# "Hunt Testy" Qualifyings...



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

The other thread on Owner Handler Quals and some of the replies got me to thinking about the qualifying stake and its reason for being. I always thought of the qual as a mid level stepping stone to running all age stakes. It seemed like a dog that had won two quals was close to being ready to at least not embarass himself in the Amateur or Open. 

I'm one of those guys who buys a dog when my running dog is six or seven, and own my dogs for life. I have two young ones now, but that is another story. Point is I am only running the qual every seven years or so. I remember my pet peeve in the Qual with my first two dogs, one around 1997 the other around 2002, being super hard Quals. It seemed like I was always hearing, "wow, this is harder than the amateur or open". But recently with the two young dogs I was running the Q with last summer, I have run into quite a few dumbed down "hunt-testy" quals. They were still legit test, but tended to be shorter in length, and some seemed more like a super sized Master's than a simplified AA test.

I bring this up because I recognize and appreciate the reason for offering a stepping stone to field trials for those MHs that seem to have what it takes to compete in field trials, but might be overwhelmed jumping into big AA competition. On the other hand I don't know how well prepared for the AA a dog strictly running these hunt-testy quals will be. I think better to just run the straight up Quals and move up. I also realize there are two types of dogs running quals, 1) your up and coming talented two year old right out of the derby who totally expects to win out of the qual before he turns three, and 2) the more mature dog, may be a HT transfer, may be six or seven. This dog and handler want to see where they are at and consider becoming QAA a good ultimate goal. I have respect for both kinds as I have had both kinds.

So what's the answer? Can we find a happy medium that makes QAA still mean something relative to the AA stakes, yet isn't over the top for the talented MH dipping his toes in the FT pool? I don't know, but as a judge I still set up test that are close to AA stakes in distance and terrain, but simplified regarding diversions, only one retired and nothing out of order.

John


----------



## Zman1001 (Oct 15, 2009)

Is this a Field Trials are better than Hunt Tests thread?? 

A Q falls into the field trial side. It is up to the judges of each particular field trial (Q) to set up the test they deem appropriate of their interpretation.

In the Field Trial world, I would agree with you. It is a stepping stone to the AA.

If they are adding the O/H Q to the hunt test, it is an opportunity to open more people up to the field trial world. I am unsure as to why a judge would set up the test in a "hunt testy" way, when it is not a hunt test?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Zman1001 said:


> Is this a Field Trials are better than Hunt Tests thread??


I hope my post didn't come across that way, I sure didn't mean to imply that in any way.
John


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Zman1001 said:


> Is this a Field Trials are better than Hunt Tests thread??


A little sensitive today, aren't we?

In the past I remember hearing the same thing from friends who were double staking in the am and qual, that the qual was harder than the am that weekend.

I'm getting ready to break my young male out in qual at 2 1/2. I have to admit that looking at where we might run, I've been looking at judges and their background (dogs on entryexpress etc.) to try and get an idea if the set-ups they do might be hunt testy or not. The reason being, I feel that he has a better chance to shine if you throw stuff at him that really takes some cojones to go get. In other words, I don't really want hunt testy.

I felt the same way when he was in derby. I liked my chances when the marks were real SOB's.

Sheesh, now I have to go read that other thread that I've been avoiding.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

John Robinson said:


> I don't know, but as a judge I still set up test that are close to AA stakes in distance and terrain, but simplified regarding diversions, *only one retired* and nothing out of order.
> 
> John



I can think of some set-ups that would be harder with only 1 retired instead of 2.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Depending on your dog and your dog's training... A hunt testy Q could actually be harder than a test set up to be slightly below all age level...

I hate short retired regards,


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

I don't think that Quals are any longer a means to an end, with the end being a competitive all-age dog. Now, I think that the Qual is an end unto itself with many more older dogs and fewer, relative in numbers, up-and-comers on their way to the big stakes. Those dogs seem to run Derby and maybe a couple of Quals while still in or just out of Derby, and then run the big stakes as young dogs. 

Then, there's the let em' all play mentality that seems to be gaining a strong foothold. 

O/H Quals at Hunt Test serve to further the Qual as an end unto itself. Some of the Quals that I've seen over the past few years fit into the "hunty-testy" category with a good number of them favoring the older, more experienced, dog. I like three big marks, exposed preferably, and meaty blinds. Obviously, as grounds and time allow.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Goldenboy said:


> I don't think that Quals are any longer a means to an end, with the end being a competitive all-age dog. Now, I think that the Qual is an end unto itself with many more older dogs and fewer, relative in numbers, up-and-comers on their way to the big stakes. Those dogs seem to run Derby and maybe a couple of Quals while still in or just out of Derby, and then run the big stakes as young dogs.
> 
> Then, there's the let em' all play mentality that seems to be gaining a strong foothold.
> 
> *O/H Quals at Hunt Test serve to further the Qual as an end unto itself*. Some of the Quals that I've seen over the past few years fit into the "hunty-testy" category with a good number of them favoring the older, more experienced, dog. I like three big marks, exposed preferably, and meaty blinds. Obviously, as grounds and time allow.


I am against the whole idea of paring a Qual with a Master HT. Those who want to run a Qual. should have to do so at a FT!!!!

john


----------



## Dave Plesko (Aug 16, 2009)

Heard the Qual at the Tacoma trial last Friday was of the meaty variety. 
Sorry that I had to scratch. Prolly woulda gone out on the waterblind anyway.....


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Dave Plesko said:


> Heard the Qual at the Tacoma trial last Friday was of the meaty variety.
> Sorry that I had to scratch. Prolly woulda gone out on the waterblind anyway.....


Fourth place was won by a nice older Master Hunter. Dog and handler were a very nice team.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

I had the opportunity to run my (and my dog's) first O/H Q this spring. It was fun! We did not make it to the water marks. My dog and I could not 'handle' the water blind. It was a tough blind, but fair, IMO..Some people said it was an amateur or open level blind. I don't think it was. But it _was_ a tough Q blind...We gave it a shot and I will say I was not embarrassed at all that we really 'blew up' on the blind...I plan on entering more Q's (O/H or otherwise) in the future.

If the Q is supposed to be a 'guage' of whether a dog is ready to run open all age stakes, then the tests SHOULD be challenging...

Juli


----------



## Dave Plesko (Aug 16, 2009)

John Robinson said:


> Fourth place was won by a nice older Master Hunter. Dog and handler were a very nice team.


Yep. Know the dog and handler. Reports I recieved are that you and Scott had very good set of Qual tests put together. Thanks for volunteering to judge.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

John Robinson said:


> I hope my post didn't come across that way, I sure didn't mean to imply that in any way.
> John


I certainly didn't get that impression. I thought you came across with a well thought out point.


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> .... But recently with the two young dogs I was running the Q with last summer, I have run into *quite a few dumbed down "hunt-testy" quals*.They were still legit test, but tended to be shorter in length, and some seemed more like a super sized Master's than a simplified AA test.
> 
> ..... On the other hand I don't know how well prepared for the AA a dog strictly running these *hunt-testy quals *will be.
> 
> ...



I did find it typical of a puffer thinking because he runs FT's that he or his dog is superior to a HT dog and handler. I looked up entry express out of curiousity to find you ran your dog in 28 quals in the last 2 years. Guess they weren't dumbed down enough...

The reason you are running 28 quals with one dog is because they were HT dumbed down!! Yeah right!! 

Sorry if I misinterpreted your message. I tried to figure out what you were saying, if you think qualified judges are running dumb tests why didn't you just say it.

Bob


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

the Qualifying stake has never been consistent in difficulty, at least in the 20 years i have been around. it probably never will be.

i have to ask; what makes one "hunt testy"? i have only judged 6 minor stakes so perhaps i am guilty, given my background.-Paul


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Gees Samlab, why you knocking John's dogs and his handling ability.

I read it as he's got two ~4 year old goldens he's been running in Q's for over 2 years. One of them, still a 3 year old, is finishing amateurs.

Seems to me, John wants Q's that'll help him advance his dogs into all age competition, not Q's that are master hunting tests. As a field trialer, I actually understand where he's coming from. Honest, if I wanted to go to a hunt test I'd sign up for a hunt test and not a Q.

Samlab, what would have been a good enough results for John's dogs that would have been good enough for you?


----------



## JeffLusk (Oct 23, 2007)

Howard N said:


> Gees Samlab, why you knocking John's dogs and his handling ability.
> 
> I read it as he's got two ~4 year old goldens he's been running in Q's for over 2 years. One of them, still a 3 year old, is finishing amateurs.
> 
> ...


Sounds like John's doing pretty good to me. Keep it up John


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

I don't know John or his dogs. 

John doesn't have to put down HT to try to make himself look better. If he thinks qual judges are stupid and put on dumb tests, just say it. Why all the "Hunt Testy" BS? 

I'd probably like his dogs, it's the attitude that smells.


----------



## JeffLusk (Oct 23, 2007)

SamLab1 said:


> I don't know John or his dogs.
> 
> John doesn't have to put down HT to try to make himself look better. If he thinks qual judges are stupid and put on dumb tests, just say it. Why all the "Hunt Testy" BS?
> 
> I'd probably like his dogs, it's the attitude that smells.


I dont think in any way he was putting hunt test dogs down. More along the lines of a qual is suppose to get you ready for AA, not a MH test.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

SamLab1 said:


> I don't know John or his dogs.
> 
> John doesn't have to put down HT to try to make himself look better. If he thinks qual judges are stupid and put on dumb tests, just say it. Why all the "Hunt Testy" BS?
> 
> I'd probably like his dogs, it's the attitude that smells.


