# New suffix title QA2



## CindyGal (Mar 6, 2012)

Has anyone heard about a new suffix title being considered by AKC for Retriever Field Trials - QA2. I guess it is going up for vote in March.


----------



## Micah Duffy (Jan 21, 2010)

Here you go...

QA2 - New Retriever Field Trial Title 
The Board VOTED to amend Chapter 14 of the Field Trial Rules & Standard Procedures for 
Retrievers to create a new suffix title called Qualified All-Age 2 (QA2) that can be earned in 
Retriever Field Trials. The title is earned when a dog on two occasions has met the qualifications 
to enter the Limited All-Age stake. The QA2 title is meant to acknowledge an intermediate level of 
achievement in order to encourage participants to remain active in the sport and their club. This 
will be read at the March Delegate meeting for a VOTE at the June Delegate meeting. 

Chapter 14, Section 14 (new section) 
SECTION 14. QA2 Title. (Qualified All-Age 2) A Retriever shall be eligible to be 
awarded the suffix title QA2 if on two occasions it has met the requirements to 
participate in a Limited All-Age stake. The owner of a dog that is eligible for the 
QA2 title shall submit a title application form developed by the Performance 
Events Department along with a nominal processing fee. Once the qualifications 
have been verified, the title shall be added to the dog’s record. The title will 
appear on the dog’s pedigree. The submittal of the title application form is up to 
the discretion of the owner. The QA2 title application form can be found one the 
AKC website at 
www.akc.org/events/fieldtrials/retrievers


----------



## CindyGal (Mar 6, 2012)

Micah Duffy said:


> Here you go...
> 
> QA2 - New Retriever Field Trial Title
> The Board VOTED to amend Chapter 14 of the Field Trial Rules & Standard Procedures for
> ...



Great, thank you! So, two occasions of All-Age qualifications could be many different combinations such as

1st & 2nd in Qual
2nd & 2nd in Qual
1st & 1st in Qual
Qual 1st or 2nd and All Age Jam
2 All Age Jams
All Age placement and Jam

Did I miss something?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Yes, what is the "nominal processing fee"?


----------



## David McCracken (May 24, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> Yes, what is the "nominal processing fee"?


It's probably $20. The AKC Spaniel tests started offering an "Advanced" title, ie., MHA (Master Hunter Advanced) for the same reason, to keep titled dogs in the sport (more money for AKC). The catch is, the handler has to keep track of the additional passes and handler is responsible for getting Club Secretary to verify. Then, the handler must mail the form into AKC. BTW, for the Advanced Spaniel title, the dog must pass with an average score of 8 as opposed to 7.


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

With this make QAA or QA2 official titles ? instead of what it is currently considered? I see the word_ title_ being used ,so looking for clarification thanks.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

shawninthesticks said:


> With this make QAA or QA2 official titles ? instead of what it is currently considered? I see the word_ title_ being used ,so looking for clarification thanks.


Apparently. It looks like if you pay the fee, it goes on the pedigree. It doesn't mention QA1 or QAA or *** or whatever they will call it when QA2 (and eventually, QA3,QA4...QAn) comes out.

I wonder if you get the QA12 you will be eligible or the Field Dog Hall of Mediocrity?


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

So if your dog is already QAA and you are chasing the QA2 title .Will it in turn make it more competitive to get QAA (QA1), because of more dogs being re-entered in the qualifying stakes looking to put the QA2 title on ?


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

I like it. Being qualified all age (twice over) is an accomplishment. Assuming it passes, I think it will be good for breeding purposes when looking back a few generations.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Its like signifying that you went to college....but didnt get a degree 

So does that mean that a RHOF dog like Super Powder will be eligible to be QA2


I thought QA2 were Bose headphones


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Charles C. said:


> I think it will be good for breeding purposes when looking back a few generations.


Why would that matter, does anyone really make breeding decisions based on a bitch 3-4 generations back who had no title. It is just another revenue source for AKC nothing more or less.


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

EdA said:


> Why would that matter, does anyone really make breeding decisions based on a bitch 3-4 generations back who had no title. It is just another revenue source for AKC nothing more or less.


I suppose you would at least know something about the dog, and I'm not sure it would only be relevant 3 or 4 generations back. There are goobers in the retriever games who would value a MH or even a SH over a QAA dog because the dog has no "title." I bred a bitch who had higher than a point per trial average in derbies and had 2 or 3 people ask me if she didn't at least have some kind of title.


----------



## Spring (Mar 10, 2012)

shawninthesticks said:


> So if your dog is already QAA and you are chasing the QA2 title .Will it in turn make it more competitive to get QAA (QA1), because of more dogs being re-entered in the qualifying stakes looking to put the QA2 title on ?



I think this would be the bigger issue....My pup got his QAA a few weeks ago and then we canceled any plans for him to compete in any other QAA trials out of respect for other dogs trying to reach the same level. Obviously, this could change all that, something I could handle if I could now say I have another title for this dog...


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

I wonder if they will also change the eligibility to run Qs


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Spring said:


> I think this would be the bigger issue....My MH pup got his QAA a few weeks ago and then we canceled any plans for him to compete in any other QAA trials out of respect for other dogs trying to reach the same level. Obviously, this could change all that, something I could handle if I could now say I have another title for this dog...


I don't think it will make that much difference. The pros and ams with the top dogs will still only do it as a check the box at the end of the derby career and move on to AA training. Unless they change the rules, the rest of the gang will still only be able to win two. If they change that, we will start seeing 100 dog Qs with all those MH dogs with nowhere else to go


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I find it interesting that many of the folks that are not in favor of this have or had AA titled dogs. I also think most people with half a brain would know the difference when buying a pup that were FC/AFC , QAA, Derby list and so on. It certainly does not diminish the AA title. I also know a lot of really nice dogs that never got the win to title but had ample AA points. Once again you have to use your brain when selecting a pup. Also for a lot of folks to get a dog QAA is a big deal. Please dont be so snooty or snobby to down play their accomplishments. I am sure the QAA people are happy for you when you got your AA title. Think about it, folks spend thousands of dollars chasing a flippin 3 buck ribbon paying another 20 bucks who cares. If it does not mean anything to you then just wait until you AA title. Odds are that people that are against it will list the upcoming dog as QAA. Sure do see it in breeder ads "QAA at 26 months"


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

EdA said:


> Why would that matter, does anyone really make breeding decisions based on a bitch 3-4 generations back who had no title.


Unfortunately it does matter in the minority FT breeds. Looking for FC or AFC parents or grandparents is a difficult task for Chesapeakes and Goldens and near impossible for Flats. Being able to identify those dogs with field talent but that were never able to quite reach the "brass ring" is of value in trying to preserve and hopefully advance these breeds. 

Tim


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Steve Amrein said:


> Sure do see it in breeder ads "QAA at 26 months"


You sure do and on online pedigrees, so it is not surprising to me that AKC will legitimize it for a fee. That's how they roll. I think it is useful information, as is letting folks know how many AA points a dog has even though it does not title. I don't see any downside to it.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

DoubleHaul said:


> I wonder if they will also change the eligibility to run Qs


Do you think that all those that cant get into a Master test will now go to a FT and chase after a QA2 

as Dr A stated its another revenue source for AKC


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

BonMallari said:


> Do you think that all those that cant get into a Master test will now go to a FT and chase after a QA2
> 
> as Dr A stated its another revenue source for AKC


That is what I was wondering. I am sure some would give it a try based on the title, some would be unhappy but some would do well and learn to love FTs and eventually we will have 200 dog opens, the AKC will finally let clubs limit, people will complain and so on


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Come-on people; we are always hearing the FT's are dieing, this will give the title chasers a FT title to put on their dogs, without having to compete in the Amateur or Open, might even bring in the Hunt test Pros. Most MH's could easily side into Quals, (double, blind, triple, blind all independent series) Of course they'd have to tweak the title so you could get something if you accumulated enough Jams, that would be QJA . A few of the newbies might go higher, it could _save_ the entire venue. Just look what the MNH title did for the Hunt test. I'm just saying


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

DoubleHaul said:


> That is what I was wondering. I am sure some would give it a try based on the title, some would be unhappy but some would do well and learn to love FTs and* eventually we will have 200 dog opens*, the AKC will finally let clubs limit, people will complain and so on


Hate to use the word NEVER....but I will because it will force the hand of FT committee and you will see all the Open's become Limited

If having a designation such as QA2 does it for you, be my guest....we have 4 dogs that I guess we could go back and retroactively pay for the designation....but we wont, its not what we were chasing after


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

BonMallari said:


> Hate to use the word NEVER....but I will because it will force the hand of FT committee and you will see all the Open's become Limited
> 
> If having a designation such as QA2 does it for you, be my guest....we have 4 dogs that I guess we could go back and retroactively pay for the designation....but we wont, its not what we were chasing after


Already added it to mine on EE


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I have no objection to a QAA2, 3, etc. Nor do I have any objection to dogs remaining in the Qualifying. The up and comers are usually just passing through. Allowing dogs to remain in the Q would allow owners of older dogs who want to play on the weekends, but cannot play in the All Age, a place to have fun. But, like Ed, the designation means little to me in terms of getting a puppy.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I find it distasteful that there will be no distinction between acquiring the "title" in an open to all comers "Q" and the "other"  version.

