# Question about Co-Owned dog and O/H Quals...



## Matt Gasaway (May 22, 2009)

Looking at co-owning a new pup. Any guidelines or rules as far as running a co-owned dog in O/H Events? 

Thanks in advance!


----------



## txrancher (Aug 19, 2004)

There are many things that need to be addressed when co-owning dogs and I would suggest that everything is in a contract so there won't be any misunderstandings or hard feelings!


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

If you own or Co-Own a dog, you will have no problem running it (or would your co-owner) in the O/H Q (or O/H AM for that matter).

The rules do not say you must be 100% owner in order to run in O/H stake


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Zman1001 said:


> If you own or Co-Own a dog, you will have no problem running it (or would your co-owner) in the O/H Q (*or O/H AM for that matter*).
> 
> The rules do not say you must be 100% owner in order to run in O/H stake


Not entirely true...the co owner running the dog MUST be an AMATEUR...in the case of a pro trainer co-owning the dog


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

BonMallari said:


> Not entirely true...the co owner running the dog MUST be an AMATEUR...in the case of a pro trainer co-owning the dog


You positive about that? Jerry Mann just said the co-ownership paperwork must be completed before the event. He didn't say anything about the AM co-owner running the dog. I'll withhold my opinion about a pro running a co-owned dog in an O/H Q.


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

BonMallari said:


> Not entirely true...the co owner running the dog MUST be an AMATEUR...in the case of a pro trainer co-owning the dog


I see when you assume something, it can get you in trouble. Bon, thanks for the clarification. I ASSumed that the OP was an AM, but after your post, and my further research, I see that is not the case. I apologize for including the O/H AM in this thread, since it was only asked about the O/H Q.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I'll withhold my opinion about a pro running a co-owned dog in an O/H Q.



would this opinion change if the pro owned half of the dog all of it's life vs. owning half of the dog for 2 weeks before the trial? or should a pro not own a dog at all?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> You positive about that? Jerry Mann just said the co-ownership paperwork must be completed before the event. He didn't say anything about the AM co-owner running the dog. I'll withhold my opinion about a pro running a co-owned dog in an O/H Q.


was only talking about the O/H Amateur stake...either party can run the Qual


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

BonMallari said:


> was only talking about the O/H Amateur stake...either party can run the Qual


missed your bolded point. Funny I'd called and asked this very question about a week and a half ago. 

Just look at the reason/purpose for an O/H event. I don't agree with Pro's staking their personal dogs in the events or, ones they co-own(added their name to run the event specifically. Kind of similar to folks who bought/co-owned dogs so they could become judges at the Master National).


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Just look at the reason/purpose for an O/H event.


What is the reason/purpose for an O/H event? Why is any handler running his/her own dog in conflict with "Owner/Handler?"


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

afdahl said:


> What is the reason/purpose for an O/H event? Why is any handler running his/her own dog in conflict with "Owner/Handler?"


Yes, it sets up nicely for a "the rule doesn't state" response doesn't it?


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

It is a serious question. You have some objection; I would like to know what it is.

I admit that in general I do regard the rules.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

afdahl said:


> *What is the reason/purpose for an O/H event*? Why is any handler running his/her own dog in conflict with "Owner/Handler?"


the reasoning behind it as explained to me was to try and eliminate..errr neutralize the ever growing absentee owner, but with any legislation someone will always circumvent the system, so voila we have co ownerships


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

I have no objection because the rule is the rule. I've been told that when the rules were laid down it was assumed no Professional would take time to run one of his own personal dogs in an event when there was a truckload of dogs which could be run at another. Obvious economics. I believe this happens "most" of the time. Leaving the event to the true "AM" owner/handler. I'm sure there are also dishonest Pro's who add their name on to a dogs' pedigree just so they have the opportunity to run a dog in the Q against a field of purely AM's. I doubt that happens often at all because it shines pretty brightly when a pro's name is on a dog in the O/H event. 

From my EE grazing, I've only seen a very limited amount of O/H events and recognize even fewer names attached to a handler you'd assume was pro-


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I have no objection because the rule is the rule. I've been told that when the rules were laid down it was assumed no Professional would take time to run one of his own personal dogs in an event when there was a truckload of dogs which could be run at another. Obvious economics. I believe this happens "most" of the time. Leaving the event to the true "AM" owner/handler. I'm sure there are also dishonest Pro's who add their name on to a dogs' pedigree just so they have the opportunity to run a dog in the Q against a field of purely AM's. I doubt that happens often at all because it shines pretty brightly when a pro's name is on a dog in the O/H event.


Given what you've written, would you object to a pro running a dog that he bred, raised, owned, and trained (or one bred by his wife that he owned from puppyhood)?

"Professional trainer," of course, is a term defined in the field trial rules, rules of which the pro must always be aware in determining what s/he can and can't do. The definition doesn't mention a truckload of competing dogs, and I would guess the majority of pros don't have one.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

afdahl said:


> Given what you've written, would you object to a pro running a dog that he bred, raised, owned, and trained (or one bred by his wife that he owned from puppyhood)?
> 
> "Professional trainer," of course, is a term defined in the field trial rules, rules of which the pro must always be aware in determining what s/he can and can't do. The definition doesn't mention a truckload of competing dogs, and I would guess the majority of pros don't have one.


You are talking of a very "niche" situation. I didn't describe what you said at all. Quite the opposite actually. Although, I still feel Bon is right and I also agree with some local opinion that the event is leaned towards both participation of the owner and leaning towards the event to be AM based/focused. 

I doubt one would ever see any relevant FT Pro's running many O/H events. Really a dead end discussion.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

I take it you won't be leading a mob armed with torches and pitchforks when John runs his dogs in the OHQ next month. That's all I really wanted to know.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

I should edit "any" to "many". Like I said, a "niche" situation.


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

I have judged one O/H Qualifying which was given in conjuction with a hunt test. There were a few HT pros running their own dogs. No one seemed to mind. I think one placed. Never understood the O/H Q.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Ken Bora said:


> would this opinion change if the pro owned half of the dog all of it's life vs. owning half of the dog for 2 weeks before the trial? or should a pro not own a dog at all?


I'd feel better if there was some sort of waiting period involved although, there are enough rules as it is and adding more rules which have little affect on the masses participating is a waste of everyones' time and energy. As I said, it's a pretty dead point because it is such a small fraction of the entries from what I see.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

rboudet said:


> I have judged one O/H Qualifying which was given in conjuction with a hunt test. There were a few HT pros running their own dogs. No one seemed to mind. I think one placed. Never understood the O/H Q.


Thanks, I appreciate having the benefit of your observations. It has always struck me that there could potentially be more camaraderie at an O/H event; I don't see a point other than that. Paul's comments had me worried there was an unwritten rule I was about to run afoul of.

Amy Dahl


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

The point is...the club members, *who do all the work*, want it that way.
Different clubs, have different membership. It varies, what works best for each club.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

afdahl said:


> Thanks, I appreciate having the benefit of your observations. It has always struck me that there could potentially be more camaraderie at an O/H event; I don't see a point other than that. Paul's comments had me worried there was an unwritten rule I was about to run afoul of.
> 
> Amy Dahl


Not that I know of although, an early FT in my area this year was very much the case in point regarding camaraderie. Not that a Pro influences really degrades that in "any" way although, the FT was small and everyone was excited to kick of the season and there was a lot of pats on the back, handshakes and "camaraderie". Proves the point of how many class acts there are in the sport at every level. All I was told for a long time was how mean spirited FT folks were, cutthroat and unsportsmanlike. I've found everything I've ever been told to be furthest from the truth. I have a better understanding of the folks who said those things to me in the past. When I got my first FT ribbon I received more emails than ever before with kind words and encouragment.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> You positive about that? Jerry Mann just said the co-ownership paperwork must be completed before the event. He didn't say anything about the AM co-owner running the dog. I'll withhold my opinion about a pro running a co-owned dog in an O/H Q.


Yo happy, how was the fishn? If there is a perceived problem it isn't with the pro, it's the professional amateurs that are disingenuous and co-own dogs to run them in the O/H stakes mostly the O/H amateur. The complaint i have heard is they basically assume the role of a "professional" yet are amateur and travel the circuit with their truck full of co-owned dogs. Who paid traveling expenses, entry fees, hotels, food, ect?? No one will ever know, but if you read Lanse Browns recent post where he recited a comment said by one of these "professional amateurs" at a national amateur.... "if my co-owners didn't pay all the expenses I couldn't afford to do this."


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

rboudet said:


> Never understood the O/H Q.


The concept of the Owner Handler Qualifying was an attempt to encourage people who participated in Hunt Tests to give field trials a try. The original intent was not to provide an avenue for validation for professional trainers who run hunt tests by providing an opportunity to seek the elusive and unrecognized designation of having a dog qualified for a restrictive stake. Like many unrecognized designations the often reported and published QAA is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize a second place in the Qualifying Stake as being somehow more important than it should be. The Qualifying Stake, being Owner/Handler or not, is simply an intermediate stake for field trial dogs whose ability level is between the Derby and the Open/Amateur. Any more importance than that is an assumed level of competence as an achievement for those who seek some validation of effort other than FC and/or AFC.