I really didn't mean it as a slam on HT. I love hunt test. My first two dogs were hunt test dogs, both master hunters, they are a lot of fun and worthwhile. I was asking a legitimate question; as a judge it is hard to set up a test that challenges the up and coming FT dogs trying to get ready for the AA while at the same time keeping the hunt test dogs playing. I think it is definately a good thing for some HT guys and gals to try FTs, we definately need new blood. As I said, that's where I started.

If you run field trials at all, and maybe you do and are better than me, but it is my experience there are a lot more failures than successes. Sorry you took it that way, certainly didn't mean to be disrespectful. I probaly shouldn't have used the term "dumbed down", by that I meant simplified. And it is hard to describe, but having run both field trials and hunt test for many years, I can tell you there were times when I looked out at a qual test and it was remenisent of the Masters I used to run. Actually those test were sometimes more difficult for my more talented dog, he won one early then got JAMs and didn't finish a buch. He actually did better in the AA.

Sorry about the spelling, but I'm in a hurry trying to get to bed.

John


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2010)

SamLab1 said:


> I don't know John or his dogs.
> 
> John doesn't have to put down HT to try to make himself look better. If he thinks qual judges are stupid and put on dumb tests, just say it. Why all the "Hunt Testy" BS?
> 
> I'd probably like his dogs, it's the attitude that smells.


You are SO lucky he is a gentleman. I can guarantee you that John has nothing but the best of intentions for anyone who plays the dog games, no matter what flavor.

As he stated, he has played both the white coat and the camo games. And he is an experienced field trial judge as well.

What can you tell us about your experience?


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

John,

Maybe I'm too sensitive and your not sensitive enough by using the terms you used.

Regardless of that, I've tried both and like both games. Some of the attitudes get under my skin. The dogs are the same breedings for the most part with the biggest difference in preciseness in training and expectations of the dogs. 

To be successfull the object of both is to get the bird in a direct route through factors with no hunt where ever it is thrown, short, medium or long. With dogs today, distance seems to be one of the easiest factors to train, it's all that stuff in between that gets ugly. Long doesn't make it a good test. 

Normally the ones complaining about a test being "Hunt Testy" don't have dogs comfortable getting long or short marks so it's the tests fault. Just my opinion.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2010)

SamLab1 said:


> I've tried both and like both games.


And how is that all going for ya? What does "tried...and like" mean in terms of success?



> Normally the ones complaining about a test being "Hunt Testy" don't have dogs comfortable getting long or short marks so it's the tests fault. Just my opinion.


You are so unprepared for this discussion. I guess you don't know that John had a dog with an Open win. Ever heard of a short check down bird? Probably not. I'm pretty sure his dogs are comfortable getting long and short marks.


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

Melanie Foster said:


> You are SO lucky he is a gentleman. I can guarantee you that John has nothing but the best of intentions for anyone who plays the dog games, no matter what flavor.
> 
> As he stated, he has played both the white coat and the camo games. And he is an experienced field trial judge as well.
> 
> What can you tell us about your experience?


Melanie,

Once again, here we go. Can you read what was said and decide what you believe on your own? I only know what I read, you say nothing about what has been written....what are your beliefs on "Hunt Testy" quals or the "Hunt Testy" National Open a few years ago for that matter? I am assuming you have qualifications to have thoughts other than John is a good guy. I truly believe he is, we just look at the topic differently.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2010)

Hey Howard,

Our "friend" is gone. Think he got skeered? ;-)

Sorry SamLab, see you're back. Will read your post and might even respond.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Felony, if someone isn't a skeered of you, they ain't got no sense.


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

Melanie Foster said:


> And how is that all going for ya? What does "tried...and like" mean in terms of success?
> 
> You are so unprepared for this discussion. I guess you don't know that John had a dog with an Open win. Ever heard of a short check down bird? Probably not. I'm pretty sure his dogs are comfortable getting long and short marks.


Melanie,

I'm not sure you understand what is being discussed, maybe you should start at the beginning. 

Your attempt to attack rather than have original thoughts says alot about you. I'm pretty sure we could have this discussion if you read what it is about.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2010)

SamLab1 said:


> I am assuming you have qualifications.


Qualifications? Hmmm, didn't know those were required to comment on a thread here. I figured it was a free for all.


----------



## Guest (Aug 19, 2010)

Howard N said:


> Felony, if someone isn't a skeered of you, they ain't got no sense.


I have been trying to be so good (for two whole days now)...but this was just not right.


----------



## Riverrun (Jun 8, 2004)

*Field Trial Rules and Standard Procedure for Retrievers*

_“The purpose of a Non-Slip Retriever trial is to determine the _*relative*_ merits of Retrievers in the field.” _

_“Hence, when the stake is completed, several Judges will arrive at their final decision about placings on the basis of _*which dog, relatively, did better work than another*_ in each of the several series.”_

Assuming that the particular Qualifying stake is comprised of dogs that are trained/talented enough to successfully complete both multiple marks and blinds on land and water, the specific tests only need to be difficult enough to *adequately evaluate* the dogs and place them, relative to each other. Whether the Derby, Qualifying, Amateur or Open stake, I feel the goal of the judges should be to adequately test that specific field of dogs so they can be placed relative to each other.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Sorry everybody, I was just trying to put the situation out for discussion that I was just in. My co-judge and I were taken to the grounds on set up day (thursday), shown our grounds, we were judging both the Qual and the Amateur. We were also told that this was an owner-handler Qual, and about half the dogs were hunt test people just trying out FTs and supporting their local club.

Both my co-judge and I thought this was very cool, as we need new blood in our sport and that is the way I started FTs. But then we discussed at length what kind of test to set up. Maybe it is my prejudice, but we both thought an "almost as hard as AA" qual test would be over the head of the average HT dog. On the other hand, first and second place will be QAA, so in our opininon, the test needed to be representative of that.

We ended up setting up hard test and let the chips fall where they may. We ended up with four out of 31 finishing, but a cool old black Lab MH got fourth and a two year old running it's first Q won it.

Now let me ask those of you HT follks just trying FTs. If you were running your MH in a Q would you want straight up hard Q test, or would it be nice to have little lighter test? Would it greatly discourage you to get blown out in the first series? Am I way off base even worrying about it. Like I said, I noticed quite a few, maybe 30% hunt test style quals when I was running them last year. That was the question I was trying to build a discussion around. Not put down HT or HT judging. I usually don't try ti insult people, so I'm sorry I wasn't more articulate.

Thanks for sticking up for me Melanie, just remember, everything will be ok in the end.
Thanks,


----------



## Riverrun (Jun 8, 2004)

John,

I think we have a difference in philosophy when it comes to Qualifying tests.



John Robinson said:


> On the other hand, first and second place will be QAA, so in our opininon, the test needed to be representative of that.


I do believe that at a minimum a Qualifying stake should contain at least one triple, one retired gun, and of course a land and water blind. The difficulty should be adjusted to adequately test the field of dogs. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the tests being representative of QAA? What about the tests being appropriate for the field of dogs? 



John Robinson said:


> We ended up setting up hard test and let the chips fall where they may. We ended up with four out of 31 finishing.


I'm happy to hear you finished 4 dogs, you must have been a little worried. I'm quite unimpressed when judges don't finish 4 dogs, particularly in the Derby and Qualifying. Without seeing the dogs or your tests, I'd have thought you would have finished more dogs and could have awarded some Jam ribbons in a field of 31 Qualifying dogs. As you know, Jam ribbons in the Derby and Qualifying mean very little except to the people that receive them. You mention wanting to encourage new participation in our field trials but I don't think you did that. If you were generous in your callbacks and just set up a very hard water test in the 4th series then I stand corrected. 



John Robinson said:


> Would it greatly discourage you to get blown out in the first series? Am I way off base even worrying about it. Like I said, I noticed quite a few, maybe 30% hunt test style quals when I was running them last year.


I think everyone is quite discouraged when they are blown out in the 1st series especially if it is your introduction to field trials. Depending on the number of entries and the available time, a judge should worry about losing too many dogs in the first series. From my experience, the best judges are able to adjust their tests and make them appropriately harder as the stake proceeds. When you refer to Qualifying tests that are more "hunt testy", do you just mean the length of the marks or the difficulty of the tests?

Cheers,

Tom Simpson

P.S. I remember your tests at our Fairbanks Field Trial being appropriate to our field of dogs. We enjoyed meeting both you and your wife.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Thanks Tom for your input. Your take on the competition to determine placements within the field seems reasonable. I also agree with your assessment that wiping out the majority of the dogs in the first (or even second series) is discouraging. Tests every weekend like that would likely limit those who might be willing to become involved in FT community and are just testing the water - so to speak.

I guess that I was a little confused about this topic. (I am not critiquing anyone). I didn't realize that the qual and becoming QAA, indicated that dog is ready to compete in the Am or Open. And if that is the case, why even have Quals - why not just move into the championship stakes? I don't think that our QAA dogs would be competitive in the Am without continuing/stepping up their training.

My experienced FT friends have spent alot more time training their very nice derby list and QAA dog to prepare for competition in the Am. Also, it seems that many continue to run Qual even after they have recieved many 1st and 2nds...I had assumed it was to gain more experience since the dog really was not ready to move on. If that is not the case, why don't those succcessful folks move on?


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

I agree with Tom and disagree with John. 

I am not really sure what a "hunt testy" qual is. However, I strongly believe you set the test up to adequately test the dogs entered. 

I too began running FTs with my HT dog in the late 90's. I agree that you sometimes heard that the Qual was more difficult than the All-age test. Whether that was really true or not, is debatable. However, I think what has changed the most is the testing and judging of the All-age stakes. The stakes have become larger, the tests much more difficult and participants more accepting of being wiped out by a difficult test than penciled out by the judges. 

