# QAA title



## born2retrieve (Nov 18, 2007)

Anyone know if the AKC made QAA a title yet?


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

Hopefully not


----------



## Dan Epperson (Jan 16, 2013)

Looks like this is going to be voted on today, June 9. See page 9 of link http://images.akc.org/pdf/secretary_page/March_2014.pdf

No word on the internet how the “final” vote went on the QA2 title. However, if y’all are interested you can get now get a AKC title for having your dog take a flying leap off the end of a dock.


----------



## Powder1 (Sep 25, 2011)

The QA2 title was voted on and approved on Monday.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Raymond Little said:


> Hopefully not


Why are you against it Raymond? I think it is kind of pointless, but I really don't see any downside to it.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Powder1 said:


> The QA2 title was voted on and approved on Monday.


Voted on & approved by who?


----------



## Powder1 (Sep 25, 2011)

AKC and AKC delegates. It's done and approved, letters will be going out to member clubs and instructions will be on the AKC website within the next 90 days.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Doesn't effect me at this time but will this be from whatever date forward or will it date back ????


----------



## Powder1 (Sep 25, 2011)

My understanding is it will be retroactive and you will need to follow the instructions on the AKC paperwork that will be coming soon if you want the title applied to dogs that have already met the requirements.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

This may not mean squat for the guys with the time, resources and the dog to take it to the next level, but for the guy that has worked his butt off, training his own dog it will mean alot, in many cases much more than a MH title.. I know it would for me.. I really don't see anything neg. about it.. I think you will see the Q entries go up..


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> Why are you against it Raymond? I think it is kind of pointless, but I really don't see any downside to it.


People will think it means more than it Actually does.
Owner handler Q's will be booming business but not actually true FT's so the title will be watered down anyway.
Follow the money, next clubs will have limited entries in the Q. What once could be completed in a day and an hour or two will take two full days.
Derbies on Saturday start at the conclusion of the Q, they will soon start and end on Sunday.


----------



## younggun86 (May 2, 2013)

for me being a young new comer and strictly training on my own, and working a full time job like most true ams this would be pretty cool for me. I kno for people who have played the game awhile and had title dogs prolly doesn't mean much, but for a blue collar guy who just loves training and being with his dog this is good. For me it means more then a mh title, I think the standards are too low for hunt tests and quals have a higher standard but give a young newcomers to play and learn. Im not huge on the qa2, I feel once you get a dog qaa you should be done, out of respect for the other ams busting their butt to get that, I wouldn't want to take a qaa title away from another am if I already had it. For an example, had a guy take a 2nd at a qual, and 2 weeks later ran an o/h qual at our club, he took first, a guy who buys pups and sells them as derby dogs took 2nd and a true am took 3rd, so the guy who won whos dog is already qaa took a 2nd away and a qaa from him. I don't like that at all


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Raymond Little said:


> People will think it means more than it Actually does.
> Owner handler Q's will be booming business but not actually true FT's so the title will be watered down anyway.
> Follow the money, next clubs will have limited entries in the Q. What once could be completed in a day and an hour or two will take two full days.
> Derbies on Saturday start at the conclusion of the Q, they will soon start and end on Sunday.


Are owner Handler Q's a bad thing?? I don't think so, I certainly have never run or judged one that was "watered" down, they better not be, if you finish 4 dogs then thats how it is.. The derby should be run on friday, very few derby dogs are trained by the owner, and in retrospect very few derby dogs are run by there owners it's just how it is. I feel the Q is the only stake a true AM has a chance at competing in,( unless you have the time and res.) the dog may be a 4 year old but for alot of people thats how long it takes doing there own work after work and little legue baseball games.. I judged a Friday Q last weekend and we had waits between every series, not the pro's fault not the owners fault just how it is, the Open had a honor and it balled everthing up, we couldn't have had an honnor in the Q if wanted to 1st. or 4th. series even if we had wanted to. I'm all for a friday derby and a O/H Q on Saterday for most trials.. I know I had alot of support last weekend... I'll say we had a solid Q and 1st. and 2nd. were both AM's......


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Raymond Little said:


> People will think it means more than it Actually does.
> Owner handler Q's will be booming business but not actually true FT's so the title will be watered down anyway.
> Follow the money, next clubs will have limited entries in the Q. What once could be completed in a day and an hour or two will take two full days.
> Derbies on Saturday start at the conclusion of the Q, they will soon start and end on Sunday.


I don't think the senior HT title diminished the MH title or the quest for the MH title. Derby has its own kind of title with the yearly list. QAA has no such recognition, yet it completely different level than Derby. 

No way a QAA title is a threat to field trials or the FC/AFC titles. Just read an article in Retriever Journal showing stats for participation in field trials. They are down. They are trying to find ways to attract new blood and keep the sport alive. Giving people some ladder rungs along the way to the top, is a good idea, in my opinion.

Even real life has steps and recognition along the way to keep people moving toward the ultimate goal. Look at the military, politics and business. They all have titles along the way to the top. If some people are happy just being Manager, instead of Owner or Major instead of General, so be it. It's life. That fact will not stop people from valuing the top titles more than the middle titles. And it won't stop people from aspiring to the top levels. If anything, it will probably feed their need to go to the next level.


----------



## younggun86 (May 2, 2013)

I am going to be running my own dog in derbies, I wish they weren't on Friday its going to make it tuff but I understand why its like that. Im looking at starting in july wit derby were close but need some stuff in water before I feel we can win one. everyone has got to start some where and the derby and qual are great for that.


----------



## Ryaneder1 (Jul 15, 2013)

Can someone explain the QAA being made a "title" to me? I know what an owner/handler qual is, but what is different now that it has been decided to add a QAA title?


----------



## TroyFeeken (May 30, 2007)

People have been displaying the QAA or the *** after the names of their dogs for a long time already. It's an accomplishment and a lot of hard work and/or a lot of money to accomplish. Myself as a amateur with a dog that just won a Qualifying, it would be nice to display our accomplishments. Having a dog that can win or take second on a given weekend is tough work. Doing it with a dog that doesn't get campaigned half the weekends of the year and only runs a few trials in the summer, you've now made the possibility even more difficult. Having a dog that doesn't go south in the winter but stays up north and picks up thousands of birds and still can win a trial, I may be biased, but that's what it's all about for me.


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

If they are going to do it I hope it takes more than just a 1st or a 2nd to obtain the title. And I don't think a O/H in conjunction with a HT should count towards the title.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Ryaneder1 said:


> Can someone explain the QAA being made a "title" to me? I know what an owner/handler qual is, but what is different now that it has been decided to add a QAA title?


I don't know how AKC is going to do it, but I think the Canadian way makes sense. Just going from memory I think it works the same way getting an FC by running Opens would be down here. I believe you need a Qual win and five more Qual points to obtain the title. I don't know what kind of credit you would get for an all age placement. As far as the "title" part, it is just that an official AKC title that would appear on your pedigree. I also think there is some value in that as some who breed put a lot of stock on an MH after a dog's name, up till now QAA would not show up anywhere, though some would put an unofficial *** after their dogs name.


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

rboudet said:


> If they are going to do it I hope it takes more than just a 1st or a 2nd to obtain the title. And I don't think a O/H in conjunction with a HT should count towards the title.


But it will Bobby and thus you will water down the accomplishment of the New Title. If the new title takes two firsts or a combination of a first and a second to complete my mind may be changed but I doubt that will be the case. Next, there will be titles with an * for those dogs who Only needed a win for FC or AFC.
FT's aren't supposed to give participation ribbons, the Q title IMO is a step in this direction.


----------



## Powder1 (Sep 25, 2011)

The NEW "QA2" title requires; 2 - 1st place wins, or 2- second place finishes or any combination of a 1st AND 2nd in a "Q." This includes OH Q's. QAA is NOT a title and only requires a 1st or 2nd in any Q.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

They already did it. It is a "QA2". What that means is the dog did enough to meet the requirement to run a limited all age stake on two different occasions. 


QA2 - New Retriever Field Trial Title
The Board VOTED to amend Chapter 14oftheFieldTrialRules&Standard Procedures for Retrievers to create a new suffix title called Qualified All-Age 2 (QA2) that can be earned in Retriever FieldTrials.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


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

So, What used to be a designation that the dog was eligible to run certain stakes that hold Championship points that could lead to an actual FT title; is now a FT "TITLE" in and of itself?
And this can be accomplished without ever running in a real FT?

The dumbing down of America continues!!


