# QA2 title



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Sincemy dog has fullfilled the requirements for the title I thought I would look into it. To my surprise you have to fill out an application and pay a fee of $20. I think I'll pass. So I assume that my dog is not titled unless I pay the fee? Why would you need to pay for this title but not others?


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Steve Shaver said:


> Sincemy dog has fullfilled the requirements for the title I thought I would look into it. To my surprise you have to fill out an application and pay a fee of $20. I think I'll pass. So I assume that my dog is not titled unless I pay the fee? Why would you need to pay for this title but not others?


To generate revenue for the AKC. But you and I already knew that. 

The whole QA2 thing is stupid. A dog with two 2nds in O/H Quals is brought up to the same status as a dog with multiple AA placements but no win. They already have a requirement in the FT rules that actually means something. They should have made the QA2 requirement the same as the requirement to run a Restricted All-Age stake. Then you could say if you're QA2 you can run a Restricted AA stake - simple. And not make you apply and pay a fee to get it. 

Yea, this was done solely to generate revenue.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

well Steve I know its not the $20 bucks its the principle of the deal....But looking at it from a couple different sides here is my take on the subject

a) for many people it may end up being the highest title their dog may achieve, so more power and congrats to them

b) for many others that were chasing loftier titles, its almost like a reminder that for whatever reason you came close something akin to being voted Miss Congeniality

I asked my brother if he wanted to go back and retroactively get the QA2 designation on all his dogs that were eligible...his answer was ".....------ don't even think about it"

Guess it just depends on your own personal perspective


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

BonMallari said:


> well Steve I know its not the $20 bucks its the principle of the deal....But looking at it from a couple different sides here is my take on the subject
> 
> a) for many people it may end up being the highest title their dog may achieve, so more power and congrats to them
> 
> ...






Just being able to say my dog is QAA is good enough for me. 
So what if a person has a litter of pups and the female has completed the requirements for QA2 but not officially submitted the form and paid the price are they allowed to advertise that their dog is QA2? I'm not going to pay a fee for a piece of paper that tells me my dog has accomplished something I already know about. I was originally all for the title but now the more I think about it the more ridiculous it is. If they are going to have a title why not do it on a point system just like the other titles. Wonder how long it's gonna take for them to charge a fee for FC, AFC, MH, SH, JH?


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Agree 100% Steve. The achievement is in the record book, not in the $20 piece of paper.


----------



## TexGold (Jan 27, 2009)

One aspect that I don't know has been considered: if there are lots of QAA dogs coming back through seeking a QA2, doesn't that make the competition to get a QAA a bit stiffer?

I am in the position with my dog that if he gets QAA I will be thrilled We have Two placements (3 and4), an RJ and two jams The problem is that he is 7 years old and didn't have consistent training over the last 5 years. It wasn't due to lack of talent, but my health. So as to Qa2, if we get QAA, I will probably go for it as I have no delusions that he will suddenly rack up enough wins and placements for an AFC. 

As for the $20 fee, you're kidding yourself that you didn't pay for those other certificates. You just paid for them a little out of each entry fee. 

I am sure AKC doesn't mind the extra income, but what were they going to do about the grandfathered dogs? Just send out certificates willy nilly?

If you fall into the camp that the title doesn't mean anything, don't buy one. But this quasi conspiracy theory that the AKC dreamed up the title just to rake in the bucks just doesn't stand scrutiny.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

The AKC gets the same fee per dog regardless. They don't charge less for Qual and Derby entries where there is not title. And if we buy any argument about dealing with the grandfathered dogs, what would that have to do with future qualifiers for the title? If there is a cost involved in researching the records to verify a grandfathered dog is a qualifier, then charge an admin fee for the research.

No one will ever convince me that the dog with 2 Qual 2nds and a piece of paper with QA2 after the name is better than a dog with 20 All-Age points (no win) and no piece of paper. Until I can retire and can train more often than just on the weekend, I'm a QA2 kind of owner/trainer/handler (although I'll keep throwing my hat in the AA ring). So I certainly understand the accomplishment of getting QAA once, let alone twice. But the accomplishment is not enhanced in my opinion by paying a fee.

It's only a conspiracy if they try to hide it.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

TexGold said:


> One aspect that I don't know has been considered: if there are lots of QAA dogs coming back through seeking a QA2, doesn't that make the competition to get a QAA a bit stiffer?*
> *
> I am in the position with my dog that if he gets QAA I will be thrilled We have Two placements (3 and4), an RJ and two jams The problem is that he is 7 years old and didn't have consistent training over the last 5 years. It wasn't due to lack of talent, but my health. So as to Qa2, if we get QAA, I will probably go for it as I have no delusions that he will suddenly rack up enough wins and placements for an AFC.
> 
> ...




There are plenty of dogs with multiple placements and jams that continue to play the qual. this happens without the title.
Of coarse you paid for those other certificates so why pay again. I can understand a fee to go back and research dogs that qualified before the title came into affect. Didn't say the title doesn't mean anything and I wont buy one.
To me the QA2 title just turns the qual into a hunt test title. As the Capt mentioned a dog with two qual 2nds had the same title as a dog with 20 AA points but no win. Of coarse the AKC is doing this for the money. It would take about 5 minutes to look up a dogs record to see if it has qualified for the title and about $1 to print out a title certificate but they charge $20. If you think they are not doing this for the buck and are doing it for the good of the sport I highly disagree. To me QAA is every bit as good as QA2.


----------



## WBF (Feb 11, 2012)

IMO they should have just left it alone. If they where going to make a change, the dogs that have AA placements should have been rewarded. All Field Trial Stakes are as only as tough as the competition in each event. Being a game of inches, each dog will mess-up and also get lucky every once in a while. I think people forget that a lot of times. I've seen dogs not place in the Q but place in the AM and Jam Opens the same weekend. So its hard to state an opinion on equality.


----------



## Dave Kress (Dec 20, 2004)

Well maybe 2 questions and an observation. 
Who owns the AKC : is it government, or private as I don't know 

The last info I really knew had the Preformance dept , where our events fall, as money pit or they lost money on us 
So at 3.50 a wack on entry and with 70k entries a year is that like 250k a year to pay the salaries and keep the lights on ? 
My point being is they're not cleaning up on our events. 
With overall entries being stagnant so no growth maybe the thought is could we generate revenue with a new title. 
Retriever sports have like the fewest titles of any dog sport so maybe a new title, new interest and you see the photo 

My 2 cents but it really doesn't count 

Cold this morning in our part of the country 
Dk


----------



## mngundog (Mar 25, 2011)

Dave Kress said:


> Well maybe 2 questions and an observation.
> Who owns the AKC : is it government, or private as I don't know
> 
> The last info I really knew had the Preformance dept , where our events fall, as money pit or they lost money on us
> ...