The gap between an all-age dog and a qualifying dog today has widened dramatically. It was not uncommon for a derby dog to finish or place an all-age stake. Many of the qual dogs were double staked in the Am. or Open. Today that % is greatly reduced. My 1st 2 FT dogs obtained their QAA status by jamming or placing in Amateurs both after obtaining a MH.

There is just no need to make quals like today's all-age tests. The dogs aren't ready and the fields are not that big. Being QAA doesn't mean any more today than it did 20 years ago! What's the point?


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

There is an easy solution . Hunt testy mutts stay away from the hallowed FT 's . Don't want to contamidated the program. Every time I visit a field trial I leave with a clear understanding there are insiders and the rest of us . Don't go where I'm not welcomed. Had considered running a Q , but the more I check it out the less welcome I feel.


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

john fallon said:


> I am against the whole idea of paring a Qual with a Master HT. Those who want to run a Qual. should have to do so at a FT!!!!
> 
> john


Why John?
Think of the retriever club as being a store, providing a product. Like shoes or belts. The customer buying a hunt test entry is a regular customer. Offering an O/H qualifying may get that customer to do a point of purchase impulse buy of the Q entry as well. That customer may then like the Q and seek out more of them to enter. Meaning more entries for all clubs in the circuit. There will still be stores only selling shoes and only selling belts but in today’s economy, it is convenient to be able to buy both at the same time.


.


----------



## Jim Harvey (Feb 7, 2007)

SueLab said:


> My experienced FT friends have spent alot more time training their very nice derby list and QAA dog to prepare for competition in the Am. Also, it seems that many continue to run Qual even after they have recieved many 1st and 2nds...I had assumed it was to gain more experience


*Only allowed two Q wins.*

A Qualifying Stake, or an Owner-Handler
Qualifying Stake at a Retriever trial shall be for dogs
which have never won first, second, third, or fourth
place or a Judges’ Award of Merit in an Open All-Age,
Limited All-Age, Special All-Age, or Restricted All Age
Stake, or won first, second, third or fourth place in an
Amateur All-Age Stake, or Owner-Handler Amateur All-
Age Stake, or won two first places in Qualifying Stakes
at licensed or member club trials.


----------



## Beverly Burns (Apr 20, 2006)

The qualifying stake should follow the AKC guidlines and the Master Hunt Test should follow thier AKC guidlines. Where it is presented-- be it a Field Trial or Hunt test shouldn't matter. You will always get variations of a stake due to the grounds, the field of competitors, and the judges preference of set-ups. That goes for all competitions. Frankly, anything you can do with your dog to promote learning, teaching, testing and the bond you share and develope with them is good. We are happy and have encouraged our home club of Ohio Valley to include a Q in their Hunt next spring.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

wojo said:


> There is an easy solution . Hunt testy mutts stay away from the hallowed FT 's . Don't want to contamidated the program. Every time I visit a field trial I leave with a clear understanding there are insiders and the rest of us . Don't go where I'm not welcomed. Had considered running a Q , but the more I check it out the less welcome I feel.


Hi wojo,

I know that I personally did myself a disservice for my first many years in dog games. I took some generalizations and opinions shared with me by some folks when I first got in the game, way too literally.

I spent several years thinking some very wrong things about Field Trial events and Field Trial people.

I'm glad I came around to giving it a try. I've met some wonderful friends at Field Trials, just like I did at hunt tests. I've also found that you can find clique-ish jerks in any group, be it a weekend hobby event, or in the workplace.

I'll be judging an HRC test and running quals both next month. I'm expecting to have a great time doing both!

Chris


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Rainmaker said:


> The biggest thing that still sticks out in my mind from the Q at the HT was that the gallery/handlers were clapping after good runs, right up until a FTer walked thru and said loudly and sarcastically that they could tell it was a HT crowd. After that, it got pretty quiet.
> 
> 
> Respectfully,


I don't know, I see people clapping in the gallery at field trials all the time. The guy who made the comments sounds like a jack azz to me. Shame on everyone for going quiet because of anything that comes out of the mouth of a jack azz.





wojo said:


> There is an easy solution . Hunt testy mutts stay away from the hallowed FT 's . Don't want to contamidated the program. Every time I visit a field trial I leave with a clear understanding there are insiders and the rest of us . Don't go where I'm not welcomed. Had considered running a Q , but the more I check it out the less welcome I feel.


I'm new around dog games in general. I picked field trials because I just plain like the idea of picking winners and placements as opposed to getting passes. I don't know why I feel that way, I just do. I know the feeling you get by getting smoked in the first series. But it doesn't get me down. I feel that I have good dogs, and getting smoked just motivates me to redouble my efforts in training. To each his own.

Anyhow, when I first started showing up at trials, I never felt the insider vs. the rest type vibes. Who knows, maybe the experience one has is to some extent driven by their preconceived expectations...


----------



## Jim Harvey (Feb 7, 2007)

wojo said:


> There is an easy solution . Hunt testy mutts stay away from the hallowed FT 's . Don't want to contamidated the program. Every time I visit a field trial I leave with a clear understanding there are insiders and the rest of us . Don't go where I'm not welcomed. Had considered running a Q , but the more I check it out the less welcome I feel.


Wojo, I've heard your concern before. I also notice you migrate back and forth from WI to FL. If you happen to be in FL during Jan of 2011 you may want to consider the Treasure Coast RC Q, I believe the second week.

I will make a deal with you, should you happen to attend and don't feel *VERY *welcome, I will personally, give you back your entry fee 2X.


----------



## SueLab (Jul 27, 2003)

Jim Harvey said:


> *Only allowed two Q wins.*
> 
> A Qualifying Stake, or an Owner-Handler
> Qualifying Stake at a Retriever trial shall be for dogs
> ...


Yes, I do know that and should have worded the comment differently: many have a first, second, numerous other placements and JAMs.


----------



## Art Stoner (Nov 18, 2007)

Jim Harvey said:


> Wojo, I've heard your concern before. I also notice you migrate back and forth from WI to FL. If you happen to be in FL during Jan of 2011 you may want to consider the Treasure Coast RC Q, I believe the second week.
> 
> I will make a deal with you, should you happen to attend and don't feel *VERY *welcome, I will personally, give you back your entry fee 2X.


Jim

Does that go for me too?

Art:razz:


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Art Stoner said:


> Jim
> 
> Does that go for me too?
> 
> Art:razz:


Make sure and reserve judgement until after the 4th series concludes...


----------



## junbe (Apr 12, 2003)

Jim Harvey said:


> *Only allowed two Q wins.*
> 
> A Qualifying Stake, or an Owner-Handler
> Qualifying Stake at a Retriever trial shall be for dogs
> ...


Read this rule very carefully. You will see by rule there is a difference in the number of wins you can have in a qualifying versus an owner-handler qualifying. This rule was brought to the AKC delegate body and passed as written. The minutes at the next meeting were approved. 

Jack


----------



## T Farmer (Aug 27, 2008)

I love big bowed up tests. I like walking up to the line saying "holy $h!#" I hope we can do this!!!


----------



## John Montenieri (Jul 6, 2009)

I've judged several Q's and in my mind you have to best utilize the terrain. I judged an AM 3 weeks ago and our longest bird in the first series triple was 188yds. Distance isn't necessarily the first option, a well placed bird is. Now the land that we had access to was limited, but we got answers on all 3 birds. The other thing to consider is the field of entries as a whole. If you've only got HT folks in a O/H qual on a HT weekend, why kill them in the first series just to make a statement. You can challenge a field without making an impossible test. As far as the attitudes of FT vs HT people, there will always be those that think themselves better than others in both venues. My feeling is and always will be, good luck to whom ever is running, even if I want to win a FT, I always say good luck and mean it. If folks wouldn't worry about someone else and just practice good manners, friendly attitudes it will catch on. Honestly most of the FT folks I know and train with behave in that manner. I don't care if you only run HT, that is where I started. I want people to be involved in the sports, support the clubs and be better for it. Sorry for the rant but honestly, we are in this to have fun correct??


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Buzz said:


> Make sure and reserve judgement until after the 4th series concludes...


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

junbe said:


> Read this rule very carefully. You will see by rule there is a difference in the number of wins you can have in a qualifying versus an owner-handler qualifying. This rule was brought to the AKC delegate body and passed as written. The minutes at the next meeting were approved.
> 
> Jack


From the rule quoted:

"or won first, second, third or fourth place in an
Amateur All-Age Stake, or Owner-Handler Amateur All-
Age Stake"

I still think there is some confusion here. The rule quoted above refers to an Owner handled AMATEUR trial, not a Qualifying. It still takes TWO wins in a Qual to be required to move on. Only one in an Amateur, be it owner handler or not. Am I reading this correctly?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Riverrun said:


> John,
> 
> I think we have a difference in philosophy when it comes to Qualifying tests.
> 
> ...


Hi Tom,

Thanks for adressing the spirit of the question. You're right, it is more philisophical as to what direction judges should take when judging an owner handler qual that seems geared for at least half hunt test dogs. I can't believe people still think I'm anti HT dogs in FTs, I'll state it once more, I started in HTs, my first QAA dog was a master hunter, I think we need new blood in FTs and the HT pool is a natural place to look for that, dogs are dogs and I really-really like good dogs and good dog work. I really fell in love with the relationship that old school HT guy had with his old MH, I was pulling for him through the whole trial, I was stoked when he finished and placed.

Tom you can't generalize what a FT should be as for number of birds, our last series was a very tough stand up double, four out of six finished the test, one of four handled. For the record, we called back 18 of 31 from the first with three scratches, 14 got to run the water blind and six went to the last series. I agree that you judge the field, don't forget half our dogs were FT dogs with a few very high powered ones, so I think we did that.

