# QA 2 running the Q



## Dave Burton (Mar 22, 2006)

Have seen several dogs that are QA2 running in Q. Wondering why.


----------



## Old School Labs (May 17, 2006)

1 & 2 or two 2nds wil lget QA2 but still can run Q as not two 1sts.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Because they want to


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Dave Burton said:


> Have seen several dogs that are QA2 running in Q. Wondering why.


. 
Some dogs simply dont have what it takes to run AA stakes and will run Quals until they can't anymore. Some owners enjoy running their dogs even if they only play in the Qual. For some actually getting that second win is not what they want.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Because greed


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> Because greed


Oh yeah, I forgot about all that prize money


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Agree with Breck and Glen. Some dogs need the line time and experience. They aren't hurting anything and they are gaining experience they may not gain going out in the 1st series every week in the all age... 

Every owner has to make his/her own decisions about what is best for the dog. JMO


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

huntinman said:


> Agree with Breck and Glen. Some dogs need the line time and experience. They aren't hurting anything and they are gaining experience they may not gain going out in the 1st series every week in the all age...
> 
> Every owner has to make his/her own decisions about what is best for the dog. JMO


Agree 100%, many young dogs benefit from running the Qualifying, a couple of mine did, not every 3 year old is ready for all age stakes.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

captainjack said:


> Because they want to


I've never run a QAA dog in a Qualifying stake myself. Just making an observation. FWIW, I don't like the QA2 title. At least the way it's awarded now. I'd rather see it tied to the "Restricted" all age criteria. Placement in an AM, or JAM or better in an Open.

2 seconds in a Qual is a far cry from a placement in an AA stake.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

captainjack said:


> I've never run a QAA dog in a Qualifying stake myself. Just making an observation. FWIW, I don't like the QA2 title. At least the way it's awarded now. I'd rather see it tied to the "Restricted" all age criteria. Placement in an AM, or JAM or better in an Open.
> 
> 2 seconds in a Qual is a far cry from a placement in an AA stake.


Or 2 firsts in a Q


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

DarrinGreene said:


> Because greed


Snort, snort, chuckle. Yep, you nailed it. Buncha greedy buzzards, keep running those Qual dogs instead of giving others a chance to get their dogs QAA/QA2. 

4 QAA of my own and counting, people don't like me running, too bad, change the rules, or suck it up, buttercup. One is QA2, after his second second place, I didn't have any reason to keep running him in Qual, but I couldn't care less and don't even look, who else is running or what their record is, when I step to the line, it's me and my dog doing the best we can. Some days it's good, more often, it isn't good enough. Because that's the game, and it's on me to step up, not the competition to step down.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

"Because that's the game, and it's on me to step up, not the competition to step down."
I like that. Well said. Applies to, well, life.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Rainmaker said:


> Snort, snort, chuckle. Yep, you nailed it. Buncha greedy buzzards, keep running those Qual dogs instead of giving others a chance to get their dogs QAA/QA2.
> 
> 4 QAA of my own and counting, people don't like me running, too bad, change the rules, or suck it up, buttercup. One is QA2, after his second second place, I didn't have any reason to keep running him in Qual, but I couldn't care less and don't even look, who else is running or what their record is, when I step to the line, it's me and my dog doing the best we can. Some days it's good, more often, it isn't good enough. Because that's the game, and it's on me to step up, not the competition to step down.





Good Dogs said:


> "Because that's the game, and it's on me to step up, not the competition to step down."
> I like that. Well said. Applies to, well, life.


If you're gonna "step up", then "step *up*". 
Just saying.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

captainjack said:


> If you're gonna "step up", then "step *up*".
> Just saying.


If you're implying we should be running AA, well, you don't know everything. So go play what you want with your own dogs, I'll do the same with mine. And for someone who doesn't like the QA2 title, you sure don't mind throwing it out there. Just saying.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Rainmaker said:


> If you're implying we should be running AA, well, you don't know everything. So go play what you want with your own dogs, I'll do the same with mine. And for someone who doesn't like the QA2 title, you sure don't mind throwing it out there. Just saying.


I'm not implying anything, I'm saying it.

What I'm saying is that you attack someone that asked a question by saying quit whining and step up your game. Put your big boy/girl pants in, buttercup, etc...

What I'm saying is run whatever you want, but don't say it like you're some kind of competitor. Better off just saying I run it because I want to and am allowed to. No other explanation needed.

Oh and I got all mine in the AA stakes.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 14, 2008)

captainjack said:


> I've never run a QAA dog in a Qualifying stake myself. Just making an observation. FWIW, I don't like the QA2 title. At least the way it's awarded now. I'd rather see it tied to the "Restricted" all age criteria. Placement in an AM, or JAM or better in an Open.
> 
> 2 seconds in a Qual is a far cry from a placement in an AA stake.


Glen, you never run qual's? I understand that a 2nd or a win in one of todays qualifying stakes, is really not an indication of being ready for AA, but I don't think you should underestimate their value in helping a Handler get ready for AA. As we progress towards the big stakes, it's not just the dog that needs experience. Not to mention you do get the occasional qual that does resemble an Amateur. Those were the trials I remember best, and the ones that let me know we were ready to move on.
Walt


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> FWIW, I don't like the QA2 title


Since it's not automatically awarded, but you have to apply and pay money for it, you sure have made sure you have done that and proudly display them in your signature line.