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

EdA said:


> The concept of the Owner Handler Qualifying was an attempt to encourage people who participated in Hunt Tests to give field trials a try. The original intent was not to provide an avenue for validation for professional trainers who run hunt tests by providing an opportunity to seek the elusive and unrecognized designation of having a dog qualified for a restrictive stake. Like many unrecognized designations the often reported and published QAA is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize a second place in the Qualifying Stake as being somehow more important than it should be. The Qualifying Stake, being Owner/Handler or not, is simply an intermediate stake for field trial dogs whose ability level is between the Derby and the Open/Amateur. Any more importance than that is an assumed level of competence as an achievement for those who seek some validation of effort other than FC and/or AFC.


excellent post Dr Ed.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

My recollection is that the O/H Qual arose, in part, because of the large Quals being run during the winter circuit. (California sticks out in my mind.) Those clubs wanted a mechanism to:

1) Reduce trial size;
2) Encourage participation of the owner/handler

The Rocky Mountain Retriever Club voted for the adoption of the O/H Q not because we wanted one, but because we wanted other clubs to have the option of having one

Ted


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

EdA said:


> The concept of the *Owner Handler Qualifying was an attempt to encourage people who participated in Hunt Tests to give field trials a try.* The original intent was not to provide an avenue for validation for professional trainers who run hunt tests by providing an opportunity to seek the elusive and unrecognized designation of having a dog qualified for a restrictive stake. Like many unrecognized designations the often reported and published QAA is nothing more than an attempt to legitimize a second place in the Qualifying Stake as being somehow more important than it should be. The Qualifying Stake, being Owner/Handler or not, is simply an intermediate stake for field trial dogs whose ability level is between the Derby and the Open/Amateur. Any more importance than that is an assumed level of competence as an achievement for those who seek some validation of effort other than FC and/or AFC.


I think the OH has been some what successful at bringing HTers into the q at least. Seems to me that if we wanted to get the HTers involved in field trials they would make QAA a title. Qaa doesnt mean much to a fied trialer, other than the dog is qualified for a restrictive stake and possibly some validation the dog is ready for all age stakes. I dont see any sentimental value to field trialers. So what happens is the HT clubs are running Q's in conjunction with their HT and the fied trial clubs are missing out on the entry fees. Making qaa a title doesn't change the field trial game at all other than it would bring lots of HTers to the game and would increase entry fees. I don't know, just thinking out loud...


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

After reading this whole thread I am more confused than ever. It seems to me "owner handler" means owner handler. But then I am not one to complain, I just look for any opportunity to run my dogs. If I like what I get from my dog and have fun doing it, I'm cool. I really don't care what the others are doing. But then I am just an occasional player, not chasing any designation or title anymore.


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

jeff evans said:


> I think the OH has been some what successful at bringing HTers into the q at least. Seems to me that if we wanted to get the HTers involved in field trials they would make QAA a title. Qaa doesnt mean much to a fied trialer, other than the dog is qualified for a restrictive stake and possibly some validation the dog is ready for all age stakes. I dont see any sentimental value to field trialers. So what happens is the HT clubs are running Q's in conjunction with their HT and the fied trial clubs are missing out on the entry fees. Making qaa a title doesn't change the field trial game at all other than it would bring lots of HTers to the game and would increase entry fees. I don't know, just thinking out loud...


Jeff while your premiss may be correct, QAA would be the goal for HT not a reason to join FT. This is why you rarely see HT run Quals even O/H Quals associated with FT. I do not see making QAA a title as a good thing. People already use the designation when advertising litters. Just thinking out loud.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

MikeBoley said:


> Jeff while your premiss may be correct, QAA would be the goal for HT not a reason to join FT. This is why you rarely see HT run Quals even O/H Quals associated with FT. I do not see making QAA a title as a good thing. People already use the designation when advertising litters. Just thinking out loud.



Mike, I have seen a big rise in qualifyings run with a HT in the last few years and mostly see the loss of entry fees the FT clubs are missing out on. I also see good potential to appeal to HTers that would like the title on their MH dogs in turn attracting new people. As you know one only needs to taste success once to become hooked What do you see as the negative consequences?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

jeff evans said:


> As you know one only needs to taste success once to become hooked What do you see as the negative consequences?


I will not presume to answer for Mike but to award a title for accomplishments in the Qualifying, a basically meaningless stake, would de-value real field trial titles based on all-age stake accomplishments. Shall we also offer titles for the Derby too?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

A dog that wins a Q, gets a blue ribbon. Does that devalue the blue ribbon given at an open stake?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> A dog that wins a Q, gets a blue ribbon. Does that devalue the blue ribbon given at an open stake?


Not unless you award a title for a Qualifying win. Lots of dogs win Qualifyings as the pinnacle of their careers, that is not deserving of a title.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

EdA said:


> Not unless you award a title for a Qualifying win. Lots of dogs win Qualifyings as the pinnacle of their careers, that is not deserving of a title.


I agree that *A* win, or *A* 2nd should not be deserving of a "Q" title. However, I still don't see how "designing" a Qualifying title could possibly devalue an All-Age title.

In AKC HT, there are three different "stakes". 
Junior, Senior and Master.

At one time, I was pretty stoked about passing Junior. Today, I seriously doubt that I will ever enter another dog at any level below Master.

That doesn't mean that I now feel that what happens at Junior, or Senior is irrelevant. Nor do I feel that it in any way effects the significance of what happens in Master.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

EdA said:


> Shall we also offer titles for the Derby too?


Don't we already have a Derby title with the Derby list and awarding High Point Derby Dog annually? The points and Derby list designation are certainly sought after and used like a title for breedings.

Tim


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Tim Carrion said:


> The points and Derby list designation are certainly sought after and used like a title for breedings....


 So is the QAA designation.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> Don't we already have a Derby title with the Derby list and awarding High Point Derby Dog annually? The points and Derby list designation are certainly sought after and used like a title for breedings.
> 
> Tim


The Derby list is Retriever News concocted not an official AKC title that appears on pedigrees for generations. The field trial titles we have are time tested, we do not need some watered down title for the Qualifying. It is an intermediate stake, nothing more, nothing less and not deserving of some official designation.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

From a judging and running stand point I see nothing wrong with a pro running a dog that they bought and trained in a O/H Q. There the owner and were running a Q nuff said.



> I will not presume to answer for Mike but to award a title for accomplishments in the Qualifying, *a basically meaningless stake,* would de-value real field trial titles based on all-age stake accomplishments. Shall we also offer titles for the Derby too?



If it's a meaningless stake why in the world am I giving up my weekend judging??


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

What percentage of the dogs running in the Q, would you estimate were entered for the purpose of being qualified to enter Limited stakes, vs the owner seeking to add QAA to the dog's resume?

Face it, it's ALREADY being used primarily as a pseudo title. Making it official, wouldn't change anything that's real.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

I don't believe it needs a title, I agree with Ed it's an in between stake, but to say that it's meaningless is not right, alot of these O/H trained dogs may never go any farther so it is very meaningful when they win a Q. The game can't survive on Opens and Am's alone...


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

EdA said:


> The Derby list is Retriever News concocted not an official AKC title that appears on pedigrees for generations. The field trial titles we have are time tested, we do not need some watered down title for the Qualifying. It is an intermediate stake, nothing more, nothing less and not deserving of some official designation.


 How would you feel about the idea of making them suffix titles?

Most people believe that QAA carries more "weight" than MH. But, MH shows up on the pedigree.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

A pro "co-owning" dogs and running them in O/H Quals can look pretty smelly, though I don't have an issue with a pro running their own "for real" dog. Nothing against the rules, but, like so much else, there are unwritten expectations and you know the poor sportsman when you see one. If a pro made a practice of showing up at O/H Quals with multiple co-owned dogs and never a co-owner in sight running them, I would personally have questions about that pro. 

As for making QAA a title, pretty silly. A win or a second and a dog has a title? The Qual has its purposes, it isn't meaningless, but making QAA an actual title is a game-changer and not in a good way, not with the intent of FT anyway. These days, anyone can look at EE and see what a dog is doing, make their own judgments. If a dog runs one stake in its career and wins or runs a bunch with no finishes but one win or runs a bunch and is consistently finishing, people who care can look at the numbers, the competition, if they give a rat's butt about the QAA. Sure, people use it when promoting breeding, just like they spell out Derby points, and any other marketing tools at their disposal, so what. Up to the buyer to decide how much value they place on any of it. Anyone running their dog and getting ribbons should be happy, proud, encouraged, no matter the venue or level. Someone will always look down, I think, unless you have an NFC NAFC, which is where having some of that thick skin comes in, so you just ignore the slights and slams, you know what you have, run it and enjoy it.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

I agree with Dr Ed's post and that simply winning a qualifying would not be worthy of a title.
I may be in favor of a new entry level title for dogs who actually place in an AA stake, or maybe several placements.
Think of all the dogs who have racked up many many points but never were awarded a win required for FC or AFC?


----------



## jpws (Mar 26, 2012)

EdA said:


> Shall we also offer titles for the Derby too?


It might as well be the case already right, unofficially that is.....considering it is quite frequent in pup classified ads that you see "X Derby Points, or "High Point Derby Dog in X year", etc. How is that Derby designation is any different than saying a dog is "QAA"?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Breck said:


> I agree with Dr Ed's post and that simply winning a qualifying would not be worthy of a title.
> I may be in favor of a new entry level title for dogs who actually place in an AA stake, or maybe several placements.
> Think of all the dogs who have racked up many many points but never were awarded a win required for FC or AFC?