Anyway, the issue I'm trying to address is; should an OH Qual be adjusted in difficulty versus the old school FT Qual? BTW, the reason I asked in the first place wasn't because I was totally commited to the way we did it, as I said my co-judge and I discussed the issue at length before deciding to just set up a "normal" if there is any such thing, Qual. I was throwing the topic out for discussion because I knew we had to think about it. Thanks for the more reasoned and thoughtful responses. I'm off to Roberts to run, so won't be back until late Sunday hopefully.

John


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

2tall said:


> From the rule quoted:
> 
> "or won first, second, third or fourth place in an
> Amateur All-Age Stake, or Owner-Handler Amateur All-
> ...


I think what Jack is saying is that you can win owner-handler quals at Hunt tests forever and still be able to run quals.


----------



## Jim Harvey (Feb 7, 2007)

Art Stoner said:


> Jim
> 
> Does that go for me too?
> 
> Art:razz:


So Art, for you only: "Should you come to TCRC FT 2011 and not feel welcome I will personally pay you $1,000".

Only good for you and Mav, you must stay with me and *you and Mav can't whip up on us at FT!* What do you say?



Sorry, for hijacking this thread.


----------



## Jim Scarborough (May 5, 2007)

John Robinson said:


> but as a judge I still set up test that are close to AA stakes in distance and terrain, but simplified regarding diversions, only one retired and nothing out of order.
> 
> John


I think John is right on the mark. A Qualifying Stake is a field trial stake and should be run and judged as such. But the Q is also supposed to be a stepping stone to all-age stakes and, as such, should not be quite as difficult as the Open or the Amateur, which is reflected in John's use of only one retired gun and nothing shot out of order. IMO, this is the right philosophy for judging the Qual.

Judging and setting up a Qualifying Stake is a balancing act, but it should be balanced between being representative of all age field trial work without being too difficult for two-year-old pups just advancing out of the Derby, using field trial distances and field trial values.

Trying to balance Hunt Test attributes with Field Trial values is the wrong approach. The Qual is a field trial event and should be judged that way. Hunt Test participants with Master Hunter dogs want to show that they are capable of doing field trial work, and to stage some hybrid test designed with hunt test parameters does not accomplish this.

I am not a field trial snob, by any means, but I think that many people in selecting a puppy use the QAA designation as an important supplement to a Master Hunter title when looking at pedigrees. That QAA designation, those ***'s, means that dog has shown the ability to do all-age work, as well as the talent to acquire a MH title. It's an important tool for both breeders and buyers, as long as the quality of that non-title is preserved.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

John Robinson said:


> Anyway, the issue I'm trying to address is; should an OH Qual be adjusted in difficulty versus the old school FT Qual?


Yes, I think so. In FTs unlike HTs the Standard is set by the field of dogs. I don't think it is the Qual judge's job to determine whether or not any particular dog is ready to run all-age stakes!


----------



## Riverrun (Jun 8, 2004)

Doug Main said:


> I think what Jack is saying is that you can win owner-handler quals at Hunt tests forever and still be able to run quals.


_"At the election of the trial giving club, an Owner-Handler Qualifying Stake may be run without a companion Derby Stake when it is run in conjunction with a Hunting Test event that includes a Master Hunt Stake."_​

I'm under the impression that the Owner-Handler Qualifying stake at a Hunt Test is a Licensed Field Trial Qualifying stake and hence the same rules apply as when a Qualifying stake is held in conjunction with a field trial. ​


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

There will always be variations in the nature of testing at any stake, whether it be the Open, Am, Qual, or Derby.

I am okay with variations within the bell shaped curve
Some judges will set up tests where a good percentage of the dogs don't get the chickens. No chickens, no call backs.
Other set up tests where most dogs get the chickens, but not all of those who get the chickens, get called back

As you play the game longer, you learn which style you prefer and the judges who suit your preferences

As long as the tests are fundamentally sound, and the judges are not political, it's all good


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

To my mind "hunt testy Q"= O/H Q. As mentioned I think the goal is to expose some of the upper level hunt test participants to the field trial game. If over half the field is MH's then the O/H is a sucess.

I am an admitted rank beginner in the field trial world having run a grand total of 3 Q's and 2 derbies. 2 of the Q's were O/H's. My profile seems to fit.

In an O/H Q I like to see a first series that is achievable for my dogs. If close to half the field carries I cannot see anyone having a reason to complain. The land and water blinds are expected to be more difficult with real difficult water marks if many are called back. Generousity with the JAM ribbons is greaty appreciated. I own two of the greenies and they mean a lot to me but little to the rest of the world.

My one trip to a regular Q made it clear that there is a reason the upper level field trial pros earn high monthly training fees. They are much better handlers and maintain higher standards with their dogs. I harbor no illusions that I can beat them at their own game.

The reason I keep returning for more is with each Q holes are exposed in my training. It improves my training and handling. So you can expect me to run a few 0/H Q's this fall.
Mark Land


----------



## bcollins (Nov 14, 2007)

Jim Harvey said:


> Wojo, I've heard your concern before. I also notice you migrate back and forth from WI to FL. If you happen to be in FL during Jan of 2011 you may want to consider the Treasure Coast RC Q, I believe the second week.
> 
> I will make a deal with you, should you happen to attend and don't feel *VERY *welcome, I will personally, give you back your entry fee 2X.


Jim will you pay my entry fee in ATL i will only run three dogs.


Brady


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

At the risk of projecting elitism I find it interesting that the minorest of minor field trial stakes has 2 concurrent threads occupying so much discussion


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

EdA said:


> At the risk of projecting elitism I find it interesting that the minorest of minor field trial stakes has 2 concurrent threads occupying so much discussion


Are you new here? Haven't you noticed how many threads there always are devoted to the minorest of the HTs, the JH.


----------



## Jim Scarborough (May 5, 2007)

Doug Main said:


> Yes, I think so. In FTs unlike HTs the Standard is set by the field of dogs. I don't think it is the Qual judge's job to determine whether or not any particular dog is ready to run all-age stakes!


The express purpose of the Qualifying Stake is to identify those dogs who are ready to begin All-Age competition, and to provide a transition between the Derby and All-Age stakes.


----------



## Jim Harvey (Feb 7, 2007)

bcollins said:


> Jim will you pay my entry fee in ATL i will only run three dogs.
> 
> 
> Brady


OK, my beloved friends enough of this tomfoolerly,.....

Brady, I was thinking about buying the BEER for you in ATL but after a quick calculation it may be cheaper for me to pay for the $210 in entry fees instead.

I thinking to go with the $210, will get back with ya,...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Is it really that surprising that the most attention would be garnered at the entry level for most newcomers to HT or FT?


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Is it really that surprising that the most attention would be garnered at the entry level for most newcomers to HT or FT?


except most of the posters to this discussion are not entry level, indeed several are 8 point judges....


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Jim Scarborough said:


> The express purpose of the Qualifyiang Stake is to identify those dogs who are ready to begin All-Age competition, and to provide a transition between the Derby and All-Age stakes.


That "purpose" is found where in the FT rules? 

While you are looking, refresh me on what the requirements are to enter an Open, or an Amateur or an owner-handler amateur *ALL-AGE* stakes? Being QAA is not a requirement. ;-)

I've run and placed in *ALL-AGE* stakes with dogs that have never placed 1st or 2nd in a Qual. I've even run and finished dogs without a Qualifying 1st or 2nd in Limited, Specials and Restricted ALL-Age stakes.


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

I'm wondering if the reason there are so many people wanting to move up from running hunt test to entering quals is the quality of the dogs running HT's my first dog although she was a great dog I would have never tried to run her in a qaul my new dog is out of good FT breeding and has the ability to run FT type setups I see more and more people buying good FT bred dogs for HT's where as when I first got in to HT's people where happy to get a dog out of a MH/JH breeding there are also a lot more good training books and DVDs out there which have helped to raise the level of training for the average handler.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Doug Main said:


> ...
> I've run and placed in *ALL-AGE* stakes with dogs that have never placed 1st or 2nd in a Qual. I've even run and finished dogs without a Qualifying 1st or 2nd in Limited, Specials and Restricted ALL-Age stakes.



Any dog (of a given age) can enter an All-Age Stake and any dog can run in a Limited All-Age Stake if the dog is QAA. And a dog can be QAA without ever entering a Qualifying Stake. So, you haven't done anything contrary to what the rules allow...

Unless the dog that you ran in Limited was not QAA.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Not saying that anyone has this as a motive for running O/H Qualifying but...

People like to put letters next to the dog's name when they are advertising litters for sale...

Might someone with ambitions of breeding a dog believe having that QAA designation make their stud fee higher, their litter more valuable, or at least make the pups easier to sell? And might they also believe that it would be easier to get that QAA designation at a HT rather than at a FT?

Just asking...


----------



## SamLab1 (Jul 24, 2003)

Would you rather run a FT 13 dog O/H Qual in Montana or a 43 dog HT O/H Qual in Texas? Typically much higher numbers at the HT. 

Just asking...


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

SamLab1 said:


> Would you rather run a FT 13 dog O/H Qual in Montana or a 43 dog HT O/H Qual in Texas? Typically much higher numbers at the HT.
> 
> Just asking...


Probably never happen but...
I'd rather run and win an 80 dog qual in Wisconsin/Minnesota after all the pros have returned. If I did that, then I'd know my dog and I had really accomplished something.


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

captainjack said:


> *Any dog (of a given age) can enter an All-Age Stake* and any dog can run in a Limited All-Age Stake if the dog is QAA. And a dog can be *QAA without ever entering a Qualifying Stake*. So, you haven't done anything contrary to what the rules allow...
> 
> Unless the dog that you ran in Limited was not QAA.