I am on the side of do what is best for your dog and the handler and Laissez-faire within the rules. The dog gains far more line time experience in the qual, than going to line in the AA and not getting through the 1st series for months.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Glen, you never run qual's? I understand that a 2nd or a win in one of todays qualifying stakes, is really not an indication of being ready for AA, but I don't think you should underestimate their value in helping a Handler get ready for AA. As we progress towards the big stakes, it's not just the dog that needs experience. Not to mention you do get the occasional qual that does resemble an Amateur. Those were the trials I remember best, and the ones that let me know we were ready to move on.
> Walt


Yes, I run quals. Once QAA I move on. I do it because I believe it's sportsmanship to give someone else a chance. Not saying everyone should do what I do, run until they make you quit if you want. The rules are set up to make people move on because some people wouldn't otherwise. Let that sink in. 

I got a second in a Qual with one of my dogs, two weeks later I entered an AM and got 2nd there. Two things stand out. 1st, if I'd just kept running the Q, I wouldn't have finished 2nd in the AM. 2nd, Chad Baker was they with Grady and I asked why he wasn't entered in the AM, Chad said that it was the last chance for dogs to qualify for the Nat'l AM and that Grady was already qualified so he wanted to give someone else a chance to qualify. Although he had the chance to add to Grady's AA point tally toward the end of his career, he chose not to run. 

The guy who finished 1st, btw needed that win and qualified for the national. Sportsmanship!


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

ErinsEdge said:


> Since it's not automatically awarded, but you have to apply and pay money for it, you sure have made sure you have done that and proudly display them in your signature line.
> 
> I am on the side of do what is best for your dog and the handler and Laissez-faire within the rules. The dog gains far more line time experience in the qual, than going to line in the AA and not getting through the 1st series for months.


You are obviously a democrat. I'll leave it up to those interested to read my entire post.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> You are obviously a democrat.


I am not, and your deductive reasoning is askew, because you are neither a Grady owner nor exhibit a greater example of sportsmanship than others.


----------



## [email protected] (Mar 14, 2008)

Glen, not everyone is a Chad Baker. I think there are many more (though not as many as there used to be) people that don't have the facilities, don't have pro trained dogs or good training partners, all the things you need to give you the confidence to move on so quickly. I know people that get their dogs QAA and immediately move to AA. They are usually people that have property north and south, are retired, their dogs pro trained. And not just their dogs, they are pro trained as well. Spending countless hours in front of their pro, getting sweet nothings whispered into their ears as they run their dogs. The struggle becomes much more intense when you have none of those things. I think those are the people that Qualifying means so much more to.
I know you train your own dogs, but obviously you are in a very different place then the people I'm talking about.
So it probably is good sportsmanship for you guys to get out of the way.
Walt


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

captainjack said:


> I'm not implying anything, I'm saying it.
> 
> What I'm saying is that you attack someone that asked a question by saying quit whining and step up your game. Put your big boy/girl pants in, buttercup, etc...
> 
> ...


I quoted Darrin, who did not ask a question, but made a remark about greed. 

There are a variety of reasons people keep running vs moving up to AA. Even Dr. Ed, who IS a COMPETITOR, has given some. I don't find it unsportsmanlike to keep running Qual even if your dog is QA2, as long as it is within the rules. I don't find it unsportsmanlike to keep running AA stakes even if you are already FC AFC or qualified for Nat or Nat Am. If some do choose not to run to give others a chance, that's up to them. It certainly isn't a mandate or one of those "unwritten rules". I do find it unsportsmanlike to belittle those who run their dogs in what they choose to run, whether it is a JH or keep running the Qual until they can't or don't want to. That was the context of my post within this thread. 

If you're one of the ones harassing handlers at Quals, making crappy comments, chasing people away. More power to you, hope it boosts your ego some more. 

I judged a Qual last month, exactly what happened. Guy, fairly new to FT, first QAA dog, got a second couple weeks before, making his dog QA2. He ran, don't know if he was already entered before the close or what, but doesn't matter, he was legal to run, he had good reason to run, he needs the experience. Which is no one's business but his regardless. Some jacknobs made comments in the gallery that he shouldn't be running Qual anymore. He came up to tell me (yeah, he broke protocol bypassing the marshal, yet another strike against him)that he was pulling his dog, who'd had a nice run first series. I thought maybe illness or injury but he finally told me what happened. I suggested he ignore the blabbermouths and keep running his dog, better yet, beat them and make them cry some more, but he didn't want to deal with the BS, so he left. BTW, he is running some AM too. But it doesn't matter to the know it alls who think they get to decide what people can run. Not the rules. Them and their opinions. So, you may be uber competitor, Captainjack, and consider yourself a fine sportsman, me, not so much. And I'm sure you care about my opinion of you about as much as I care about yours.


----------



## Dave Burton (Mar 22, 2006)

Didn't mean to start a fuss. I haven't been running long enough to even have an opinion. I honestly wondered what peoples thoughts were. I didn't even think of gaining experience as a reason but works for me.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I have two ten year olds, both were QAA by the time they were three. One of them went on to be a bonafide all age competitor, the other was a solid qual dog, a first, two seconds, two thirds and a forth, but after four years running all age, two JAMs. That dog just doesn't have the talent to be an all age dog. 

I could have made a career running quals until he won another one, but it was still fun getting to the third series often and occasionally finishing an all age. Not judging anybody else, everybody needs to decide for themselves what's best for them and their dog.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Dave Burton said:


> Didn't mean to start a fuss. I haven't been running long enough to even have an opinion. I honestly wondered what peoples thoughts were. I didn't even think of gaining experience as a reason but works for me.