" In 2008 the “reported compensation” of 11 top AKC executives ran from a low of $141,370 up to $629,303 — more than the U.S. President and Vice President combined. That’s for a 38-hour work week, not including “other compensations” or expenses."
http://www.dogchannel.com/dog-magazines/dogsinreview/dogs-in-review-june-2010-bengtson.aspx


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

Steve Shaver said:


> Just being able to say my dog is QAA is good enough for me.
> So what if a person has a litter of pups and the female has completed the requirements for QA2 but not officially submitted the form and paid the price are they allowed to advertise that their dog is QA2? I'm not going to pay a fee for a piece of paper that tells me my dog has accomplished something I already know about. I was originally all for the title but now the more I think about it the more ridiculous it is. If they are going to have a title why not do it on a point system just like the other titles. Wonder how long it's gonna take for them to charge a fee for FC, AFC, MH, SH, JH?


Not sure if you are allowed to use the QA2 title if you haven't paid. I probably will go to jail for this, but a breeding I did recently, which did not take, I used the QA2 designation on my bitch on ads I placed and I did not and will not send AKC the $20 for a piece of paper telling me that. The bitch I bred has 12.5 amateur points, 6 open points, an open win, a NARC 2014 finalist and 2 qual wins. I figured she has earned the QA2 designation for advertising purposes, but I probably broke the rules by using it in the ad. Curious, on the website, FindRetrievers.com, they inserted the QA2 designation as an award by themselves, I did not contact them and ask them to insert the designation.


----------



## truthseeker (Feb 2, 2012)

Wake up call to all you hard core capitalist ( we like to call it free trade ) There has been a shift in the market mind set, in the last 30 years. It is no longer supply and demand or fair pricing. It is what ever the market can bare. So open your wallets.

Keith


----------



## Dave Plesko (Aug 16, 2009)

wetdog said:


> Not sure if you are allowed to use the QA2 title if you haven't paid. I probably will go to jail for this, but a breeding I did recently, which did not take, I used the QA2 designation on my bitch on ads I placed and I did not and will not send AKC the $20 for a piece of paper telling me that. The bitch I bred has 12.5 amateur points, 6 open points, an open win, a NARC 2014 finalist and 2 qual wins. I figured she has earned the QA2 designation for advertising purposes, but I probably broke the rules by using it in the ad. Curious, on the website, FindRetrievers.com, they inserted the QA2 designation as an award by themselves, I did not contact them and ask them to insert the designation.



Dave, Open your window...... Do you hear sirens yet?


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Kinda like the MH85 suffex. Pay you money and get the paper. I can maybe understand it after the dog is retired but to each their own. Another revenue generator, but at 25 bucks don't see how it makes any money other than getting more entries.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

Dave, he probably tore the tags off his mattresses too. Nickle bracelet time. 
Dave Z sorry to hear the breeding didn't take. Been there done that. Did finally get pups last Sept. though.
As to QA2. I won't spend the money at this time.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

mngundog said:


> " In 2008 the “reported compensation” of 11 top AKC executives ran from a low of $141,370 up to $629,303 — more than the U.S. President and Vice President combined. That’s for a 38-hour work week, not including “other compensations” or expenses."
> http://www.dogchannel.com/dog-magazines/dogsinreview/dogs-in-review-june-2010-bengtson.aspx


WOW! They hiring?


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

Dave Plesko said:


> Dave, Open your window...... Do you hear sirens yet?


That jingle, "they're coming to take me away a ha, they're coming to take me away" is now stuck in my head! Thanks Dave  And Jeff, looks like I am competing with you to see who can spend more money on unsuccessful breedings!


----------



## Lab4me (Sep 25, 2009)

I am wondering if it is just a fee for the past accomplishments? There is no doubt that it will be additional paperwork for going back and bring all the applications up to speed. But, is AKC going to put it into the automated system so that the title is award when AKC receives the event secretary reports?


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Some people value the QA2 title. Some people think it to be worthless.
If you value it $20 represents a fraction of what you spent to get to that level. 
If you consider it wothless a penny would be too much!

Decide for yourself. That is why you apply for it vs it being automatically placed on your dog.

Tim


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

If you want to poo-poo or belittle it, fine. (not all FCs got there the same way, either, BTW. ;-))

If you don't want it, don't apply. Whatever floats your boat, don't make me no never mind.

But getting bent out of shape over the $20 :shock: Where do you guys train dogs??? I spend that much getting back & forth to some of my grounds.

JS


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

I don't think it's being belittled. Just the perspective of those wanting the FC and AFC takes the focus of achieving it not QAA or QA2.I think all know that it is not a cake walk to get a QA2 when running most stakes. When you have an AA dog that's what's meaningful to those running the same.

Jeff


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Now Now... We title chasers like those pieces of paper that's why we pony up $35 to HRC & NAHRA to get our points counted and official titles in their system, some of us even pony up $60 extra to get all our previous point added in . Q2A is the only title that could be won in 2 tests, which I believe detracts form it's value. But QAA or Q2A it does say a dog can participate in FT's, and a bunch of breedings take place on that little mythical QAA status alone and nothing else, in front or behind a name. This designation is obtainable to a FT freelancer and might look pretty good next to hunt test titles. However I'm not sure I could be convinced to ever continue FTs after QAA, but if I did I'd probably pay for the paperwork. 
$20 is worth it to me to put something official on a pedigree, and will look pretty good a few generations down the road, when people are no longer looking at passes on particular dogs, but only looking at the official names-titles the AKC provides.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Unless it was done in another thread, no one has belittled the accomplishment of meeting the requirement for QA2. Simply stating that paying $20 adds no value to that accomplishment. Just like getting a new pedigree adds no value to a title. The value is in the accomplishment. And $20, $200, or $2 doesn't matter. I didn't pay (additional fees) for my MH title, no one pays for the field champion title, so I'm not going to encourage the AKC to start charging for these other titles by paying for the QA2 title .

Edit: I didn't pay $35 for any point counts and titles in HRC either.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I wish AKC had followed CKC's method, I think it makes for a more meaningful "title".


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

I am not familiar with CKC's method John. Could you briefly elaborate? Thanks


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

wetdog said:


> I am not familiar with CKC's method John. Could you briefly elaborate? Thanks


They basically used the all age formula for making an FC, but used a derby point system where fourth place is one point, not a half point. So you would need a qualifying win and five more qual points. Two second places wouldn't cut it. 

QFTR, qualifying field trial retrieve is the title.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

JS said:


> If you want to poo-poo or belittle it, fine. (not all FCs got there the same way, either, BTW. ;-))
> 
> If you don't want it, don't apply. Whatever floats your boat, don't make me no never mind.
> 
> ...


Hey hey, guys, ya missed my point. I'm not defensive over how anyone else values anything. I do think it's a benchmark and thus is worthwhile. Others may not.

The ORIGINAL POST emphasized the $20 fee. In fact he stated he was "looking into it" and discovered the paperwork would cost $20 so decided not. I just found that amusing, considering the $$$ we invest in these games. 

Guess I wasn't as cute as I thought I was. 

JS


----------



## Troopers Mom (Nov 19, 2005)

I have a Golden who is almost 9 years old now. He got his first Qual win 3 months out of derby and his second Qual win when he just turned 3 which then bumped him up to Open. He had several other Qual placements as well. In Open all he was ever given was an RJ and some JAMs. I ordered the QA2 because I think it is important for him to be recognized as achieving it. Otherwise, besides the MH behind his name, it doesn't look like he ever did anything else. He deserves it and further, I really thought the QA2 title was for the two Qual wins because then they have to move on or out. That is much more meaningful.