That was my point! The qual is not a bar for entry to all-age stakes. There is no title. Points don't count for anything. Its purpose is to give those dogs that are not ready/good enough to compete in the all-age stakes and too old for the derby someplace to compete. Nothing more.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> Its purpose is to give those dogs that are not ready/good enough to compete in the all-age stakes and too old for the derby someplace to compete. Nothing more.


that's it in a nutshell...


----------



## duckdawg27 (Apr 30, 2007)

If it is tough enough to give the judges the answers and separation they need then.............


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

SamLab1 said:


> Would you rather run a FT 13 dog O/H Qual in Montana or a 43 dog HT O/H Qual in Texas? Typically much higher numbers at the HT.
> 
> Just asking...


I'd rather run close to home under good judges, big or small wouldn't matter much to me.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

wojo said:


> There is an easy solution . Hunt testy mutts stay away from the hallowed FT 's . Don't want to contamidated the program. Every time I visit a field trial I leave with a clear understanding there are insiders and the rest of us . Don't go where I'm not welcomed. Had considered running a Q , but the more I check it out the less welcome I feel.



I have been to FT's from all over the country and always felt welcome. People have been helpful and friendly. The only time I have see people get pissy is when someone who has obviously never been to a FT but make stupid comments about something they know little about. If you want to compete than give it a go. You should be prepared as most dont have success often and some never. I hope you try it and like it.


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

Ok .I can't judge Field Trials so I have a question for those that do.Do you look at the book and see what dogs and handlers are going to run the Q to be set up? If its Farmer,Rorem,Mosher ect. is that taken into consideration? If its 30 Hunt test dogs with 16 MH dogs with owner handlers is that considered.I would rather run against the best dogs and handlers,on a trial that is indicative of that.....just me.You hear comments like "this is s baby dog derby" or a " hunt test Q" and since this discussion is up here I thought I would ask.My first reply to those comments is "dog to the line mota scoota.....cause you will surely WIN !!"


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

junbe said:


> Read this rule very carefully. You will see by rule there is a difference in the number of wins you can have in a qualifying versus an owner-handler qualifying. This rule was brought to the AKC delegate body and passed as written. The minutes at the next meeting were approved.
> 
> Jack


Thanks for bringing that to our (my) attention Jack. It never entered my mind that an owner handler Q wouldn't count just as much as a regular Q for Q'ing out.

I actually had to look at the book to see if an owner handler Q'd dog counted as one of the 12 Q'd dogs we need to have a legal all age stake. They do (whew).


----------



## Kevinismybrother (Aug 3, 2009)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Doug Main
> Its purpose is to give those dogs that are not ready/good enough to compete in the all-age stakes and too old for the derby someplace to compete. Nothing more.
> 
> that's it in a nutshell...


Here is my question for you - What venue would you both suggest then for someone who is currently engaged at the Master level of HT to test the FT waters to see if, as a handler, they can or want to compete with "the big boys" with the current MH or by getting a more talented dog? Are you suggesting that such a person just jump into an Open or AM to try it out? 
To me, for what it's worth, I'd rather run a Q to get to run a blind or two and see the water marks, than get blown out in the first series of an Open and not get the feel as a handler what it takes to compete in a later series. I KNOW the dog I have running Master can't compete in an Open, but I am interested in finding out if I as a handler want to try the FT game or not.



> I'd rather run close to home under good judges, big or small wouldn't matter much to me.


Ted, I coudln't agree more - no matter what venue or level. Line 'em up and let's run 'em


----------



## junbe (Apr 12, 2003)

Howard N said:


> Thanks for bringing that to our (my) attention Jack. It never entered my mind that an owner handler Q wouldn't count just as much as a regular Q for Q'ing out.
> 
> I actually had to look at the book to see if an owner handler Q'd dog counted as one of the 12 Q'd dogs we need to have a legal all age stake. They do (whew).


I find it very interesting when one critically reads the rules. For example try chapter 2 (the definition of a licensed trial). Then look at the rule that says game birds are required for licensed trials (member clubs apparently are exempt by this rule). And there are many other places where I find the rule book has lapses. Whether these are premeditated, or just out of ignorance, I'm not sure.

Jack


----------



## moonstonelabs (Mar 17, 2006)

Well, here are my two cents on Quals. First I started in the HT game and qualifed a dog for a master national in 98 I believe. She ( Libby) went on to be an AFC. I haven't run HT since.

When I was first asked to judge a Qual I asked two close friends what they expected/wanted when they judged the "Q". Now, both individuals had judged FT nationals and had titled dogs in HT's and FT's.....and trained their own dogs. This is what I got backne said "the "Q" is a steping stone for those crossing over to FTs. The test's should be of moderate difficulty but not over the top. We do not want to discourage new folks/dogs from enjoying their ft experience. The other said " the winner and second place finisher are All Age qualified and should be ready to run in all age stakes. Test them accordingly".

Turns out both were right. As John Robinson pointed out the "Q" is probable the most difficult stake to judge.....because it is BOTH a steping stone and the first two placements earn All Age designations. 

I have stopped running "Q"s because of the extrem varability in set ups. Might as well season my dogs running in AA stakes. I see the great value of "Q"s being experience for the handler and dog ( blinds/retired guns/on and off points, etc).

Bill


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

Jim Harvey said:


> Wojo, I've heard your concern before. I also notice you migrate back and forth from WI to FL. If you happen to be in FL during Jan of 2011 you may want to consider the Treasure Coast RC Q, I believe the second week.
> 
> I will make a deal with you, should you happen to attend and don't feel *VERY *welcome, I will personally, give you back your entry fee 2X.


Jim if the mutts are ready I just might give you a call and take you up on your offer. I play the camo and black coat games will try the white coat game next. I hunt 80-90 days a year so my priority is hunting. The dog games are just that a game for me. No more comments from me, don't like getting slamed by folks who don't know me or why I play the dog games.


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I'd rather run close to home under good judges, big or small wouldn't matter much to me.


And if the good judges arent close to home I will travel. Rather run under good judges than any other variable.


I am not sure why the original attacker and his spouse are so bitter towards the FT community. They have dabbled with FT had some palcements in minor stakes but couldnt, wouldnt, didnt want to keep playing. Knowing them personaly they have a chip on their shoulders towards FT's.

John I think your original question is great. Having judged a few Qual and other stakes, I do believe it is the toughest to set up a challanging test that doesnt overwhelm the field.


----------



## Riverrun (Jun 8, 2004)

Riverrun said:


> _"At the election of the trial giving club, an Owner-Handler Qualifying Stake may be run without a companion Derby Stake when it is run in conjunction with a Hunting Test event that includes a Master Hunt Stake."_​
> 
> 
> I'm under the impression that the Owner-Handler Qualifying stake at a Hunt Test is a Licensed Field Trial Qualifying stake and hence the same rules apply as when a Qualifying stake is held in conjunction with a field trial. ​


Jack or Howard,

Can you clear this up for me, I don't see the difference between an OHQ at the Hunt Test and the Q at a Field Trial.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

EdA said:


> except most of the posters to this discussion are not entry level, indeed several are 8 point judges....


not such a bad thing Doc, helps us newer folks get an idea what's going through the heads of those who sit in the chair...


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> not such a bad thing Doc, helps us newer folks get an idea what's going through the heads of those who sit in the chair...


Experience and wisdom do not always run concurrently

Everyone experienced is not necessarily wise.

Everyone wise is not necessarily experienced.

Experience and wisdom combined is a very good combination.

Experienced and Wise Regards


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

EdA said:


> Experience and wisdom do not always run concurrently
> 
> Everyone experienced is not necessarily wise.
> 
> ...


In all walks of life  

Choose thy mentors wisely regards,


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> Why John?
> Think of the retriever club as being a store, providing a product. Like shoes or belts. The customer buying a hunt test entry is a regular customer. Offering an O/H qualifying may get that customer to do a point of purchase impulse buy of the Q entry as well. That customer may then like the Q and seek out more of them to enter. Meaning more entries for all clubs in the circuit. There will still be stores only selling shoes and only selling belts but in today’s economy, it is convenient to be able to buy both at the same time.
> 
> 
> .


Putting aside my origional statement for a moment........ why is the Q sold at this store an OH version rather than a just a Q ?

john


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

john fallon said:


> Putting aside my origional statement for a moment........ why is the Q sold at this store an OH version rather than a just a Q ?
> 
> john


I do not know John,
And a valid question indeed.
I hypothesize it is to get Bubba the duck guide and Miss Molly Minivan, who are running dogs in AKC master. To enter their first field trial. And in an effort to make it a weeee bit les intimidating have it be an owner/handler Q. Personally, the last Q I ran a dog in I thought it was such a hoot to look in the holding blind behind me and see Mr. Roberts. A very well respected pro who bounces between Maryland and Stowe, Vt. And to look to the line and see Kate Simonds. The pucker factor was pretty intense. Don’t know if I would have felt the same in-between Molly Minivan and Bubba the guide. But that’s just me. I think the product being sold is marketed to the get your feet wet in a friendly way, crowd. I am pushing for the club I am a member of to add one to our AKC hunt test next year. I think it is a good product and has it’s place.


.


----------



## Christa McCoy (Jan 29, 2010)

Ken Bora said:


> I do not know John,
> And a valid question indeed.
> I hypothesize it is to get Bubba the duck guide and Miss Molly Minivan, who are running dogs in AKC master. To enter their first field trial. And in an effort to make it a weeee bit les intimidating have it be an owner/handler Q. Personally, the last Q I ran a dog in I thought it was such a hoot to look in the holding blind behind me and see Mr. Roberts. A very well respected pro who bounces between Maryland and Stowe, Vt. And to look to the line and see Kate Simonds. The pucker factor was pretty intense. Don’t know if I would have felt the same in-between Molly Minivan and Bubba the guide. But that’s just me. I think the product being sold is marketed to the get your feet wet in a friendly way, crowd. I am pushing for the club I am a member of to add one to our AKC hunt test next year. I think it is a good product and has it’s place.
> 
> ...