For many beginners, running Qualifying stakes will get you more line time with your dog vs an AA stake, and believe me, you and your dog need to learn how to work together when you're both all hyped up at a trial. I have run Am and it is a thrill sometimes just to get out of the first series. But for experience, especially if you aren't in the position, for whatever reason, to truly train for AA on a consistent, year round basis, running Qualifying stakes are a decent way to get it. Many are very challenging, have a retired gun, and getting through with nothing more than a JAM can still show you something. One of mine won a 25 dog O/H Qual in the spring as a 2 y/o, then in the fall, we ran a big "open" 50 dog Qual, he got RJ, I was pretty happy with both, because of what they were and what we got out of it as far as experience. Can he run AA? His AA pro sure thinks so, and he routinely made it out of the first series in the Opens he ran with him over the winter/spring. He's a young hot dog, talented marker, bugger on blinds yet. I don't keep my dogs on trucks year round, I prefer to have them home in the summer, whether I can train them or not. Sometimes, weeks go by, they don't see a mark or blind. Can't run AA like that. Can scratch out a Qual ribbon now and then to keep us going until we can train the way I want and need to train to really run AA stakes.


----------



## Russ (Jan 3, 2003)

My understanding is that the Qualifying stake was set up to give dogs a competitive stake to run after timing out of Derby and before they are ready to run all age stakes. Criteria were established for when a dog was no longer eligible to run in the Qual. I have not seen a Limited or Special stake in this circuit in quite awhile, so I do not think being QAA is that important except as a gauge to see how far your dog is in terms of competing. 

If a dog becomes QAA right out of Derby, is he supposed to move right up to all age before it is achieved that level or sit for a year until ready to run those stakes? As mentioned before, the owner of a dog entering a Qual knows the rules going in and will be competing against dogs that are not likely ready to run all age stakes. If the dog cannot compete against this field, then it probably does not yet deserve the QAA certification.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

[email protected] said:


> Glen, not everyone is a Chad Baker. I think there are many more (though not as many as there used to be) people that don't have the facilities, don't have pro trained dogs or good training partners, all the things you need to give you the confidence to move on so quickly. I know people that get their dogs QAA and immediately move to AA. They are usually people that have property north and south, are retired, their dogs pro trained. And not just their dogs, they are pro trained as well. Spending countless hours in front of their pro, getting sweet nothings whispered into their ears as they run their dogs. The struggle becomes much more intense when you have none of those things. I think those are the people that Qualifying means so much more to.
> I know you train your own dogs, but obviously you are in a very different place then the people I'm talking about.
> So it probably is good sportsmanship for you guys to get out of the way.
> Walt


That's why I said from the beginning to run if you want to for what ever reason you want. I just think it's silly to attack someone for asking why people run if already qa2 on the basis of "step up" or shut up.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Dave Burton said:


> Have seen several dogs that are QA2 running in Q. Wondering why.


Maybe it is as simple as the Q can be FUN! I think I read somewhere that this is part of it.
You can compete, generally run 3-4 series in 1 day, less pressure than all-age stakes or chasing Derby points....

Tim


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

captainjack said:


> That's why I said from the beginning to run if you want to for what ever reason you want. I just think it's silly to attack someone for asking why people run if already qa2 on the basis of "step up" or shut up.[/QUOTE
> 
> When you take remarks out of context, and just flat out make up stuff, you get what you got.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

captainjack said:


> That's why I said from the beginning to run if you want to for what ever reason you want. I just think it's silly to attack someone for asking why people run if already qa2 on the basis of "step up" or shut up.


Glen. reading comprehension... KIM said she ,*herself,* needs to step up if she gets beat in the Q


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Qualifying snobs? Do we have a new field trial subgroup? My little guy, due to a variety of factors, got a late start. He ran 4 Derbies near his 2nd birthday with 2 fourths and a Jam. Six months later he ran his first qualifying so at 2 1/2 he had limited field trial experience. He has run 7 Qualifyings with a win, two seconds, and two Jams. He has run 2 Amateurs going out in the first series of both. I am probably not as good a trainer as captainjack so I might run him in a couple of Qualifyings this Fall, then on to All-Age stakes. The experience for both of us in the Qualifying has been valuable, for him confidence in competition, for me learning how he is different in competition from his behavior in training. Field trials are a very competitive activity, I have never understood the if you have done A then stand aside for someone else to experience success. If you want to be successful come beat us all. I don't like Q2 (or whatever it is called) either because for some it is an end point but for lifers like me it is just the beginning.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

EdA said:


> Qualifying snobs? Do we have a new field trial subgroup? My little guy, due to a variety of factors, got a late start. He ran 4 Derbies near his 2nd birthday with 2 fourths and a Jam. Six months later he ran his first qualifying so at 2 1/2 he had limited field trial experience. He has run 7 Qualifyings with a win, two seconds, and two Jams. He has run 2 Amateurs going out in the first series of both. I am probably not as good a trainer as captainjack so I might run him in a couple of Qualifyings this Fall, then on to All-Age stakes. The experience for both of us in the Qualifying has been valuable, for him confidence in competition, for me learning how he is different in competition from his behavior in training. Field trials are a very competitive activity, I have never understood the if you have done A then stand aside for someone else to experience success. If you want to be successful come beat us all. I don't like Q2 (or whatever it is called) either because for some it is an end point but for lifers like me it is just the beginning.


I guess you never run anything but the open? That's the only stake where you have to beat em all.

Like I said, I choose to run and move on. Run that dog in the Q for the rest of its life Ed. I didn't here you tell the op to suck it up, but I guess now you've told us all.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

captainjack said:


> I guess you never run anything but the open? That's the only stake where you have to beat em all.
> 
> Like I said, I choose to run and move on. Run that dog in the Q for the rest of its life Ed. I didn't here you tell the op to suck it up, but I guess now you've told us all.