Arleen


----------



## TexGold (Jan 27, 2009)

Tim Carrion said:


> Some people value the QA2 title. Some people think it to be worthless. If you value it $20 represents a fraction of what you spent to get to that level. If you consider it wothless a penny would be too much! Decide for yourself. That is why you apply for it vs it being automatically placed on your dog. Tim


The voice of reason.


----------



## TexGold (Jan 27, 2009)

Troopers Mom said:


> I have a Golden who is almost 9 years old now. He got his first Qual win 3 months out of derby and his second Qual win when he just turned 3 which then bumped him up to Open. He had several other Qual placements as well. In Open all he was ever given was an RJ and some JAMs. I ordered the QA2 because I think it is important for him to be recognized as achieving it. Otherwise, besides the MH behind his name, it doesn't look like he ever did anything else. He deserves it and further, I really thought the QA2 title was for the two Qual wins because then they have to move on or out. That is much more meaningful. Arleen


Good point.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

JS said:


> Hey hey, guys, ya missed my point. I'm not defensive over how anyone else values anything. I do think it's a benchmark and thus is worthwhile. Others may not.
> 
> The ORIGINAL POST emphasized the $20 fee. In fact he stated he was "looking into it" and discovered the paperwork would cost $20 so decided not. I just found that amusing, considering the $$$ we invest in these games.
> 
> ...




:roll: I guess you missed my point. I was just surprised this title cost money when no other title does. I dont understand that. I didnt decide not to do it because of a $20 fee.:roll:
I think QAA is a bench mark. I dont think QA2 is much more special, not belittling the title but does QAA now mean nothing? My dog qualified for QA2 status long before there was such a title so I thought Id look into it. I was surprised at what I foundI agree with John on the CKC way to the title.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Well I bit the bullet (pun intended) and paid the $20 - my retired guy will never finish his FC or AFC title, not that we didn't have many chances to, just too handicapped with a first time handler/dog combination. And I never finished his MH title because he just physically couldn't do it, even though his mind wanted to. He is a dog I'd consider having earned the QA2 title, didn't have two wins in the Q, but I think an Am win covers him  Yes I paid the $20 for my ego, Bullet doesn't give two flips just as long as I put extra goodies in his kibble and help him up on the bed at night so he can cuddle.

I do wish the AKC had made the stipulation that only one of the QAA qualifications could come from an O/H Qual, I think for a title a dog should face all who want to enter.

FOM

Lainee


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

As far as comparing the "value" of the QA2 title and not all being equal, I'll agree. Not all MH are equal, not all FC AFC are equal either. Anyone can look up a record. I know plenty of QAA dogs that were handled by pros in small "open" Qualifyings, like 12 entries, so does that small non O/H Qual stack up against a 30+ dog O/H Qual with some of the top amateurs in the country, judged by National competitors? Heck, I'll go against some pros I know vs a Judy Aycock or a Ken Neil any day of the week. Anyone can look up stuff on EE if they want to really know what a dog did and against who. A title is for the owner, I don't see the big fuss of others making a big deal out of it, if they don't like it, ignore it. No one is forcing anyone to pay it or use it or buy a puppy from a QAA vs a QA2 or whatever the drama is. I was also put off by the idea of paying for a title, not the fee itself, because it is peanuts, but just the idea. But then again, nothing in life is free and no one is making me use it. One of mine earned it this summer, when he got the 2nd second place (in a non O/H 34 dog Qual), people congratulated me on his title. It wasn't why we ran, it wasn't in my thoughts, I hope he goes on to earn a whole lot more than a couple red ribbons in Quals, but I was very pleased with his work regardless of what we got. I have no intention of running my other QAA dog in Quals again just to get QA2, she'll run Am or nothing, but I don't care if anyone else chooses to try for QA2, it's a personal choice, like anything else we do with our dogs.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

I believe the title went in because officially, a QAA or a Q2A dog has nothing on it's pedigree. Ex: if you look at FT breedings it's common for a FC-AFC male to be bred to untitled female. Now is this dog really untitled, sitting in someone backyard never seen a bird? Or is this dam really QAA? There's a Huge difference, but the AKC records shows No difference at all. Now why they charge $20, or why they chose this particular way to earn the title, most likely has to do with making $$$ and laziness (the unofficial QAA was already in place), all they had to do is choose to recognize it. Still it's there now and It's pretty much worth $20 for any Breeding to have those official letters behind a name, it provides buyers who might not have any familiarity with a dog official evidence to a parent's skill level. If we look at pedigrees later that title will still be there, adding value to lines and future breeding's for generations to come. After all if your looking for a pup out of XYZ sire, most will internet search, and not know the dogs. Who would you choose? a breeding to an apparent untitled female, or a breeding to an officially titled female?


----------



## Judy Myers (Feb 15, 2009)

I agree with many of the posts in this thread, both pro and con. I've not been in the game as long as many but I had always understood that the AKC has resisted establishing a title for QAA status for years. Now they have taken that first step. I would like to have seen them establish tougher requirements such as at least one Q win or a win plus 5 points as in the Canadian QFTR. But I think it's a step in the right direction to establish a QA2 title. As stated previously, the title will now show on official pedigrees for years to come and will provide a historical record available for breeding purposes. But I would like to see the AKC establish another interim title or two short of the FC or AFC. I think its a shame that a dog could have all the requirements for a FC or AFC title except a half point and yet have nothing to show for it except now the QA2. There could be dogs out there with three all-age wins but no title. What they have accomplished is well beyond the QA2, and it should be recognized. Every other AKC dog sport has interim titles short of the championship titles. Why not field trials? I agree that charging $20 for the title is irritating, but I'm not going to cut off my nose to spite my face. I applied for the title. I hope that many people decide to apply so that it will encourage the AKC to offer another title or two to recognize higher levels of achievement in the field trial game.


----------



## Dave Plesko (Aug 16, 2009)

Judy Myers said:


> There could be dogs out there with three all-age wins but no title.


Thanks for the brain teaser. I had to think about that for a few minutes........


----------



## Judy Myers (Feb 15, 2009)

LOL. Gotta keep our brains teased.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

We had a dog with 3 AA wins and no title...
Rex had TWO Amateur wins and won a Sanctioned Open with 40 dogs entered he also had two Amateur 4th before being retired with an injury


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

There could be dogs out there with three all-age wins but no title.
Thanks for the brain teaser. I had to think about that for a few minutes........
_
While that is hypothetically possible I doubt that it has ever happened and if it did I doubt that the owner would be assuaged by this thing. My Reggie (Trumarc's Reverend Reggie) finished his career 2 1/2 points shy of his AFC and a QA2 piece of paper would mean nothing to me.
_


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Making a title out of a minor stake, from a designation that many were already using is one thing. Messing with AA is another. It's competition, the real deal, I think it should remain FC/AFC or nothing. If there were a vote.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Judy Myers said:


> LOL. Gotta keep our brains teased.