I also find it problematic that limiting factor of having garnered the distinction in the previous calender year to be qualified to run certain limited AA stakes has not been addressed as yet.

... but ll in all it will make little to no difference to all but a few than using the old stand by *** 

john


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

john fallon said:


> I find it distasteful that there will be no distinction between acquiring the "title" in an open to all comers "Q" and the "other"  version.
> 
> I also find it problematic that limiting factor of having garnered the distinction in the previous calender year to be qualified to run certain limited AA stakes has not been addressed as yet.
> 
> ...


Good Point John !!!


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

BonMallari said:


> Hate to use the word NEVER....but I will because it will force the hand of FT committee and you will see all the Open's become Limited
> 
> If having a designation such as QA2 does it for you, be my guest....we have 4 dogs that I guess we could go back and retroactively pay for the designation....but we wont,* its not what we were chasing after*





I get your point here , that would mean that anyone chasing a NFC or NAFC should not reconize the FC title ,because"its not what they are chasing after."

With all do respect to the seniors in this game ,I think that some have been at it so long that it gets somewhat "non meaningfull "unless you get a blue in the AA stakes. (I ever make it to the 3rd series in an AA stake,you can bet I will celebrate) 

Right now, my pro is evaluating to see if my dog can compete in AA ,if not I was going to go back and work toward a MH , but the way that mess is shaping up.... forget it, we will probably no longer play the game as I see it as the end of the road in the games, we will still train for duck season 9 months out of the year and that will be about it. Which is what started my journey into this . I wanted a bad ass duck dog and got one. (and learned how hard it is to get one) Dont forget where you came from and dont look down on others that are there now.

To the average Joe that can earn a QAA, its like Lardy winning a national.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

shawninthesticks said:


> [/B]
> I get your point here , that would mean that anyone chasing a NFC or NAFC should not reconize the FC title ,because"its not what they are chasing after."


Yes, there is a class of FT folks for whom a FT win is simply part of the requirements for qualifying for the nationals every year. There are folks who disparage greenies. There are also a lot of folks who run week in and week out and never finish AA stakes but set their own standards for success.

It is like that in most endeavors. There are some who are looking to win major tournaments and some who cant break 100.

However, I am sure that Bon and any of the FT folks you get to know on your journey would be the first to congratulate you on that first jam or placement in a Q, that first or second that earns you the designation, the first finish of an AA stake, the first win, etc. I know that has been the case with me. There is not a more welcoming group of folks I can think of than the FT community. I can assure you that Tiger Woods isn't going to call you when you first break 100, but a lot of top FT pros and amateurs called me with congratulations for every single milestone we have achieved, no matter how far beneath the level they were working towards.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

john fallon said:


> I find it distasteful that there will be no distinction between acquiring the "title" in an open to all comers "Q" and the "other"  version.
> 
> I also find it problematic that limiting factor of having garnered the distinction in the previous calender year to be qualified to run certain limited AA stakes has not been addressed as yet.
> 
> ...



Can you clarify "other" Golden and Chessie specialty or OHQ ?


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

*** is a Golden and Chessie(?) designation not recognized by AKC. 

I remember a guy running a Q I was judging with a 10 year old dog. If I recall he did not place but did Jam and was the most happy I have seen anyone in all the FT I have been to. On the other hand I saw a old veteran get a Jam ribbon in the open and throw it on the ground at the award ceremony. 

Different outcomes as they can be.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

shawninthesticks said:


> [/B]
> 
> 
> I get your point here , that would mean that anyone chasing a NFC or NAFC should not reconize the FC title ,because"its not what they are chasing after."
> ...


Not even the same thing


You ask any dedicated FT'er and they are after 3 things

1. Titles -FC & AFC's

2. Qualify for National Opens and National Amateurs

3. Winning one of those events

cant honestly remember anyone telling me they were just interested in making their dog QAA...if they did, then chances are they didnt stay in the sport very long...Look at Lanse Brown, he lives to qualify for Nationals, as he tells me the titles are a result of him qualifying for those Nationals..

I am not going to tell anyone what drives Ted S and DrA, because I have no idea, but they have had their share of titled dogs and I will make an educated guess that the FC AFC is not their only goal when they get a puppy..

Most of the people I know that are in FT arent satisfied with just competing,they love the placements, but if they got a 4th, they want a 3rd, and the hungriest guy/gal at the FT is the one that just got a 2nd place, He/She is proud as heck but knows that they were just a fraction away from a win, and that is what will bring them back next weekend


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Steve Amrein said:


> On the other hand I saw a old veteran get a Jam ribbon in the open and throw it on the ground at the award ceremony.


Once I got roped in to chairing my breed clubs specialty conformation and obedience show. Someone threw away their ribbon that was the equivalent of a JAM. Didn't toss it on the ground in disgust or anything but just put it in the trash can on the way out of town. We had to hold a misconduct hearing.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Interesting Penn, that was my first thought on reading that one. Misconduct? Or is brattiness accepted in the upper levels?


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

DoubleHaul said:


> Once I got roped in to chairing my breed clubs specialty conformation and obedience show. Someone threw away their ribbon that was the equivalent of a JAM. Didn't toss it on the ground in disgust or anything but just put it in the trash can on the way out of town. We had to hold a misconduct hearing.


Lanse made a point to tell me once that when he gets a "Greenie" that he makes an EXTRA effort to write a letter to the FT Sec'y and the Judges to thank them for putting on the trial...and Yes I have seen a disgusted individual toss a Jam in a receptacle, because I retrieved it out of the receptacle and put it back in their truck along with a sympathetic talk,maybe it wasnt what they wanted, maybe it was more than they deserved,but its disrespectful to those that took the time to judge you to cast their evaluation into the garbage


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

Well put Bon Mallari Post #32 . FTers may appear tough but we recognize effort , achievement and most strive to always do better hand-in-paw w/ their dog.


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Vote no in March.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

No problem with the title, but, how about 100 plus dog qualifyings tied to a hunt test in a owner handler..and same old same old ? Some of the titles I see behind a dogs name now I can't cypher ..


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

2tall said:


> Interesting Penn, that was my first thought on reading that one. Misconduct? Or is brattiness accepted in the upper levels?


I had only been in the sport a few months but knew what it took to get to a open jam level dog. If I judged or witnessed that now we would have a a meeting of the FT committee. That was poor sportsman ship in a text book form.


----------



## shawninthesticks (Jun 13, 2010)

BonMallari said:


> Not even the same thing
> 
> 
> You ask any dedicated FT'er and they are after 3 things
> ...


Agian ,thats because you've been around it for so long that that is the "group" you are in. You've been at it so long that ,thats what your expectations are and if that cant be reached ,then you didnt accomplish your goal. Myself ,my goal is to see how far I can get, I got to QAA and am unsure of the road ahead because I've never traveled it, you have been down the road enough times that you know the way to the destination. 

If a millionaire won $5000 in the lottery it would mean very little to him ,but if an average guy won $5000 it would be huge.... its still $5000 no matter who won,but the value is different per each winner.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Steve Amrein said:


> Can you clarify "other" Golden and Chessie specialty or OHQ ?


It is not just the Golden's and Chessy's specialties where the AKC puts limitations on the value of the placement.... a win at the Labador specialty has the same restrictive value when being counted toward the requirement for the FC or AFC title.