How about the Canadian system where they have a QAA Title, I can't remember what they call it, but to get it a dog needs the Q win and an additional five Q points? That would demonstrate that the one Q win wasn't a fluke and show that the dog was a consistent performer. As others have said, compared to an FC-AFC title, being QAA is no big deal, but there are many people running dogs, pouring their heart and soul into training their dog, who for various reasons may never achieve that coveted field championship title. For them, having an actual title showing their dog at least met that intermediate field trial level could be incentive enough to keep them in the game and pushing for the FC title. I really don't see how this would take anything away from the higher titles.

John


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> How about the Canadian system where they have a QAA Title, I can't remember what they call it, but to get it a dog needs the Q win and an additional five Q points? That would demonstrate that the one Q win wasn't a fluke and show that the dog was a consistent performer. As others have said, compared to an FC-AFC title, being QAA is no big deal, but there are many people running dogs, pouring their heart and soul into training their dog, who for various reasons may never achieve that coveted field championship title. For them, having an actual title showing their dog at least met that intermediate field trial level could be incentive enough to keep them in the game and pushing for the FC title. I really don't see how this would take anything away from the higher titles.
> 
> John


Good post John. The CKC title is QFTR (Qualified Field Trial Retreiver) and I believe it is a suffix, rather than a championship prefix.

I agree with John and some others here who don't see the harm in having the AKC add a suffix for Qualifying level achievements. I struggle to understand how it diminishes the achievements of those pursuing FC or AFC Championship titles. Not everyone has the time, grounds or abilty to chase the holy grail in Field Trials. Insinuating that achieving the Qualified All-Age designation is not worth acknowledgement is absurd to me. I started in Hunt Tests, have run and passed the Master National. I migrated to trials a few years back for the additional challenge of training my dogs to a higher standard and trials certainly provide that opportunity. I have run minor stakes to this point and have a couple of QAA dogs. I have started to dabble in All-Age, but am realistic about my chances to be competitive due to lack of time, accessibilty to good grounds and access to good training groups. I have allot of respect for those that are able to do it, but why all the opposition to a title for those that do something at the Qualifying level. John's suggestion of a win and 5 points, seems to make sense. How does it take anything at all away from those pursuing All-Age Championship titles?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

If you were to ask me this same question tomorrow my answer may be different, but in general I disagree with a title for QAA.

I'm one of those who has a dog who is QAA, has AA placements, even a win, but no title. This is his last year to seriously chase finishing his title, he is starting to show his age. It kills me to know that is pedigree does not show what he has accomplished and his official name looks like a common mutt, but I also know if I ever manage to get those last few points and get his title, the silly title certificate will be properly framed and displayed proudly in my home. Having a QAA title certificate does not and would not carry such significance to me and I'd rather have no title and one that doesn't truly show just how hard it is to have a dog who is a AFC, FC or both...a field trial title is not easy to obtain, while QAA status in the scheme of things is...to me a QAA title is like a participation ribbon...if you want to play the FT game you have to realize it is not for the faint of heart, it is not easy and if you want a title then you got to compete and beat the big dogs on a fairly regualr basis.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Dan Wegner said:


> I struggle to understand how it diminishes the achievements of those pursuing FC or AFC Championship titles.


In my personal opinion, low-level titles would say, "in this sport we coddle also-rans." The whole hunt test movement sprang up to establish greater rewards for training your retriever at a lower level of commitment. Field trials are about competition--going up against the best of the best, trying to win. Competitors are willing to take their lumps. 



Dan Wegner said:


> Not everyone has the time, grounds or abilty to chase the holy grail in Field Trials. Insinuating that achieving the Qualified All-Age designation is not worth acknowledgement is absurd to me.


I don't see anyone insinuating that. Keep in mind, leaving without a ribbon (many, many times), and working hard for little gain, are experiences shared by people with All-Age accomplishments. They are not unique to the person who starts out with modest ambition. Very few jumped in and had immediate success with little effort. 



Dan Wegner said:


> How does it take anything at all away from those pursuing All-Age Championship titles?


 For one thing, the crowd of people pursuing the QAA title would make it harder for those of us trying to get our dogs eligible to run Limited and Special--the actual purpose of the stake.

Amy Dahl


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

EdA said:


> The Derby list is Retriever News concocted not an official AKC title that appears on pedigrees for generations. The field trial titles we have are time tested, we do not need some watered down title for the Qualifying. It is an intermediate stake, nothing more, nothing less and not deserving of some official designation.


I disagree with this as well. Its just like a minor HT stake...that's why they make Junior and Senior titles. QAA would definately NOT defame an FC/AFC in the least, but maybe give someone a platform to leap from.

Anyways, opinions aside, I don't think Matt got a solid answer on the OP...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I guess I see both sides of this argument, and don't feel strongly one way or another


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

FOM said:


> If you were to ask me this same question tomorrow my answer may be different, but in general I disagree with a title for QAA.
> 
> I'm one of those who has a dog who is QAA, has AA placements, even a win, but no title. This is his last year to seriously chase finishing his title, he is starting to show his age. It kills me to know that is pedigree does not show what he has accomplished and his official name looks like a common mutt, but I also know if I ever manage to get those last few points and get his title, *the silly title certificate will be properly framed and displayed proudly in my home*. Having a QAA title certificate does not and would not carry such significance to me and I'd rather have no title and one that doesn't truly show just how hard it is to have a dog who is a AFC, FC or both...a field trial title is not easy to obtain, while QAA status in the scheme of things is...to me a QAA title is like a participation ribbon...if you want to play the FT game you have to realize it is not for the faint of heart, it is not easy and if you want a title then you got to compete and beat the big dogs on a fairly regualr basis.


You know Lainee, I always thought so too. I worked really hard with my first "real" trial dog to get that title. He was 7 1/2 when we finally got it. I was real happy. I still have the certificate... In a file drawer with some others. They mean something to me and I may frame them someday. But, for me, I think it was the journey. You are are still enjoying the journey with your guy... And when it's over, you will still have that, title or no title. Hope like hell you get it, though!!


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

FOM said:


> If you were to ask me this same question tomorrow my answer may be different, but in general I disagree with a title for QAA.
> 
> I'm one of those who has a dog who is QAA, has AA placements, even a win, but no title. This is his last year to seriously chase finishing his title, he is starting to show his age. It kills me to know that is pedigree does not show what he has accomplished and his official name looks like a common mutt, but I also know if I ever manage to get those last few points and get his title, the silly title certificate will be properly framed and displayed proudly in my home. Having a QAA title certificate does not and would not carry such significance to me and I'd rather have no title and one that doesn't truly show just how hard it is to have a dog who is a AFC, FC or both...


In smaller breed groups such as Chesapeakes, even a notation on a pedigree would be helpful. In the black dog world an FC stud is a dime a dozen. An FC breeding to a AFC sometimes hardly gets a nod. In the brown dog world it means something. My Male's Dam also looks like a nothing on paper although, she had all her points, just needed a win to be a DC. That's a pretty special group. On paper, she's a CH. Same with sire. Basically, a CH x Nothing breeding. For the breeds with lesser numbers than the black ones, having a notation is helpful in researching pedigrees and seeing how far the dog went.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> I guess I see both sides of this argument, and don't feel strongly one way or another


Voice of reason.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Duckquilizer said:


> I disagree with this as well. Its just like a minor HT stake...that's why they make Junior and Senior titles. QAA would definately NOT defame an FC/AFC in the least, but maybe give someone a platform to leap from.
> 
> Anyways, opinions aside, I don't think Matt got a solid answer on the OP...


So would you still support the QAA designation if points from O/H Qualifyings and those associated with Hunt Tests would not qualify for the designation?

Would you further support the QAA designation if it was for 10 points including a win in non O/H Qualifyings and those associated with Hunt Tests?


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

afdahl said:


> It is a serious question. You have some objection; I would like to know what it is.
> 
> I admit that in general I do regard the rules.


The objection is pretty simple Amy. A pro has vastly more handling experience than most amateurs and in many cases, good HANDLING wins an event vs. the dog itself or it's training. 

I think the idea of O/H in the eyes of the clubs putting them on is to limit entries and or limit pro participation, but it accomplishes little of that in a lot of circuits.

If you run up my way in an O/H you can absolutely expect to run against some pros and pro trained dogs. There's just no escaping it. 

So back to the question... What is the purpose of the limitation?

If it's to limit pro handlers or pro trained dogs... It clearly doesn't work (at least not around here).

If you want to run against amateur handlers... the amateur all age stake is more of a level playing field, but you can't ever get away from pro trained dogs and amateurs with a pro over their shoulder 5 days a week... Nor can you expect to get away from the retired folks with 30 years experience that you'll face....

It's just the game as we know it... and it's HARD to win (rightfully so).

So you can either say "too hard" and walk away or step up and run...


