verifying" if a dog is qualified for limited, special, or restricted was if someone failed to indicate it on the entry or eligibility was questioned during the trial.
> 
> I would have to think that making a false certification on the entry could have recupercussion with AKC in the event it became evident. Could rank right up there with falsifying breeding records or failing to maintain them.


It happens more than you think. I can think of one club where it happened two years in a row with the same entrant.

Ignorance is bliss...

SM


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2009)

Wasn't there someone here on RTF who entered their dog in a Limited that was not eligible and got called out on it? My memory is rusty so I can't recall who it was...


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Vicki Worthington said:


> The only time I have ever seen a trial secretary get involved in "verifying" if a dog is qualified for limited, special, or restricted was if someone failed to indicate it on the entry or eligibility was questioned during the trial.
> .


As Field Trial Secretary I had 3 dogs entered in the Restricted All-Age that I knew were not eligible. I contacted the professional trainer who entered them and informed them that these 3 dogs were not eligible (after verifying this with AKC). At that time our club refunded those entry fees.

One year later the same person entered the same dogs again (one of them was now qualified for a Restricted All-Age). I do not feel that it was my obligation to inform the person who entered the dogs this time but informed the professional PRIVATELY and quietly at the trail that those dogs were not eligible to run a Restricted All-Age.

Subsequently the wife of this professional trainer admonished me for not refunding the entry fees for those dogs, I informed her that no refund was due and that our club could have filed charges for misconduct against them for entering an ineligible dog. Needless to say this was not met with a friendly or appreciative response.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

when ya got em by the balls don't let go for a better grip


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> As Field Trial Secretary I had 3 dogs entered in the Restricted All-Age that I knew were not eligible. I contacted the professional trainer who entered them and informed them that these 3 dogs were not eligible (after verifying this with AKC). At that time our club refunded those entry fees.
> 
> One year later the same person entered the same dogs again (one of them was now qualified for a Restricted All-Age). I do not feel that it was my obligation to inform the person who entered the dogs this time but informed the professional PRIVATELY and quietly at the trail that those dogs were not eligible to run a Restricted All-Age.
> 
> Subsequently the wife of this professional trainer admonished me for not refunding the entry fees for those dogs, I informed her that no refund was due and that our club could have filed charges for misconduct against them for entering an ineligible dog. Needless to say this was not met with a friendly or appreciative response.


OR... instead of typing all that... you could have went with... 


the not-naming-names Shayne said:


> I can think of one club where it happened two years in a row with the same entrant.


When it comes to field trial drama... Texas is the new Colorado!

SM


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> When it comes to field trial drama... Texas is the new Colorado!


Thank God!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> OR... instead of typing all that... you could have went with...
> 
> 
> When it comes to field trial drama... Texas is the new Colorado!
> ...


Yeah, I could have, but then no one would know (and perpetually wonder) where it happened, now they know where, they can now wonder WHO......

It's Easy If You Know Our Circuit Regards....;-)


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Shayne Mehringer said:


> OR... instead of typing all that... you could have went with...
> 
> 
> When it comes to field trial drama... Texas is the new Colorado!
> ...


That is why all the Okies refer to the Texas circuit as the "Three Dollar Bill" circuit.


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Here in Missouri we refer to it as the "$150 bill circuit"!!!


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> That is why all the Okies refer to the Texas circuit as the "Three Dollar Bill" circuit.


Nice reference for someone from The Trailer Park Circuit.......;-)


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

John Gassner said:


> Here in Missouri we refer to it as the "$150 bill circuit"!!!


That's funny!

SM


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> Nice reference for someone from The Trailer Park Circuit.......;-)


That's even funnier!!!

_Trailer Park Circuit_ is genius regards,

SM


----------



## Shayne Mehringer (Jan 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> Yeah, I could have, but then no one would know (and perpetually wonder) where it happened, now they know where, they can now wonder WHO......
> 
> It's Easy If You Know Our Circuit Regards....;-)


Drama Queen!!! HAHAHA

SM


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

EdA said:


> Nice reference for someone from The Trailer Park Circuit.......;-)


Heck Ill admit to Oklahoma being full of white trash if you’ll admit Texas is full of ….well you know 


Rainbow Brotherhood Regards


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Heck Ill admit to Oklahoma being full of white trash if you’ll admit Texas is full of ….well you know


well, we certainly have our share of A-holes in Texas, some of them even run field trials....;-)


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

EdA said:


> well, we certainly have our share of A-holes in Texas, ....;-)


You rang?


----------



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

Probably posted elsewhere, but I just couldn't read through 33 pages so to answer a very early posting, yes *** means QAA in the Golden world. ** means the dog has placed in a Derby or got 3rd, 4th or JAM in a Qual. I guess us Golden people just wanted recognition of that type of performance and yes, it helps when it comes to breeding a dog or purchasing a pup.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

mostlygold said:


> yes *** means QAA in the Golden world. .


so what does **** and ***** mean...................


----------



## T. Mac (Feb 2, 2004)

EdA said:


> so what does **** and ***** mean...................


Heck, everyone knows that the **** and ***** mean that all others must salute as they pass

T. Mac


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2009)

EdA said:


> so what does **** and ***** mean...................


I think it pretty much means I'm going to have to kick your ***. In a loving way of course.


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

EdA said:


> so what does **** and ***** mean...................


I think ***** means you get to spend the next few years getting you're a** handed to you by dogs with titles.
________
Waterbongs


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2009)

scott spalding said:


> I think ***** means you get to spend the next few years getting you're a** handed to you by dogs with titles.


Scott, you're next. And if you guys think I'm kidding, ask Shayne. Watch your back!:razz::razz:


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Melanie Foster said:


> I think it pretty much means I'm going to have to kick your ***. In a loving way of course.


hmmmmmm...... I can hardly wait....


----------



## scott spalding (Aug 27, 2005)

Melanie Foster said:


> Scott, you're next. And if you guys think I'm kidding, ask Shayne. Watch your back!:razz::razz:


I am just speaking from my personal experience please take no offense. I don't know how to make smile faces or popcorn symbols.
________
How to get the most out of your mflb


----------



## Guest (Feb 16, 2009)

EdA said:


> hmmmmmm...... I can hardly wait....


I thought you might like that, hot stuff.


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

"The road goes on forever and the party never ends". Seems fitting lyrics for this song/thread. HPW


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Melanie Foster said:


> I think it pretty much means I'm going to have to kick your ***. In a loving way of course.





Melanie Foster said:


> I thought you might like that, hot stuff.


do you spank as well as kick butt.......


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Melanie Foster said:


> I thought you might like that, hot stuff.






EdA said:


> do you spank as well as kick butt.......



You two need to get a room


----------