But in the post above I was refering to the OH/Q

john


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

BonMallari said:


> Lanse made a point to tell me once that when he gets a "Greenie" that he makes an EXTRA effort to write a letter to the FT Sec'y and the Judges to thank them for putting on the trial...and Yes I have seen a disgusted individual toss a Jam in a receptacle, because I retrieved it out of the receptacle and put it back in their truck along with a sympathetic talk,maybe it wasnt what they wanted, maybe it was more than they deserved,but its disrespectful to those that took the time to judge you to cast their evaluation into the garbage


I have judged Lanse a few times. He has always gone out of his way to thank us for our time weather he was winning the trial or picking up in the 1st series. Speaking with him I know he means it.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

john fallon said:


> It is not just the Golden's and Chessy's specialties where the AKC puts limitations on the value of the placement.... a win at the Labador specialty has the same restrictive value when being counted toward rhe requirement for the FC or AFC title.
> 
> But in the post above I was refering to the OH/Q
> 
> john


I feel they should ad these as exceptions and not count towards a title. You can not use a AA win towards a AA title, the points yes.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I will agre that most in the FT game are in it for the "N" or AFC/FC designation. Myself included. But will give credit that the QAA dog is not the average backyard poop eater.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

BonMallari said:


> Lanse made a point to tell me once that when he gets a "Greenie" that he makes an EXTRA effort to write a letter to the FT Sec'y and the Judges to thank them for putting on the trial...and Yes I have seen a disgusted individual toss a Jam in a receptacle, because I retrieved it out of the receptacle and put it back in their truck along with a sympathetic talk,maybe it wasnt what they wanted, maybe it was more than they deserved,but its disrespectful to those that took the time to judge you to cast their evaluation into the garbage



Last time Lanse ran our trial, he got a green with one of his dogs in the Am. He jumped up out of his chair, big smile on his face, thanking everyone for putting on a great trial on his way to grab the ribbon. He also made sure to shake both judge's hands thanking them for the JAM. That made a huge impression on me and a few other people in attendance. Lanse is a great guy, and he sets a great example.


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

At any of the Specialties, if a dog qualifies to become AA, that is accepted by the AKC. The win in an AA stake does not count towards the title as the win needed, but can count as 5 pts towards that title. It can, combined with other points, qualify a dog for a National. 

Quite a few years back, in a Chessie Specialty, the judges withheld first and second place in the Qual as they did not feel any of the competitors were worthy of being QAA. This resulted in the AKC coming up with new regulations to prevent the withholding of first or second place unless they withheld all the placements.

Glenda


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

I know for me , who is just starting to dabble in FTs, a QAA title is a worthy goal to start. In 5 years it might not mean as much , but right now I would be THRILLED to be able to put QA2 behind my dogs name....vote yes


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Steve Amrein said:


> *I feel they should ad these as exceptions and not count towards a title*. You can not use a AA win towards a AA title, the points yes.


These exceptions toward the QA2 suffix title. Just the required points being earned at specialties or at the O/H Q's as well?

john


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

The Board of Directors made the proposal to be voted on by the AKC delegates in June, the vast majority of the delegates are conformation people and will likely rubber stamp the proposal so be not despaired, since they have already printed the application the passage was a foregone conclusion.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Since when did the term Title apply to letters following a dogs name? People simply start saying it and it becomes so. ?


----------



## freezeland (Nov 1, 2012)

Micah Duffy said:


> Here you go...
> 
> QA2 - New Retriever Field Trial Title
> The Board VOTED to amend Chapter 14 of the Field Trial Rules & Standard Procedures for
> ...


Link doesn't work


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

john fallon said:


> These exceptions toward the QA2 suffix title. Just the required points being earned at specialties or at the O/H Q's as well?
> 
> john


Towards the QA2 title. using the specialties. I guess the premiss has been made for OH Ams points to count so I would guess that as moot. Also since the Q's are open to pro and Am that does not matter as well.


----------



## CindyGal (Mar 6, 2012)

Bridget Bodine said:


> I know for me , who is just starting to dabble in FTs, a QAA title is a worthy goal to start. In 5 years it might not mean as much , but right now I would be THRILLED to be able to put QA2 behind my dogs name....vote yes


Yes, exactly Bridget. New to the game myself and I will gladly pay the nominal fee, especially knowing that I trained my own dog to that level!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

BonMallari said:


> Not even the same thing
> 
> 
> You ask any dedicated FT'er and they are after 3 things
> ...



I don't know what other people want, I do know what I want. 

When I get a puppy, I am looking for a pup that will grow to be a consistent All Age Competitor, that has the ability to be a FC/AFC, consistently qualify for Nationals, and finish. I have been a finalist with two different dogs (Zowie and Buffy), should have been a finalist with another one (FC/AFC Freeridin Smooth Operator) who got to the 9th series twice - but I think I didn't do enough to get Mootsie over the hump. Bad Ted.

I want to be there in the 10th series again and would like to win one of these things. 

Because that is what I am looking for, I have washed out a lot of perfectly nice dogs along the way. I understand that others cannot or will not do so and make no judgments about their decisions. But, that is the path I have chosen.

Even though I want another FC/AFC who can qualify and compete in Nationals (this is the first time since 2003 that I have not had a titled dog on my truck), I try to appreciate the journey. 

I have a five month puppy that I am working with now, that can almost heel backwards now, and it learning how to heel in increments around the clock. I am pretty pleased with that. If she makes the cut, when she finishes her first derby, I will be excited. And I will be excited when she gets her first place. And if she is still on the truck, when she gets QAA I will be excited then, too. Because I think it is important to enjoy the journey. 

Do I enjoy the blue? Absolutely. But, more important to me is how hard my dog is trying and how well the two of us do as a team.


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

The QFTR designation has existed in Canada for a few years now.
The fact is that you don't see all that many dogs showing the title on their entries. I'm not sure why.
Some have it and don't show it. Maybe it isn't all that important to them.
I think it matters.
It is a motivating and attainable goal for newbies, so why not. It is also something to be proud of as they progress along their way to beating the people who don't see its value.
Watch out!


----------



## JusticeDog (Jul 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> The Board of Directors made the proposal to be voted on by the AKC delegates in June, the vast majority of the delegates are conformation people and will likely rubber stamp the proposal so be not despaired, since they have already printed the application the passage was a foregone conclusion.


Gee, I thought they were doing it because it will bring in revenue.... ;-)


----------



## Denver (Dec 10, 2007)

What I would like to know is, Why does it matter to those people who don't acknowledge the QAA as a worthy feat? I get that you are training for something bigger and bettter. I get that you put a lot of time and money into your passion to put out AA dogs. I get that you are stewards of the game. I get that you give back a ton, to the sport that you love. But, why diminish the QAA designation to people that obviously care about it so much? People in the dog games, often put down others in other dog games. Why? Can't you appreciate the fact that even though it might not be your cup of tea, it means something to somebody else? I think that no matter what you choose to do with your retriever, whether it's Field Trials, Hunt Test, SRS, or HRC that you are doing something that can't hurt the breed. I just think it's silly to not want something like a QA2 designation, just because you don't value it. In the end, it's all about the love of the dogs, right?


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

Denver said:


> What I would like to know is, Why does it matter to those people who don't acknowledge the QAA as a worthy feat? I get that you are training for something bigger and bettter. I get that you put a lot of time and money into your passion to put out AA dogs. I get that you are stewards of the game. I get that you give back a ton, to the sport that you love. But, why diminish the QAA designation to people that obviously care about it so much? People in the dog games, often put down others in other dog games. Why? Can't you appreciate the fact that even though it might not be your cup of tea, it means something to somebody else? I think that no matter what you choose to do with your retriever, whether it's Field Trials, Hunt Test, SRS, or HRC that you are doing something that can't hurt the breed. I just think it's silly to not want something like a QA2 designation, just because you don't value it. In the end, it's all about the love of the dogs, right?


There ya go !


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Denver said:


> What I would like to know is, Why does it matter to those people who don't acknowledge the QAA as a worthy feat?


I don't think it matters to anyone. It is what it is. For some folks it will mean a lot, for some folks not enough to justify the fee and some folks will blow it way out of proportion to convince the less knowledgeable that it means way more than it does in an objective sense. At the end of the day it is more revenue for the AKC and it certainly likes more revenue!