3 wins and no title:

the 3 wins were all specialty wins or 1 win was an all-breed Amat not an Open


Tim


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

2 Amateur wins and one open win with a professional handler and fewer than 5 other points in either stake


----------



## Jenn (Jul 16, 2006)

I know of two dogs on our Minnesota circuit that have had that happen. One is Greti, owned by Bob and Ann Heise. Great little dog with 2 Am wins with Bob and Ann handling and an Open win with Rorem handling. I think she is only short by 1 pt for her AFC. I hope she gets it this year. The other dog is Wally. A Ches. male with several all breed Open and Am seconds but no all breed win. Wally has won a Chesapeake Open and Am double header. Even the AKC sent him the FC and AFC titles and he sent them back as he didn't have the all breed wins. Unfortunately, Wally is now retired. I think he ended up with 17 open pts and about the same in the Am. These two dogs will always be champions in my book.


----------



## rookie (Sep 22, 2003)

Just a thought but some titled dogs FC & AFC are not all that affordable to some breeders or individuals where as the Qaa2 dog would have a smaller stud fee and often are litter mates to the title dogs. Yes I know they do not have the titles but they sure have the bloodlines. So the Qaa2 dogs do have something to offer to those who do their research! Now how many of you have got a titled dog out of a litter mate of the FC AFC???
Warren Price


----------



## budsdad (Jan 28, 2008)

I am not sure I really understand the QA2 Title. One of my dogs has a Q win 3 Q 2nds and an amateur win. the other has an Amateur win, Open win (amateur handled, 17 total AA points with no title) a Q win but no other Q placements. Are you saying the first dog can be a QA2 but the second cannot since she only has one Q win?


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

budsdad said:


> I am not sure I really understand the QA2 Title. One of my dogs has a Q win 3 Q 2nds and an amateur win. the other has an Amateur win, Open win (amateur handled, 17 total AA points with no title) a Q win but no other Q placements. Are you saying the first dog can be a QA2 but the second cannot since she only has one Q win?


If someone said that, they were wrong.

Just meet the requirement for QAA twice to get QA2. The dog doesn't need to have even entered a Qual to get QA2.


----------



## budsdad (Jan 28, 2008)

So 2 AA JAMs qualifies a dog for QA2 designation?


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

budsdad said:


> So 2 AA JAMs qualifies a dog for QA2 designation?


Yes . Or 
2 Qual 2nds, or
1 Qual 2nd + 1 Am JAM


There are a ton of ways to get QA2.

And, unlike QAA, it's a title rather than a designation.


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

I thought it was only the Open Jams that qualified the dog all age. Thought Jams in the Amateur did not count toward an all age qualification. Am I wrong (and that would not be the first time)?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

No I think you're right. Two open jams would work though.


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

From the AKC Retriever FT Rulebook: A Limited All-Age Stake at a Retriever trial shall befor dogs that have previously been placed or awardeda Judges’ Award of Merit in an Open All-Age Stake,Limited All-Age Stake, Special All-Age Stake, RestrictedAll-Age Stake, Amateur All-Age Stake, or Owner-Handler Amateur All-Age Stake carrying Championshippoints in each case, or that have been placed first orsecond in a Qualifying Stake or an Owner-HandlerQualifying Stake.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

wetdog said:


> I thought it was only the Open Jams that qualified the dog all age. Thought Jams in the Amateur did not count toward an all age qualification. Am a wrong (and that would not be the first time)?


Yes, you are wrong. Open JAM, Am placement allows you to run restricted AA stake. Am JAM gives you QAA allowing you to run Limited AA stake. Both allow also to run Special AA in the current an following calendar years.


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

captainjack said:


> Yes, you are wrong. Open JAM, Am placement allows you to run restricted AA stake. Am JAM gives you QAA allowing you to run Limited AA stake. Both allow also to run Special AA in the current an following calendar years.


Amateur Jam's do not disqualify you from running a Qualifying however.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

captainjack said:


> Yes, you are wrong. Open JAM, Am placement allows you to run restricted AA stake. Am JAM gives you QAA allowing you to run Limited AA stake. Both allow also to run Special AA in the current an following calendar years.


For what it's worth, if they were going to create a new designation/title, they should have tied it to the requirement to run a restricted. i.e. Qual 1st, Qual 2nd, or Am JAM or better gets QAA, then Am Plavement or better, or Open JAM or better gets you QA2. But they didn't ask me.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Daren Galloway said:


> Amateur Jam's do not disqualify you from running a Qualifying however.


Your pride should keep you from trying to go flex your AA muscle at the kiddie pool.


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

captainjack said:


> Your pride should keep you from trying to go flex your AA muscle at the kiddie pool.


One would hope. I believe that is where the idea that AM Jam's do not give you QAA status was the purpose of my post. Not sure why they didn't include it in disqualifying you for the AM.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

captainjack said:


> Your pride should keep you from trying to go flex your AA muscle at the kiddie pool.


Maybe it is just me. But, I personally would not define an Am jam as "AA muscle'
Every dog and every handler is different. Some, it may be beneficial to keep running the Q. Or maybe they just enjoy it. The goal doesn't always have to be, AA stakes
Others may choose not to do so, and just stay in the Am.

Is not anyone's business except the owner.


----------



## Huff (Feb 11, 2008)

This is me. I ave a qual 1st but I'm not a good enough handler to be competitive in all age. At least I don't think so. I will run some to get the experience but may still run some quals too. 

Russell


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> Your pride should keep you from trying to go flex your AA muscle at the kiddie pool.


No it's not just you Charlotte. No wonder people think field trialers are rude and arrogant.


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

EELabs said:


> No it's not just you Charlotte. No wonder people think field trialer are rude and arrogant.


If your dog is capable of finishing AM's and has proven such by doing so, they have no right running against qual dogs in the qual.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Daren Galloway said:


> If your dog is capable of finishing AM's and has proven such by doing so, they have no right running against qual dogs in the qual.}
> Yes they DO have the right to to do whatever they want. Maybe they need more handling experience


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Daren Galloway said:


> If your dog is capable of finishing AM's and has proven such by doing so, they have no right running against qual dogs in the qual.


That is your opinion. it is not my opinion.
And, your opinion, is not supported by the rules


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

cakaiser said:


> That is your opinion. it is not my opinion.
> And, it is not supported by the rules


To me its like continuing to run a MH in a Senior stake. 

So to what end? You are already finishing AA stakes. You are already QA2. So why hang around and beat up on the younger kids?

But you're correct, the rule book doesn't prohibit it. So, until they rule makers recognize the oversight, load up on those Qs.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Some people still believe in winning their way out of the qual, like they did before the QA2 title, and get to play to the watermarks, instead of going out in the first series in the AA just to say they are running AA. Also some people run AA because they they don't want people to think their dog can't run AA. Which is better for the experience of the dog and handler?


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

EELabs said:


> Some people still believe in winning their way out of the qual, like they did before the QA2 title, and get to play to the watermarks, instead of going out in the first series in the AA just to say they are running AA. Also some people run AA because they they don't want people to think their dog can't run AA. Which is better for the experience of the dog and handler?


You are already finishing AA, why would someone think you can't run AA? That makes no sense.

If you support allowing dogs to comtinue running Qs after having Am AA finishes, do you also support allowing dogs to continue to run Qs even after 2 wins? If not, why not?