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

I like the the unofficial distinction of QAA and that it only requires a 1st or 2nd, it's a hook for those who might not ever really think about playing the FT game, but just throw their dog in, because it's something to do, and hey I might just get QAA status. I like the O/H qual and the HT associated O/H qual, because it is an easy transition from Masters and allows that FT hook to be set, for someone who might find it pretty intimidating to run the 40+ dog Quals that we usually have around here, which is dominated by Pros many running dogs that are ready for upper FTs, that have already placed in but not gotten 2 seconds or won yet. People need to believe they can have a shot, it's important to have an easy inlet into FT for newbies, an unofficial title does that it's a major factor in drawing some of that new blood everyone seems to want. An official title would effect the Qual just as the MNH title has affected the Master Nationals it would draw the title chasing set, and you'd end-up with 80+ dog quals, ran by Pros, with no other goal than to obtain the title, to put it on a pretty pedigree.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

duk4me said:


> Voice of reason.



"It Depends" lol


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> I guess I see both sides of this argument, and don't feel strongly one way or another


Ted, the positive impact on field trials would be significant IMOP. I really believe that it would bring a lot of new blood to the game. I have a training partner that has a MH and wanted to get her qaa and then breed her. Well, he won his second Q he and the dog had ever ran and now we have created a monster that wants a field champion  so I have seen it bring in new people and act as a launching platform. And it effects field trialers in no significant way other than breaking tradition is the only real argument I have read so far, it means nothing more than your dog can run a restricted stake and it's already used across the board for breeding and advertisement. The number of Qs being ran in conjunction with a hunt test has increased dramatically in the last few years and the field trial clubs are loosing the entires and possible new members to their club and the field trial game. I feel that the most detrimental aspect of the field trial game is not attracting new amateurs. This is just one of a few things that could be done to attract new life blood. Just food for thought, would you support it if my observation was correct?


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

EdA said:


> So would you still support the QAA designation if points from O/H Qualifyings and those associated with Hunt Tests would not qualify for the designation?
> 
> Would you further support the QAA designation if it was for 10 points including a win in non O/H Qualifyings and those associated with Hunt Tests?


Should O/H Amateur win not count towards an AFC? The dog still beat the field entered.
A club has the option for O/H designation for any Q and/or Amat stake at any FT and the results are not counted any differently.

Achieving QAA status means different things to different breeds. When some retriever breeds hold their Specialty they can struggle to make sure their are 12 QAA dogs(and some can only hold minor stakes because they don't have 12). These dogs are the elite of their breed. Establishing a QAA designation, as suffix or prefix) would be consistent with the AKC's mission statement of promoting the function of purebred dogs.

JMO

Tim


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

jeff evans said:


> Ted, the positive impact on field trials would be significant IMOP. I really believe that it would bring a lot of new blood to the game. I have a training partner that has a MH and wanted to get her qaa and then breed her. Well, he won his second Q he and the dog had ever ran and now we have created a monster that wants a field champion  so I have seen it bring in new people and act as a launching platform. And it effects field trialers in no significant way other than breaking tradition is the only real argument I have read so far, it means nothing more than your dog can run a restricted stake and it's already used across the board for breeding and advertisement. The number of Qs being ran in conjunction with a hunt test has increased dramatically in the last few years and the field trial clubs are loosing the entires and possible new members to their club and the field trial game. I feel that the most detrimental aspect of the field trial game is not attracting new amateurs. This is just one of a few things that could be done to attract new life blood. Just food for thought, would you support it if my observation was correct?



That is a very big IF


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> Should O/H Amateur win not count towards an AFC? The dog still beat the field entered.
> A club has the option for O/H designation for any Q and/or Amat stake at any FT and the results are not counted any differently.
> 
> Achieving QAA status means different things to different breeds. When some retriever breeds hold their Specialty they can struggle to make sure their are 12 QAA dogs(and some can only hold minor stakes because they don't have 12). These dogs are the elite of their breed. Establishing a QAA designation, as suffix or prefix) would be consistent with the AKC's mission statement of promoting the function of purebred dogs.
> ...


Surely you recognize the difference between the Amateur stake whether it be O/H or not from an O/H Qualifying which effectively eliminates most professionals, that is a really poor analogy .


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Tim Carrion said:


> Should O/H Amateur win not count towards an AFC? The dog still beat the field entered.
> A club has the option for O/H designation for any Q and/or Amat stake at any FT and the results are not counted any differently.
> 
> Achieving QAA status means different things to different breeds. When some retriever breeds hold their Specialty they can struggle to make sure their are 12 QAA dogs(and some can only hold minor stakes because they don't have 12). These dogs are the elite of their breed. Establishing a QAA designation, as suffix or prefix) would be consistent with the AKC's mission statement of promoting the function of purebred dogs.
> ...


Silly Tim, There is only ONE breed in field trials. It's black according to "most"... That's where the only concern and consideration lies.


----------



## podunkccrs (Nov 3, 2008)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Silly Tim, There is only ONE breed in field trials. It's black according to "most"... That's where the only concern and consideration lies.


I definitely know how I felt about the qual win of my curly black dog recently.....it was freakin awesome......and has already resulted in me making amat entries that I never would have even thought of previously. The qual got me comfortable at the line. 

And yes, of course I think it should be a title....why not?


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

EdA said:


> *So would you still support the QAA designation if points from O/H Qualifyings and those associated with Hunt Tests would not qualify for the designation?*
> 
> Would you further support the QAA designation if it was for 10 points including a win in non O/H Qualifyings and those associated with Hunt Tests?


Yes, especially Qs ran with a hunt test. Everyone is looking at this from a competitive stand point. I am looking at this from an aspect of attracting new blood and increased entries. I have no interest in QAA as a title for my dogs, and I can guess the same for yours Ed but I see the potential to attract new amateurs to our game with little if any conciliation on our parts.....


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> That is a very big IF


I showed one example in my post so I don't think is an if it's more like an if


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

jeff evans said:


> Yes, especially Qs ran with a hunt test. Everyone is looking at this from a competitive stand point. I am looking at this from an aspect of attracting new blood and increased entries. I have no interest in QAA as a title for my dogs, and I can guess the same for yours Ed but I see the potential to attract new amateurs to our game with little if any conciliation on our parts.....


I think it will and does. Agree with you Jeff. It's a minor stake which doesn't hold interest for the retired crowd. Although, when you win your first football, baseball or whatever Championship at a competitive level in high school sports, that's usually when kids get hooked. When you no longer get a ribbon for showing up when playing for the Boys and Girls Club (good ole in some cases) and actually are given something for "winning" it changes everything.

Plus, someone needs to throw birds for the guys who put in their time and just can't do it anymore


----------



## BrettG (Apr 4, 2005)

I don't have an opinion one way or the other but some of you from the older field trial ranks might want to look at the negative attitude you give off whenever there is a discussion about something that might increase interest in field trials. New blood is what will keep the sport going.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

podunkccrs said:


> And yes, of course I think it should be a title....why not?


And the obvious answer is why?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

BrettG said:


> I don't have an opinion one way or the other but some of you from the older field trial ranks might want to look at the negative attitude you give off whenever there is a discussion about something that might increase interest in field trials. New blood is what will keep the sport going.


I have been an O/H Qualifying Stake supporter since the introduction of the stake +\- 20 years ago, there is no creditable evidence that the stake has resulted in any participation by "new blood", assumptions are easy but reality trumps assumptions every time.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I think it will and does. Agree with you Jeff. It's a minor stake which doesn't hold interest for the retired crowd. Although, when you win your first football, baseball or whatever Championship at a competitive level in high school sports, that's usually when kids get hooked. When you no longer get a ribbon for showing up when playing for the Boys and Girls Club (good ole in some cases) and actually are given something for "winning" it changes everything.
> 
> Plus, someone needs to throw birds for the guys who put in their time and just can't do it anymore


Happy is another example of someone who got "hooked" from a placement in the Q. And Paul makes another good point, it may not matter much if any to the Labradors but sure as heck means something to the other retriever breeds. What is a fact is their is a need for new amateurs in our game, some change is good if it makes the game more attractive to those that dont aspire an FC AFC or the other retriever breeds. I also see the other argument that your changing a game that has one purpose to find the most elite animals


----------



## podunkccrs (Nov 3, 2008)

EdA said:


> And the obvious answer is why?


For our breed, I'm a little biased, he's the first one. Yes, I think it is worth being on an AKC pedigree to look back on in the future. I don't think making it a title is going to be the answer to world peace, but I don't think it does any damage or takes anything away from a fc or afc. 

And o/h quals didn't get me involved, the great field trial people(mostly black lab based, but still very supportive) did. But now I'm sticking around


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

BrettG said:


> I don't have an opinion one way or the other but some of you from the older field trial ranks might want to look at the negative attitude you give off whenever there is a discussion about something that might increase interest in field trials. New blood is what will keep the sport going.


Have to disagree with you just a bit, if you look at who is STILL in the game it's generally people that are willing to stick things out year after year, the sport is full of short timers that tried it, some had success some didn't , but they are no longer around maybe because it wasn't as easy as they imagined or it was much harder than they envisioned, men like Dr A have seen those come and go, you can't blame him for defending something he has put a lifetime invested into

Takes a different mindset to play the FT game, you have to be a bit selfish because you are on your own , it is survival of the fittest


----------



## BrettG (Apr 4, 2005)

I'm not blaming him or anyone else, it is strictly an observation from the outside. I see it on almost every thread with regards to questions by newbies looking at trials. I got it several years ago when I wanted to cross over to trials. The attitude hasn't squashed my desire to run trials.