Apparently you have misinterpreted my post either by omission or comission, my message was, or should have been, after two wins in the Qualifying you move on or you move on before when your dog is ready. I am slightly confused by your willingness to pick fights with almost anyone over nothing. And until he gets another win I will run that dog in as many Qualifyings as I see fit.


----------



## DLR (Sep 17, 2014)

I don't get it, all the bitching and moaning, that is. Train YOUR dogs, run YOUR dogs don't worry about ANYONE else.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

Captainjack how do you run qual and move on with a QA2 on several of your dogs? Need more than on 1st or 2nd in Qual


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Maybe... Instead of being in a rush to get out of the Q. It might be better for your dog to stay there for a while as opposed to getting beat up on a regular basis in the all age. A lot can be said for confidence, experience and just getting birds... In a trial situation. Again, JMO.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

moscowitz said:


> Captainjack how do you run qual and move on with a QA2 on several of your dogs? Need more than on 1st or 2nd in Qual


Amateur finishes and placements & an open Reserve JAM. 

I train my own dogs on weekends. Although I run the AA stakes, QAA is really about all that's realistic for guys like me and it really means a lot - very different from Ed, I know. 

I like to move on so that others can achieve what I did. Sue me.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

I work and train also like many others on this site. I stay in qual until I have confidence in my dogs and feel they are maturing.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

captainjack said:


> very different from Ed, I know.


You obviously don't know what you don't know and you don't know me.


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

*Be The Very Best*



EdA said:


> Apparently you have misinterpreted my post either by omission or comission, my message was, or should have been, after two wins in the Qualifying you move on or you move on before when your dog is ready.
> 
> A MEN, ED -
> 
> Bill Connor


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

EdA said:


> If you want to be successful come beat us all. I don't like Q2 (or whatever it is called) either *because for some it is an end point but for lifers like me it is just the beginning.*





captainjack said:


> Although I run the AA stakes, QAA is really about all that's realistic for guys like me and it really means a lot - very different from Ed, I know.
> 
> I like to move on so that others can achieve what I did. Sue me.





EdA said:


> You obviously don't know what you don't know and you don't know me.


Just reading what you write Ed.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

captainjack said:


> Amateur finishes and placements & an open Reserve JAM.
> 
> I train my own dogs on weekends. Although I run the AA stakes, QAA is really about all that's realistic for guys like me and it really means a lot - very different from Ed, I know.
> 
> I like to move on so that others can achieve what I did. Sue me.


I'm not sure I'm getting your point. It really doesn't matter to me if you run a few quals and move up, skip quals completely and just run the all age it's all good if that's what you want to do. I just don't get your seeming judgement of others who take a different approach. 

Many posters, myself included, have given good reasons for running quals longer than you. As long as the rules allow it, I don't think it's unsportsmanlike to go that route.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> I'm not sure I'm getting your point. It really doesn't matter to me if you run a few quals and move up, skip quals completely and just run the all age it's all good if that's what you want to do. I just don't get your seeming judgement of others who take a different approach.
> 
> Many posters, myself included, have given good reasons for running quals longer than you. As long as the rules allow it, I don't think it's unsportsmanlike to go that route.


Read my posts from the beginning. 

I said run whatever you want as long as you want. I just took offense to what I saw, and which has been reinforced by several on here, as people challenging the person who had the gall to ask why people do it to suck it up, step up, come beat us all, etc. 

The whole point of the Qual is that its for a limited period and once you achieve a specific level (2 wins or other AA success), you are prohibited from entering at this level. Think about why that's even a rule. Why not let everyone who wants to keep running the Q regardless of how many times they win or even if the dog is FC or AFC?

Do you think it's possible that the rule makers believed that some would stay in the Qual to see how many wins they could get? Do you think that the rule makers wanted to set a limit so as to allow or even encourage new people to enter and succeed?

I run and move on, and I think that's in keeping with the spirit of the rules even though by the letter of the rules i could continue.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

captainjack said:


> Read my posts from the beginning.
> 
> I said run whatever you want as long as you want. I just took offense to what I saw, and which has been reinforced by several on here, as people challenging the person who had the gall to ask why people do it to suck it up, step up, come beat us all, etc.
> 
> ...


I have read your posts from the beginning and I think you are confused or misinterpreting or just have a chip on your shoulder. Nobody attacked the OP for asking the question that I can see. Most gave reasonable reasons for continuing to run, except for Darrin with his greed comment. You take others out of context, including myself and Dr. Ed, and make it seem like the OP is being challenged. Nobody did that, unless some posts got deleted, so I really don't see the need to feel bad for the OP "getting attacked". I don't see anyone quoting the OP and beating him up for asking the question. 

You're obviously bothered by my suck it up buttercup remark, which in no way was an attack on the OP nor a challenge to everyone come beat me, sheesh. In the context of my response to Darrin's greed remark, it meant, train your dog vs expecting others to get out of your way to make it easier for you to get QAA yourself. Which is what some sound like and it is ridiculous and unsportsmanlike to me, to hear people say that to others. Essentially, stop running the Qual after you get a blue or red, and let someone else get QAA. I really don't see that as the "spirit of the rules". There is wiggle room in the rules as to how long a dog can keep running in the Qual, and I think there's a reason for that. You keep saying I said step it up, and I did, about myself, no one else. So stop with the pretend affront for the OP, because I think you've made it plain what your real agenda is.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

ErinsEdge said:


> Oh yeah, I forgot about all that prize money


I knew you'd love that one... greed comes in many forms


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

captainjack said:


> Read my posts from the beginning.
> 
> I said run whatever you want as long as you want. I just took offense to what I saw, and which has been reinforced by several on here, as people challenging the person who had the gall to ask why people do it to suck it up, step up, come beat us all, etc.
> 
> ...