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Denver said:


> What I would like to know is, Why does it matter to those people who don't acknowledge the QAA as a worthy feat? I get that you are training for something bigger and bettter. I get that you put a lot of time and money into your passion to put out AA dogs. I get that you are stewards of the game. I get that you give back a ton, to the sport that you love. But, why diminish the QAA designation to people that obviously care about it so much? People in the dog games, often put down others in other dog games. Why? Can't you appreciate the fact that even though it might not be your cup of tea, it means something to somebody else? I think that no matter what you choose to do with your retriever, whether it's Field Trials, Hunt Test, SRS, or HRC that you are doing something that can't hurt the breed. I just think it's silly to not want something like a QA2 designation, just because you don't value it. In the end, it's all about the love of the dogs, right?



Denver 

I don't think that it is productive to over generalize. Some FT will support the QAA, some will not. That's just life. 

If it is all about the dogs, don't let the humans ruin the experience. 

Savor the journey. 

Ted


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Denver said:


> What I would like to know is, Why does it matter to those people who don't acknowledge the QAA as a worthy feat? I get that you are training for something bigger and bettter. I get that you put a lot of time and money into your passion to put out AA dogs. I get that you are stewards of the game. I get that you give back a ton, to the sport that you love. But, why diminish the QAA designation to people that obviously care about it so much? People in the dog games, often put down others in other dog games. Why? Can't you appreciate the fact that even though it might not be your cup of tea, it means something to somebody else? I think that no matter what you choose to do with your retriever, whether it's Field Trials, Hunt Test, SRS, or HRC that you are doing something that can't hurt the breed. I just think it's silly to not want something like a QA2 designation, just because you don't value it. In the end, it's all about the love of the dogs, right?


I will answer based on my responses..You might be reading MORE into my posts than is there in reality..I am NOT putting down a QA2, far from it, heck Mirk, Nola,Star, Stormy are QA2 according to the rules, but their time in the sun has come and gone, no telling how many more days we will have Mirk and Nola but at 13 the designation is no longer needed, it wont make a bit of difference on any future breedings that their offspring are involved in, its not a deal breaker...

No one will be happier for you or a fellow FT than me if/when your dog attains QA2, I will be one of the first to shake your hand and slap your back with an attaboy...

But its like when people ask" what do I need to get ready to compete in a Qualifying Stake", my answer still is train for the Open/Amateur, but run the test in front of you...in other words shoot for the stars,and the moon becomes a day trip...


----------



## Troy Tilleraas (Sep 24, 2010)

MNH Haven't heard anyone complain!-- But a lot more $, QA2 for $20 Sounds cheap to me!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I have a question. Why QA2 as opposed to QAA ? Is it akin to 4x4 v Fx4 

john


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

QAA designates a talent level. Its sole purpose is/was to establish a quality of competition to award championship points (12 dogs of this caliber are needed in every all-age stake, all-breed or specialty, to award points). It was never a title.

QA2 will be a suffix title. The 2 is in keeping with most AKC titles in that it would require more than a single performance

Tim


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> QA2 will be a suffix title. The 2 is in keeping with most AKC titles in that it would require more than a single performance


Some how I managed to miss that

Well moving on; Will these two performances have to happen within a 12 month time peroid, which in certain cases is the length of time QAA designations now remain active?

john


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

In all cases a dog is QAA forever. You may be confusing dogs that may run a Special where eligibility is time sensitive. 

Tim


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Well if I don't manage to pick up Butthead's last Master pass for his MH title, at least I can get a QA2 title for him??? Damn that elusive Open win and measly Amauteur points I just couldn't manage to get...

Still on the fence...

FOM


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

DoubleHaul said:


> Yes, there is a class of FT folks for whom a FT win is simply part of the requirements for qualifying for the nationals every year. There are folks who disparage greenies. There are also a lot of folks who run week in and week out and never finish AA stakes but set their own standards for success.
> 
> It is like that in most endeavors. There are some who are looking to win major tournaments and some who cant break 100.
> 
> However, I am sure that Bon and any of the FT folks you get to know on your journey would be the first to congratulate you on that first jam or placement in a Q, that first or second that earns you the designation, the first finish of an AA stake, the first win, etc. I know that has been the case with me. There is not a more welcoming group of folks I can think of than the FT community. I can assure you that Tiger Woods isn't going to call you when you first break 100, but a lot of top FT pros and amateurs called me with congratulations for every single milestone we have achieved, no matter how far beneath the level they were working towards.


Very well said and if you ever get that golden moment as a Am to win an Open you will be amazed at the people who will contact you to congradulate you. So iff you must have a "title" for achieving a step along the way to the goal I guess go with it.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> In *all *cases a dog is QAA forever. You may be confusing dogs that may run a Special where eligibility is time sensitive.
> Tim


Not to quibble but that sounds strangely like ...."a 12 month time peroid, which in certain cases is the length of time QAA designations now remain active"

So, what will happen with regard to elegibility to run a a special if the second leg of the QA2 is not gotten within a year ? And what then happens when the dog is A QA2 for a year and does nothing further to maintaine its elegibility to run a special ?

john


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

john fallon said:


> Not to quibble but that sounds strangely like ...."a 12 month time peroid, which in certain cases is the length of time QAA designations now remain active"
> 
> So, what will happen with regard to elegibility to run a a special if the second leg of the QA2 is not gotten within a year ? And what then happens when the dog is A QA2 for a year and does nothing further to maintaine its elegibility to run a special ?
> 
> ...


For a $20 fee we can talk about it... So says the AKC...


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Not to quibble but that sounds strangely like ...."a 12 month time peroid, which in certain cases is the length of time QAA designations now remain active"
> 
> So, what will happen with regard to elegibility to run a a special if the second leg of the QA2 is not gotten within a year ? And what then happens when the dog is A QA2 for a year and does nothing further to maintaine its elegibility to run a special ?
> 
> john


I guess it would be the same as any FC AFC or even a NFC that hasn't done anything in the time period to run a special. What's your point?

if john's against it, that's a good enough reason to like it all by itself!


----------



## junbe (Apr 12, 2003)

Doug

I think JF point is if you can find a silver lab specialty that is running an owner/handler qualifying and only two dogs are entered and you get a second place, you are halfway to the title QA2.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

junbe said:


> Doug
> 
> I think JF point is if you can find a silver lab specialty that is running an owner/handler qualifying and only two dogs are entered and you get a second place, you are halfway to the title QA2.



Yes. As opposed to a similar placing in a Q with a field such as this... http://www.retrievertraining.net/fo...outh-Jersey-FT&p=330624&viewfull=1#post330624

john


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

[QUOTEYes. As opposed to a similar placing in a Q with a field such as this... http://www.retrievertraining.net/for...l=1#post330624
][/QUOTE]

Thanks John
I appreciate the vote of confidence. Ha!Ha! he he (.
Pete


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

junbe said:


> Doug
> 
> I think JF point is if you can find a silver lab specialty that is running an owner/handler qualifying and only two dogs are entered and you get a second place, you are halfway to the title QA2.


Seriously? Now that there is funny. BTW that dog is eligible to run a Special for the remainder of the calendar year and all of next year. 

If you guys are worried how any dog became qualified to run a limited, then your shoes are way too tight.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Not sure about the silver lab specialty. I have been to many for the Golden. If I recall the q numbers were always more than the open or AM. I think a 50 dog Golden Q is less preferable than a local club trial with the min amount of dogs.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> Seriously? Now that there is funny. BTW that dog is eligible to run a Special for the remainder of the calendar year and all of next year.
> 
> If you guys are worried how any dog became qualified to run a limited, then your shoes are way too tight.



I think it's something other than their shoes that is too tight

From the Rule Book




> A *Limited All-Age Stake* at a Retriever trial shall be for dogs that have previously been placed or awarded a Judges’ Award of Merit in an Open All-Age Stake, Limited All-Age Stake, Special All-Age Stake, Restricted All-Age Stake, Amateur All-Age Stake, or Owner-Handler Amateur All-Age Stake carrying Championship points in each case, or that have been placed first or second in a Qualifying Stake or an Owner-Handler Qualifying Stake.
> 
> 
> A *Special All-Age Stake* at a Retriever trial shall be for dogs that, during the period comprised of the previous calendar year and the current calendar year prior to the date of closing of entries for such trial, have been placed or awarded a Judges’ Award of Merit in an Open All-Age, Limited All-Age, Special All-Age, Restricted All-Age, Amateur All-Age, or Owner-Handler Amateur All-Age Stake carrying Championship points in each case, or have been placed first or second in a Qualifying Stake.
> ...