----------



## blackasmollases (Mar 26, 2012)

For one thing, the crowd of people pursuing the QAA title would make it harder for those of us trying to get our dogs eligible to run Limited and Special--the actual purpose of the stake.

Amy Dahl[/QUOTE]


I've got absolutely no ground to comment on this post. But this statement bothered me. Maybe it would be better if they limited entries to 1


----------



## mjiorle (Mar 11, 2008)

O/h quals do get some people to try a trial that might not enter otherwise, however having a competitive nature, and a willingness to put it on the line and take it on the chin more often than getting patted on the back is what keeps people in trials. It's the pursuit of those often elusive successes that keep them coming back. A field trial is a competition to find the best retriever of the breeds allowed to compete. Creating a title for the sake of some of the lesser represented breeds seems like changing the game to fit the players. With all this said, I like the O/h qual as an option for clubs, and think it's a heck of an accomplishment especially for the owner/ trainer/ handler regardless of the breed to win one. FT's are a competition with different levels (stakes) and within it, there are people who's aspirations and expectations for success vary greatly from derby list, to qaa, to FC AFC to national titles just like many other sporting competitions. 

Mike


----------



## JaniceJones (Jun 12, 2012)

I dont think the title would bring in much new blood. Already O/H Quals at hunt test give people that false sense of security to try FT. I see many folks in Texas who will only run the O/H Q. 

The QAA designation is what it is, dont think it needs to be changed.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

It is the same old same old QAA . A first or second place in a qualifying with perhaps 15 or 20 dogs is no where near the level of finishing with a JAM in a all-age championship point stake, where perhaps a handle in the last series stood in the way of a placement. In past years have had a dog with a win in the all age but lacked two points for a AFC and another with 18 points and no win. Now these dogs on paper are " only QAA " I don't think so, unfair to them and others with any QAA title for first or second in a " Q ". I do see some increase in our neck of the woods Midwest, for the OH Quals for a short time but now seem to be decreasing in numbers, even when attached to a AKC hunt test. In the olden days the qualifying was called a non winners stake, I think it is a befitting name today.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

People already use QAA as a designation. It speaks of something. If you know something about dogs even a little you know what it means. If you get it by luck or by winning in a weak field you still got it.

If you are dedicated, committed to running field trials it's not so important. If it's all you can afford, or all your dog can accomplish, or all you can accomplish it's pretty important. If your goal is loftier, QAA is a stepping stone along the way. I don't see how it detracts from FC AFC. If it crowds the Qual ranks so be it, it is a competition.

Not taking anything away from anyone, but JH is a title...


----------



## Tim Mc (Mar 1, 2013)

BonMallari said:


> Have to disagree with you just a bit, if you look at who is STILL in the game it's generally people that are willing to stick things out year after year, the sport is full of short timers that tried it, some had success some didn't , but they are no longer around maybe because it wasn't as easy as they imagined or it was much harder than they envisioned, men like Dr A have seen those come and go, you can't blame him for defending something he has put a lifetime invested into
> 
> Takes a different mindset to play the FT game, you have to be a bit selfish because you are on your own , it is survival of the fittest



So maybe it's like the country club my wife and I joined several years ago. The " old guard" didn't really want any new members, especially young ones, and went out of their way at times to let us know that. They did however need our initiation fee and monthly dues to keep their little party going and the club doors open. 
Am I in the ballpark , Bon? By the way, I see you post quite often. I was wondering what stakes you run your dogs in presently? Are your dogs all in aa competition or some in derby or qual ?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Tim Mc said:


> So maybe it's like the country club my wife and I joined several years ago. The " old guard" didn't really want any new members, especially young ones, and went out of their way at times to let us know that. They did however need our initiation fee and monthly dues to keep their little party going and the club doors open.
> Am I in the ballpark , Bon? By the way, I see you post quite often. I was wondering what stakes you run your dogs in presently? Are your dogs all in aa competition or some in derby or qual ?


I will answer in reverse order, I post a lot, I am an RTF junkie, dont currently have a dog on my own, last registered trial I ran was the Amateur in Utah May '11, blew out in the first series with two dogs..Have been around the game off and on since the early 70's, always on the sidelines but have become a real student of the game, its history and its many characters...I AM A NOBODY in the sport, just an educated well informed (questionable at times) observer, I am not a kid anymore..

I am not the old guard because I was never part of the "in crowd"..I make no bones of the fact that I ride/rode my brother's coat tails in this sport. BUT along the way I kept my mouth shut and my eyes open and listened to some of the best in the sport,and when I saw things that were none of my business I just kept on walking..I know how to train a dog, but without an E collar, I am not your typical RTF'er,some people may not care for me but I am not out to change hearts and minds..The FT retriever game has given me the opportunity to work with some great dogs, it has also gotten me invited to some places that arent open to the general public, I got lucky with some of those invites and I make it a point to not betray the trust given to me with those invites

Is that enough info for ya...BTW I don't belong to the country club either, worked at a few,managed a couple, but I am the hired help, I always knew which entrance to use.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Given what you've written, would you object to a pro running a dog that he bred, raised, owned, and trained (or one bred by his wife that he owned from puppyhood)?
> 
> "Professional trainer," of course, is a term defined in the field trial rules, rules of which the pro must always be aware in determining what s/he can and can't do. The definition doesn't mention a truckload of competing dogs, and I would guess the majority of pros don't have one.


To Add to that,,,,,,not all professional retriever trainers train trial dogs for other people. Some are just gun dog /meat dog trainers. And to say they are unethical for running their dog in a Q is a head scratcher. Most big time field trial trainers are not running 5 year old dogs in the Q. 

pete


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

EdA said:


> I have been an O/H Qualifying Stake supporter since the introduction of the stake +\- 20 years ago, there is no creditable evidence that the stake has resulted in any participation by "new blood", assumptions are easy but reality trumps assumptions every time.


Then I suppose, my training partner's first FT runs this Spring, that were Q's, was an oddity? Facts are...greenhorns start at the entry level... I understand that Q's don't mean anything to you and the level you expect. If the QAA was allowed then and you saw a QAA titled dog, then you would know just what level that dog attained. As it stands, the title would never show anything for a dog that ran VERY well in Q's and made it to the big boys, but could only JAM out. IMO, I would like to see a few dogs in a 3-5 gen pedigree with QAA instead of a few names with no proof they were able to do the work.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Pete said:


> To Add to that,,,,,,not all professional retriever trainers train trial dogs for other people. Some are just gun dog /meat dog trainers. And to say they are unethical for running their dog in a Q is a head scratcher. Most big time field trial trainers are not running 5 year old dogs in the Q.
> 
> pete


Agreed. As someone who runs Qs often, I have absolutely no problem with a HT pro running a dog he or she owns or co-owns in an OHQ. Nor would I have a problem with a FT pro running a young dog he or she owns in an OHQ. Both of which happen from time to time.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Duckquilizer said:


> Then I suppose, my training partner's first FT runs this Spring, that were Q's, was an oddity? Facts are...greenhorns start at the entry level...


The Qualifying stake was my entry level stake many years ago, no O/H stake either and certainly no thoughts or discussions of making a title for the Qualifying stake.

I simply don't believe, based on history, that the O/H Qualifying attracts "new blood" to any greater degree than if it did not exist. I still support the concept I just don't believe in making the Qualifying stake more than it is.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

John Lash said:


> People already use QAA as a designation. It speaks of something. If you know something about dogs even a little you know what it means. If you get it by luck or by winning in a weak field you still got it.
> 
> If you are dedicated, committed to running field trials it's not so important. If it's all you can afford, or all your dog can accomplish, or all you can accomplish it's pretty important. If your goal is loftier, QAA is a stepping stone along the way. I don't see how it detracts from FC AFC. If it crowds the Qual ranks so be it, it is a competition.
> 
> *Not taking anything away from anyone, but JH is a title...*


Exactly...and there is no telling how many have moved on to SH and MH due to that one JH.


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

EdA said:


> The Qualifying stake was my entry level stake many years ago, no O/H stake either and certainly no thoughts or discussions of making a title for the Qualifying stake.
> 
> I simply don't believe, based on history, that the O/H Qualifying attracts "new blood" to any greater degree than if it did not exist. I still support the concept I just don't believe in making the Qualifying stake more than it is.


I understand your point. Just don't agree with it personally. The Open and Am's attract new blood, but the Q's give them a chance to win in the minor leagues and gain expierence. A good minor league pitcher will find himself at the big show once he starts killing the minors. And please dont try to say that's what the AM's are for. You and I both know there is very little difference in an AM and Open...


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> I like the the unofficial distinction of QAA and that it only requires a 1st or 2nd, it's a hook for those who might not ever really think about playing the FT game, but just throw their dog in, because it's something to do, and hey I might just get QAA status. I like the O/H qual and the HT associated O/H qual, because it is an easy transition from Masters and allows that FT hook to be set, for someone who might find it pretty intimidating to run the 40+ dog Quals that we usually have around here, which is dominated by Pros many running dogs that are ready for upper FTs, that have already placed in but not gotten 2 seconds or won yet. People need to believe they can have a shot, it's important to have an easy inlet into FT for newbies, an unofficial title does that it's a major factor in drawing some of that new blood everyone seems to want. An official title would effect the Qual just as the MNH title has affected the Master Nationals it would draw the title chasing set, and you'd end-up with 80+ dog quals, ran by Pros, with no other goal than to obtain the title, to put it on a pretty pedigree.