I think you're projecting a bit on your spirit of the rules. I absolutely believe they thought some handlers would keep running to see how many wins they could get, that's why they placed a two win limit in the rules. If they wanted you to stop after one win or second they would have made it a rule. 

I don't see why you were offended by Kim's post, it seemed innocent to me. I really don't get the fight, I think we're arguing over nothing, the OP asked an honest question and people for the most part answered without judgement.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Rainmaker said:


> Snort, snort, chuckle. Yep, you nailed it. Buncha greedy buzzards, keep running those Qual dogs instead of giving others a chance to get their dogs QAA/QA2.
> 
> 4 QAA of my own and counting, people don't like me running, too bad, change the rules, or suck it up, buttercup. One is QA2, after his second second place, I didn't have any reason to keep running him in Qual, but I couldn't care less and don't even look, who else is running or what their record is, when I step to the line, it's me and my dog doing the best we can. Some days it's good, more often, it isn't good enough. Because that's the game, and it's on me to step up, not the competition to step down.


Yep, pretty much proved my point - screw all y'all - I can, so I will... 

Lots of "I" in that response. 

Then we wonder why we can't get enough workers for a trial/test...

And before anyone bitches - I work 1-3 events a year and I don't even have a dog running right now.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Two quick additions to what I said, since it's a bit simplistic (especially after reading Dr. Ed's response). This is not me backing up or changing position. I PERSONALLY find it a bit greedy for someone whose dog is QA2 to be running and potentially winning qualifying events. I also have a problem with pro handlers in "owner handler" events but that's just me - it's a spirit of the event issue in my mind vs. what the rules say.

So as I said - two things:

1. Judge people on their overall demeanor/behavior - I don't know Dr. Ed personally but he's a lifelong competitor who will move his dog to AA when ready and I am very sure - has been more than generous with his time, money and knowledge over the years. I may think the single action is a bit greedy but I'm sure not thinking he (or anyone else) is a bad guy over it. 

2. It's not unsportsmanlike at all to run the event - it's within the rules to do so. To each their own WITHIN THE RULES. 

It's not something I'd personally do - but I don't have the competitive drive to worry about it. I'd rather see someone else win if I have already proven my dog's ability. 

No - I haven't done it - before someone points that shriveled up wizard finger at me... But I know what I would do and that wouldn't change. 

I can be a bit of an idealist at times - I know that. If you don't know me personally then you may not realize I hold myself to the same standard. That might help some people who have an issue with me now and then (or all of the time )


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> Yep, pretty much proved my point - screw all y'all - I can, so I will...
> 
> Lots of "I" in that response.
> 
> ...


Darin, are you saying its greedy to continue running Quals after you've got a win or second? You don't buy the argument that some dogs are far from ready for the all age? I don't see how a guy moving from the Q to the Am would effect worker help at a trial.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

John Robinson said:


> Darin, are you saying its greedy to continue running Quals after you've got a win or second? You don't buy the argument that some dogs are far from ready for the all age? I don't see how a guy moving from the Q to the Am would effect worker help at a trial.


My personal feeling John, after the dog is QA2 - I think people should allow their fellow competitors a chance to qualify their dogs.

Leaving newer folks a chance to be successful will IMO encourage them to hang around the game longer and contribute their time to working.

Just my personal opinion. No big deal. People don't always agree.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

I think Ed and others highlighted that it's what's best for the dog and handler and it's their choice as to that. I think the other's comments are taking it personal and not looking at the big picture.

Jeff


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

DarrinGreene said:


> Yep, pretty much proved my point - screw all y'all - I can, so I will...
> 
> Lots of "I" in that response.
> 
> ...


Well, you and CJ certainly have interesting perspectives, I'll give you that. To me, field trials are competition. It is me and my dog against the rest of the field. It is not a we sport in that regard. But, let's be clear, there are plenty of us who train together, who root for each other, who congratulate and commiserate, who wish each other luck before we step to the line, but when we are at the line, we are trying to do our best. We aren't wishing the others ill, we are just trying to do our best. We don't withdraw our dogs to give each other a better chance, unless there is something extraordinary going on, I guess. I wouldn't expect it of any of my training group/friends, nor do I think that I and my dog(s) are such a threat to everyone else that I should step back so others can win. Unbelievable chutzpah that, really. I run against even my own pro sometimes, and that's actually pretty cool. Once he won and me and my dog got second. It was awesome. To me. Doubt anyone else cares. 

And WTH does running Qual have to do with not getting workers. Again, the logic escapes me. I work, trials and tests. I don't deserve to run? You think someone isn't encouraging and helping others because they continue to run Qual? You seem to have as much clue about human behavior as canine sometimes. 

And just so I can earn your approval, I have not personally continued running a dog that was "QA2", I just don't care if anyone else does and I don't understand those who are getting so holier than thou about those that do.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Sounds a bit like socialism... Let everyone get their fair share. 

If that was the case in all age, we would never have high point dogs. Everyone would end the year when they qualified for the National... Pretty boring. 

It's a competitve sport. If you want to get the brass ring, you need to beat the good dogs, not ask them to stay home...


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

Darrin
Can you give me your perspective why you think pro's should not handle their dogs in the Q? I'm guessing "pro's " is all inclusive
Thanks
Pete


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Rainmaker said:


> And just so I can earn your approval, I have not personally continued running a dog that was "QA2", I just don't care if anyone else does and I don't understand those who are getting so holier than thou about those that do.