After the Molly Minivan comment I am really going to fight my husband on the subject of our next vehicle purchase. I know I have three kids but I don't want a van... he does because he doesn't have to drive it. Off subject I know... sorry!


----------



## Marty Lee (Mar 30, 2009)

Christa McCoy said:


> After the Molly Minivan comment I am really going to fight my husband on the subject of our next vehicle purchase. I know I have three kids but I don't want a van... he does because he doesn't have to drive it. Off subject I know... sorry!


get you a four door Jeep girl my fiancee has one and it is TOUGH. Let down the backseats and there is lots of room for dog crates. we haul 3 dogs in hers regularly


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

john fallon said:


> Putting aside my origional statement for a moment........ why is the Q sold at this store an OH version rather than a just a Q ?
> 
> john


LOL O/H in the title only works for people who have never been there to run against pros who also happen to own, or co-own dogs...

At that point one realizes that if they want to play competitively... You just enter with a judge you trust will put up a good test and don't worry about whose there that weekend.

I agree with Ken, John... The Q adds a revenue generator for the club's test and gives anyone who travels an additional stake for thier master level dogs.... Keeping it to O/H in that venue just maximizes participation IMHO...

As you know I skipped over the O/H opportunity this year and came right back to run the standard Q three weeks later. Makes no difference to me as I am looking at the amatuer and the open long term where there are 100's of pro trained dogs to run against. Even in the AM or the O/H stake the clients tend to have thier pro stnding there to help them layout strategy and so forth, so there's no gettin away from it.

Dog to the line and let's go, good bad or indifferent, it's always fun.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

I don't understand the aversion to running against the pros. I've seen plenty of them blow the sit whistle and yell, "NO, HERE!" LOL


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Buzz said:


> I don't understand the aversion to running against the pros. I've seen plenty of them blow the sit whistle and yell, "NO, HERE!" LOL


I had one sit thier dog out of sight in the exact same hole I did last time I ran BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> I do not know John,
> And a valid question indeed.
> I hypothesize it is to get Bubba the duck guide and Miss Molly Minivan, who are running dogs in AKC master. To enter their first field trial. And in an effort to make it a weeee bit les intimidating have it be an owner/handler Q. Personally, the last Q I ran a dog in I thought it was such a hoot to look in the holding blind behind me and see Mr. Roberts. A very well respected pro who bounces between Maryland and Stowe, Vt. And to look to the line and see Kate Simonds. The pucker factor was pretty intense. Don’t know if I would have felt the same in-between Molly Minivan and Bubba the guide. But that’s just me. I think the product being sold is marketed to the get your feet wet in a friendly way, crowd. I am pushing for the club I am a member of to add one to our AKC hunt test next year. I think it is a good product and has it’s place.
> 
> ...


I could not disagree more , in my estimation a Q, to rightfully be one, 
should be held at a FT.........


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

john fallon said:


> Putting aside my origional statement for a moment........ why is the Q sold at this store an OH version rather than a just a Q ?
> 
> john



Because this "store" would be more likely to attract OH dogs most likely. I am sure that there have been HT that had a straight up Q as well, clubs are going to run what works best for them.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

john fallon said:


> I could not disagree more , in my estimation a Q, to rightfully be one,
> should be held at a FT.........


because? 

rationale please


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> because?
> 
> rationale please


The dog is Qualifying to run in a limited or special which are 2 of the restricted AA stakes at a FT, It has nothing to do with a HT... nothing, zilch, nodda .......

Nothing more nothing less regards

john


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

John,
Why does it matter if the Q is held at a field trial with an Open and Am. And Derby happening the same weekend, or at a Derby/Q or at a hunt test/Q????? If the judges are qualified and the grounds are good and the workers frisky? A Q is a Q is a Q, isn’t it? No matter where it may have been held? What if a club hosting a field trial decided to have an AKC Master at the same time? If you have the rescores and are ordering the birds anyway, what’s the diff???
Help me learn what your driving at please.



.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> John,
> Why does it matter if the Q is held at a field trial with an Open and Am. And Derby happening the same weekend, or at a Derby/Q or at a hunt test/Q????? If the judges are qualified and the grounds are good and the workers frisky? A Q is a Q is a Q, isn’t it? No matter where it may have been held? What if a club hosting a field trial decided to have an AKC Master at the same time? If you have the rescores and are ordering the birds anyway, what’s the diff???
> Help me learn what your driving at please.
> 
> ...


http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showpost.php?p=662838&postcount=1
The first two paragraps about sum it up.

It is not a Q in my book without regard to the quality of the judging or the calaber of the tests. It lacks the compition of the hot young dogs off the A list pros trucks .

john



john


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

john fallon said:


> ...... It lacks the compition of the hot young dogs off the A list pros trucks .
> john


By that logic a winner of a 14 dog Q in the summer in Alaska is less qualified than a winner of a 64 dog Q in the winter on the snow bird circuit.




.


----------



## Leddyman (Nov 27, 2007)

SamLab1 said:


> I don't know John or his dogs.
> 
> John doesn't have to put down HT to try to make himself look better. If he thinks qual judges are stupid and put on dumb tests, just say it. Why all the "Hunt Testy" BS?
> 
> I'd probably like his dogs, it's the attitude that smells.


Sounds to me like somebody has a little sand on their clitoris. John wasn't putting anybody down and he makes a valid point.

That sand sure is irritating ain't it?


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

john fallon said:


> http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showpost.php?p=662838&postcount=1
> The first two paragraps about sum it up.
> 
> It is not a Q in my book without regard to the quality of the judging or the calaber of the tests. It lacks the compition of the hot young dogs off the A list pros trucks .
> ...


Don't know about the rest of ya but this sure makes me feel like working my ass off for the rich white folks. If someone gets a minit sure would appreciate someone explaining to this RNT what compition and calaber is.

PWTT regards

Bubba


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> By that logic a winner of a 14 dog Q in the summer in Alaska *is less qualified *than a winner of a 64 dog Q in the winter on the snow bird circuit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Less qualified to do what ? How many limiteds or specials do they have in Alaska? 

Breed to an FC/AFC and ask a bunch of money for the pups thats probabaly a little more on point ,

john


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

john fallon said:


> Less qualified to do what ?....
> john


um this..



john fallon said:


> .....The dog is Qualifying to run in a limited or special which are 2 of the restricted AA stakes at a FT, .......
> ...........Nothing more nothing less regards...........
> 
> john


but if that blue, in a less qualifued Q sparks a life time of running dogs.....


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Bubba said:


> Don't know about the rest of ya but this sure makes me feel like working my ass off for the rich white folks. *If someone gets a minit sure would appreciate someone explaining to this RNT what compition and calaber is.*
> PWTT regards
> 
> Bubba


It's piss poor spelling and a broken spell checker... but if you can't figure what they mean, send me a PM and I'll get someone to spell them correctly for you.

john


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

Howard N said:


> Felony, if someone isn't a skeered of you, they ain't got no sense.


I ain't skeered of her Howard .But I don't get into it with her when I can't win either !!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> um this..
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by john fallon
> ...


I read and understand Steve Canyon and can read between the lines on Pogo but Your going to have to explain what you are talking about


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Haven't you learned by now not to feed the trolls?

Why argue with someone who cannot spell but criticizes everyone else's spelling?
Why argue with someone who wouldn't know consistency if it ran over him in the street, yet insists that your arguments display it, when his never do?

In short, why feed the trolls?


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Haven't you learned by now not to feed the trolls?
> 
> Why argue with someone who cannot spell but criticizes everyone else's spelling?
> Why argue with someone who wouldn't know consistency if it ran over him in the street, yet insists that your arguments display it, when his never do?
> ...


Ted you are such an ingrate ... how soon you forget all the things I've done for you. Like when Joe S ran you off and I talked you in to returning to the Forum, And back in about '04 when you didn't think that you would ever be qualified to judge I told you to keep the faith that you would get there by and by and............

Say Ted Shih 10 times real fast regards

john


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Why John? Why ever would you think I was referring to you?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Ted you are such an ingrate ... how soon you forget all the things I've done for you. Like when Joe S ran you off and I talked you in to returning to the Forum, And back in about '04 when you didn't think that you would ever be qualified to judge I told you to keep the faith that you would get there by and by and............
> 
> Say Ted Shih 10 times real fast regards
> 
> john


Watch the personal attacks....


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Why John? Why ever would you think I was referring to you?