Agree, especially w/ that last sentence. Just as some folks brag on that JH while never intending to take the next step making the QAA an official title would encourage those whose only goal is to put titles on the dog. I run Qs now, as me and the pup are a long way from being able to play with the "big dogs." My goal is not to get the QAA but to get to the point where we can be competitive in all-age stakes. IMHO, as a FT newbie, the intent of the Q as a preparatory stage to the "real game" should be maintained. Don't need to make it something it ain't.


----------



## Dos Patos (Oct 15, 2012)

Man,from a newbie coming into to the FT game from HT all I was looking forward to was getting my feet wet with Derbys and Quals.Now I'm a nervous wreck.This thread has a mans mind going up down and all around.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

As owner of a dog who had an outstanding Q record with very little success in the AA, I can tell you that "QAA" (***) can be an indicator of your limitations as well as your accomplishments! :razz:

JS


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Dos Patos said:


> Man,from a newbie coming into to the FT game from HT all I was looking forward to was getting my feet wet with Derbys and Quals.Now I'm a nervous wreck.This thread has a mans mind going up down and all around.


Why? It's an Internet forum, big deal. The only thing you should care about is you and your dog. If you're going to run anything, you have to ignore everything else but that. Train with someone good, enjoy the process, realize that there are going to be lots of bumps along the way, some discouraging people, but when you win, best feeling in the world because it does mean something, to YOU, and to the ones who helped you get there. You don't have anything to prove to anyone else. At all. Especially on the Internet. The more you worry about what others are saying or doing, the more it will take away from what you have with your dog. Enjoy the game, be ethical and fair to others, regardless of what THEY are, and make it what it was meant to be. Nothing better for a dog addict than a day in the field, even if you wipe out first series, you won't be alone and it beats raking the lawn.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I guess I feel like Ted, not strongly either way. If I was king of AKC and could just implement the Canadian title system, I would, but I don't feel so strongly about it as to mount some big campaign. The Qualifying level means something different to everyone, for old timers like Ed who have had success at a high level over many decades, it's just a stepping stone for introducing his young dogs to the four series marks and blinds they will be running in the all age, get some line time and see where there are. At the other end of the spectrum are people and dogs that will never be competitive at the highest level, but they enjoy competition and relish that first Qualifying ribbon. I am somewhere in the middle, all my dogs became QAA at a fairly young age, I got my best dog on the derby list and have varying degrees of success in the AA with three of my dogs. Like I said I could take or leave a formal QAA title, not worth fighting over.

John


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Pete said:


> To Add to that,,,,,,not all professional retriever trainers train trial dogs for other people. Some are just gun dog /meat dog trainers. And to say they are unethical for running their dog in a Q is a head scratcher. Most big time field trial trainers are not running 5 year old dogs in the Q.
> 
> pete


Pretty much fits my situation. I train hunt test dogs and dogs to about QAA level. If a client wants to go for AA then I refer them to a full time FT pro and there are plenty to choose from around me. Every once in awhile when I have a client that wants to run a qual I'll enter a couple of my old MH's. It helps support the local club with entries, lets my old dogs play, gives me the best view of the test to help provide guidance to my client and here's a good one, lets me actually have fun at an event without the stress of remember which dogs go next, dealing with marshals etc. I know we often forget that this stupid sport (my dogs words not mine) is suppose to have an element of fun to it...

/Paul


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

I too am a FT wannabe. Coming from the HT world I didn't realize what it takes to have a competitive dog. I respect those who take the time and effort to have a consistant dog in AA stakes. I have a few greens from Qual and am currently trying to run in the Am. I would not enter unless I thought I had a chance. To put things in perspective at most trials close to 50% of the field are eliminated in the first series.Many of them being FCs. I agree with Dr Ed on leaving things as is and not having a QAA title. Enjoy the journey.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Pete said:


> To Add to that,,,,,,not all professional retriever trainers train trial dogs for other people. Some are just gun dog /meat dog trainers. And to say they are unethical for running their dog in a Q is a head scratcher. Most big time field trial trainers are not running 5 year old dogs in the Q.
> 
> pete


Pete,

I don't think in your particular case (or Paul's and Amy's for that matter) would be considered unethical. I think common sense should be applied. I think the unethical part is when a "pro" co-owns dogs it is training just so the pro can enter an O/H event and has no true vested attachment to the dog other than a pro-client relationship, to me that is bending the rules to get around the rules.

FOM


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

The intent of any level of an AKC competition is to determine a degree of excellence to improve pure bred dogs.
Titles were established to identify and tract these dogs for breeding puposes. The problem is that in the retriever field trial venue the current title system is not working for most breeds. In 2012 according to Retriever News 41 new dogs were identified as FCs or AFCs (40 Labs, 1 CBR, 0 Goldens,Flats... etc.). 
Without a means to identify the CBR, Golden, Flat, CCR... that have achieved a QAA status the retrieving gene pool will continue to decline.
Maintaining the status quo of titles protects FTs it does not serve the retrieving breeds as a whole.

JMO

Tim


----------



## Tim Mc (Mar 1, 2013)

BonMallari said:


> I will answer in reverse order, I post a lot, I am an RTF junkie, dont currently have a dog on my own, last registered trial I ran was the Amateur in Utah May '11, blew out in the first series with two dogs..Have been around the game off and on since the early 70's, always on the sidelines but have become a real
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, that's enough, thanks. I've just noticed a few times that when someone challenges or questions one of the, for lack of a better word " legends" of the game , you swoop in to defend them . Almost as if some folks are beyond reproach and you're the watchdog.

I do admire the loyalty you have for long time mentors and great people in this sport and share your interest in the history of both great dogs and dog people. 
It's especially cool to hear stories first hand from the people, when the dogs are in my dogs pedigree. I eat up all of the stuff people like Dr.Ed are willing to share about the great ones of years past.

I guess that's why I took exception to his "meaningless stake" comment about the qual. If someone else said it , I could have cared less. Anybody with even a small knowledge of ft's knows FC/AFC are the top level .
I load up my dog and drag the launchers and equipment out to train almost every day by myself, working to someday achieve those titles. I know my chances are very small in achieving them, but I work at it and run qualifying trials to get us both ready to try 
My point is, in the big picture qaa is not a big deal but to win a qual would be a big deal to me and many others who are working hard at it. What Sarah has achieved is special and it would be nice if there was a title to recognize that.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Tim Mc said:


> I guess that's why I took exception to his "meaningless stake" comment about the qual. If someone else said it , I could have cared less. Anybody with even a small knowledge of ft's knows FC/AFC are the top level .
> .


If you were offended by my choice of words, I apologize. Political correctness is not my forte. If you knew me or anything about my history you would know that I have long supported new people in the sport. Additionally one of my competitive dogs had a relatively long career in the Qualifying, 9 or 10 starts if my memory is accurate. It was very important for that particular dog to enjoy success at the field trial even though my goal was not directed toward any particular achievement in the Qualifying but rather an opportunity for that particular dog to feel good about himself when we would have been a first series casualty in the major stakes at that point in his career. Ultimately it paid dividends and he is now quite competitive in All-Age stakes though not nearly as successful as his littermate


----------



## Tim Mc (Mar 1, 2013)

No need to apologize Dr.Ed , but thank you. We passed 10 qual starts some time ago ! It's OK though because I'm learning and so is he. It's amazing the mistakes you make as a handler. When reflecting back on earlier trials, I know now we had zero chance to finish, let alone win. That's the difference experience makes, you kept your dog in quals for the benefit of the dog and I've done it mostly for my benefit to try and get us up to speed with the whole process of training and trialling.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Tim hits the nail on the head. Field Trial Titles are not to protect the sport of field trialing. A title can not dimenish any "trial or stake" because the title is only a function of a record. They are to track successes on pedigrees for the AKC breed registries. I think that is a point which is missed. A field trial is secondary to the historical documentation of levels achieved in competition/testing. 

Not documenting even a lowly derby points a dog achieves dimenishes primary purpose of the historical record of the purebred and imposes on the intent of an AKC event/title from a historical documentation standpoint.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

EdA said:


> I have been an O/H Qualifying Stake supporter since the introduction of the stake +\- 20 years ago, there is no creditable evidence that the stake has resulted in any participation by "new blood", assumptions are easy but reality trumps assumptions every time.


While I agree with you that there is no need to make QAA a title, it is fine the way it is. Like Ted and John, I don't feel; strongly about it and I don't feel it would diminishFC, AFC titles anymore than JH or SH diminish the MH title.

I do take issue with you on the OH Qual not bringing in new blood to the sport. I know of many people who were afraid of nFT's but tried an OH Qual. Most of em got their asses handed to em and went away, however some are still plugging away. 
They would have never ventured into it w/o the OH Qual as a stepping stone. I don't know this for a fact but it is possible that Lauren Hayes may have stuck to HT's if not for the OH Qual.; she and Slider have probably been the most successful Am team in the country for the past couple of years


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

mjh345 said:


> I do take issue with you on the OH Qual not bringing in new blood to the sport. I know of many people who were afraid of nFT's but tried an OH Qual. Most of em got their asses handed to em and went away, however some are still plugging away.