----------



## Dave Plesko (Aug 16, 2009)

mjh345 said:


> So, What used to be a designation that the dog was eligible to run certain stakes that hold Championship points that could lead to an actual FT title; is now a FT "TITLE" in and of itself?
> And this can be accomplished without ever running in a real FT?
> 
> The dumbing down of America continues!!


The way I read it, a dog could achieve the designation of QAA, but not achieve the title of QA2 since it requires 2 wins, or 2 seconds, or a win and a second.

But yes, it appears that could be done completely via OH quals run in conjunction with a HT if that is what you mean by "without ever running in a real FT".


----------



## Powder1 (Sep 25, 2011)

No. I suggest you read the requirements for QAA and then read the requirements for the QA2 title. One is a title and one is not. The information is available and is easy to understand the difference if you care to educate yourself on the subject.


----------



## Powder1 (Sep 25, 2011)

Dave you are correct


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Powder1 said:


> *The NEW "QA2" title requires; 2 - 1st place wins, or 2- second place finishes *or any combination of a 1st AND 2nd in a "Q." This includes OH Q's. QAA is NOT a title and only requires a 1st or 2nd in any Q.



So you're telling me that a dog with 2 second place finishes gets the same title as a dog with 2 wins...somehow getting a FT "Title" without a WIN speaks volumes about the title...


----------



## Powder1 (Sep 25, 2011)

Yes, you're correct.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

BonMallari said:


> So you're telling me that a dog with 2 second place finishes gets the same title as a dog with 2 wins...somehow getting a FT "Title" without a WIN speaks volumes about the title...


Bon I think we are forgetting the main purpose. 
With AKC nowadays follow the $$$$$$$$$


----------



## DenverB2B (Feb 22, 2009)

What if your dog got 1 first in the Q and a jam in the open?


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

mjh345 said:


> Bon I think we are forgetting the main purpose.
> With AKC nowadays follow the $$$$$$$$$


As it always does this orgs like akc.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

DenverB2B said:


> What if your dog got 1 first in the Q and a jam in the open?


That dog needs a FT title.
Who cares that in that Open that he jammed there may be numerous dogs who have AA wins or numerous all age points, that don't have a FT title


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

To get the QA2... The dog doesn't ever have to win or place at any level... Jams at the all age level will work. 

They just need to do it two times.


----------



## DenverB2B (Feb 22, 2009)

you missed my point. an open JAM is way harder to achieve than a 1st or 2nd in a Q. thus one would think that would be more than enough to get the QA2 title.


----------



## DenverB2B (Feb 22, 2009)

Thanks Bill. I look at it like that but not sure AKC would view it like that.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

Denver you are not quiet right. I could never get a first or second place in the Qual with my dog Murray. Enter my first amat and he jams. When I was in a qual and someone running the open said had a better chance in the open then the qual. The qual judges ??? You just never know. The other thing to consider is that many people are getting discouraged about the organization of hunt tests (MH) and might switch now to field trials . The title does help to encourage.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

I am confused as to why you need this new title at all? But that is just me! So far I heard it is about money for AKC and keeping people in the game? Does the other QA recognition still apply or has that gone by the wayside now??


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Dan Epperson said:


> No word on the internet how the “final” vote went on the QA2 title. However, if y’all are interested you can get now get a AKC title for having your dog take a flying leap off the end of a dock.


Add to that the AKC is now awarding "aptitude" titles for chasing rats and plastic bags. If your dog acts like it might want to chase rats in a barn it can get a barn rat hunting title or if it prefers plastic bags, it can get a lure coursing aptitude title. in keeping with their new policy of giving any dog with a pulse a tltle, there's now even an advanced Canine Good Citizen award. What's next, a duck aptitude title?


----------



## Sarge (Feb 8, 2012)

The QA2 AKC title is an outstanding method to encourage amateur trainers into the Field Trial arena. My dog earned a second place at an Owner/Handler Hunt Test event and thus became Qualified All Age. We were thrilled. However, that accomplishment is a long way from even finishing a Field Trial Amateur event. The new title is a milestone along the path to the ultimate (other than NAFC) amateur title of Amateur Field Champion. Most of us amateurs who train and handle our own dogs will never earn the AFC title for our dog. The new title encourages participation and recognizes the team’s (dog and handler) work ethic and natural ability at the next level. Those that disparage or mock the new title disrespect the efforts and motivation of the “every day” amateur. Earning our QAA, even at the Hunt Test level, was an exciting experience. We look forward to the next challenge.


----------



## Powder1 (Sep 25, 2011)

Yes, QAA still exists but it is not a title. QA2 is a new title with new requirements for the title. See posts a few pages back.


----------



## CindyGal (Mar 6, 2012)

As an amateur who 100% trained my own dog and recently won 2 Qualifyings on back to back weekends, I shall display the title proudly!


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Hmm the Quals will be flooded; we'll have to put limits on them, then will have to deal with pros saving spaces in the event...  On the other hand winning a 120 dog Qual, against dogs that are finished retrievers...might put a bit more weight on a QAA win


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

BonMallari said:


> So you're telling me that a dog with 2 second place finishes gets the same title as a dog with 2 wins...somehow getting a FT "Title" without a WIN speaks volumes about the title...


I like the Canadian way better, a Qualifying win and five more Qualifying points using the Derby point system. I think the "title" would mean more if it required a win and other placements to show the win wasn't a fluke. That said I think most of us would agree that getting that QAA status is an _accomplishment_, just a step on the road to FC-AFC for many on this forum, but it may be the much sought after goal and ceiling for many others. And though it is relatively insignificant compared to an FC-AFC, it is still hard to achieve and shows a lot about the dog that does achieve it. I don't see any harm in formalizing that achievement and really don't see it watering down the much higher level FC titles.


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

CindyGal said:


> As an amateur who 100% trained my own dog and recently won 2 Qualifyings on back to back weekends, I shall display the title proudly!


You should be; winning a 30 & 25 dog Q and a 4th & 3rd with a 3 y/o is pretty stout. Don't you think it's time to move to the am's and open's??

Clearly your dog can play with the competition and win so what more does the Q2 title do for you?
Maybe our resident Historian "Bon" can research the number of Q entries that have or could have qualified for this illustrious title in 2014.
The true Am's might just want to move on up to the next level since I believe the Q will get much more difficult when entries explode.


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

Old school fuddy duddys not wanting the newbee to enjoy attaining a goal with their dog. What does it hurt you that have several dogs on an A list pros truck ?


----------



## Wayne Nissen (Dec 31, 2009)

It appears there will be entries of older more experienced dogs that have achieved a win in the qual in an attempt to put an official title on their dog. Make for tougher tests.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Raymond Little said:


> You should be; winning a 30 & 25 dog Q and a 4th & 3rd with a 3 y/o is pretty stout. Don't you think it's time to move to the am's and open's??
> 
> Clearly your dog can play with the competition and win so what more does the Q2 title do for you?
> Maybe our resident Historian "Bon" can research the number of Q entries that have or could have qualified for this illustrious title in 2014.
> The true Am's might just want to move on up to the next level since I believe the Q will get much more difficult when entries explode.


Raymond I've been playing FT since around 1995, I have always moved up to the Open and Am as soon as my dogs are QAA, usually around age three. All four of my FT dogs were QAA, two at 26-29 months, one not until he was five and my other got a win, two seconds, three thirds and a fourth all while he was three. I do have Open wins, and many placements over the years as well a more green ribbons than I care to count, but no FC or AFC yet, so the Q2 title might mean more to me than to you.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

John Robinson said:


> Raymond I've been playing FT since around 1995, I have always moved up to the Open and Am as soon as my dogs are QAA, usually around age three. All four of my FT dogs were QAA, two at 26-29 months, one not until he was five and my other got a win, two seconds, three thirds and a fourth all while he was three. I do have Open wins, and many placements over the years as well a more green ribbons than I care to count, but no FC or AFC yet, so the Q2 title might mean more to me than to you.


Well said!


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Raymond Little said:


> You should be; winning a 30 & 25 dog Q and a 4th & 3rd with a 3 y/o is pretty stout. Don't you think it's time to move to the am's and open's??
> 
> Clearly your dog can play with the competition and win so what more does the Q2 title do for you?
> Maybe our resident Historian "Bon" can research the number of Q entries that have or could have qualified for this illustrious title in 2014.
> The true Am's might just want to move on up to the next level since I believe the Q will get much more difficult when entries explode.