The 2 Q wins, Am placement, Open JAM rule was obviously instituted to free up opportunities for other dogs to win. Same should be for Am Jams, IMO. But it's not against the letter of the rule so...


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

captainjack said:


> To me its like continuing to run a MH in a Senior stake.
> 
> So to what end? You are already finishing AA stakes. You are already QA2. So why hang around and beat up on the younger kids?
> 
> But you're correct, the rule book doesn't prohibit it. So, until they rule makers recognize the oversight, load up on those Qs.


 i think, you miss my point. For you, yes. For us, I agree with what you said. We have a 3 year old that we have never run in a Q. She didn't need it, and neither did my husband.

But, that doesn't mean, can't see, it could be beneficial for other handlers, other dogs. It is an individual decision.
Personally, I don't care who runs the Q, or how many times. As long as it is legal.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> If you support allowing dogs to comtinue running Qs after having Am AA finishes, do you also support allowing dogs to continue to run Qs even after 2 wins? If not, why not?


I support what the rules say. There is no rule that says a handler must step aside so others get a chance. I've run quals with 6 or more dogs having the win, (before the "title) and they were not "kiddie pool" people. They had their own reasons for running their dogs


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

We all have our reasons in what we say and do...good or bad.
So really in essence...that's what makes us...us. 

Edit to post: 
The late Betty Grable pin up girl( God I love that era) had the following to say....

There are two reasons why I’m in show business, and I’m standing on both of them.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

EELabs said:


> I support what the rules say. There is no rule that says a handler must step aside so others get a chance. I've run quals with 6 or more dogs having the win, (before the "title) and they were not "kiddie pool" people. They had their own reasons for running their dogs


There is a rule that says a dog, not a handler, is not allowed to continue to run Quals. 2 Qual wins, an Am placement, An Open JAM or better. The reason clearly is to make room for other dogs to get qualified all age designation (AA stakes require a minimum number of Qualified dogs, 12?, for championship points to count).

I really think it is a typo or oversight that an Am JAM isn't on that list. Maybe on the next update? Or maybe we can get the rule changed so that any dog can run the Qual, even an FC.

Edit: Just saying that if you are finishing AA stakes, there is no need to continue running the Qual. You have established that both the handler and the dog are ready for AA. Keep running the Qs as long as it is within the rules if you want, but moving up will be good for the game as it will allow others to experience the success that you have and it will make you have to step up your game to compete.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

cakaiser said:


> *Is not anyone's business except the owner.*



This pretty much sums it up...


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

cakaiser said:


> .....
> 
> Is not anyone's business except the owner.



This.

To some people, everything is an absolute. Sometimes the best answer is, "just KMA and get over it".

JS


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

I am glad I am not so sensitive... I am getting to run my first Q and I do realize it IS the kiddie pool compared to the Olympic pool of Open....


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

As far as the QA2 title, have clubs seen an increase in the entries in the qualifying this year with those looking for their 2nd win or 2nd place to get the title?


----------



## John Gianladis (Jun 23, 2012)

What was the original purpose or purposes of the Qualifying Stake? What is the current purpose or purposes of the Q?

JG


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

John Gianladis said:


> What was the original purpose or purposes of the Qualifying Stake? What is the current purpose or purposes of the Q?
> 
> JG


I don't know for sure what the purpose was. It's called the Qualifying stake, so it's safe to assume that the purpose was to "Qualify" a dog. The rules require a certain number of Qualified dogs to be entered for Championship points to be awarded. 

The rules also say that, at some point, the dog must move on and can not run the Q any longer.


----------



## NateB (Sep 25, 2003)

I can see a bit of both sides. I was finishing Quals one summer but never got a placement. The next spring the first trial I entered, I entered the Am cause what the heck, why not. She then proceeded to bomb in the Qual, was way too up and not listening to me. We went to the Am after having a "discussion" about paying attention, and we placed 4th. Was the only dog NOT to cheat the long water retired mark. Completing that trial was one of the most fulfilling experiences, regardless if we got a ribbon or not. Since we placed, she cannot run Quals anymore, and we spent the next few Am trials, picking up 2 birds in the land marks and going home. Sure would have been nice to be able to still run Quals, but I understand why the rule is there. Did not work for me, but does not make it a "bad rule". It just gets bit frustrating for someone who has to really pick and choose the time he/she can get away from work/family/etc to run a trial. Oh well, run with the big dogs or stay home!! Did not mean it was not fun to hang out at those trials. Finishing and ribbons are only part of the reason to run dogs, for me at least.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

captainjack said:


> There is a rule that says a dog, not a handler, is not allowed to continue to run Quals. 2 Qual wins, an Am placement, An Open JAM or better. The reason clearly is to make room for other dogs to get qualified all age designation (AA stakes require a minimum number of Qualified dogs, 12?, for championship points to count).
> 
> I really think it is a typo or oversight that an Am JAM isn't on that list. Maybe on the next update? Or maybe we can get the rule changed so that any dog can run the Qual, even an FC.
> 
> Edit: Just saying that if you are finishing AA stakes, there is no need to continue running the Qual. You have established that both the handler and the dog are ready for AA. Keep running the Qs as long as it is within the rules if you want, but moving up will be good for the game as it will allow others to experience the success that you have and it will make you have to step up your game to compete.


As for your "wisdom" highlighted in yellow, I have seen you state this in other posts. I would say that it is a bit presumptuous of anyone to second guess the intent of the rules. Believe or not there are people in this game that are more accomplished AND have more knowledge and experience than you do. Those people are the types that made these rules. For you to dismiss their wisdom and second guess their rationale is rather myopic, sanctimonious and self righteous. I have seen you many times ridicule anyone who argues with or doesn't understand the rules. Does that self righteous indignation only apply to rules that support YOUR position?

In regards to your "Wisdom" in red what about a case where the dog would like to run a LIMITED trial but has not met the requirements in the past year for whatever reason? In your esteemed opinion do you see that you are wrong when you state "there is no need to continue running the Qual."??

In post 56 you stated: "Your pride should keep you from trying to go flex your AA muscle at the kiddie pool."  
Now excuse me for questioning a lion of the sport such as yourSELF but, technically, is not a Qual actually an All Age stake? As far as I know the only age restrictions the AKC mandates is that a dog must be 6 mo old to enter any event. Additionally there is an age requirement that Derby dogs must be under 2 yrs old. There is no maximum age requirement as to the Q! Correct??

In post 64 you stated; " So why hang around and beat up on the younger kids?"
Once again excuse me for questioning such an august authority as yourself but according to EE it appears that you have run Q's with dogs that were close to 5 and 6 yrs old. Now if it is your position that the Q is for young dogs then if dogs age at the rate of 7 yrs to one human year then that kind of reeks of 35 and 40 yr old men hanging around at the "KIDDIE POOL". That is Kinda creepy IMHO!!
Is there a possibility that David'd database in incorrect?.......... OR are you again being myopic and being hypocritical??


----------



## Peter Balzer (Mar 15, 2014)

Don't mind me. . . .this just got good.