Sorry. My bad.

john


----------



## Brian Cockfield (Jun 4, 2003)

DarrinGreene said:


> Depending on your dog and your dog's training... A hunt testy Q could actually be harder than a test set up to be slightly below all age level...
> 
> I hate short retired regards,


I hate a pesky short retired too Darrin.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

whole lot of testostrerone flowing here.....now we have people arguing that their QAA dog is better than someone elses QAA dog because they feel a trial licensed by the AKC doesn't meet THEIR OWN standards. I WOULD THINK THIS ARGUMENT WOULD BE BEST SETTLED AT AN ALL-AGE TRIAL, not on the internet.

the next time i see a post where somebody writes "it's all about the dogs" i'll be linking back to this thread.

and i still have not seen anyone describe a "hunt testy Q" that they have run, despite having asked way back in post #15. 

the things that seperate FT'S and HT'S would NEVER find their way into a qualifying stake. things like a TRUE walk-up series of marks, bulldog diversion birds, remote sends to marks and blinds, diversion shots as the dog returns from the first bird of a triple, running from a boat, several dozen decoys to negotiate, hidden gun marks.

frequently, the most difficult bird in even all-age trials is a well-placed mark at a distance of 100-150 yards, so distance alone really doesn't define what a trial is. the defining feature is head to head competition. the make-up of the field is beyond the competitors control. there are definitely pro-trained dogs run by their owners at these events. you show up and try to do the very best job you and your dog are capable of regardless of who else is there.

i see no value in casting aspersions on owner-handler Q's, unless it is trying to discourage people to try something new.-Paul


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

Goldenboy said:


> I don't think that Quals are any longer a means to an end, with the end being a competitive all-age dog. Now, I think that the Qual is an end unto itself with many more older dogs and fewer, relative in numbers, up-and-comers on their way to the big stakes. Those dogs seem to run Derby and maybe a couple of Quals while still in or just out of Derby, and then run the big stakes as young dogs.
> 
> Then, there's the let em' all play mentality that seems to be gaining a strong foothold.
> 
> O/H Quals at Hunt Test serve to further the Qual as an end unto itself. Some of the Quals that I've seen over the past few years fit into the "hunty-testy" category with a good number of them favoring the older, more experienced, dog. I like three big marks, exposed preferably, and meaty blinds. Obviously, as grounds and time allow.


Very well said Mark!!!


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

John Daniels said:


> I can see John's point. IMO not all QAA dogs are created equal. I would say there is a difference between a dog that wins a 60 dog FT Q against the big boys, and a dog who wins or gets 2nd in a 10 dog HT Q. One is not qualified more than the other per the rules. However, to me there is a difference. Also, You have to consider a dog that is QAA because it got a Jam in the AM. Wouldnt one think that the dog that jammed the AM is farther along than a dog that got 2nd place in a 10 dog HT Q?


So someone mentioned Alaska earlier...

By your logic a dog that got their FC and/or AFC by running a circuit with smaller fields isn't as good as an FC/AFC running "against the big boys?".

Just trying to learn...


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

John I think the same holds true whether it's a HT or FT there will be dogs that aren't equal to other dogs with the same title you see people with MH titles on their dog that judge shopped and only ran under judges that set up easy tests and have lax standards if they ran a tough MH test they might not make it though the first series.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Guess I'm with John and Doug Main on this one.
If I'm entering a trial then I want it to represent a trial.
I want to compete against the biggest & baddest you got.
Bring em on.
It's nothing against Hunt tests or Master Hunters good grief. If you got the stones to run with the big boys good for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Could it be a $$ maker for the clubs???
O/H "Q " @ Hunt tests???
Sue


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

"The purpose of a Non-Slip Retriever trial is to determine the _relative merits _*of Retrievers in the field".......
What makes a FT win and placement different at an OH Q v a Q is at a FT no matter the difficulty of the test or harshness of the judging... _relative merits _ are ... relative to the field of dog/handler teams allowed to compete in the event that day.

...in discussing the relative merits of something measured or considered in comparison with each other , it only stands to reason that if a large segment of ( Pro handled) dogs with superior quality or worth in the pool are excluded,
The quality of the winner *may* not be reflective of the quality of winners at large


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

john fallon said:


> "The purpose of a Non-Slip Retriever trial is to determine the _relative merits _*of Retrievers in the field".......
> What makes a FT win and placement different at an OH Q v a Q is at a FT no matter the difficulty of the test or harshness of the judging... _relative merits _are ... relative to the field of dog/handler teams allowed to compete in the event that day.
> 
> ...in discussing the relative merits of something measured or considered in comparison with each other , it only stands to reason that if a large segment of ( Pro handled) dogs with superior quality or worth in the pool are excluded,
> The quality of the winner *may* not be reflective of the quality of winners at large


John, 

I don't think many will disagree with this. 

Is this all you're arguing - that O/H Qual winners may or may not be able to hold their own against the All Age pack, or those winning a "standard" Qual?

Or are you arguing somehow that an O/H Qual should not be permissible to hold?

- Chris


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

"For example, I would view all dogs with a HRCH or MH title as being equal. They ran a number of tests against a standard and passed."

Not necessarily true.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> John,
> 
> I don't think many will disagree with this.
> 
> ...


The latter.......Don't you think that that and John's observations in the first post on this thread are reason enough?????
Quals should not be an end unto itself regards.
john


----------



## John Kelder (Mar 10, 2006)

so , the way I understand the history of FTs ,the hunt tests were started because the amateur really couldn't make a go of it at a FT with measurable success .And FT s don't tend to imitate an average day afield . So ,with some tweaking ,the HT program was born .AKC revenue up.Folks getting ribbons. Life is good.
And ,because as most things in life ,the circle has come back around .Hence, a FT stake at a HT .AKC revenue up. Folks getting ribbons. Life is good.
Anyone notice a pattern here??
Begs the question , why not a MH test at a minor stakes trial ??
I prefer to pack either camo or white , but not both regards........


----------



## wojo (Jun 29, 2008)

Are you suggesting that those of us who have lesser quality dogs should not run? Maybe there should be a qualifier for newbies and that we get pre approval before we run a Q. Seems to me a O/H Qual makes money for the club and the real FT dogs get to show the HT dogs what a real retriever can do. Hopefully most FT'er will be welcoming to the new comer and HT folk.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

John Kelder said:


> so , the way I understand the history of FTs ,the hunt tests were started because the amateur really couldn't make a go of it at a FT with measurable success .And FT s don't tend to imitate an average day afield . So ,with some tweaking ,the HT program was born .AKC revenue up.Folks getting ribbons. Life is good.
> And ,because as most things in life ,the circle has come back around .Hence, a FT stake at a HT .AKC revenue up. Folks getting ribbons. Life is good.
> Anyone notice a pattern here??
> Begs the question , why not a MH test at a minor stakes trial ??
> I prefer to pack either camo or white , but not both regards........


No more dodge ball, no more musical chairs, every one gets to play 2 innings,
an OH Q.

Anyone notice a pattern here??

I'm OK your ok ;-) regards

john


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

7 pages, 133 posts, and 5873 views about a meaningless stake...


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

wojo said:


> Are you suggesting that those of us who have lesser quality dogs should not run? *Maybe there should be a qualifier for newbies* and that we get pre approval before we run a Q. Seems to me a O/H Qual makes money for the club and the real FT dogs get to show the HT dogs what a real retriever can do. Hopefully most FT'er will be welcoming to the new comer and HT folk.


The last thing that we need is another type of qualifier, we have more than we need now.
Keep the Q at a HT if you MUST, but do not have it be an OH, then at least all who want to enter may do so..........  

john


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

EdA said:


> 7 pages, 133 posts, and 5873 views about a meaningless stake...


Earlier you mentioned "elitism" and darn it now you're acting it.  And I should say it's not "meaningless" to some. HPW


----------



## ohohjoe (Mar 20, 2010)

EdA said:


> 7 pages, 133 posts, and 5873 views about a meaningless stake...



Maybe to you  but did you ever think about the other retriever breeds.The new people trying to get in the game you old farts can't throw birds forever.
And the pro trainers are not getting any younger. The young am's and pro's trying to make a future in this sport and you all talk the talk but you don't want to support the future.
But your the first to ask for help at a trial when you need someone to throw for you. Punch of cry baby's when someone under the age of 40 wins...


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

EdA said:


> 7 pages, 133 posts, and 5873 views about a meaningless stake...


Dr. Ed,

I'm thrilled to see this level of discussion about a very fun part of Field Trialing. Don't you think the Qual is a fun part of field trialing?

It's supposed to be fun! I'm really glad that so much participation is going into a discussion about a fun part of the dog games!

- Chris


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

There seem to be - surprise, surprise - a number of different thought running around.

1. Should we have Qualifyings and MH together? 

Why not? If the argument is that it is contrary to tradition, well if we were wedded to tradition we would have no Amateur.

I think if the combined MH/Q encourages people to try their hand at FT - great.

2. Should we have O/H Qual?

a) How many of you voted on the issue when it came up for discussion?
b) If the argument is that anything less than unrestricted competition is meaningless, then perhaps we should reduce the number of trials, hold them in a central location and force everyone to play at the same place.
c) As I recall it, the O/H Q was proposed because:
- there were trials with 50+ dogs and clubs were wanting a tool to reduce numbers
- clubs wanted to encourage amateurs to run their own dogs

The club to which I belong does not hold a O/H Q and is unlikely to do so. But, I continue to believe that individual clubs should have that option

3. Is competition reduced when entries are smaller?

I think maybe yes, maybe no. When the trials get huge, dogs are often dropped without an opportunity to show their overall merits.

I think it's hard to know for sure

4. Is competition being dumbed down when there are dual trials?

I believe that the nature and construction of tests is more reflective of the bent of the particular judges than avdual venue. Some judges like to carry more dogs than others. Some judges emphasize blinds more than others. Some judges minimize blinds and concentrate on marks. When you run enough trials you start to get a feel for a specific person's preferences


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

I have 2 1/2 year old littermates, in limited Derby competition one had 8 points and one had 12. They both have ability but they are very different mentally.

The one that had 12 points ran 2 Qualifyings in the spring and did not do well in the 4th series of either. He has been in the last series of 4 consecutive major stakes and was 4th in the Open last weekend. His littermate has run 2 Qualifyings and earned a 4th place. He will continue to run the Qualifying until he is no longer eligible because that is his level now and perhaps forever. 

The Qualifying stake means nothing except to the owner and the experience the dog has, if my Qualifying dog never achieves anything beyond that I will still maintain my attachment to him his lack of accomplishment notwithstanding. To attach any more significance to the Qualifying stake is misguided.