I am not worthy of the Historian tag when compared to the likes of Dr A, Junebe, Lanse, and WD Connor,Glenda Brown..I wouldnt even last one round of retriever trivial pursuit with any of them..75% of what I think I may know when it comes to history is because I have them to "google" and do a quick fact check..Connor and Unbehaun may be the best, its kinda scary the info and data they have both in print and between their ears..I am but "Bon san" to their Mr Miyagi like existence..

I do happen to know that Lanse's dog Lee (World Famous Mr Friendly ) the one eyed -no tail dog is eligible for the "title" after winning two qualifying stakes, but hell will have to freeze over, and the Beatles will have to have a reunion before Lanse sends the AKC a check for that title..

as Lanse has told me repeatedly since I have known him

"....I run trials to win and hopefully qualify for Nationals...the titles come with the wins "


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Raymond Little said:


> You should be; winning a 30 & 25 dog Q and a 4th & 3rd with a 3 y/o is pretty stout. Don't you think it's time to move to the am's and open's??
> 
> Clearly your dog can play with the competition and win so what more does the Q2 title do for you?
> Maybe our resident Historian "Bon" can research the number of Q entries that have or could have qualified for this illustrious title in 2014.
> The true Am's might just want to move on up to the next level since I believe the Q will get much more difficult when entries explode.


I think for alot of people this will mean alot, and I certainly can't see how it is going to effect the people that play at the top of the game, you have any dogs in the fight?


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

Bon, what all titles have you out on dogs or what level are your dogs. New here and assuming you have been around awhile with your knowledge


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Luke T said:


> Bon, what all titles have you out on dogs or what level are your dogs. New here and assuming you have been around awhile with your knowledge


I have never put a title on a dog...I have been around FT's since circa '72..the last FT I ran was in 2011 in Utah and I went out on the 1st series with both dogs in the Amateur..dogs were trained by my brother..I am known more for being a decent bird thrower, good waterfowl hunter...I consider myself a student of the game because I have been fortunate to have witnessed many of the events live and in person both in training sessions, trial tailgates,and almost daily conversations with one of the aforementioned individuals...

I am the legal guardian/co owner of AFC Candlewood's She's So Fine...after Lanse graciously gave her to me last year, after I suggested that I had a solution to the training impasse that they had reached..Sophie will be retired later this year but I will try and run her in a late summer trial(s) if I can get the extended time away from work


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

So my dog is eligible for the QA2 title 'cause we jammed 2 Opens (one of them with 108 dogs).

And now some clown can come along and place 2nd in a couple of 20-dog owner/handler Q's and get the same title!!!

That is the coward's way out!!!!!

Steve Coburn


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

JS said:


> So my dog is eligible for the QA2 title 'cause we jammed 2 Opens (one of them with 108 dogs).
> 
> And now some clown can come along and place 2nd in a couple of 20-dog owner/handler Q's and get the same title!!!
> 
> ...


ROFLMAO. that is a classic.


----------



## Splash_em (Apr 23, 2009)

Just out of curiosity, exactly how many dogs have to be entered in an O/H Q before it becomes real? 

Or does the view while looking down your noses make them all look insignificant and small, regardless of the number of dogs entered?


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

O/H Q's should be eliminated since there is an actual title now, let errybody play.


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

Raymond Little said:


> O/H Q's should be eliminated since there is an actual title now, let errybody play.


So, can we assume your thoughts are similar when considering O/H Amateur stakes? Perhaps those points shouldn't count when striving for the AFC title too. Seriously. Your argument makes no sense.


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

When are they gonna vote to allow a Boykin to play?


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

Dan Wegner said:


> So, can we assume your thoughts are similar when considering O/H Amateur stakes? Perhaps those points shouldn't count when striving for the AFC title too. Seriously. Your argument makes no sense.


O/H Q is and was made to allow for smaller fields with primarily am owners who train their own dogs. It was a great concept but the competition was not what an actual FT Q would have been. I am sure some will argue that its he same but thats just a pipe dream. If you have a new title, compete against everyone or its watered down.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

JS said:


> So my dog is eligible for the QA2 title 'cause we jammed 2 Opens (one of them with 108 dogs).
> 
> And now some clown can come along and place 2nd in a couple of 20-dog owner/handler Q's and get the same title!!!
> 
> ...





Kinda like MH


----------



## Splash_em (Apr 23, 2009)

Raymond Little said:


> O/H Q is and was made to allow for smaller fields with primarily am owners who train their own dogs. It was a great concept but the competition was not what an actual FT Q would have been. I am sure some will argue that its he same but thats just a pipe dream. If you have a new title, compete against everyone or its watered down.


You failed to answer the directly asked question and chose to make a different statement. Dan's question was should the points from an O/H Am still count toward the AFC?

I take it from your response that the answer is obviously no since they don't allow everyone to play.


----------



## Kajun Kamakazi (May 17, 2011)

I'd like to hear specific examples of a O/H Q that people have personally witnessed that was lacking in either difficulty in the tests, or caliber of the dogs and/or handlers. Not disagreeing, I would just like to hear personal experiences.


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

Kajun Kamakazi said:


> I'd like to hear specific examples of a O/H Q that people have personally witnessed that was lacking in either difficulty in the tests, or caliber of the dogs and/or handlers. Not disagreeing, I would just like to hear personal experiences.


I've run plenty of regular Quals a d a few O/H Q's, even some in conjunction with HT's. Haven't noticed much of a difference in difficulty of the set-ups. The overall field of dogs may not be as strong at many O/H events, but the top 4 or 5 dogs at the end of the day could hold their own at most any Qualifying event. So the assertion that O/H events are somehow not as valuable doesn't hold water from what I've seen.


----------



## Sabireley (Feb 2, 2005)

Most of them I have seen have a greater percentage of older dogs than a regular Q would, but the tests were comparable and the dogs who placed did good work. I don't know why people care so much about how the title is earned. It is still an accomplishment. Anyone who really cares can look up the dog's record on EE or AKC.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Splash_em said:


> You failed to answer the directly asked question and chose to make a different statement. Dan's question was should the points from an O/H Am still count toward the AFC?
> 
> I take it from your response that the answer is obviously no since they don't allow everyone to play.


After looking at his record on EE, I'm not sure he's qualified to answer that, Richard.


----------



## RF2 (May 6, 2008)

Raymond Little said:


> O/H Q is and was made to allow for smaller fields with primarily am owners who train their own dogs. It was a great concept but the competition was not what an actual FT Q would have been. I am sure some will argue that its he same but thats just a pipe dream. If you have a new title, compete against everyone or its watered down.


We won an O/H Qual one time. The 3rd and 4th place dogs at that event are both running in the National Am this week. Some kind of watered down...


----------



## rookie (Sep 22, 2003)

Dan Wegner said:


> I've run plenty of regular Quals a d a few O/H Q's, even some in conjunction with HT's. Haven't noticed much of a difference in difficulty of the set-ups. The overall field of dogs may not be as strong at many O/H events, but the top 4 or 5 dogs at the end of the day could hold their own at most any Qualifying event. So the assertion that O/H events are somehow not as valuable doesn't hold water from what I've seen.


 I HAVE TO AGREE WITH DAN! I have run Q, AM and Open. At every stake you will find dogs that are not ready on that day. Most of the Qual that I have run there were always good dogs at the last series. O/H Qs almost always have several good dogs that could run at a major stake. 
Warren price


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

Splash_em said:


> You failed to answer the directly asked question and chose to make a different statement. Dan's question was should the points from an O/H Am still count toward the AFC?
> 
> I take it from your response that the answer is obviously no since they don't allow everyone to play.


D/Q's are minor stakes, just a small difference between the Am & Open. So you are saying that a 15 dog O/H HT Q is the same as a 35 dog regular Q? Having said that, I give more credit to a jam in the open than a first in any Q. Does the jam get a Q2***?


----------



## Dan Wegner (Jul 7, 2006)

Raymond Little said:


> D/Q's are minor stakes, just a small difference between the Am & Open. So you are saying that a 15 dog O/H HT Q is the same as a 35 dog regular Q? Having said that, I give more credit to a jam in the open than a first in any Q. Does the jam get a Q2***?


An O/H is an O/H, whether it's a minor or major stake. Same concept. It limits competition to those who actually own the dog. As for your numbers, I think you have them backwards. Most O/, Quals have significantly larger entry numbers than regular Quals. I'm pretty sure the way the new title reads, that any two achievements that would have qualified a dog all-age also count for the new QA2 title, so 2 A A JAM'S would certainly qualify. You can argue the value of how a dog gets there all you want, but all that matters is they do it. It's not a championship title, but will certainly help to identify and give credit to dogs that have achieved this level of success. It may not mean much to some, but for others it may be a crowning achievement. 