----------



## jtfreeman (Jan 6, 2009)

mjh345 said:


> As for your "wisdom" highlighted in yellow, I have seen you state this in other posts. I would say that it is a bit presumptuous of anyone to second guess the intent of the rules. Believe or not there are people in this game that are more accomplished AND have more knowledge and experience than you do. Those people are the types that made these rules. For you to dismiss their wisdom and second guess their rationale is rather myopic, sanctimonious and self righteous. I have seen you many times ridicule anyone who argues with or doesn't understand the rules. Does that self righteous indignation only apply to rules that support YOUR position?
> 
> In regards to your "Wisdom" in red what about a case where the dog would like to run a LIMITED trial but has not met the requirements in the past year for whatever reason? In your esteemed opinion do you see that you are wrong when you state "there is no need to continue running the Qual."??
> 
> ...


Dear captainjack,

Please be nice to this guy. It is clear he (I assume it is a he) has a man crush on you.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

jtfreeman said:


> Dear captainjack,
> 
> Please be nice to this guy. It is clear he (I assume it is a he) has a man crush on you.


Dang JT, I've had this AC blocked and would have missed this if you hadn't quoted him. BTW his name is Marc Healey. He contributes absolutely nothing to this forum. Only has the ability to launch personal attacks on those he may disagree with or argue a point that no one has made - like running an older dog in the Q. I know one thing, I'll put my dogs and my record against his any day.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

John Gianladis said:


> What was the original purpose or purposes of the Qualifying Stake? What is the current purpose or purposes of the Q?
> 
> JG


The original name for this stake was"Non-Winners".
Its intent was just that:to give dogs that were not yet winners after Derby a place to compete while preparing for all-age competition. IMHO that is still the purpose today. A dog was never suppose to dominate at this level. This is why they are required to drop out or move on after they have proven themselves accomplished in basic all-age principles. In today's FT climate the Q has become more valuable as the entry level for many dogs and handlers, as Derbies have become more technical and handlers transition from HT to FT.
As to the effect of the title: Cape Fear has a 66 dog Q this weekend, time will tell.

Tim


----------



## Sharon van der Lee (May 25, 2004)

EdA said:


> There could be dogs out there with three all-age wins but no title.
> Thanks for the brain teaser. I had to think about that for a few minutes........
> _
> While that is hypothetically possible I doubt that it has ever happened and if it did I doubt that the owner would be assuaged by this thing. My Reggie (Trumarc's Reverend Reggie) finished his career 2 1/2 points shy of his AFC and a QA2 piece of paper would mean nothing to me.
> _


Not all handlers have had the success you have had Ed. They would be very happy with the QA2. Keep things in perspective.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

captainjack said:


> Only has the ability to launch personal attacks on those he may disagree with or argue a point that no one has made - like running an older dog in the Q. I know one thing, I'll put my dogs and my record against his any day.


Glen we all know what an AC is. Rather than making another personal attack on me why don't you answer the legitimate points I raised in my post?

On the subject of personal attacks it was you not me that sent numerous insulting threatening PM's to me when I disagreed with you. Or do you consider AC, coward worthless POS etc terms of endearment?

Then you claim that nobody mentioned anything about running an older dog in the Q. Yet in post #64 you said.......................... " So why hang around and beat up on the younger kids?"

I accept the challenge issued in your last sentence. Name the stakes!!


----------



## Wayne Nutt (Jan 10, 2010)

What is an AC? Ed, I applaud your accomplishments. Some us will never get there for various reasons: too stupid, lack of resources, etc. If I ever got a QAA I would be bursting with pride and would spend the $20.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Wayne Nutt said:


> What is an AC?


A lifesaving device for Texas summers. My first experience with one was a window unit in the mid 1950s, without AC Texas would be one of the least populous states in North America.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Just FYI my dog won a Q two weekends ago, this past weekend he was a POS in the Q....I'll continue to run the Q until he is no longer allowed to by the rules or I feel he is ready to move up to AA. He is my dog and if you don't think it's "fair", too bad because if you can't beat him in the Q how ya gonna beat him in AA? We bitch about Pros, pro trained dogs, dogs that have already won...put on your big girl panties and walk to the line, it's a competition, if you don't like it than go do dock diving or something else....if no one is breaking the rules then who cares why they continue to run their dogs in a Q.


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

FOM said:


> Just FYI my dog won a Q two weekends ago, this past weekend he was a POS in the Q....I'll continue to run the Q until he is no longer allowed to by the rules or I feel he is ready to move up to AA. He is my dog and if you don't think it's "fair", too bad because if you can't beat him in the Q how ya gonna beat him in AA? We bitch about Pros, pro trained dogs, dogs that have already won...put on your big girl panties and walk to the line, it's a competition, if you don't like it than go do dock diving or something else....if no one is breaking the rules then who cares why they continue to run their dogs in a Q.


Would you continue to run him if you got an Amateur Jam?


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Tim Carrion said:


> The original name for this stake was"Non-Winners".
> Its intent was just that:to give dogs that were not yet winners after Derby a place to compete while preparing for all-age competition. IMHO that is still the purpose today. A dog was never suppose to dominate at this level. This is why they are required to drop out or move on after they have proven themselves accomplished in basic all-age principles. In today's FT climate the Q has become more valuable as the entry level for many dogs and handlers, as Derbies have become more technical and handlers transition from HT to FT.
> As to the effect of the title: Cape Fear has a 66 dog Q this weekend, time will tell.
> 
> Tim


There is one other reason for the Q also ... it was to assure that there were enough competent dogs entered in a titling stake. 

Of course that seems obsolete today


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Daren Galloway said:


> Would you continue to run him if you got an Amateur Jam?


Just because you luck out and JAM a Amateur one time doesn't necessarily mean your dog is ready to compete in the all age. Everybody's journey is personal, most who have been in the game a few dogs worth feel like three years old or so is time to move up QAA or not. A newcomer with their first dog may look at it differently, dog and handler both can profit from time on the line running four series. I certainly wouldn't look down my nose at anybody running the qual, if they are so good as to be feared, they will certainly win two and be out, otherwise let them run.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Daren Galloway said:


> Would you continue to run him if you got an Amateur Jam?


It depends, but right now, yes I'd still run him in Q's, essentially I'd be double staking him for your question to come into play....you have to know your dog, sometimes moving a dog up too soon does the dog no good, I'd rather for now play for 4 series in the Q vs. going out in the 1st series of an Am.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

I thought if you jammed an AA stake you were done with the Qual, am I wrong? What about an open jam?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Open JAM and you are done.
Any AA placement and you are done.
Two Q 1sts and you are done.

AM JAM and you can keep running Q's.


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

The pro that I day train with told me that when I was running the Qual, "stay there until you win two". I REALLY wanted to move to AA and run with the big dogs, but I stayed in the Qual. It was great training for both me and the dog (my first trial experience and also first trial dog). We got more comfortable on the line and got used to running 4 series. I never even tried an AA stake until winning out of the Qual. The transition to AA seemed fairly easy and the dog ended up with both titles in under 2 years after moving up. Guess it is hard to argue with the advice I was given.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

wetdog said:


> The pro that I day train with told me that when I was running the Qual, "stay there until you win two". I REALLY wanted to move to AA and run with the big dogs, but I stayed in the Qual. It was great training for both me and the dog (my first trial experience and also first trial dog). We got more comfortable on the line and got used to running 4 series. I never even tried an AA stake until winning out of the Qual. The transition to AA seemed fairly easy and the dog ended up with both titles in under 2 years after moving up. Guess it is hard to argue with the advice I was given.