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> .....
> 
> Even though I want another FC/AFC who can qualify and compete in Nationals (this is the first time since 2003 that I have not had a titled dog on my truck), *I try to appreciate the journey*.
> 
> ...


I was going to respond to this thread but Ted pretty much stated my feelings for me.

I'm different in that I DO "collect dogs". I am _totally_ OK with the idea of "moving on" if you're not satisfied with what you have, but when a dog comes to my house he's here to stay. Just the way I am.

Realizing how much that reduces my chances, just by the sheer number of opportunities, I still aspire for the top and shoot for the very best that we can achieve. From the first time I say "sit", my goal is to train to be the best we can be. If there were no such doggie games to play at all, I would still be trying to teach my dog the most complicated skills we could master. And whatever our level of ability, that is where we will play because we love it.

If AKC approves this "title", I will send my $20 in the next day and display the designation proudly! Even though my dog is no longer competing, she fulfilled the requirements in the Q at a young age. Even though we never got beyond a greenie in the Open, she did it with style and joy and we could always look around at the end and feel we were in damn good company!

And we absolutely DID enjoy the journey!

JS

I do agree that any placements earned in a stake that was not open to all retrievers and all handlers, should not count UNLESS there are separate "titles" designating such. There IS quite a difference there. JMO.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Yes. As opposed to a similar placing in a Q with a field such as this... http://www.retrievertraining.net/fo...outh-Jersey-FT&p=330624&viewfull=1#post330624
> 
> john


 .
Ha, I remember that 50 doq Qual. I had double entered anticipating large entry, scratched and hauled out to Long Island to run the O/H at a HT. Only got 3rd though. Month later he did win a 40 dog "real" Q!


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

JS said:


> If AKC approves this "title", I will send my $20 in the next day and display the designation proudly! Even though my dog is no longer competing, she fulfilled the requirements in the Q at a young age. Even though we never got beyond a greenie in the Open, she did it with style and joy and we could always look around at the end and feel we were in damn good company!
> 
> And we absolutely DID enjoy the journey!
> 
> ...



Will also send mine in and be proud of the achievement. Also agree with requiring placements in stakes open to all. Although my dog did go on to place in all-age stakes, winning a 47 dog Qual, open to all comers, will always be one my most special memories. Second place in an eleven dog O/H Qual associated with a Hunt Test, while certainly a commendable achievement, should be differentiated from a dog who placed in all-age stakes but never obtained that elusive championship title.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Can You get the QA2 if you Jam in 2 upper stakes? Just wondering QAA is awarded for an Open or Amateur Jam; Got to keep my options open


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Yes, any 2 ribbons that in of themselves would make your QAA under the current rules for QAA would make a dog eligible to apply for the QA2 title.

Tim


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

I think the QA2 designation is fine. It is good for the sport as it gives people who are coming up a goal on the way to attempting to get a field championship. It demonstrates that the dog has achieved some reasonable level of ability and it was tested in Field Trial competitions. If the requirements are met, I don't really think it matters if the venues were 10 dog O/H Qs or Jams in 100 dog Opens. The same disparity exists at the AA level when you compare tiny O/H AMs with the huge trials in the midwest or GA hosting the best dogs in the country. The details are a matter of record. Anyone who is concerned about how the qualification was achieved can look it up in EE.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

In my estimation, with the OH/Q being counted toward the QA2 title the AKC has fallen into lock step with those involved in the "wussification of america"..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8EshIhnoTA

john


----------



## Wingshooter (Jan 30, 2014)

Is QA 2 a good idea?


----------



## Bill Cummins Jr. (Aug 2, 2011)

on Post # 78 your last paragraph; does that apply to a O/H Amat., as well ?


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

john falis sadon said:


> In my estimation, with the OH/Q being counted toward the QA2 title the AKC has fallen into lock step with those involved in the "wussification of america"..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8EshIhnoTA
> 
> john




Wow that video is sad, very sad! Just glad Im not a kid and that I dont have kids in that school. If I did have kids in that school I'd yank'em out in a hurry. Disgusting!


----------



## j towne (Jul 27, 2006)

I think this title is more for the Chesapeake and golden people. Chesapeakes might get 1 FC or afc a year. About 80 labs earn their FC a year. So when there is a qaa x qaa breeding that is pretty big for us.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

> In my estimation, with the OH/Q being counted toward the QA2 title the AKC has fallen into lock step with those involved in the "wussification of america".....



Do feel the same way about the O/H AM.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Steve Shaver said:


> Wow that video is sad, very sad! Just glad Im not a kid and that I dont have kids in that school. If I did have kids in that school I'd yank'em out in a hurry. Disgusting!


Dear lord that was a sad video to watch....how do you jump rope without a jump rope? No tag you are it? I don't have issue with some of the more "social" interaction type games - kids have to learn how to socialize, however there is nothing wrong with loosing...heck I don't recall ever winning a track race on May Day at school, but that didn't keep me from trying!


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

If the QA2 title passes in June, I will be watching the number of entries in my clubs' Qualifying stakes to see if there is an increase. I am hoping this new title will encourage owners of MH dogs to enter Qs . 

Speaking as a club Treasurer, we could use more Q entries...
Helen


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

With the level of the Quals today I don't think the every day MH will try it. I remember the first Qual I ran a few years ago. Somebody from McKenna Wa said they were going back to the Open. The first series there was easier than the first series of the Qual.  . I personally think it will be a boost to newer people getting more involved with FT then advancing to AA stakes.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

helencalif said:


> If the QA2 title passes in June, I will be watching the number of entries in my clubs' Qualifying stakes to see if there is an increase. I am hoping this new title will encourage owners of MH dogs to enter Qs .
> 
> Speaking as a club Treasurer, we could use more Q entries...
> Helen


I think it might help, but a lot of MH owners don't like the idea of running against FT pros that do nothing but train, for FTs. The Qual is a stake largely populated by Pros mostly won by Pros, usually Pros who are running dogs that have already won, and placed several times but hasn't got that 2nd, to disqualify them from the stake. Most MH dogs going for the title might do better trying for a AM jams, however it seems like every trial I've been to has had more than enough dogs in the AM stake. Out here we actually saw more amateur handlers of the MH owner type, take the plunge when a club ran a derby-qual event with none of the higher stakes; I think it was because most of the upper level FT peeps choose not to partake in the test.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> I think it might help, but a lot of MH owners don't like the idea of running against FT pros that do nothing but train, for FTs. The Qual is a stake largely populated by Pros mostly won by Pros, usually Pros who are running dogs that have already won, and placed several times but hasn't got that 2nd, to disqualify them from the stake. .


I think you are probably right about Qs being dominated by pros. It may depend on which part of the country as to whether pros dominate or not, but I am guessing that they do in most regions. I am going to check my catalogs for what's happening in the Q in No. Calif trials. 

Helen


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

The Qual is a staging level for seeing where your dog is at for trialing. Not a cake walk. Going to have to go up against Pros anyway. Out here a lot of the derbies and Qual people run their own dogs. Pros are about half the field. I only have mine run because she's 500 miles away. When they come back up here I plan to run her myself.
Yes I came from HT background. I like FT much better.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

helencalif said:


> I think you are probably right about Qs being dominated by pros. It may depend on which part of the country as to whether pros dominate or not, but I am guessing that they do in most regions. I am going to check my catalogs for what's happening in the Q in No. Calif trials.
> 
> Helen


In this part of the country, the Qs are mostly amateurs. The young dog pros will run a dog or two as it is coming out of derby, but only until it gets that first or second then it disappears until it is ready for AA work. There are a couple of mostly HT pros that run some Qs and are pretty good at getting the dogs ready, but it is mostly amateurs. The same faces every week, for the most part. It is a great bunch of folks, for the most part.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

john fallon said:


> In my estimation, with the OH/Q being counted toward the QA2 title the AKC has fallen into lock step with those involved in the "wussification of america".....
> john


Is it fair to assume that ALL OH/Qs will be less demanding than a "real" Q?