Why some folks feel the need to piss in others Cheerios, I will never understand. Guess it makes them feel important. Personally, I prefer to congratulate and encourage them and continue on toward my own goals.


----------



## Splash_em (Apr 23, 2009)

Raymond Little said:


> D/Q's are minor stakes, just a small difference between the Am & Open. So you are saying that a 15 dog O/H HT Q is the same as a 35 dog regular Q? Having said that, I give more credit to a jam in the open than a first in any Q. Does the jam get a Q2***?


Are you going to answer the question or continue to reply around it and redirect the conversation? 

When was the last time you personally ran an O/H Q? That's also a very direct question that I can't seem to find the answer to.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Splash_em said:


> Are you going to answer the question or continue to reply around it and redirect the conversation?
> 
> When was the last time you personally ran an O/H Q? That's also a very direct question that I can't seem to find the answer to.


.0

There's only one RL on EE and if I was a betting guy I would guess they are one in the same, the list of events seems to be fairly short for being so opinionated, if in fact it is the same RL..


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

Splash_em said:


> Are you going to answer the question or continue to reply around it and redirect the conversation?
> 
> When was the last time you personally ran an O/H Q? That's also a very direct question that I can't seem to find the answer to.


Never have regular Q is tuff enough. You need to show me your post where the question was asked originally.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

*An O/H is an O/H, whether it's a minor or major stake. Same concept. It limits competition to those who actually own the dog. As for your numbers, I think you have them backwards. Most O/, Quals have significantly larger entry numbers than regular Quals. I'm pretty sure the way the new title reads, that any two achievements that would have qualified a dog all-age also count for the new QA2 title, so 2 A A JAM'S would certainly qualify. You can argue the value of how a dog gets there all you want, but all that matters is they do it. It's not a championship title, but will certainly help to identify and give credit to dogs that have achieved this level of success. It may not mean much to some, but for others it may be a crowning achievement. 

Why some folks feel the need to piss in others Cheerios, I will never understand. Guess it makes them feel important. Personally, I prefer to congratulate and encourage them and continue on toward my own goals.*

X2 it takes all types to make any of the games work, to some a JH is a huge deal and to some no amount of time or money will step in the way a FC, most will be somewhere in the middle kinda like the QAA title..


----------



## Splash_em (Apr 23, 2009)

Raymond Little said:


> Never have regularl is tuff enough. You need to show me your post where the question was asked originally.


See post #57 which your post (#56) is quoted. 

I can't seem to find the regular Q you ran last either. Care to share that information?


----------



## TroyFeeken (May 30, 2007)

I've ran a couple O/H Quals against pros who owned the dogs along with a couple professional amateurs in contention. It was a pretty watered down test. Tongue in cheek of course. I have yet to see an OH qual be watered down because of its nature.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

CindyGal said:


> As an amateur who 100% trained my own dog and recently won 2 Qualifyings on back to back weekends, I shall display the title proudly!


Congrats you have alot to be proud of, the important part to realise is that there are quiet a few people on here that have had numerous FC/AFC's and have qualified for many nationals, but they have never trained a dog to this level themselves, I don't see where a title that may just be a bump in the road to them, but a huge accomplishment to you will hurt the game.. Enjoy your success and carry on to the next level..


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

CindyGal said:


> As an amateur who 100% trained my own dog and recently won 2 Qualifyings on back to back weekends, I shall display the title proudly!





Cant prove it but personally I think she paid off the judges. jes kiddin Cindy awesome job. 
Wish I were in the market I would love to have one of those pups from Digit and B Bumble!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## suepuff (Aug 25, 2008)

Dan Wegner said:


> Why some folks feel the need to piss in others Cheerios, I will never understand. Guess it makes them feel important. Personally, I prefer to congratulate and encourage them and continue on toward my own goals.


Hear, hear...we all have our own goals and capabilities. 

No wonder why people quit, when people put down title x, y, z. I'm just glad people are out doing things with their dogs and not having fat couch potatoes in the house. Geez people....I didn't realize how many glass half empty people are out there...


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

suepuff said:


> Hear, hear...we all have our own goals and capabilities.
> 
> No wonder why people quit, when people put down title x, y, z. I'm just glad people are out doing things with their dogs and not having fat couch potatoes in the house. Geez people....I didn't realize how many glass half empty people are out there...




Same can be accomplished with a walk in the park and a tennis ball. You could actually say that the people that feel the need for the QA2 title are glass half empty people feeling the need for more. If I had the title I would be proud of it but don't feel the need for it.
Us humans are just a PIA. Always something to complain or disagree about. That's why I like the dogs so much very simple and always happy. Anything and everything wrong in this world is man made. Sure there are good people in the world but probably just as rare or more so than an FC dog.
Personally I am just happy with the QAA designation and don't feel the need for the title. I am a little afraid of what it may do to the game. I really hate to see the qual turned into a hunt test. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the worst thing to happen to both HT and FT is the Master National. It causes huge numbers in the master and entries to be limited and keeps people form jumping up to the qual. I'd rather go to a weekend trial and go down in flames in the 1st series than go run the master national with 900 other dogs but that's just me. I think the closest we should get to combining HT and FT is a DQ with the HT. I think those are fine and give people a chance to try the next level. Other than that I would rather they stay a separate game. Just like show vs field, something else us humans have screwed up and can argue about. I say just go ahead and split the breed it's already been done anyway. I have no desire to bridge that gap either.


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

RF2 said:


> We won an O/H Qual one time. The 3rd and 4th place dogs at that event are both running in the National Am this week. Some kind of watered down...


No way was that test going to be watered down. But I have never heard so much complaining at a Q about the test being tough. It was a FT we needed a winner!
And some of the comments directed at me at the tailgate made me never want to judge a Q when its run with a HT. I didn't realize white coats were the devil. ;-)


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Steve Shaver said:


> . I am a little afraid of what it may do to the game. I really hate to see the qual turned into a hunt test. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the worst thing to happen to both HT and FT is the Master National. It causes huge numbers in the master and entries to be limited and keeps people form jumping up to the qual. I'd rather go to a weekend trial and go down in flames in the 1st series than go run the master national with 900 other dogs but that's just me. I think the closest we should get to combining HT and FT is a DQ with the HT. I think those are fine and give people a chance to try the next level. Other than that I would rather they stay a separate game. Just like show vs field, something else us humans have screwed up and can argue about. I say just go ahead and split the breed it's already been done anyway. I have no desire to bridge that gap either.


Very nice perspective Steve...


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Dan Wegner said:


> An O/H is an O/H, whether it's a minor or major stake. Same concept. It limits competition to those who actually own the dog. As for your numbers, I think you have them backwards. Most O/, Quals have significantly larger entry numbers than regular Quals. I'm pretty sure the way the new title reads, that any two achievements that would have qualified a dog all-age also count for the new QA2 title, so 2 A A JAM'S would certainly qualify. You can argue the value of how a dog gets there all you want, but all that matters is they do it. It's not a championship title, but will certainly help to identify and give credit to dogs that have achieved this level of success. It may not mean much to some, but for others it may be a crowning achievement.
> 
> Why some folks feel the need to piss in others Cheerios, I will never understand. Guess it makes them feel important. Personally, *I prefer to congratulate and encourage them and continue on toward my own goals.*


This is important to remember in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

I am ok with the QA2 title. Kind of! However, a combination of a 1st and a 2nd should not equal a title. It should be on the point system similar to the AM and Open. 

But I could just as well do with out it!


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

I think there are a few posters who are not clear on some things.


First let me say I will display, without humility, any title AKC chooses to award me and those who object can kiss ol’ Rose!  I don’t know why some people continually want to piss in someone else’s Cheerios either, and I say congratulations to anyone who is recognized by AKC for their hard work, no matter what level. Everyone has their own goals and standards … whatever floats your boat should matter only to you.


There are some points though.


• Splash_em, your comparison of an O/H Qual to an O/H Am is not valid. In the Amateur stake, pros are, by definition, not allowed … either in an O/H Am or a regular Am. It is not common in any Am to see many handlers other than the owners handling a dog, so when a club stipulates their Amateur as “Owner/Handler”, the restriction is not significant … maybe a couple of dogs. (that designation was implemented to get a handle on possible “funny business”.)