I hope your observations are correct, as I stated I have long supported the O/H Qualifying by both word and deed. I think Lauren began with a dog named Steel, too bad for the rest of us she wasn't content with that.....;-)


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Tim Mc said:


> I load up my dog and drag the launchers and equipment out to train almost every day by myself, working to someday achieve those titles. I know my chances are very small in achieving them, but I work at it and run qualifying trials to get us both ready to try
> My point is, in the big picture qaa is not a big deal but to win a qual would be a big deal to me and many others who are working hard at it. What Sarah has achieved is special and it would be nice if there was a title to recognize that.


Well said. For those of us who have not already been there and done that, and even more so for those of us who are new to the retriever games period, a QAA looks a lot like Mt. Everest, let alone an FC or AFC.


----------



## dexdoolittle (Apr 26, 2008)

Having a good dog makes it easy to stick around.

I would have to agree with Dr. Ed on this one. O/H Quals have been around for sometime now, and I actually think participation has shrunk. So I think the facts speak for themselves.



EdA said:


> I hope your observations are correct, as I stated I have long supported the O/H Qualifying by both word and deed. I think Lauren began with a dog named Steel, too bad for the rest of us she wasn't content with that.....;-)


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

As I understand it, it's not the AKC but rather the breed clubs that determine whether a QAA designation is official & can be designated as part of the dog's official name. The Golden club has designated *** as an official designation. I don't know about other breeds but I do know that the LRC does not allow an official designation of the QAA status.

But to the OP's original question, I agree with Ted Shih's comment on p2, clubs do it to reduce numbers & encourage O/H participation (which I do not think has led to much if any additional participation in FTs). If some folks don't like the fact that pros can run under the applicable AKC rules that govern an O/H Q, then get them changed, otherwise if you enter O/H Qs, train up and beat the pros. After all, even the Q is a competition open to all who are allowed to enter. That said, I have no use for a pro who co-owns a dog on paper only to get around the O/H designation..and just think was that pro is telling us - he can't compete unless he tilts the rules in his favor.



Tim Carrion said:


> The intent of any level of an AKC competition is to determine a degree of excellence to improve pure bred dogs.
> Titles were established to identify and tract these dogs for breeding puposes. The problem is that in the retriever field trial venue the current title system is not working for most breeds. In 2012 according to Retriever News 41 new dogs were identified as FCs or AFCs (40 Labs, 1 CBR, 0 Goldens,Flats... etc.).
> Without a means to identify the CBR, Golden, Flat, CCR... that have achieved a QAA status the retrieving gene pool will continue to decline.
> Maintaining the status quo of titles protects FTs it does not serve the retrieving breeds as a whole.
> ...


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Tim Carrion said:


> The intent of any level of an AKC competition is to determine a degree of excellence to improve pure bred dogs.
> Titles were established to identify and tract these dogs for breeding puposes. The problem is that in the retriever field trial venue the current title system is not working for most breeds. In 2012 according to Retriever News 41 new dogs were identified as FCs or AFCs (40 Labs, 1 CBR, 0 Goldens,Flats... etc.).
> Without a means to identify the CBR, Golden, Flat, CCR... that have achieved a QAA status the retrieving gene pool will continue to decline.
> Maintaining the status quo of titles protects FTs it does not serve the retrieving breeds as a whole.
> ...


Tim, this is an interesting point. Do you think, however, that a QAA title is really a good way to address it? Currently a Chesapeake can become QAA by getting a second in the Qualifying at the National Specialty. I admit I have not been to a field Specialty, but I'm guessing that the Q there, like most stakes in most trials, involves the usual "breaks of the game." Does a title based on a single performance in a venue that involves a large component of luck really add quality information to breeding decisions?

As I think about it, I wonder if we give too little respect to the Master National Qualifiers. As I understand the requirements, those dogs have to be very consistent passing Master Hunters, then hang in there for 10 series of tough tests. Granted, the distances are not long, so eyesight and range are not put to the test--but I've run Qualifyings where all of the marks were at Master Hunter distances, so again, a title based on a single Q wouldn't tell you much. The Master, in my experience, is often tricky. I've trained dogs that were good markers with memory and good handling dogs, but I've felt that for them the Q is easier than the Master, because it's likely to be more straightforward. These consistent Master dogs with one or more MN finishes have got to be smart and adaptable, as well as having a level of basic talent.

I feel that with Chesapeakes, the dearth of field trial titles forces us to look at the traits of the actual dog. IMO this is preferable as there is a lot a title doesn't tell you, even if it is FC. I think a lot of people in the breed do a good job looking that the whole dog. What was it, a couple of weeks ago that Tanner and several other Ben offspring distinguished themselves? That was possible because people were smart enough to breed to Ben in the first place; they had done their research.

In fact, given the tendency to be dogmatic and absolute about health certifications, it might be a good thing that the lack of titled dogs forces breeders to look deeper when evaluating performance. Otherwise they might get dogmatic about titles--and the titled dog is not necessarily the best producer out there. Speaking generically in this last sentence!

Amy Dahl


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

*Co-Owned dog, O/H Quals ...*

Let's recap/review the topic of propriety concerning the Qualifying Stake
and Qualifying dogs -

A QUALIFYING STAKE, OR AN OWNER-HANDLER QUALIFYING STAKE .... "shall be
(in part) for dogs who haven't won two first places in Qualifying stakes at licensed or
member club trials"....
.... "An Owner-Handler Qualifying Stake may be run in place of a Qualifying Stake
at the election of the trial giving club ... open to elgible dogs provided that
each entered dog is handled by the registered owner or co-owner ...".

No existing limitation/definition exists providing a 3rd option for an "Amateur Owner-
Handler Qualifying Stake. At this time that 3rd option seems to be a debatable issue!

Traditionally, the Qualifying stake reflects the intermediate level/stage of progress/
development from Derby to All-Age competition. Notwithstanding that an element 
and quality of dogs exists that are marginal in ability and achievement, but owned and
campaigned by hard core enthusiasts of the game/sport, most talented qualifying dogs,
after they qualify, move on to All-Age stakes. 

I submit that until the language is further changed limiting options in determining
such entries, that registrations of ownership between pros and amateurs are ...
simply stated ... private and do not raise the specter of being unethical.

W. D. Connor


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

To Amy: 

Last year Tom Cox won the Q at the 2012 ACC FTS. He'd also won the Q the week before at the Snake River Trial. Dog is now running Open and AM with some Jams if I recall correctly. There were 35 entries. Not bad numbers for a specialty. Steve Parker got second. Both well known names in the community who've judged and been around for a while. You can insinuate the competition is watered down like many but, carrying dogs into the third series doesn't neccesarily mean the fourth series and final placements were not competitive. A list of strong players were also in the AA stakes.


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

afdahl said:


> Tim, this is an interesting point. Do you think, however, that a QAA title is really a good way to address it? Currently a Chesapeake can become QAA by getting a second in the Qualifying at the National Specialty. I admit I have not been to a field Specialty, but I'm guessing that the Q there, like most stakes in most trials, involves the usual "breaks of the game." Does a title based on a single performance in a venue that involves a large component of luck really add quality information to breeding decisions?
> 
> As I think about it, I wonder if we give too little respect to the Master National Qualifiers. As I understand the requirements, those dogs have to be very consistent passing Master Hunters, then hang in there for 10 series of tough tests. Granted, the distances are not long, so eyesight and range are not put to the test--but I've run Qualifyings where all of the marks were at Master Hunter distances, so again, a title based on a single Q wouldn't tell you much. The Master, in my experience, is often tricky. I've trained dogs that were good markers with memory and good handling dogs, but I've felt that for them the Q is easier than the Master, because it's likely to be more straightforward. These consistent Master dogs with one or more MN finishes have got to be smart and adaptable, as well as having a level of basic talent.
> 
> ...


Difficult to argue any of what you said, there's definitely "more than meets the eye" to this subject.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

I am surprised by the perception that the OHQ doesn’t bring folks into the FT world. The folks who feel that way certainly have more years watching it than I do, so I am reluctant to disagree, but it just doesn’t jibe with what I have seen. Would you also say that the derby also doesn’t lead to any additional participation in FTs? If so, whence come the new folks? 

I think that it is fair to say that most folks come to FTs via the minor stakes--very few start right out with AA dogs. I also think that, while most of these folks probably don’t stick with it, probably as many who start with a Q get hooked as those who start at Derby. I think the biggest difference in leading to the perception that the Q does not lead to additional participation is that many amateurs in the game run the dogs they have and don’t have the wherewithal to go out and buy a bunch of pups or better dogs once they get hooked. Therefore, those with talented young dogs often are able to move up more quickly than those who are running an older HT dog in a Q--which may be the limit of that dog’s skill--and therefore become more well known to the names in the sport.