Maybe I'm being naive, but I would honestly believe that the majority of judges would not want to award the blue or red ribbon to dogs that they didn't believe deserved it, even if it is an OH/Q. Then one may have to allow for the fact that not all judges may be flawless in their integrity and knowledge.

And, perhaps, we have to remember that the idea of the Q stake is to assure that the dogs who get the blue or red in those stakes are ready to run AA stakes ... which doesn't necessarily mean they are ready to place in those more advanced stakes. 

Originally, the whole purpose of the Q was to assure that there were a sufficient # of dogs entered in the AA stakes that had demonstrated themselves to be proficient enough to make the competition in the AA stakes of merit for CH points. Obviously that necessity hasn't been needed for a lot of years. One could just do away with the whole Q stake whenever clubs wanted to.

Yet clubs continue to offer Q stakes, at least partly to increase their revenue from their trials.

What I sense in this discussion (a very good one) is that those who are already very accomplished and don't attach a lot of importance to the Q stake. That is very understandable. I think it's just human nature, just as an engineer doesn't recall what it's like to struggle with Algebra I.

As was mentioned in an earlier post, for Labs that can be understood. For the "minority" breeds, it is different. Goldens (the most numerous of the minority breeds) may, on the high side, have only 10 or so (or less?) living FCs and/or AFCs at any point in time. Many years there are only one or two FCs or AFCs completed among Goldens. So, for breeders who wish to pursue field abilities in their breeding programs, having such a designation can be helpful, both for current breeding and for studying the performance background of pedigrees they wish to combine over time.

Will it increase entries dramatically? I don't think so. If one is pragmatic about it, the pro-trained dogs or amateur-trained dogs who already have their sights set on AA can still just move on and get their QA2 designation from the AA stakes, and just run a few Qs, just as they may do now. People with very solid MH dogs have already started getting their feet wet in Qs that are held in conjunction with FTs. There may be a few more who are given the incentive to do this; and at least some who will run more Qs in the hopes of getting the 2nd placement for the designation because they don't really envision finding success in the AA stakes.

I don't really think that there is any danger that anyone versed in field trials will equate the QA2 designation with what it takes to become an AFC or FC.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

> Is it fair to assume that ALL OH/Qs will be less demanding than a "real" Q?


As it is in all FT stakes tests, the level of the demand placed on those vieing to be the winner is determened by the quality of both the dogs and handlers entered in the field.
This is how it should be since we are attempting to find the relative merits of those entered that day in the field

For the most part, in the other three stakes, FT's are tough' I can see no valid reason for any erosion of that quality, _by design_, in the Q .



> I don't really think that there is any danger that anyone versed in field trials will equate the QA2 designation with what it takes to become an AFC or FC.


What about those not so well versed or those with no knowledge of the FT game at al ?

NO, for breeding purposes, the QAA designation of *** is, and has been, looked to by some as an indication of prowess in the field....... we have an obligation to see that that is and remains to be so .

john


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Another thing we might see is if the title brings in the MH type; you'll see older and more experienced dogs running the Qual. As Qual is usually a testing ground for the 2-4 yr. age range before they move on. It could change the entire dynamic.

Side note; At Ft this weekend, there are many AA handlers, who will pony up the $$ to put the QA2 on their dogs name, even though they are aiming for loftier goals. They figure they've earn it so why not have it on paperwork.


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

I'd expect entries to rise but with that comes the headaches of logistics and time for a stake that doesn't carry points. I'd be more impressed if they enacted a time rule to keep the minor stakes rolling along instead of waiting too long for pros to show.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

john fallon said:


> As it is in all FT stakes tests, the level of the demand placed on those vieing to be the winner is determened by the quality of both the dogs and handlers entered in the field.
> This is how it should be since we are attempting to find the relative merits of those entered that day in the field
> 
> For the most part, in the other three stakes, FT's are tough' I can see no valid reason for any erosion of that quality, _by design_, in the Q .
> ...


Let's look at this pragmatically ... AKC rules already acknowledge QAA status without regard for O/H Q or otherwise. That status, even without an official title, is used for promotional purposes. Having the QA2 title will raise the bar a small notch. The QAA status already does not discriminate between O/H Q or any other Q. Similarly, the QAA status already does not have an age limitation on it. So, a QA2 suffix doesn't necessarily detract from QAA, except it raises the bar a notch as a goal.

Unless the AKC were to eliminate O/H Qs entirely from the equation for QAA status, the adding of the QA2 suffix should not erode quality overall. Even with an O/H Q succeeding twice with a red or blue would mean more than succeeding just once, for the present status of QAA. That should act to promote quality rather than erode it.

For those not well-versed in the FT game ... they have the same problem in discernment when faced with someone who is promoting a dog's QAA status or QA2 status. They don't know what either one really means anyhow. It is for those well-versed that the designations carry any meaning at all.

Many FT people acknowledge that the skill level of a Q today is very much higher than it was 20 years ago, yet we really wouldn't down-grade some of the great dogs of even 30 or 40 years ago. I suspect that this raising of the bar trend even applies to the O/H Q level. If history is any guide, this trend is likely to continue. So, by encouraging these O/H Qs will make for a broader base of quality as the trend continues.

Again, I believe it is very difficult to convey the difference this makes for the minority breeds (as compared to Labs) where there are far fewer choices for stronger field capabilities. Many of those who want to retain strong field ability in their minority breed will probably never find enough owners to provide any significant challenge to the undisputed position of Labs in FTs. 

However, it can make those breeds better (more field capable overall) for the attempts at improvement. Probably there will always be people who would rather have a Chessie than a Lab, no matter what; or a Flat-Coat or a Curly or a Golden or a Toller or an IWS. I can see no downside to attempting to make each of them as good as they can be in their field aspect.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> Let's look at this pragmatically ... AKC rules already acknowledge QAA status without regard for O/H Q or otherwise. That status, even without an official title, is used for promotional purposes. Having the QA2 title will raise the bar a small notch. The QAA status already does not discriminate between O/H Q or any other Q. Similarly, the QAA status already does not have an age limitation on it. So, a QA2 suffix doesn't necessarily detract from QAA, except it raises the bar a notch as a goal.
> 
> Unless the AKC were to eliminate O/H Qs entirely from the equation for QAA status, the adding of the QA2 suffix should not erode quality overall. Even with an O/H Q succeeding twice with a red or blue would mean more than succeeding just once, for the present status of QAA. That should act to promote quality rather than erode it.
> 
> ...


The good newa is that it's not FUBAR yet....

What is needed is the elimination of the OH/Q counting toward the QA2 title at all, with two real Q qualifying placements being required before the QAA designation is acheaved .

As long as it continues to only take one Q 1st or 2nd place to be and to use "QAA" (***) degisnation it will still be viewed by many as it has been, with no appreciable distinction between it and QA2 being drawn,... and nothing you said about the QA2 promoting quality rather than eroding it will have any desired affect.

The button is on the AKC's coat.

I won't hold my breath....

john


----------



## Micah Duffy (Jan 21, 2010)

The AKC Board has voted to amend Chapter 14 of the Field Trial Rules & Standard Procedures for Retrievers to create a new suffix title called Qualified All-Age 2 (QA2). 

Here are the details:
A Retriever shall be eligible to be awarded the suffix title QA2 if on two occasions it has met the requirements to participate in a Limited All-Age stake.
The owner of a dog that is eligible for the QA2 title shall submit a title application form developed by the Performance Events Department along with a nominal processing fee.
Once the qualifications have been verified, the title shall be added to the dog's record. The title will appear on the dog's pedigree.
The submittal of the title application form is up to the discretion of the owner. The QA2 title application form can be found on the AKC website.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

john fallon said:


> The good newa is that it's not FUBAR yet....
> 
> What is needed is the elimination of the OH/Q counting toward the QA2 title at all, with two real Q qualifying placements being required before the QAA designation is acheaved .
> 
> ...


Just curious, John. Do you have any thoughts on the AKC having a minimum entry size for the placements to count, similar to the derby list? I only ask because in a small FT Q, you pretty much only have to avoid picking your dog up to get a placement and if things are not totally terrible, you might get that first or second.

I personally don't mind even the OHQ but wondered what folks though about the small Qs, since I have seen more than once dogs get placements that would have failed had it been judged against a standard rather than the field.