I've seen your dog David, obviously a very talented animal. I think Jerry gave you great advise as you guy's benefited from the line experience. Many people are not as lucky with their first dog, and find the Qaulifying stake to be the dogs talent ceiling, though there could be that one in a thousand amateur stake such a dog could JAM.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

FOM said:


> Open JAM and you are done.
> Any AA placement and you are done.
> Two Q 1sts and you are done.
> 
> AM JAM and you can keep running Q's.





Ok thanks. I have never ran an AM so I thought you were done with the Q with a jam just like the open. Had me worried thought I may have made a big mistake about the open jam also. It's been a few years but my dog jammed an open at 29 months old so I quit running the qual. Speaking from experience that open jam was a curse. The dog and I would have been waaaaayyyy better off running the qual for at least another year


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Question on the Qa2 title? So say a dog is technically QA2 but you've decided not to pony up the $ or contact AKC for the official title, as you have higher aspirations. Are people listing the QA2 as an honorary title, just sticking with QAA, or not mentioning the status at all. I'm wondering on the listings of those inbtw dogs with Amateur-Open points who may not have a win or are lacking points for "official" titles AFC-FC. If you have upper stake points you are "unoffcially" QAA & or QA2, but if you don't bother with certificate are people claiming it?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Every dog I've had since 1995 has qualified for the QAA2 title including two I'm currently running, I don't list anything as I'm really interested in FC-AFC. I would imagine that 90% of dogs competing in the all age have easily met the QAA2 title requirements, but I don't see too many listing that title on their entries.


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> Every dog I've had since 1995 has qualified for the QAA2 title including two I'm currently running, I don't list anything as I'm really interested in FC-AFC. I would imagine that 90% of dogs competing in the all age have easily met the QAA2 title requirements, but I don't see too many listing that title on their entries.


I would agree with John. I have a QA2 Flat-Coated Retriever that I paid the money for and got the title. She will likely never come close to earning a FC or AFC title, but for the breed, QA2 is a big deal. I also have Labrador that has met the qualifications for QA2, but we are working toward the big dog titles, so I will never likely apply for the title for him. Many different situations and reasons to do it or not. I think we just have to leave it to each owner as to what they want to do. As far as unofficially listing a dog as QAA or QA2, well that's been going on for years. Long before the QA2 title came about. No change there.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Prior to earning her AFC title my darling dog was QA*61, *give or take a few. 
Funny huh?


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

John Robinson said:


> I would imagine that 90% of dogs competing in the all age have easily met the QAA2 title requirements, but I don't see too many listing that title on their entries.


I can understand not listing them for entries, pretty pointless when one has loftier goals. The only time I could see using such titles would be for breeding listings. QAA vs. QA2 for litter listing is there much of a difference? That QAA at the end of a dogs name is used pretty heavily when dogs haven't made AFC or FC titles yet. I believe it's important as it tells buyer that the dog has done something in FT; hooks them into reading the rest of the paragraph (Ex Fido QAA X Girl MH QAA) gets a click and gets one to read QAA (w/ Am. win, 1/2 pt. till AFC-FC title) or (XXX# of pts. Win needed for AFC-FC title). or just (QAA, qual 2nd) Will the QA2 take higher billing than a QAA, in such listing? Is there any value in the distinction?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> I can understand not listing them for entries, pretty pointless when one has loftier goals. The only time I could see using such titles would be for breeding listings. QAA vs. QA2 for litter listing is there much of a difference? That QAA at the end of a dogs name is used pretty heavily when dogs haven't made AFC or FC titles yet. I believe it's important as it tells buyer that the dog has done something in FT; hooks them into reading the rest of the paragraph (Ex Fido QAA X Girl MH QAA) gets a click and gets one to read QAA (w/ Am. win, 1/2 pt. till AFC-FC title) or (XXX# of pts. Win needed for AFC-FC title).


I can see the marketing advantage. I guess you say qualified for the QAA-2 title if you hadn't paid for the AKC paper, but why not just pay the $15.00 if you want to market the pups.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

With QA2 the title will appear on the papers and with QAA it does not. If people know what it means, I'm not sure it will make a difference in advertising. Some people don't know what it means at all but they know what MH means because it always has been on the papers.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

John Robinson said:


> I can see the marketing advantage. I guess you say qualified for the QAA-2 title if you hadn't paid for the AKC paper, but why not just pay the $15.00 if you want to market the pups.


I'd pay the $15.00 but then I'll own the female, and be in charge of placing the litter; Titles on the pedigrees matter . I was thinking more of the untitled or not-titled yet Studs. Most contenders would think it insanity to pay for a QA2 designation, when you have AM-Open points and are aiming to title AFC-FC, no real reason for it. Contrary wise there's a lot of reason for a stud owner who only ever played in the Qual to pay the $15.00, for an official title. Those familiar with FT's will take a pup from the stud (with points and not titles) over; an "official" QA2 qualifying stake stud. But those puppy buyers unfamiliar with FT's will see a QA2 title on a AKC official pedigree, vs. "offically" Nothing. Will it make a difference? I guess we'll have to wait and see if the title does anything other than unofficial QAA, in choices and marketability of studs. If it does make a difference everyone will be paying $15. 

Another question? Would it be considered bad form or an insult; for a bitch owner-potential breeding partner to offer to pay for or inquired if an as of yet untitled stud owner might purchase the official QA2 title; so it would appear on a pedigree?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> I'd pay the $15.00 but then I'll own the female, and be in charge of placing the litter; Titles on the pedigrees matter . I was thinking more of the untitled or not-titled yet Studs. Most contenders would think it insanity to pay for a QA2 designation, when you have AM-Open points and are aiming to title AFC-FC, no real reason for it. Contrary wise there's a lot of reason for a stud owner who only ever played in the Qual to pay the $15.00, for an official title. Those familiar with FT's will take a pup from the stud (with points and not titles) over; an "official" QA2 qualifying stake stud. But those puppy buyers unfamiliar with FT's will see a QA2 title on a AKC official pedigree, vs. "offically" Nothing. Will it make a difference? I guess we'll have to wait and see if the title does anything other than unofficial QAA, in choices and marketability of studs. If it does make a difference everyone will be paying $15.
> 
> Another question? Would it be considered bad form or an insult; for a bitch owner-potential breeding partner to offer to pay for or inquired if an as of yet untitled stud owner might purchase the official QA2 title; so it would appear on a pedigree?


I really think you're making too big a deal out of it. If you think such and such upcoming stud is a good dog to breed to, you're probably not alone in seeing the potential there, so he probably already is making a name for himself, with or without the QAA-2 title. Plus you get to describe his accomplishments in your marketing blub. To answer your second question, it wouldn't insult me if you offered to do the legwork and get my dog QAA-2 titled. I know what you are getting at, I have a dog with around 20 derby points, QAA at 29 months of age, AA R-Jam on his third birthday, lots and lots, of finishes and placements, but no title, not even an MH because I never run hunt test. That said he is an OS and has been bred a lot, just because people know he's a good dog.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

I think it may have more significance for breeds other than Labs, where there are less dogs available that will make it to FC/AFC titles. 