No holier than though - I made a simple statement that as usual you MUST refute... 

If you're running the Q after your dog is titled - it's for you and your dog and ignores the impact it may have on someone else's chance to win. It's no big issue to me - people just don't want to hear about the reality of their actions. That's normal.

The only thing I would get frustrated about is people not following the rules so as long as it's legal - blame the game not the player.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Pete said:


> Darrin
> Can you give me your perspective why you think pro's should not handle their dogs in the Q? I'm guessing "pro's " is all inclusive
> Thanks
> Pete


I think the spirit of "owner handler" is meant to allow amateurs a better chance to compete against people with comparable skill sets. No reason for the designation, otherwise, that I can think of anyway. You often times see them tagged onto hunting tests. To me the O/H is designed to help people enter the FT game. 

I just look at the events differently than most people, I guess. Both just seem to me to be entry points for hunting test dogs and first time/newer participants. The sport is slowly dying, along with hunting and hunting dogs. People staying in the Q with dogs that are already titled and pros handling against amateurs during O/H events are both places I see newer people getting discouraged.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

huntinman said:


> Sounds a bit like socialism... Let everyone get their fair share.
> 
> If that was the case in all age, we would never have high point dogs. Everyone would end the year when they qualified for the National... Pretty boring.
> 
> It's a competitve sport. If you want to get the brass ring, you need to beat the good dogs, not ask them to stay home...


No one said that Bill but the Q is simply there to allow dogs into Limited Events. The title has come to mean something that maybe it shouldn't. I don't know.

Ed makes a very good point - the event provides a lot of valuable practice for dogs that aren't quite ready to advance yet. Maybe they should simply be excluded from placements. If the handler is really there to have a good time and work with/learn his dog in a trial setting, then nothing about the event would change. 

I'll bet if you remove the opportunity for additional ribbons you'll see less of this though


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

I remember one morning getting my picture taken in a holding blind ,at a Derby, in a white handlers jacket...

That was a Big deal for me..

I remember Ted making it so everyone of the handlers that were dropped in that first (Me,Us) and consecutive series ,got the privilege to continue to play, out of contention...

That was something I will never forget..


Gooser


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

I run my dogs in the Q and don't give a crap who runs. This is competition. What the hell do you think is going to happen in the all age stake. Suck it up you cream puffs this is not hunt tests. I enjoy running against the pros they are good and they are positive people to run against. They wish you good luck just like the other competitors but just like us want a first or second and that is all that counts. This issue has gone on long enough.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

In my opinion, as Shakespeare once said "Much Ado About Nothing."

I think that there are lots of reasons to run a dog in the Qualifying after it is QAA
1. The dog needs more seasoning before moving up
2. The handler needs more seasoning before moving up
3. Realistically, the dog/handler combination are never going to be up to QAA snuff, and the owner likes going out and puttering with the dog in a stake where they get to run 4 series regularly. 

As a practical matter, although FT are competitive, I never viewed it as me against someone else or my dog against someone else's dog. Which is not to say that I am not competitive, because I am intensely so. 

Rather, I have found that in FT, it is best to focus on me and my dog. If we each do the best we can, I find good things follow - always satisfaction, sometimes placements.

I think it is great that a handler and his/her dog are out there having fun. If they want to move up, great. If not, that's great, too. I am certainly not going to impose my standards on someone else.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> In my opinion, as Shakespeare once said "Much Ado About Nothing."
> 
> I think that there are lots of reasons to run a dog in the Qualifying after it is QAA
> 1. The dog needs more seasoning before moving up
> ...


Exactly...........


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Its extremely rare for a 2 or even 3 year old dog to be ready to run open or am whether QA2 or not


----------



## Ken Barton (Jun 7, 2010)

Ed, good intentions not withstanding I think there is a supratentorial barrier involved so don't try explaining any further I think most people understand and I think you were being most charitable.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

I guess I have more of a problem with Pros staying in the qual until they are kicked out, than an amateur staying in to gain experience. Pros are running dogs everyday, they are running all stakes, and most of the time those qual dogs are also running AA stakes, doing pretty well in them. What can a Pro gain from running the qual stake over and over, after the dogs have obtained QAA except for props when they win week after week. A pro knows how to handle, they know where their dogs skill level is they know what is needed to move up, and yet seems like some run every dog they can in the qual until they absolutely can't run that dog anymore. They also bring in a string of dogs, more chances to figure out the setup and get it correct. Guess it gives them credibility to be able to beat, others who's dogs-handlers don't have the experience and use the Qual to gain it. Prefer the Owner handler Qual, as the owner has to handle their own dog, cuts down the number of bullets a single handler can actually run, to only those they actually own; takes away the advantage of having 7-12 dogs to handle in a stake. I don't mind running against Pros, but running quals against dogs already preforming in AA stakes, simply because they haven't been forced out of the Qual yet, seems pretty unsportsmanlike. They can do it, because the rules allow it, but I believe this is the reason you don't see very many newbies breaking into the Qual, nor doing more than just trying it out. They don't feel they can compete against a string of pros trained dogs, you will see more newbies try the O/H Quals, as the field appears more level, even then if politics become involved, as they DO.. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth so they won't waste the time or money on it again. I guess the question is what is the real purpose of the Qual stake? I don't believe it is to bring in newbies, I don't believe it's there to allow dogs to grow, although that might be what the party-line says it's for. Seems to me it's more about highlighting trainers who can put in many dogs and win week after week, until the rules tell them they can't do it anymore.