In the Qualifying stake though, the O/H restriction has a significant impact. A lot of dogs in the Q are trained and handled by pros who don’t own the dog. The last Qual I judged had 30 dogs starting. Best I can figure from this catalog is that 24 or 25 were handled by pros. All four places, the RJ, and all four Jams were taken by pros! If this had been an O/H stake, the field, and the competition, would have been significantly different.


• On the point of “watered down tests”, I think the term may carry a negative connotation that upsets some. A judge setting up a test has 2 nightmares … that you may not have four dogs who can finish your trial OR that they may ALL finish. So, do judges try as best they can to tailor the test to the field of dogs they have entered? Absolutely, if they’re smart. I can tell you for certain that the tests I described above would not have been set as tough if we had been judging an O/H. ;-)


That said, I have never seen an unworthy dog win. There will always be good dogs there … just don’t make the mistake of looking at a test and talking about hard (or easy) it is til you step to the line. If you win, you win. Congratulations. The rest is all just tailgate talk anyway.


• Does it diminish the value of a title? Maybe. I’m not sure how you can “diminish” the value of a title that has not previously existed, yet I would like to see more consistency if you’re going to use titles to compare dogs. (there IS quite a difference between 2 Open finishes and 2 O/H Qualifying seconds. But what’s new? The same can be said about any stake in any trial … a win in an Open with 50 mediocre dogs is the same 5 points as a win against an outstanding field of 100. I would hope anyone who is considering breeding their bitch or buying a pup would dig a little deeper than just the titles on the dogs’ names.


Like I said previously, it’s all just tailgate talk anyway. AKC is doing this in ALL the venues. $$$$$. People in the games know what the titles are worth and your neighbors don’t. You could leave for the weekend and come home and tell them you just won the National and they’d believe you. 


(I might just do that. )


JS

edit: Out of curiosity, I just looked up some history on EE (who's accuracy is marginal, BTW) and discovered I have run 8 O/H Amateurs and didn't even realize it! Same dogs, same people.


----------



## moscowitz (Nov 17, 2004)

JS great post.


----------



## Splash_em (Apr 23, 2009)

JS said:


> • Splash_em, your comparison of an O/H Qual to an O/H Am is not valid. In the Amateur stake, pros are, by definition, not allowed … either in an O/H Am or a regular Am. It is not common in any Am to see many handlers other than the owners handling a dog, so when a club stipulates their Amateur as “Owner/Handler”, the restriction is not significant … maybe a couple of dogs. (that designation was implemented to get a handle on possible “funny business”.)


I didn't compare anything of the sort. My question echoed one that was previously asked specifically to one poster. Please quote where I said they were comparable or carried equal weight. I still stand at the Am/Open and watch in awe at some of the things that level of dogs are capable of doing. 

Personally, I don't care what game you want to play with your dogs from HRC Started to the Grand, AKC Junior to the Master National, or Derbies through the National. If you need a ride, call me and I'll come pick you up on the way. Might stay at the truck all day, fix lunch for whoever wants to eat, then shake your hand when ribbons are passed out. However, I'm not going to start bashing on you Monday morning because I don't like the venue you chose to participate in or the obtainment of a title that you set out to accomplish.


----------



## Gunners Up (Jul 29, 2004)

Below are the entrants & placements from the Owner/Handler Qual from the North Texas Trial this past spring. Some pretty notable Amateurs in this group of handlers. I would have been proud to have won or placed in this Qual. You can’t control who shows up, all you can hope to control is how well you and your dog compete on that given day. The theory that the owner handler Qual dilutes the game or accomplishment just doesn’t hold water in my opinion. 

# Dog Name Owner Handler Results 
3 Elmingos Controlled Power Play Bradley and Diane Clow Brad Clow 1st 
4 You May All Go To Hell, And I Will Go To Texas Don Ritter Don Ritter 2nd 
14 Bravhart Urban Cowboy Suzan Caire Suzan Caire 3rd 
6 Castile Creek's Izabella's Flying First Class Ron Root Ron Root 4th 
7 Aries' Nero Airabella Ricky Belk Ricky Belk/Tommy Ford Res. Jam 
1 Trumarc's Mad Money Judith Aycock Judy Aycock/Sylvia McClure 
2 CH Chisholm Trail's Backdraft Bay MH Russell Huffman Russell Huffman 
5 Topshots Coming Full Circle SH Bill Cummins Jr. Bill Cummins Jr 
8 Revitt Up Riptide Warrior Brandon & Dawni Bromley Dawni Bromley 
9 Shady Hill Candlewood Hank Edwin A. Allbritton Edwin A. Allbritton/Peter Marcellus 
10 Trumarc's Mavis Judy Aycock Judy Aycock/Sylvia McClure 
11 Chisholm Trail's Crossfire Sophie Russell Huffman Russell Huffman 
12 Farmer's Been Convinced Bobby Farmer Bobby Farmer 
13 Glenhoma's El Chupacabra Richard Davis Richard Davis 
15 Redirt's Sweet Emotion SH Chris Payne Woody Woodson 
16 Bakbay Supernova SH Bruce Bachert Bruce Bachert 
17 Revitt Up's Night Furry Brandon & Dawni Bromley Dawni Bromley 
18 Catch'er If You Can Steve & Jan Helgoth Steve Helgoth


----------



## rboudet (Jun 29, 2004)

Gunners Up said:


> Below are the entrants & placements from the Owner/Handler Qual from the North Texas Trial this past spring. Some pretty notable Amateurs in this group of handlers. I would have been proud to have won or placed in this Qual. You can’t control who shows up, all you can hope to control is how well you and your dog compete on that given day. The theory that the owner handler Qual dilutes the game or accomplishment just doesn’t hold water in my opinion.
> 
> # Dog Name Owner Handler Results
> 3 Elmingos Controlled Power Play Bradley and Diane Clow Brad Clow 1st
> ...


The geography of that trial played a big part in that field of dogs. And I believe it was at a FT, not a O/H Q run in conjuntion with a HT. The two attract a different group of dogs/handlers.


----------



## Ed Bahr (Jul 1, 2007)

I'm fine with QAA title but against the QA2

Once you qualify move up.....it's like playing junior varsity when you are supposed to be playing varsity


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Splash_em said:


> *I didn't compare anything of the sort. My question echoed one that was previously asked specifically to one poster.* Please quote where I said they were comparable or carried equal weight. I still stand at the Am/Open and watch in awe at some of the things that level of dogs are capable of doing.
> 
> .....


You did not say they carried equal weight but you did compare them. RL posted (post #56) that "the O/H Q should not count toward QA2". You replied (post #57) by asking ... paraphrasing here ... "then you don't believe that points from an O/H Am should count toward AFC?" That is the comparison I am addressing.

YOU HAVE SINCE DELETED THAT POST (#57), but see the following quote by you, where you referenced same.




Splash_em said:


> *See post #57 which your post (#56) is quoted.*
> 
> I can't seem to find the regular Q you ran last either. Care to share that information?


Let's not get caught up in trying to "win the argument". ;-)

JS


----------



## DSemple (Feb 16, 2008)

Raymond Little said:


> People will think it means more than it Actually does.
> Owner handler Q's will be booming business but not actually true FT's so the title will be watered down anyway.
> Follow the money, next clubs will have limited entries in the Q. *What once could be completed in a day and an hour or two will take two full days.
> Derbies on Saturday start at the conclusion of the Q, they will soon start and end on Sunday*.


Hope so, more folks competing is a good thing.


----------



## Splash_em (Apr 23, 2009)

JS said:


> You did not say they carried equal weight but you did compare them. RL posted (post #56) that "the O/H Q should not count toward QA2". You replied (post #57) by asking ... paraphrasing here ... "then you don't believe that points from an O/H Am should count toward AFC?" That is the comparison I am addressing.
> 
> YOU HAVE SINCE DELETED THAT POST (#57), but see the following quote by you, where you referenced same.
> 
> ...


No argument, just a misunderstanding. Post #57 has always been Dan's question that I referneced.


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

Is this a serious statement?


JS said:


> So my dog is eligible for the QA2 title 'cause we jammed 2 Opens (one of them with 108 dogs).
> 
> And now some clown can come along and place 2nd in a couple of 20-dog owner/handler Q's and get the same title!!!
> 
> ...


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

Richard he doesn't run dogs. His time is spent on the internet pretending to be a know it all.


Splash_em said:


> See post #57 which your post (#56) is quoted.
> 
> I can't seem to find the regular Q you ran last either. Care to share that information?


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

Justin Allen said:


> Richard he doesn't run dogs. His time is spent on the internet pretending to be a know it all.