----------



## Beverly Burns (Apr 20, 2006)

Do you diminish the accomplishment of a 1st or 2nd place in an Amateur of Open if the field size of entry isn't large enough? Do you give more accolade if the Derby is small or large? It's all the same in the record books on Sunday afternoon and congratulations to all.


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

Beverly Burns said:


> Do you diminish the accomplishment of a 1st or 2nd place in an Amateur of Open if the field size of entry isn't large enough? Do you give more accolade if the Derby is small or large? It's all the same in the record books on Sunday afternoon and congratulations to all.


I agree with Bev. While I have dogs with AA AM and Open placements and JAMs that would qualify for QA2, I don't think there is any reason to disqualify OH stakes. Do that, then also don't allow a win at a OH AM count toward the AFC title or Q 1st or 2nd to count at a minor breed specialty. Let people enjoy their qualification toward the title at any FT venue without any further restrictions. It does not affect anybody's quest for an FC or AFC. Go to EE and look it up if you want to find out how a dog achieved its QA2 title. There seems to always be those who want to rain on someone else's parade. Let's people have some fun achieving goals with their dogs.

Steve


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Sabireley said:


> There seems to always be those who want to rain on someone else's parade. Let's people have some fun achieving goals with their dogs.


I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade. Just wondering where the folks that felt like there was some qualifications on OHQs might come out. It is definitely an issue in the derby. While someone who wins a 9 dog derby might be just as excited as if they won a 20 dog derby, the points don't count for the derby list.

What about 2 wins? Should we remove this restriction so folks can continue to run Qs and get the QA titles?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

The Derby list has nothing to do with AKC so comparisons are not appropriate. If the intent is to reward dogs whose career is defined by the Qualifying Stake why make it seem more important than it is by implementing restrictions when the definition of being qualified for a Limited All Age is already in the rule book?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

For those against this new title, why do you support green "also ran" ribbons?

/Paul


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> For those against this new title, why do you support green "also ran" ribbons?
> /Paul


If your implication was me I have come to the conclusion that if this is important enough to involve new amateurs in field trials it is not a bad thing. People have been listing their dogs as QAA without any official verification, at least a recognized designation will be easily verifiable.

Unlike a new suffix attached to dog's registered names the Judges Award of Merit ribbons are a tradition in field trials beginning when the Qualifying was known as the Non Winners Stake. JAM ribbons are of little significance to most serious field trailers and most would not object to their elimination altogether although most also appreciate the traditions in field trials.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> For those against this new title, why do you support green "also ran" ribbons?
> 
> /Paul


The fact that you refer to it as an "also ran" ribbon pretty much answers your own question doesn't it? In minor stakes they mean nothing, in major stakes they can infer QAA status; however no title designation goes with any green ribbon. However the AKC is now proposing to change that with the QA2 thing.
My guess is from the AKC perspective this is viewed as a possible new revenue stream and a way to encourage people who get a 1st or 2nd in a Q to continue to run Q's in order to get the new "TITLE".
Kind of like the way they have done with the whole MNH entry increasing money generating headache causing fiasco.

OTOH I seriously doubt that FTers will be flooding QUALS with entries minutes after they open!!


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

EdA said:


> If the intent is to reward dogs whose career is defined by the Qualifying Stake why make it seem more important than it is by implementing restrictions when the definition of being qualified for a Limited All Age is already in the rule book?


I'd have to suspect that this is why there is no distinction between O/H Qs & "other" Qs by the AKC. They already have their mechanisms in place for assessing the QAA status, and by following those same requirements for QA2, it doesn't add any new record-keeping details for them.

Ed, I don't think that the definition of being QAA is being changed. It is simply adding onto that level of achievement with another "interim" level. There would be two reasons to do this, I think. First, AKC will add more revenue from those who continue to compete in the Q. Second, it will give the incentive for an interim goal for those who are not yet ready for AA, and/or may be getting experience for higher aspirations for their next dog.

I know of one dog who got a JAM in the Am in a rather small trial, which made the dog QAA. The dog is a really good dog, but it was really a lucky day for him. He was not yet up to the capability of being a consistent finisher in AA stakes. I know of another dog who became QAA with a 2nd in an O/H Q ... and then also went on, a couple of months later, to take a 2nd in a "real" Q running against the pros as well. This owner felt that the O/H Q was just as demanding as the "real" Q later. While the O/H Q was had a smaller entry than the "real" Q, there were not many who finished the trial. The winner of that trial was a first-time-in-a-trial handler and dog ... while older, more experienced dogs and handlers were not up to the task. Yet, I also know of a handler who took a 2nd in an O/H Q who felt the tests were easier than they expected (the handler having run only MH with a very consistent record in MH passes). All three of these "anecdotes" involved dogs between 2-1/2 and 4-1/2, so not the scenario John might expect of "also-ran" FT dogs achieving the QAA when they were past their prime. Surely there would be some instances of that occurring, but it remains to be seen whether that would be the majority of outcomes, rather than the minority of outcomes.

Then, we also have instances when handlers double-staking Q and Am insist that the first series of the Q was more difficult than the Am. That doesn't necessarily make most people assume that an Am placement or JAM should be "discounted".

Since there are so many variables in a field test, it would be hard to define the testing/judging tightly enough to make it like formal obedience. Even in formal obedience, where the tasks are uniform and the exacting precision approaches neuroticism, there are dogs who can achieve identical scores, yet the one dog does so with style and another offers no excitement in the performance. It doesn't take long before breeders and fanciers figure out the differences in those individual achievers, and then make their breeding or puppy-buying distinctions accordingly. 

FWIW, in obedience, the majority of competitors are owner/handlers, so in that respect the playing field is pretty level. However, just as in field, not all owner/trainer/handlers are created equal  When competing in the "B" classes, the "amateur" handler will face off against experienced trainer/handlers who are known for being highly-respected instructors through seminars and DVDs, etc. Even so, and even though the tasks are highly stylized, there are days when the "professional" trainers' dogs will falter, and the "amateur" will succeed. 

Another thought occurs to me. The judges for field trials have to be amateurs. We trust them to know and reward excellence when they see it. Through their experience in training, competing and judging in field trials, these judges have seen many great dogs of all the breeds; and they have seen the not-so-good. If John or Ed are judging, I believe that those who would run under them would be honored to do so, and trust their judgment. It wouldn't matter what stake they were judging.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> *I'd have to suspect that this is why there is no distinction between O/H Qs & "other" Qs by the AKC*. .



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8EshIhnoTA

Except potentially ...The one could be like the "Q" I linked to earlier which is like jumping rope double dutch with two jump ropes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0a3jbQ5Edvo.... the other can be like the one depicted in the you tube clip above jumping rope with *no* rope at all ;-)


john


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

EdA said:


> If your implication was me I have come to the conclusion that if this is important enough to involve new amateurs in field trials it is not a bad thing. People have been listing their dogs as QAA without any official verification, at least a recognized designation will be easily verifiable.
> 
> Unlike a new suffix attached to dog's registered names the Judges Award of Merit ribbons are a tradition in field trials beginning when the Qualifying was known as the Non Winners Stake. JAM ribbons are of little significance to most serious field trailers and most would not object to their elimination altogether although most also appreciate the traditions in field trials.


Well actually just a bit curious. I see green ribbons in the same light as this new title or designation. I know personally for some dogs their getting a green ribbon is very fulfilling as that is a huge accomplishment for them while other dogs it is a disappointment because they should have done better and are more talented. Either way in the grand scheme of things neither perhaps mean anything. One of my old MH's got a green ribbon one weekend and the next day he grabbed it off the table and chewed it to a million pieces. Guess I learned what he thought of that judges decision...

/Paul


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

QA2? Yes! After all they do give an official "JH."


----------



## Jerry S. (May 18, 2009)

A green ribbon means more to a person that trains their own dog. 
A green ribbon that has a pro train their dog makes a person wonder if: 
1. Their dog is that good.
2. Their pro is that good.
3. Their own handling of their own dog is that good.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Jerry S. said:


> A green ribbon means more to a person that trains their own dog.
> A green ribbon that has a pro train their dog makes a person wonder if:
> 1. Their dog is that good.
> 2. Their pro is that good.
> 3. Their own handling of their own dog is that good.



No reason to get into the "I care more about my dog's work because I trained it" mode. 

I know pros that are delighted when their dog gets its first green ribbon - it's a sign of good things to come. The more you finish, the more you place, the more you place, the more you win. It's part of the journey. 