----------



## HiRollerlabs (Jun 11, 2004)

Rainmaker said:


> I judged a Qual last month, exactly what happened. Guy, fairly new to FT, first QAA dog, got a second couple weeks before, making his dog QA2. He ran, don't know if he was already entered before the close or what, but doesn't matter, he was legal to run, he had good reason to run, he needs the experience. Which is no one's business but his regardless. Some jacknobs made comments in the gallery that he shouldn't be running Qual anymore. He came up to tell me (yeah, he broke protocol bypassing the marshal, yet another strike against him)that he was pulling his dog, who'd had a nice run first series. I thought maybe illness or injury but he finally told me what happened. I suggested he ignore the blabbermouths and keep running his dog, better yet, beat them and make them cry some more, but he didn't want to deal with the BS, so he left. BTW, he is running some AM too.


I was the marshal at this stake, and the handler came and told me he was pulling his dog because someone remarked that his dog was already QAA2 and he should get out of their way or whatever. I encouraged him to stay and run. I asked him who had said this to him, but he was a gentleman and wouldn't tell me. After he left, I gave my speech to those in the gallery that he had every right to run his dog in this Q and if he had told me who was acting in an unsportsmanlike manner, I would write this person up. The handler who left with his QAA2 dog had entered this OH Q before he got his second 2nd place in a Q, and this was going to be his last Q. He was running because he was entered. He is now running Amateurs. Are people that possessed to get a dog QAA2 title?


----------



## Mike Sale (Feb 1, 2011)

I think people should do whatever they think they should do ,or want to do with their own dogs ! If the rules say you can keep running until you get 2 wins, then it's pretty simple isn't it ? There are always gonna be people who Bitch about things, In HT , FT or life in general. I try to do my best and follow the rules. Will one of my dogs ever win an Amateur... I highly Doubt it ! But I could possibly put a few Derby points on one, Or possibly get a second in a Qual one day. That would be an awesome achievement for someone like me. For people to sit around and make snide remarks about the newer amateurs trying to move up to FT from HT or wherever new blood is coming from , doesn't seem very smart to me ? Don't you need energetic new people willing to set up tests, shoot fliers, and throw birds ? Seems like if everyone would just run their own dogs or go watch their pro run them for them or however it is that they enjoy this sport,and quit bitchin this sport would be around a lot longer ?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> What can a Pro gain from running the qual stake over and over, after the dogs have obtained QAA except for props when they win week after week. A pro knows how to handle, they know where their dogs skill level is they know what is needed to move up, and yet seems like they run every dog they can in the qual until they absolutely can't run that dog anymore. They also bring in a string of dogs, more chances to figure out the setup and get it correct. Guess it gives them credibility to be able to beat, others who's dogs-handlers don't have the experience and use the Qual to gain it. Prefer the Owner handler Qual, as the owner has to handle their own dog, cuts down the number of bullets a single handler can actually run, to only those they actually own; takes away the advantage of having 7-12 dogs to handle in a stake. I don't mind running against Pros, but running quals against dogs already preforming in AA stakes,


What circuit are you running in? I don't think I have ever seen this happen. It must be some pretty cheesy pros desperate for clients


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

ErinsEdge said:


> What circuit are you running in? I don't think I have ever seen this happen. It must be some pretty cheesy pros desperate for clients


Same on our circuit, never seen it happen. Pros are the best judge at knowing when a dog is ready to step up to the Open. I would think a dog that was doing well in the Open would easily wipe out a Qual field and get two wins in a hurry. Don't have my rule book handy, but isn't it against the rules to run a Q after a dog has placed in an Open?

I could see an amateur testing the waters of an Am while still entered in a Qual.


----------



## jrrichar (Dec 17, 2013)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> I guess I have more of a problem with Pros staying in the qual until they are kicked out, than an amateur staying in to gain experience. Pros are running dogs everyday, they are running all stakes, and most of the time those qual dogs are also running AA stakes, doing pretty well in them. What can a Pro gain from running the qual stake over and over, after the dogs have obtained QAA except for props when they win week after week. A pro knows how to handle, they know where their dogs skill level is they know what is needed to move up, and yet seems like some run every dog they can in the qual until they absolutely can't run that dog anymore. They also bring in a string of dogs, more chances to figure out the setup and get it correct. Guess it gives them credibility to be able to beat, others who's dogs-handlers don't have the experience and use the Qual to gain it. Prefer the Owner handler Qual, as the owner has to handle their own dog, cuts down the number of bullets a single handler can actually run, to only those they actually own; takes away the advantage of having 7-12 dogs to handle in a stake. I don't mind running against Pros, but running quals against dogs already preforming in AA stakes, simply because they haven't been forced out of the Qual yet, seems pretty unsportsmanlike. They can do it, because the rules allow it, but I believe this is the reason you don't see very many newbies breaking into the Qual, nor doing more than just trying it out. They don't feel they can compete against a string of pros trained dogs, you will see more newbies try the O/H Quals, as the field appears more level, even then if politics become involved, as they DO.. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth so they won't waste the time or money on it again. I guess the question is what is the real purpose of the Qual stake? I don't believe it is to bring in newbies, I don't believe it's there to allow dogs to grow, although that might be what the party-line says it's for. Seems to me it's more about highlighting trainers who can put in many dogs and win week after week, until the rules tell them they can't do it anymore.


What Pro is doing this? I know every FT pro in California, never heard/seen one doing this. They run them until they have enough experience of the 4 series and usually a win/placement and pull them. It makes no sense for them to be competing over and over with the same dog in the qual. No good FT pro gives a hoot about the qual or placements. They care about the open!!