We also have to look at it from an historical perspective. Many years from now, when a lot of us are no longer around, it may be useful to the next generation in looking at pedigrees for making breeding choices. Again, probably more so in the minority breeds ... in Labs there are multitudes of titled dogs to choose from; not so in the other breeds.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Wont argue the value of the title but the idea that you have to pay for it when there is no fee for any other title is like pouring salt in my eye


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Steve Shaver said:


> Wont argue the value of the title but the idea that you have to pay for it when there is no fee for any other title is like pouring salt in my eye


Agree 100%.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Steve Shaver said:


> Wont argue the value of the title but the idea that you have to pay for it when there is no fee for any other title is like pouring salt in my eye


The Master Hunter Lifetime Achievement Title also requires a fee.

I believe there is a fee for the MNH title, but it is paid by the MN.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

mitty said:


> The Master Hunter Lifetime Achievement Title also requires a fee.
> 
> I believe there is a fee for the MNH title, but it is paid by the MN.




Never heard of the master hunter lifetime achievement title but paying a fee for EARNING a title sucks. Add up what it already costs to EARN any title.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Steve Shaver said:


> Never heard of the master hunter lifetime achievement title but paying a fee for EARNING a title sucks. Add up what it already costs to EARN any title.


Just remember AKC's motto: "Cash money, homey"


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

John Robinson said:


> That said he is an OS and has been bred a lot, just because people know he's a good dog.





Gerry Clinchy said:


> I think it may have more significance for breeds other than Labs, where there are less dogs available that will make it to FC/AFC titles.
> 
> We also have to look at it from an historical perspective. Many years from now, when a lot of us are no longer around, it may be useful to the next generation in looking at pedigrees for making breeding choices. Again, probably more so in the minority breeds ... in Labs there are multitudes of titled dogs to choose from; not so in the other breeds.


"Legacy" This is what I'm getting at in 10-20yrs. will we still know what these non-titled dogs, did or who they were? I agree paying for titles sucks, but say your running a few generations of these "non-offically" titled but superior skill-set dogs; (your dogs-your lines). It could be an unbroken line of very successful but "just missing it" dogs. Eventually neither you nor anyone else will be around who remembers. Generations later; When one looks at such dogs; the AKC pedigree will be blue, officially nothing. Whereas a Dog with a QA2 title, even if he only ran qualifying stakes; his name will be red a recorded accomplishment. A few generations of titled "QA2" dogs the trend continues, it starts to show consistency an unbroken-red line. Now a QA2 might by some be considered unsubstantial when compared to the true caliber of any of these "non-titled" dogs, but Official titles do ensure one thing; they leave a legacy; that anyone perusing a AKC pedigree can find and see. Too me superior dogs who have accomplished Amateur-Open points, wins; and for whatever reason don't quite make an AFC-FC title still deserve a legacy, not to just to be a blue name lost to time. QA2 title itself might not mean much to the owners of such dogs but $15.00 is pretty cheap to ensure a Legacy.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> "Legacy" This is what I'm getting at in 10-20yrs. will we still know what these non-titled dogs, did or who they were? I agree paying for titles sucks, but say your running a few generations of these "non-offically" titled but superior skill-set dogs; (your dogs-your lines). It could be an unbroken line of very successful but "just missing it" dogs. Eventually neither you nor anyone else will be around who remembers. Generations later; When one looks at such dogs; the AKC pedigree will be blue, officially nothing. Whereas a Dog with a QA2 title, even if he only ran qualifying stakes; his name will be red a recorded accomplishment. A few generations of titled "QA2" dogs the trend continues, it starts to show consistency an unbroken-red line. Now a QA2 might by some be considered unsubstantial when compared to the true caliber of any of these "non-titled" dogs, but Official titles do ensure one thing; they leave a legacy; that anyone perusing a AKC pedigree can find and see. Too me superior dogs who have accomplished Amateur-Open points, wins; and for whatever reason don't quite make an AFC-FC title still deserve a legacy, not to just to be a blue name lost to time. _*QA2 title itself might not mean much to the owners of such dogs but $15.00 is pretty cheap to ensure a Legacy*_.


 Yep, in the big scheme of things with $85.00 entry fees plus EE charges, literally tons of dog food, vet bills, training and traveling, $15.00 isn't much more than the principle of the thing. That said, I wish AKC would have made it harder to get a QAA-2, maybe two Qual wins, or the Canadian way with a win and five extra points. The way it is now, QAA-2 doesn't mean much more than the unofficial ***.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> "Legacy" This is what I'm getting at in 10-20yrs. will we still know what these non-titled dogs, did or who they were? .


Yea, I think we will. 

http://www.huntinglabpedigree.com/pedigree.asp?id=771


----------



## laurendaniel1995 (Jun 3, 2015)

Akc is money hungry and will try to make a quick buck anyway they can


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

captainjack said:


> Yea, I think we will.
> 
> http://www.huntinglabpedigree.com/pedigree.asp?id=771


As long as that site is still around, as long as the hosting company is still renewed, and as long as such sites usually only ran by 1 highly-active dedicated person is still updated. Say what you want about money hungry AKC; I will not disagree. But it is their sole purpose to maintain stud-books and records. Every FT dog in history is AKC registered. They are the go-to organization for purebred dogs, have been around for over a hundred years, and have an army of paid employees to do the work.

Another question for the group; Who has put in paperwork for the Historically Oldest QA2 title? A few generations, prior to computers records and the AKC will really be earning their $15.00.


----------



## bakbay (May 20, 2003)

Don't know who has requested the "historically oldest", but just thought the following information from the AKC form to request the QA2 title should be available for this discussion. First, the fee is $20, not $15. Second, no title will be awarded unless the necessary qualifications occurred after January 1, 2000...so you can't get the title for dogs who met the qualifications prior to that date.

RETRIEVER FIELD TRIAL QA2 TITLE APPLICATION
Any dog that on two occasions has met the qualifications to enter a Retriever Field Trial Limited All-Age stake is eligible to be awarded the Qualified All-Age 2 title (QA2). A limited all-age stake shall be for dogs that have previously been placed 1st – 4th or awarded a JAM in an open all-age, limited all-age, special all-age, restricted all-age, amateur all-age, O/H amateur all-age or that have placed 1st or 2nd in a qualifying or O/H qualifying stake. (Chapter 14, Section 10 of the AKC Retriever Field Trial Rules) Applying for the QA2 title is up to the discretion of the owner. To apply an owner must submit this completed form along with a $20 recording fee. Upon verification, the title will be recorded on a dog’s record, a title certificate issued and the title will appear on a dog’s pedigree. QA2 is a suffix title. The AKC will recognize qualifying performances back to January 1, 2000. Please be aware that event superintendents /secretaries may, but are not required to, include the QA2 title in event catalogs. Please note that the date appearing on the title certificate will be the most recent date listed below.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

A couple of other QAA dogs that have made an imprint on Lab history would be Super Powder and Code Red.


----------