Ya Think?
Go back to my original post, I don't not believe there should be a Q title. Is that simple enough for you to understand? You might be surprised by the number of animals I have had my hands on the past 15 years. Secondary handlers aren't going to show up on EE search only the owners so keep searching Skippy.


----------



## Justin Allen (Sep 29, 2009)

I don't necessarily believe it should be a title either. I just find it odd that someone that does t participate has such a strong opinion.


Raymond Little said:


> Ya Think?
> Go back to my original post, I don't not believe there should be a Q title. Is that simple enough for you to understand? You might be surprised by the number of animals I have had my hands on the past 15 years. Secondary handlers aren't going to show up on EE search only the owners so keep searching Skippy.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Beamer81 said:


> I'm fine with QAA title but against the QA2
> 
> Once you qualify move up.....it's like playing junior varsity when you are supposed to be playing varsity


But if you move up and start finishing all age stakes, you'd get the QA2  And that's just a start, look for the upcoming QA14, the Q Nationals. And let's not deprive the derby dogs, I'm sure a title for them will be coming soon? LOL, after all, you can now buy MH11 (pick your number). Look for the JH nationals, coming soon....


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Beamer81 said:


> I'm fine with QAA title but against the QA2
> 
> Once you qualify move up.....it's like playing junior varsity when you are supposed to be playing varsity


OK that's a different issue. What if you're not ready to move up?

I have a dog that won the first Q she ran at a few months past two. Was I supposed to sit around with my thumb ... for a couple years just so someone else can have an easier go at it? You wanna beat me. Go train your dog.

JS


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

JS said:


> OK that's a different issue. What if you're not ready to move up?
> 
> I have a dog that won the first Q she ran at a few months past two. Was I supposed to sit around with my thumb ... for a couple years just so someone else can have an easier go at it? You wanna beat me. Go train your dog.
> 
> JS


I agree.

And that is why there are rules for how long a dog can run the Q, if ya can't beat them in a Q, you can't beat them in an AA stake....I'll run my dog(s) in the Q for as long as I think is necessary even if they have a win, the rules allow it...talk about wanting to eliminate competition? Next thing you know, people will want those dogs already qualified for a National to stop running until the National....might as well give others a shot at qualifying, right?

And as a side note: I don't like the idea of the QA2 title...


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

FOM said:


> I agree.
> 
> And that is why there are rules for how long a dog can run the Q, if ya can't beat them in a Q, you can't beat them in an AA stake....I'll run my dog(s) in the Q for as long as I think is necessary even if they have a win, the rules allow it...talk about wanting to eliminate competition? Next thing you know, people will want those dogs already qualified for a National to stop running until the National....might as well give others a shot at qualifying, right?
> 
> And as a side note: I don't like the idea of the QA2 title...


Actually, I believe that's where the logic came from. In a way, I can understand that and some feel it is the same thing with running the weekend Q. I don't follow that line of reasoning.

JS


----------



## Brian Welch (Jan 30, 2013)

I put a HRCH and MH title on my dog and thought, what's next. I don't have the luxury of traveling to the master national or desire. So, I watched a few field trials and thought this would be fun. We entered in a OH/qual and made it to the 4th series. You would have thought I brought home a blue ribbon I was so excited and hooked. In my opinion this is what qualifying stakes are all about. With or without it being a title it's all fun and something to get more people involved. Going against other dogs vs a standard is a whole different game. I personally thought the OH/qual I ran was just as difficult as the "regular" qual. Just going by factors involved. The person who took 1st and 2nd has two dogs running in the 2014 National Am and one other dog that did not make it out of the 3rd series got a jam with that same dog in the amateur the next day.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

FOM said:


> And that is why there are rules for how long a dog can run the Q, if ya can't beat them in a Q, you can't beat them in an AA stake....I'll run my dog(s) in the Q for as long as I think is necessary even if they have a win, the rules allow it...talk about wanting to eliminate competition? Next thing you know, people will want those dogs already qualified for a National to stop running until the National....might as well give others a shot at qualifying, right?
> .


For some dogs, the QAA designation is just a brief stop on the way from talented derby dog to FC/AFC. Get the first or second and no matter what they go on the big dog truck until it is time to run the big dog stuff. For others, life in the Q can be much longer, especially for amateurs. I personally have absolutely no problem with folks who run Qs as long as the rules allow it. As you said, the dog may not be ready for AA. I also think it is a great place for handlers to keep getting that all important line time. You run the Am and you may never see water or even run land blind all that often, but running the Q a handler can get experience running water blinds and water marks and generally holding things together for multiple series. That can be very valuable experience when you actually do become competitive in the AA.


----------



## Ed Bahr (Jul 1, 2007)

JS said:


> OK that's a different issue. What if you're not ready to move up?
> 
> I have a dog that won the first Q she ran at a few months past two. Was I supposed to sit around with my thumb ... for a couple years just so someone else can have an easier go at it? You wanna beat me. Go train your dog.
> 
> JS


I think you got it wrong this is when you should go train your dog........

I never stated making it easier for someone to qualify.......maybe guilty conscience


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

DoubleHaul said:


> For some dogs, the QAA designation is just a brief stop on the way from talented derby dog to FC/AFC. Get the first or second and no matter what they go on the big dog truck until it is time to run the big dog stuff. For others, life in the Q can be much longer, especially for amateurs. I personally have absolutely no problem with folks who run Qs as long as the rules allow it. As you said, the dog may not be ready for AA. I also think it is a great place for handlers to keep getting that all important line time. You run the Am and you may never see water or even run land blind all that often, but running the Q a handler can get experience running water blinds and water marks and generally holding things together for multiple series. That can be very valuable experience when you actually do become competitive in the AA.


Careful, trials & HT stakes are never any good for the dog at any level. Running events only erodes training. If a handler needs to gain line time experience, train your dog to event stds, train in large groups, etc where you can correct unwanted behavior.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

DoubleHaul said:


> For some dogs, the QAA designation is just a brief stop on the way from talented derby dog to FC/AFC. Get the first or second and no matter what they go on the big dog truck until it is time to run the big dog stuff. For others, life in the Q can be much longer, especially for amateurs. I personally have absolutely no problem with folks who run Qs as long as the rules allow it. As you said, the dog may not be ready for AA. I also think it is a great place for handlers to keep getting that all important line time. You run the Am and you may never see water or even run land blind all that often, but running the Q a handler can get experience running water blinds and water marks and generally holding things together for multiple series. That can be very valuable experience when you actually do become competitive in the AA.


I try not to train at HT, HRC etc!but teach at home.JMHO


----------



## Dave Plesko (Aug 16, 2009)

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> I try not to train at HT, HRC etc!but teach at home.JMHO


Not speaking for him, but I think that you missed what I believe was his point.

Training isn't trialing. There is really isn't a good a place in training to replicate the experience of standing on the line in a trial and running the test. There's the nervous energy and need to make split second decisions under that pressure that just doesn't exist in training. Dogs don't behave the same.

I agree with Mr Didier that trials don't teach many dogs anything good, but they sure can teach a handler things. They also uncover the very things that you need to work on in your training.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

Dave Plesko said:


> Not speaking for him, but I think that you missed what I believe was his point.
> 
> Training isn't trialing. There is really isn't a good a place in training to replicate the experience of standing on the line in a trial and running the test. There's the nervous energy and need to make split second decisions under that pressure that just doesn't exist in training. Dogs don't behave the same.
> 
> I agree with Mr Didier that trials don't teach many dogs anything good, but they sure can teach a handler things. They also uncover the very things that you need to work on in your training.


Yes it is hard to replicate the scene so you can practice, I understand. Dogs certainly behave different in a test or trial. and I really can't see dogs learning much from a test or trial if they start to get revved up! What can you do there. But I always think of others and the judges. All my opinion.


----------



## Erin O'Brien (Mar 5, 2010)

I find it so interesting that people who don't even run trials say quit running Qs and move up. If you look at the Qs at most full field trials, a lot of them will be QAA. I personally think it adds to the competition in a good way. You're running against better dogs. I have run a qaa dog in the Q many times and often double stake that dog in the Am. When the dog is ready, we move up. I think it helps me and the dog. Takes some pressure off and makes it fun, isn't that why I drive thousands of miles and spend more time and money than I should? I digressed from the original question, but I could care less of there's a title or not. If it makes someone happy, then go for it. I don't see it changing field trials any time soon, people have been using QAA as a pseudo title for a long time.