My dog's are pro trained. But, I can vividly recall my first green ribbon in the open. It was with Ace (Sky Hy Husker Power) as a three year old at the Fall 2001 Rocky Mountain Retriever Club trial. Ace began finishing, placing, and winning. He retired with his FC/AFC. And that green ribbon meant the world to me.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I hope I am not swerving off in a ditch but .... If the green means nothing to someone that is a serious FT'r could that be listed in the catalog so as to save the judges time and save the cost of a wasted ribbon? I hope I read some of the above comments wrong.


----------



## Jerry S. (May 18, 2009)

Steve Amrein said:


> I hope I am not swerving off in a ditch but .... If the green means nothing to someone that is a serious FT'r could that be listed in the catalog so as to save the judges time and save the cost of a wasted ribbon? I hope I read some of the above comments wrong.


Yeah but they only cost $4.00.


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

John Lash said:


> QA2? Yes! After all they do give an official "JH."


Maybe we can add a number behind JH too. 100 JH passes = JH100 ; )


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

What is an appropriate Qual size? I see people describing small Quals, however I've been to 3 and all of them were 40+ dogs, I've been going to sign up for others the lowest one I can recall was 27, The only O/H qual we've had in this area was 32. These seem like pretty large numbers to me, for a competition that only gives a 1st & 2nd for an (unoffical) QAA distinction and no points toward anything. Any other FT stake awards point for the other placements, which go toward your higher title, even the derby awards points toward derby list. In a Qual there's just a 1st or 2nd (now 2 of those might give you an offical title) still I'm not even sure why they give out 3rds & 4ths. To me it seem if they were going to do a Qual title they should've given the other placements points; and the title be the same as the other Ft titles (win + points) = Qa2, seems weird the change from tradition.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> What is an appropriate Qual size? I see people describing small Quals, however I've been to 3 and all of them were 40+ dogs, I've been going to sign up for others the lowest one I can recall was 27, The only O/H qual we've had in this area was 32. These seem like pretty large numbers to me, for a competition that only give a 1st & 2nd for an (unoffical) QAA distinction and no point toward any other title.


Around here 20 is about average. 30 is large, but the OHQs tend to be on the larger side. There is a FT Q next weekend that has 9. That is the smallest one I have seen in a while.


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

In New England the O/H Quals generally run between 12 to 20 dogs.


----------



## ducdogz (Aug 24, 2013)

I know this is an older post, but can dogs that are already titled QA2 continue to run Qualifying stakes?


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

ducdogz said:


> I know this is an older post, but can dogs that are already titled QA2 continue to run Qualifying stakes?


Yes. You could have a Q 1st & 2nd, or 2 2nds and still run.


----------



## ducdogz (Aug 24, 2013)

Does that mean there's no limit to 1st and 2nd places in the Q you can receive?



captainjack said:


> Yes. You could have a Q 1st & 2nd, or 2 2nds and still run.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

ducdogz said:


> Does that mean there's no limit to 1st and 2nd places in the Q you can receive?


No, 2 wins and you can't run more Qs.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

captainjack said:


> No, 2 wins and you can't run more Qs.


Yes, just the two wins, but if you were so inclined, no limit on the number of second places.


----------



## ducdogz (Aug 24, 2013)

I just saw where a QA2 dog was signed up to run in an event that I'm running in and I thought they were finished once they received QA2.

I'm not wanting to keep running Q's. My dog hasn't qualified yet, but when / if he does, I will be done at QA2 and move on to the open. No desire to keep running Q's.



John Robinson said:


> Yes, just the two wins, but if you were so inclined, no limit on the number of second places.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

ducdogz said:


> I just saw where a QA2 dog was signed up to run in an event that I'm running in and I thought they were finished once they received QA2.
> 
> I'm not wanting to keep running Q's. My dog hasn't qualified yet, but when / if he does, I will be done at QA2 and move on to the open. No desire to keep running Q's.


You running the dog ? If so might want to run some AM's first befor opens


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

ducdogz said:


> I just saw where a QA2 dog was signed up to run in an event that I'm running in and I thought they were finished once they received QA2.
> 
> I'm not wanting to keep running Q's. My dog hasn't qualified yet, but when / if he does, I will be done at QA2 and move on to the open. No desire to keep running Q's.


Don't sell the Q too short. It is invaluable experience for both you and your dog. You have a decent chance to run more than just one series, which happens a lot in the AA stakes (one series and out). I was told by a wise person, when I asked "how long do I run the Q?" The answer I got was, "till you win out". I think that is good advice.


----------



## ducdogz (Aug 24, 2013)

Yes I will be running him. Sorry, I meant AM's, not open. 

The dog nor myself is ready for Opens yet... LOL



Todd Caswell said:


> You running the dog ? If so might want to run some AM's first befor opens


----------



## ducdogz (Aug 24, 2013)

It's probably obvious, but I'm new the field trial game. This will be my first field trial handling my dog. He never ran in the Derby... 

He's a little cray cray... LOL

I will definitely keep your advice in mind!!! Never looked at it that way. Just didn't want to keep others from 1st or 2nd if my dog had already done it with 2nd's.




wetdog said:


> Don't sell the Q too short. It is invaluable experience for both you and your dog. You have a decent chance to run more than just one series, which happens a lot in the AA stakes. I was told by a wise person, when I asked "how long do I run the Q?" The answer I got was, "till you win out". I think that is good advice.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

ducdogz said:


> I just saw where a QA2 dog was signed up to run in an event that I'm running in and I thought they were finished once they received QA2.
> 
> I'm not wanting to keep running Q's. My dog hasn't qualified yet, but when / if he does, I will be done at QA2 and move on to the open. No desire to keep running Q's.


I think most people who are looking toward the all age stakes don't even bother registering QA2, they just move on when they feel ready. Each dog is different, but just because you got two seconds in Quals and can register a QA2 doesn't mean your dog is anywhere close to being ready for the Open.


----------



## ducdogz (Aug 24, 2013)

I have NFC and AFC aspirations with AKC hunt test Junior Hunter pocket book... LOL

I feel sorry for my good dog, cause he deserves a better owner that can afford more!!!

In all reality, my dog will be lucky to attain QAA or QA2, so I will be thrilled with that!!!



John Robinson said:


> I think most people who are looking toward the all age stakes don't even bother registering QA2, they just move on when they feel ready. Each dog is different, but just because you got two seconds in Quals and can register a QA2 doesn't mean your dog is anywhere close to being ready for the Open.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

ducdogz said:


> I have NFC and AFC aspirations with AKC hunt test Junior Hunter pocket book... LOL
> 
> I feel sorry for my good dog, cause he deserves a better owner that can afford more!!!
> 
> In all reality, my dog will be lucky to attain QAA or QA2, so I will be thrilled with that!!!


Every new achievement you and your dog acquire is meaningful, and should make you proud.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

ducdogz said:


> I just saw where a QA2 dog was signed up to run in an event that I'm running in and I thought they were finished once they received QA2.
> 
> I'm not wanting to keep running Q's. My dog hasn't qualified yet, but when / if he does, I will be done at QA2 and move on to the open. No desire to keep running Q's.


This is what I did. In fact my last AA dog was doing well in the Q, but would come up short of Placing. She can really mark well, so I began double staking her in the Q and AM. She never placed in a Q, but JAMed, then took 3rd in an AM as a 3 year old. If your dog can routinely get through the first series marks in an Q and run good blinds, I agree - move on and run the AM or Open.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

My dog Lucy was a pretty talented dog. Had to retire her early due to something that went wrong in an attempted breeding. Anyway back to the point. She liked to run big so I decided to enter her in an open, had her in the Q also. She was 29 months old and it was hers and my first open. Ran the Q first and she got lost on the 60 yd flyer go bird in the first series and was done so I really didn't feel too good about my chances in the open. I go to the open and people were saying it was eating up the field. I go to the line and Lucy hammers it. I was puffed up like a banty rooster. Lucy jammed that open and was the only dog out of 12 that finished that wasn't already an FC. I was soooo high on that day. It was incredible, one of the most memorable days of my life but as it turned out it was a curse. Yes she did very well but she wasn't consistent enough to really play with the big dogs so she was done with the Q and had no choice. This was the last trial of our season but she would have been much better off running the Q as a 3 year old the following year.


----------