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

John Robinson said:


> Same on our circuit, never seen it happen. Pros are the best judge at knowing when a dog is ready to step up to the Open. I would think a dog that was doing well in the Open would easily wipe out a Qual field and get two wins in a hurry. Don't have my rule book handy, but isn't it against the rules to run a Q after a dog has placed in an Open?
> 
> I could see an amateur testing the waters of an Am while still entered in a Qual.


3 wins (if your signed up the week prior), you can get three wins. Are you guys sure you actually follow Qual placements because in my area in the desert there seem to be several who continue to run dogs with several qual placements and wins, who have to be forced out of the Qual before they stop running a particular dog in them, and while those dogs might not be placing in AA they are running it. They can do this it's in the rules, so nothing legal, just doesn't fit my idea of sportsmanship. But hey it's an FT, people choose to run it against all comers, so you should know what your getting into. If you want to know what your getting into you follow EE and results and you know who's running which dogs, which stakes and how they are doing, you follow judges, you look at placements-handlers and who's consistently placing and winning, with which dogs.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> 3 wins (if your signed up the week prior), you can get three wins. Are you guys sure you actually follow Qual placements because in my area in the desert there seem to be several who continue to run dogs with several qual placements and wins, who have to be forced out of the Qual before they stop running a particular dog in them, and while those dogs might not be placing in AA they are running it. They can do this it's in the rules, so nothing legal, just doesn't fit my idea of sportsmanship. But hey it's an FT, people choose to run it against all comers, so you should know what your getting into.


I haven't seen that, but I still wouldn't have a problem if they did. When I'm running quals, knowing my dog is far from AA ready, I'm running for line time and seasoning. Last thing I want with a young dog is to win two prematurely and be out of the qual with no where to go for a year. After a season in the qual, most of my dogs are ready to move up about the time they can beat those pro run dogs with a win or two, then I move up. 

My Alex dog on the other hand absolutely wasn't ready, so we stayed put for another year. He didn't win another, but earned a few placements. Looking back the qual was squarely in his comfort zone while the all age was clearly over his head. Should I have just retired him as a three year old?


----------



## jrrichar (Dec 17, 2013)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> 3 wins (if your signed up the week prior), you can get three wins. Are you guys sure you actually follow Qual placements because in my area in the desert there seem to be several who continue to run dogs with several qual placements and wins, who have to be forced out of the Qual before they stop running a particular dog in them, and while those dogs might not be placing in AA they are running it. They can do this it's in the rules, so nothing legal, just doesn't fit my idea of sportsmanship. But hey it's an FT, people choose to run it against all comers, so you should know what your getting into. If you want to know what your getting into you follow EE and results and you know who's running which dogs, which stakes and how they are doing, you follow judges, you look at placements-handlers and who's consistently placing and winning, with which dogs.


Alex Drent and Amy Henninger would be the pros that ran the most dogs in quals and derbies last year at Niland. Neither one of them care about a QA2 title or how many qual placements they can get. They care about whether the dog has the talent to run AA under John and Jim. Reasons for running cannot be discerned from EE nor can who exactly ran the dog. For those that compete in the circuit we don't need to consult EE to know who often comes home with the placements. There are X number of good pros with very good dogs. That's why people pay them to train and handle theirs.


----------



## smillerdvm (Jun 3, 2006)

captainjack said:


> I guess you never run anything but the open? That's the only stake where you have to beat em all.
> 
> Like I said, I choose to run and move on. Run that dog in the Q for the rest of its life Ed. I didn't here you tell the op to suck it up, but I guess now you've told us all.


What accomplishments do you have that justify your arrogance?


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

smillerdvm said:


> What accomplishments do you have that justify your arrogance?


Enough to put my name on my post you clown.

Edit: what are your accomplishments? You clearly don't know the meaning of the word arrogance.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

General thoughts - some of which are unrelated

1. I have seen - and owned - dogs that need to have their confidence built in game day situations. So what if they are QAA. They need the success that they find in the Q, not the failure that they find in the AA stakes.

2. I have seen plenty of dogs pushed up before they were ready, because their owners wanted to run with the big dogs, even if their dog wasn't ready to do so.

3. Why are successful dogs supposed to step aside so that others can place?
- Do we tell owners that their dogs need to leave the derby once their dogs get 10 points?
- Do we tell owners that their dogs need to stop running the Am once they qualify for the National Am?
- Do we tell owners that their dogs need to stop running the Open once they qualify for the National Open?

4. It is amazing how quickly things devolve into ... my dog is better than yours ... or I am better than you .... or ... whatever mode of chest beating you prefer

5. I find that the people who find their satisfaction in a title or ribbons or points aren't very happy


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

What if you ran AA and didn't even get a jam in a year and were told you couldn't enter, like the Limiteds?


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

The Qualifying may be the goal for some but most field trial competitors are driven to run the All Age stakes and anything their dog did in the Q is not something that lingers memory for too long. 
Have fun in the Q as rules allow. Dog does well and seems ready for AA, enter and run. Dog doesnt do so well in Q or manage a win? Keep running if you like the dog or if you have AA asperations cut your losses and get another dog. Or shift gears and put a MH on the dog. It's all good, just depends on your goals and if you have a dog to reach them with you.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> What if you ran AA and didn't even get a jam in a year and were told you couldn't enter, like the Limiteds?


Guess you're not running Limited is all. 
Reality is the vast majority of Open dogs running will usually be Qualified to run Special, Limited and Restricted stakes.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Much easier to be qualified for a Limited All Age or a Special All Age (same as Limited but with time constraints) than a Restricted which requires an All Age placement. These days one rarely sees a restrictive all age stake so it generally does not matter.


----------