----------



## Tim Mc (Mar 1, 2013)

DoubleHaul said:


> For some dogs, the QAA designation is just a brief stop on the way from talented derby dog to FC/AFC. Get the first or second and no matter what they go on the big dog truck until it is time to run the big dog stuff. For others, life in the Q can be much longer, especially for amateurs. I personally have absolutely no problem with folks who run Qs as long as the rules allow it. As you said, the dog may not be ready for AA. I also think it is a great place for handlers to keep getting that all important line time. You run the Am and you may never see water or even run land blind all that often, but running the Q a handler can get experience running water blinds and water marks and generally holding things together for multiple series. That can be very valuable experience when you actually do become competitive in the AA.



This describes my journey so far to a t. My first dog, and we have both gained tremendous experience running many quals, and have started double staking in the amateur now. We've been there at the end of several quals in contention to win but haven't closed the deal yet. More often than not it was my fault, either with handling decisions or holes in training.
i support the qaa2 title, although it would never be the ultimate goal. If my dogs top end is qaa2 I will be proud of getting there , because it sure isn't easy, but disappointed at not attaining his FC.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Prior to my dog receiving an actual AFC Title she completed the requirements for this new QA2 thing over fifty (50) times through 20 some AA Placements & even more Jams. 
Um, best she ever did in the Qual though was a 2nd place. Surprised me a few weeks later when she got an Amateur 2nd place behind the great Talon.
The only titles that really count are the ones that put letters in front of a dogs name won in All-Age Competition. Which for us took 5 more long years of pain and suffering to acheive after getting that first colored ribbon.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Erin O'Brien said:


> I find it so interesting that people who don't even run trials say quit running Qs and move up. \.


I guess it's just a different way of looking at things, I've ran a few quals, we're usually playing well all the way to the end. I can tell you if I ever get a 1st to get QAA status, I'll be parting pretty hard the night of and in the morning, I'll be done running the Qual. I just don't see the need to repeat the feat, over and over. Might as well let someone else party. The first Jam was pretty cool, but I don't ever need another green ribbon. GEtting a MH title was cool, but I've done it why do I need to run more master tests? I just don't see the need for another 1st place qual ribbon, after you've got one. That's not progressing, it's staying in the same place. Now a second place and I'll probably still play, because there's something to still accomplish. Otherwise I'll be looking onward and upward, and let someone else have the party. After-all It's questionable if I'll survive the hangover from the first one .


----------



## BlaineT (Jul 17, 2010)

When do y'all think the akc will let me run one of my boykins in a qual. Hope it's within the next 3 years.


----------



## Gotta Be A Ragin Cajun (Feb 24, 2013)

"QAA" or "QA2" is an accomplishment that anyone who receives should be proud of.


----------



## Hambone (Mar 4, 2003)

Like a lot of amateur trainers I started in the HT game. When I was in my 20's and training my first hunting dog I attended a local FT and was totally intimidated - and turned off. I couldn't even get anybody to tell me what was going on. When I asked people were too busy with their own conversations to talk to a rank newbie. Hunt tests came along and I got started there which is where I belonged anyway at that time. 4 hunt test dogs later I bought my first really well-bred dog from FT stock and was amazed at what she could do in training. That dog got me interested in FT again and I was in a club that had some good FT trainers to help me along. We tried the Derby but only finished one - due to my inexperience. Later we got some green ribbons in the Q which really got me fired up. Then came the day when she won an O/H qual with 24 dogs in it. Our first blue ribbon. I was really hooked then. Since that time a change in career has put me in a situation where I no longer have the water I need to train for the AM and my job takes too much of my time. We have never gotten beyond the land blind on the AM. I will keep trying because I just love doing it but the new title will give me something to work toward in the meantime. Maybe someday I will finish the AM with my current dog but to someone like me getting the QA2 would be a major step that will keep me coming back. I had pretty much given up on the FT game for now because the AM seemed out of reach. I may start working on it again now that I have what seems to be an attainable goal. Will hopefully be running my new pup in some Derbies in the fall. So for me, and maybe others like me the new title will keep us coming back. Isn't it better to have guys like me paying entries and being there to help run the trials than not?


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> I guess it's just a different way of looking at things, I've ran a few quals, we're usually playing well all the way to the end. I can tell you if I ever get a 1st to get QAA status, I'll be parting pretty hard the night of and in the morning, I'll be done running the Qual. I just don't see the need to repeat the feat, over and over. Might as well let someone else party. The first Jam was pretty cool, but I don't ever need another green ribbon. GEtting a MH title was cool, but I've done it why do I need to run more master tests? I just don't see the need for another 1st place qual ribbon, after you've got one. That's not progressing, it's staying in the same place. Now a second place and I'll probably still play, because there's something to still accomplish. Otherwise I'll be looking onward and upward, and let someone else have the party. After-all It's questionable if I'll survive the hangover from the first one .





Sorry but I pretty much disagree with this statement. Just because a dog wins a qual doesn't mean it is ready to jump up and play with the big dawgs. There are many reasons not to jump up so quick. Possibly it was just a lucky day, maybe a weak field, luck of the draw etc. You need to look into the future at the big picture. A dog need age and maturity and lots of practice to run with the big boys.
My dog Lucy (*and me too)* would be the perfect example. Had her entered in a qual at 29 months old and got to thinking about entering the open because she really liked running big stuff so I decided to give it a try. Well she goes to the line first in the qual and cant find the flyer in the first series and I pick her up. People showing up to run the qual that had already run the open were talking about how big and ugly it was and dogs were dropping like flies. I get there and take a look at the test and watch a few dogs and I think to myself holy $#*!!!! what have I done? Oh well cant turn back now so my turn comes up and we go to the line and she flat hammers it. It was only the first series but as far as I was concerned I had already won. Ended up with a jam. Every other dog that finished the trial but me were already titled dogs. I was sooooo high I thought I was going to be FC before 3,* WRONG! *Neither her or me were ready to play with the big boys. Lucy was my first serious attempt at FT and is 7 now. I wouldn't give back the experience for anything in the world but looking back it was a curse. I have jammed a couple more and been to the 4th a few times but that is it. I think me and her both would have been better off running the qual the next season rather than being thrown to the wolves in the open. In hind sight I would have just trained the following year rather than running the open and then tried it as a 4 year old.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> I guess it's just a different way of looking at things, I've ran a few quals, we're usually playing well all the way to the end. I can tell you if I ever get a 1st to get QAA status, I'll be parting pretty hard the night of and in the morning, I'll be done running the Qual. I just don't see the need to repeat the feat, over and over. Might as well let someone else party. The first Jam was pretty cool, but I don't ever need another green ribbon. GEtting a MH title was cool, but I've done it why do I need to run more master tests? I just don't see the need for another 1st place qual ribbon, after you've got one. That's not progressing, it's staying in the same place. Now a second place and I'll probably still play, because there's something to still accomplish. Otherwise I'll be looking onward and upward, and let someone else have the party. After-all It's questionable if I'll survive the hangover from the first one .


I know what you mean about the party. Our first field trial dog, Cody in my avatar was a high roller with talent and a fatal flaw, cheating water. He was lots of fun to run and great in training, but QQA was his ceiling. When Cody finally won a Qual down in Niland at age five, the whole campground threw us a party like we just won the National. It was so cool that old pros like Don Remein knew what that QAA status meant to us after working so hard. We tried the all age with Cody for a few years but could never get past the water blind, so we retired him to hunt test and moved on with a new pup. 

My point is it depends on the dog how fast you move up from the qual. Most good field trial prospects see the Qual stake as a transition for young dogs. A place for the dog and handler to get used to the land mark-land blind-water blind-water marks sequence. Some dogs place pretty quickly, win one and are ready to move on, while others struggle a bit to learn the ropes. Some dogs like my Alex are very solid Qual level dogs but probably will never make the grade as an all age dog. Alex got a first, two seconds, three thirds and a fourth in one year of running Quals, but two all age JAMs in the four years since. My Gus dog won a Qual early then got bored and underachieved in Qual test as they were too easy when he was training on big all age test all week long, so we bumped him up. I don't think people really understand how big a jump it is from the Qual to the all age, it's huge.

John

Edit: I see Steve and I were basically saying the same thing at the same time...