I ran my first FT a little over three years ago, when a friend (yes, he is still a friend, even though he is responsible for getting me into the game) said that I should enter my dog who turns five today in a derby before he aged out. So I entered the derby and also entered the Q with my older dog just since we were going to be there. The Q was first and I was dog 1 and ran first every series. With the exception of a very nice water blind, we did just barely enough to be called back. On the last bird of the last series my dog hunted all over creation but I didn’t handle since I thought I was out if I did. So we were finished--ugly but clean. When the next five dogs either handled or picked up, a third place ribbon fell into our lap and we were hooked. I put my derby dog with a FT pro and started entering Ams with my other dog. Unfortunately, my younger dog was washed out and as working amateurs who can train one or two days a week in the off season, progress was slow. We still ran Qs and Ams every weekend and got better. Slowly. Now even though we have not yet earned a JAM in an AA stake, we are plugging away and defining success in our own way. We do have a promising young puppy my wife hopes will be a serious FT dog and I have had a pro keeping his eye open for a started to for me to buy for a while now, but there are not millions of dogs that have the talent he is looking for at the price I am seeking, so that may not happen. Until such time as either of those plays pan out, we are still training when we can and running FTs with the dogs we have. One in the Q and occasional Am and the other in AA only since he is no longer eligible to run Qs.

Compare our history to many folks who have started off with very talented derby dogs in the same time frame and you will probably see those dogs making noise at the AA level. In fact, at our very first event back in 2010 we became friends with a couple running their first derby, same as us. Like us, they both work and have limited resources relative to many FT folks. What they did have was a much more talented dog, which at 4 years old now has an FC and two Amateur wins. I know several other folks who started at or around the same time as we did, including several who started at a HT OHQ and worked their way up to FTs, even if the Q is pretty much the top of what they can do. On average, the ones with the talented young dogs have definitely done better than the folks with a Q dog, but we are all pretty much running the same dogs we had back then. 

And, as a “class”, we are all contributing in some way to the sport, even if we are not on the cover of RFTN. Many folks just may not notice. Sure, folks notice the dogs that have done very well, and understandably not so much the ones still running the Q or going out early at the Am. Although, I think if you ran our circuit, you would recognize the faces of these folks as they are putting on trials for their clubs, helping out at other trials, judging here and there, etc. In fact, several of us were discussing last week how we were going to be able to swing an extra two weeks of vacation and the cost of being there to work the NFC in Cheraw in November.

Sorry this was so long but I think it is simply wrong that the Q--whether OH or regular--does not bring new blood into the sport, even though their contributions may not be noticed by the big time FT folks.


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

Assuming that an AKC title was created for QAA dogs and that would increase entries is taht someting FT clubs want? We hear a lot of a few people doing all the work. Would a larger entry in Q, which would take longer to run, be something FT clubs want?

If I were ever to enter FT's on a regular basis I would do it for the ultimate titles, not an intermediate title. It is kind of like those who talk about starting with a JH and now only running master.

It may bring more people into the Q. But, I don't think it will have an impact on all-age stakes. Those who are competitive don't need to nursed along to build the desire to win.

Tom


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

As a breeder, I know personally more than a few of "just want a huntin' dog" owners that are now working on advanced HT titles. That JH so many look down upon hooks them. Not all of them, but some. I myself stayed away from FT for a long time. My first Qual was O/H at a HT, it was not my last and we're now getting our feet wet in Amateurs. My first, and so far only, blue ribbon was an O/H Qual. I don't need QAA to be a title to mean any more than that win did, or for the hook to be set any deeper. I thought HT was bad enough addiction, I had no idea I could sink any further.  Bottom line, FT needs to support HT, HT needs to support FT, we need the clubs, the workers, the continuation of all of it, if we're all going to keep playing in whatever venue we choose.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I think we need to look at some things that seemed to have been lost in the wash:

1) Amateurs can enter a plain, old, everyday garden variety Qualifying. They are not limited - except by personal inclination - to O/H Quals
2) If you were to institute a Canadian-like title, after accomplishing your title, you would be banished to the AA stakes - because under the current rules, two wins and you are out of the Qual.
3) The debate seems to be focused on whether the O/H Q attracts newcomers. To me, the question ought to be not "if you build it, will they come?" but, "if they come, will they stay?" I don't believe that having window shoppers is what the sport needs.

I have been in this sport for 15 years now, a fraction of what Ed has been. But, during that time, I have seen plenty newcomers who wanted to set the world on fire, come and disappear. Not for lack of welcome or support. But, rather because the sport requires a tremendous commitment of time, money, and emotion to finish in the money on a regular basis. And they didn't have it. 

There is a lot more failure than success in this sport, when it comes to bringing home the pretty colored ribbons. Not many people are willing to put up with that.
So after we make it possible for a person to get a QAA "title, suffix, whatever", will those persons stay to face the adversity presented in the AA Stakes?


----------



## Duckquilizer (Apr 4, 2011)

Ted Shih said:


> I think we need to look at some things that seemed to have been lost in the wash:
> 
> 1) Amateurs can enter a plain, old, everyday garden variety Qualifying. They are not limited - except by personal inclination - to O/H Quals
> 2) If you were to institute a Canadian-like title, after accomplishing your title, you would be banished to the AA stakes - because under the current rules, two wins and you are out of the Qual.
> ...


Don't some MH go on to the MN???


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

I support the idea of a title for Qual dogs. A deserving title based on the idea that a win is a must. Whether it goes to the front or back of the name. It is a goal that will not seem like reaching for the stars, as the all-age must, to the average working Joe. In Canada it is now 5 Q wins and you are out. This is beneficial for dogs that could never compete in all-age, but are competent in the Q.
I also think that the QAA designation is misleading to the uninformed, and doesn't reflect what it should.
Perhaps the requirements for QAA should become an all-age JAM or better.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I would have no problem with a title for the "Q", if the 15 points with a 1st place that was reguired for it, had to be garnered only at an event open to all........... Ok, Ok, 10 points

john


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

if you give a title to a Qual dog, then what happens to the AA dog that has either Open or Amateur points but either did not have a win or enough total points to garner an FC or AFC ..do we start listing their career point total instead ? Can you imagine all the dogs from the past that would have their pedigrees changed ?

what carries more weight, two wins in a Qual stake or one win in an Open or Amateur stake ? You could be like our gal Nola, she has a Qual win,an Amateur Win, and an Open win in Canada....no title but she is one heck of a dog


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

*From the Canadian Field Trial Rules:

14.6 Qualified Field Trial Retriever (QFTR)​*14.6.1 A retriever shall be a Qualified Field Trial Retrieverand shall be entitled to place the letters QFTR afterits name having won the requisite number of pointsin the Qualifying Stake at field trials approved by theCKC.14.6.2 A retriever shall be designated as a Qualified FieldTrial Retriever having Acquired a total of 10 points in QualifyingStakes, with 5 starters, provided the dog has awin in a Qualifying stake; or​35​(b) Placed in an Amateur All-Age or Owner HandlerAmateur All-Age stake; or
(c) Placed or obtained a Certificate of Merit in an​Open, Limited or Special All-Age stake.

Since this has come into force, the sky has not fallen.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

This just might be the longest running off-topic thread of all times...lol... The little energizer bunny must have gotten some surplus batteries from the Boeing Engineers...


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Why are derby points so much more important than qaa?

/Paul


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Because you can WIN an unlimited number.
Remember the original name of the Q was Non-Winners Stake.

Tim


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Why are derby points so much more important than qaa?
> 
> /Paul


Probably because they seem to validate the marking ability of the bloodline


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

BonMallari said:


> Probably because they seem to validate the marking ability of the bloodline


Have you watched a Derby lately? Tell me its all about pure marking....when I get done laughing you can say it again with feeling...

/Paul


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Why are derby points so much more important than qaa?
> 
> /Paul


Not certain that is true but getting a second place in the qualifying in a lifetime is much easier than getting 10 derby points before the age of 2


----------



## jeff evans (Jun 9, 2008)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Why are derby points so much more important than qaa?
> 
> /Paul


Because theirs a title, NDC


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Have you watched a Derby lately? Tell me its all about pure marking....when I get done laughing you can say it again with feeling...
> 
> /Paul


I get your point, more and more, winning or placing in a derby comes down to the well trained dog being disciplined, I prefer test that more accurately judge a dog's natural marking ability. Having said that I still believe the dog that accumulates a bunch of derby points is not only disciplined, but also a good marker. Having run all my dogs in the derby over the years, I discovered in order to win or place, your dog has to be pretty close to perfect, holding good lines through cover, terrain and wind, not cheating cover and water, and on top of all that, knowing where the birds are.

John


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> I get your point, more and more, winning or placing in a derby comes down to the well trained dog being disciplined, I prefer test that more accurately judge a dog's natural marking ability. Having said that I still believe the dog that accumulates a bunch of derby points is not only disciplined, but also a good marker. Having run all my dogs in the derby over the years, I discovered in order to win or place, your dog has to be pretty close to perfect, holding good lines through cover, terrain and wind, not cheating cover and water, and on top of all that, knowing where the birds are.
> 
> John


I completely agree that at the end of the day, a dog that knows where the birds are is pretty darn hard to beat. Unfortunately derby these days is not solely about marking. Many of those young dogs often times are also running quals, seen a few also entered in AM's. We have such better training methods, and high quality dogs these days that often times you can get a dog running both before 2 years old. The question I have though, are we seeing pure marking or trained aspects in derby dogs? I don't personally care if there is a title for QAA or not, most people include that info in their breeding info regardless of the title or not and I've always considered the blue ribbon to be proof enough of the dogs capabilities. 

/Paul


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Not all second and third place finishers would agree with your last sentence. Lol


----------