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> I know what you mean about the party. Our first field trial dog, Cody in my avatar was a high roller with talent and a fatal flaw, cheating water. He was lots of fun to run and great in training, but QQA was his ceiling. When Cody finally won a Qual down in Niland at age five, the whole campground threw us a party like we just won the National. It was so cool that old pros like Don Remein knew what that QAA status meant to us after working so hard. We tried the all age with Cody for a few years but could never get past the water blind, so we retired him to hunt test and moved on with a new pup.
> 
> My point is it depends on the dog how fast you move up from the qual. Most good field trial prospects see the Qual stake as a transition for young dogs. A place for the dog and handler to get used to the land mark-land blind-water blind-water marks sequence. Some dogs place pretty quickly, win one and are ready to move on, while others struggle a bit to learn the ropes. Some dogs like my Alex are very solid Qual level dogs but probably will never make the grade as an all age dog. Alex got a first, two seconds, three thirds and a fourth in one year of running Quals, but two all age JAMs in the four years since. My Gus dog won a Qual early then got bored and underachieved in Qual test as they were too easy when he was training on big all age test all week long, so we bumped him up. *I don't think people really understand how big a jump it is from the Qual to the all age, it's huge.*
> 
> ...


That's the biggest change I've seen in the 20 years I've been involved in this game. The jump from Qual to All-age is huge today. 

When I first started running FTs it wasn't such a huge step. My 1st two dogs both Jamed and Placed in all-age stakes without ever getting a 1st or 2nd in a qual. As I was only running 1 dog, I would double stake them in the Qual and Amateur. My 1st dog saw the last series of more Amateurs than she did quals before she could no longer run quals. 

As further illustration, at that time, it was also fairly common for a talented derby dog to place in an all-age stake. Today, it almost never happens.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

Doug Main said:


> That's the biggest change I've seen in the 20 years I've been involved in this game. The jump from Qual to All-age is huge today.
> 
> When I first started running FTs it wasn't such a huge step. My 1st two dogs both Jamed and Placed in all-age stakes without ever getting a 1st or 2nd in a qual. As I was only running 1 dog, I would double stake them in the Qual and Amateur. My 1st dog saw the last series of more Amateurs than she did quals before she could no longer run quals.
> 
> As further illustration, at that time, it was also fairly common for a talented derby dog to place in an all-age stake. Today, it almost never happens.


I agree in the past have got A second place in the amateur all-age and won the derby at the same trial with the same dog. Amateur win at 20 months with another. Jammed a Open for a QAA with another etc etc. There is a huge difference between getting a JAM in the Open or Amateur all-age and winning or getting second place in a qual. The JAM as an example may have been a handle in the last series, and if the dog was "clean" without a handle may have placed the dog or even won the stake! Circa 2014 as Doug says you almost never see the above anymore. I have judged my share of Quals and all-ages , there is a huge difference nowadays. Just sayin.


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> I guess it's just a different way of looking at things, I've ran a few quals, we're usually playing well all the way to the end. I can tell you if I ever get a 1st to get QAA status, I'll be parting pretty hard the night of and in the morning, I'll be done running the Qual. I just don't see the need to repeat the feat, over and over. Might as well let someone else party. The first Jam was pretty cool, but I don't ever need another green ribbon. GEtting a MH title was cool, but I've done it why do I need to run more master tests? I just don't see the need for another 1st place qual ribbon, after you've got one. That's not progressing, it's staying in the same place. Now a second place and I'll probably still play, because there's something to still accomplish. Otherwise I'll be looking onward and upward, and let someone else have the party. After-all It's questionable if I'll survive the hangover from the first one .





On the other side of the coin I got a 2nd in the qual last month. The guy that won had already had a 1st 2nd 3rd and a jam in as many trials this year. Kinda wish that guy felt like you


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

A couple of unrelated thoughts:

First, if the Q2 designation brings more people to FT, I am for it. I think that people who are exposed to what a dog can do and how nice most people at a FT are - will want to become involved. And that is good.

Second, I think the the Q is a great place for:

- Handlers who want to participate in FT, but know that the AA stakes are too much for their dogs.
- Handlers who are learning their craft in running dogs
- Dogs who are learning their craft in running trials

In fact, there is a part of me that would like to have dogs eligible to run in the Q until they have gotten an AA placement, regardless of how many wins in the Q the dog might have

I have a dog, Kitty (Freeridin Miss Kitty), who got a second in the Q just a few weeks after she turned two. Kitty then won an Amateur two months after she turned two. It was one of the worst things for her. Kitty needed to learn what FT are about, and the Q is a great place to do so. Because Kitty won the Am, she was placed in competitions that were over her head. Kitty is four now and running well (I finished three Opens with her this Spring). But, I think she would have done better, if she had been able to stay in the Q longer.


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> A couple of unrelated thoughts:
> 
> First, if the Q2 designation brings more people to FT, I am for it. I think that people who are exposed to what a dog can do and how nice most people at a FT are - will want to become involved. And that is good.
> 
> ...


Ted, agree that anything that brings dedicated (not necessarily more) people to FT is a good thing. I don't believe those drawn to FT will stay just because of the new Q2 title once they realize that there are only 2 qualifications per Q (1st-2nd). FT is more about training than instant gratification ribbons in hunt test give you.


----------



## Wayne Nissen (Dec 31, 2009)

Ted what you say is true although with one caveat: There are those of us that work full time at more than one business and train our own dogs. Time is of the essence. We do not enter many trials with our quality well trained animals, 3 to 6 a year. This extra title means something to me and others that are in the same boat. Its a numbers game. I have trained with top pros and my dogs have never taken a back seat to their 6 day a week trained dogs. It is a love of the game seeing great dog work is what its all about. Makes no difference about the qa or qa2 designation. if it feels good do it.


----------



## Raymond Little (Aug 2, 2006)

Wayne Nissen said:


> Ted what you say is true although with one caveat: There are those of us that work full time at more than one business and train our own dogs. Time is of the essence. We do not enter many trials with our quality well trained animals, 3 to 6 a year. This extra title means something to me and others that are in the same boat. Its a numbers game. I have trained with top pros and my dogs have never taken a back seat to their 6 day a week trained dogs. It is a love of the game seeing great dog work is what its all about. Makes no difference about the qa or qa2 designation. if it feels good do it.



H I P P Y


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

I've read most of the responses to this tread and the new title. And it's amazing that many the of people with the most negative comments have hardly ever ran a dog in competition. Six entries!! EE is an amazing thing, not sure what if anything they’ve done in other dog games HRC, ect.....

Dwight Gregory 67 entries on EE and have ran over 70 HRC hunt tests. I’ll keep my opinion to myself.
Thanks for the new title, have a great day.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Golden Boy said:


> I've read most of the responses to this tread and the new title. And it's amazing that many the of people with the most negative comments have hardly ever ran a dog in competition. Six entries!! EE is an amazing thing, not sure what if anything they’ve done in other dog games HRC, ect.....
> 
> Dwight Gregory 67 entries on EE and have ran over 70 HRC hunt tests. I’ll keep my opinion to myself.
> Thanks for the new title, have a great day.


I don't care about the new title one way or the other. It's fine with me.

But I'm going to tell you like I've told others. The dog world did not start in 2003 with the advent of EE. There are many people on this forum who have forgot more about dogs than some will ever know... that are not listed on an EE event. If you want to know more pm me. Not sure what it is about folks that think the world started the day they entered it.


----------



## BrettG (Apr 4, 2005)

huntinman said:


> I don't care about the new title one way or the other. It's fine with me.
> 
> But I'm going to tell you like I've told others. The dog world did not start in 2003 with the advent of EE. There are many people on this forum who have forgot more about dogs than some will ever know... that are not listed on an EE event. If you want to know more pm me. Not sure what it is about folks that think the world started the day they entered it.


He kinda struck a nerve huh bill?


----------



## Golden Boy (Apr 3, 2009)

huntinman said:


> I don't care about the new title one way or the other. It's fine with me.
> 
> But I'm going to tell you like I've told others. The dog world did not start in 2003 with the advent of EE. There are many people on this forum who have forgot more about dogs than some will ever know... that are not listed on an EE event. If you want to know more pm me. Not sure what it is about folks that think the world started the day they entered it.


I was just speaking with the available data 11 years worth.
I don't disagree with you. I know the dog world didn't just start and there are people out there that know a lot more about a quality retriever that have never ran a dog competition. But the same people aren't on here giving thier negative opinion about things they don't know or have very little knowlegde of.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Am I allowed to smile yet?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Anyone email Lisa Van Loo to tell her we won?

This started in 2005 -- http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?9808-QAA-Title-Yes-or-No&highlight=qaa+title

Then again in 2009 -- http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?9068-QAA-Title-Yes-or-No&highlight=qaa+title

We won Lisa. We won!


----------