My involvement with the Qualifying stake began in the Spring 1972 when I earned my first field trial ribbon a JAM in the Qualifying


----------



## Dwayne Padgett (Apr 12, 2009)

EdA said:


> 7 pages, 133 posts, and 5873 views about a meaningless stake...




Yea wouldn't want you to stoop to a new low and run with us little folks anyways.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Dwayne Padgett said:


> Yea wouldn't want you to stoop to a new low and run with us little folks anyways.


Read my post, I have and will continue to, how many have you run, when did you start, you have much catching up to do


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I suspect that anyone who is not involved in retriever games would think all of FT, HT, SRS, etc. Are meaningless


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Small world!!!

My first involvement with the Qualifying stake was also in he early seventies . It was my dog getting back to back Firsts right out of Derby.....not a good thing with the way dogs were trained back then.

My most recent involvement was yesterday, when because of a problem at work I could not attend the SRRC Q in NJ . My dog was still able to run and did, and in doing so became eligible to run a limited and special to boot .

Had they been OH Q's the entire course of FT history would have been changed forever

john


----------



## ohohjoe (Mar 20, 2010)

Ted Shih said:


> I suspect that anyone who is not involved in retriever games would think all of FT, HT, SRS, etc. Are meaningless


You gotta love it thank you Ted. But when was last time you watched double honor with double double and a double blind in qual you won't. And that just first series.
To say a qual is not a qual or owner handler qual is any less is dumb. you look at some of the master hunt test this year they were crazy. 
So I LOL when people say thier dog is QAA but lol at master hunt test.
You want to see a QAA dog hire a few of the crazy master hunt test judge;s let them throw you 4 series of a master test then pick a winner..
Qual love it when pro's get mad cause they say its just hunt test LOL .
Thier called hunting dogs thier retriever's


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

ohohjoe said:


> But when was last time you watched double honor with double double and a double blind in qual you won't. And that just first series.
> :


To me, thats just judges with way more imagination than dog sense and are just trying too feed their egos. Much like the wildcat plays in football that were dreamed up by an Offensive Co-ordinator who didn't understand how to run between the tackles.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

ohohjoe said:


> You gotta love it thank you Ted. But when was last time you watched *double honor with double double and a double blind *in qual you won't. And that just first series.
> To say a qual is not a qual or owner handler qual is any less is dumb. you look at some of the master hunt test this year they were crazy.
> So I LOL when people say thier dog is QAA but lol at master hunt test.
> You want to see a QAA dog hire a few of the crazy master hunt test judge;s let them throw you 4 series of a master test then pick a winner..
> ...


 How is this set up thrown?

john


----------



## greg magee (Oct 24, 2007)

john fallon said:


> How is this set up thrown?
> 
> john


Why would you even care for one thing and congratulations on the other thing!


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

I've enjoyed the quals I've run. Any venue I've ever been involved with has had a range of testing. It makes no difference how thick you make the rulebook, how much stuff you dictate via rules. Individual interpretation will determine how it is presented.

At this time, I don't see the logic in outlawing O/H Quals. If there ceases to be benefit to O/H qual, the market itself will die as clubs will no longer desire to put them on.

I'm failing to see the downfall to O/H quals, other than the idea that some folks would lose the option of sending their dog to be handled by someone else. 

If it's an "insigificant stake", then why worry about who runs O/H and who runs "regular"?

Chris


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> I've enjoyed the quals I've run. Any venue I've ever been involved with has had a range of testing. It makes no difference how thick you make the rulebook, how much stuff you dictate via rules. Individual interpretation will determine how it is presented.
> 
> At this time, I don't see the logic in outlawing O/H Quals. If there ceases to be benefit to O/H qual, the market itself will die as clubs will no longer desire to put them on.
> 
> ...


For me the downfall is.... when, *by design*, the field of dogs and handlers being tested is not represenative of the field of dogs and handlers at large, it results in the loss of stature for the accomplishment in general.

john


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

John how would you know that before you start judging unless someone told you. Judge like you normally judge and let the cream rise to the top and the others fall away to the wayside. Like any other weekend. Right??
I really don't see that big of a deal unless people try to tell you what to do.
I really don't see *that* happening with *you* at least from what I read you've posted in the past.;-):razz:
Guns Up!!
Sue


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Sue Kiefer said:


> John how would you know that before you start judging unless someone told you. Judge like you normally judge and *let the cream rise to the top *and the others fall away to the wayside. Like any other weekend. Right??
> I really don't see that big of a deal unless people try to tell you what to do.
> I really don't see *that* happening with *you* at least from what I read you've posted in the past.;-):razz:
> Guns Up!!
> Sue


Sue,

In this area when you don't see Mark M or Patty R or Bill T or Hugh A or Ed F or Allen P or Kristin H or Rick M, or Patty J , or Randy B, entered , those who are entered chances of winning or placing 2ND have increased exponentially
The cream that is excluded from entry by it being an OH or worse yet an OH at a HT is what my complaint is all about.

Skim milk regards

john


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

john fallon said:


> For me the downfall is.... when, *by design*, the field of dogs and handlers being tested is not represenative of the field of dogs and handlers at large, it results in the loss of stature for the accomplishment in general.
> 
> john


 
And what damage does that do? If this is not that significant of a stake, who cares? Again, I maintain that if the market goes away, that means there's no demand for it. If there is a demand for it, and it fuels new participants in the trial game, that's a good thing.

If legions of dogs reaching "QAA status" never make it with the big dogs, what does that hurt? Do you think they're going to keep on coming, weekend after weekend, diluting the field?

I just don't see how O/H Quals hurt things in the big picture. It seems to me that if clubs are willing to offer O/H Q's, and if folks are willing to enter them, why try to kill them?


----------



## Fast Woody (Apr 13, 2004)

Danny Luttrell and Myself (Henry Ragle) will be judging the owner handler Qual. at the Middle Tenn Hunt test in October. It will be judged and setup just like any other Qual at any weekend field trial, and I promise it will NOT be any easier than a Qual associated with a field trial. The two dogs that do the best will be QAA. Will they be ready to run an all age, who knows...but they will get a taste of what they will be expected to see at a field trial. We put the O/H Qual with our HT to try to get more people involved in trials and give them a taste of showcasing the best dog that weekend Vs. passing a standard.
________
jailbroken


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> And what damage does that do? If this is not that significant of a stake, who cares? Again, I maintain that if the market goes away, that means there's no demand for it. If there is a demand for it, and it fuels new participants in the trial game, that's a good thing.
> 
> If legions of dogs reaching "QAA status" never make it with the big dogs, what does that hurt? Do you think they're going to keep on coming, weekend after weekend, diluting the field?
> 
> I just don't see how O/H Quals hurt things in the big picture. It seems to me that if clubs are willing to offer O/H Q's, and if folks are willing to enter them, why try to kill them?


Factor this into the big picture......
Go to the classified section and the ads for puppies by a FC/AFC sire and a QAA Dam, and tell me you don't see where more QAA bitches aren't problematic

john


----------



## Fast Woody (Apr 13, 2004)

john fallon said:


> Sue,
> 
> In this area when you don't see Mark M or Patty R or Bill T or Hugh A or Ed F or Allen P or Kristin H or Rick M, or Patty J , or Randy B, entered , those who are entered chances of winning or placing 2ND have increased exponentially
> The cream that is excluded from entry by it being an OH or worse yet an OH at a HT is what my complaint is all about.
> ...


Maybe we should only let the pro's run the open. Then we would never have to wait around on them...and all the Quals would be "more equal"
________
marijuana indica


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Fast Woody said:


> Danny Luttrell and Myself (Henry Ragle) will be judging the owner handler Qual. at the Middle Tenn Hunt test in October. It will be judged and setup just like any other Qual at any weekend field trial, and I promise it will NOT be any easier than a Qual associated with a field trial. The two dogs that do the best will be QAA. Will they be ready to run an all age, who knows...but they will get a taste of what they will be expected to see at a field trial. We put the O/H Qual with our HT to try to get more people involved in trials and give them a taste of showcasing the best dog that weekend Vs. passing a standard.




If the AKC also offered the option of having a Q at a HT, would your club still have an OHQ instead ?

john


----------



## Fast Woody (Apr 13, 2004)

john fallon said:


> If the AKC also offered the option of having a Q at a HT, would your club still have an OH instead ?
> 
> john


I can't speak for my club, but as a 10+ year board member who helps put on 4 events a year...I would vote to keep it O/H. But, I'm just one vote. I strongly believe another board member and my training partner Erik Gawthorpe would agree with me:

QAA is a nice little title to some but who cares if it gets more people involved in the sport and we get more HT folks to come work, compete and enjoy the next level of the dog game then I think its a great thing.
________
Simca Ariane


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Factor this into the big picture......
> Go to the classified section and the ads for puppies by a FC/AFC sire and a QAA Dam, and tell me you don't see where more QAA bitches aren't problematic
> 
> john


 
Classifieds: I look at them just about every day. 

More QAA bitches aren't problematic! I can think of three factors that would contribute to "more QAA bitches": More trials offered, a greater quantity of bitches entered than currently, or better-trained/bred/performing bitches than the males. None of which I can see as a negative.

The market will reach the demand. Buyer/seller feedback and resulting performances of puppy purchases will dictate what sort of breedings sell, what sort of end-use buyers buy that sort of breedings, and what's considered "common" versus "special".

Chris


----------



## BBnumber1 (Apr 5, 2006)

john fallon said:


> Factor this into the big picture......
> Go to the classified section and the ads for puppies by a FC/AFC sire and a QAA Dam, and tell me you don't see where more QAA bitches aren't problematic
> 
> john


As one who has been looking for a pup, I do not see a problem with bitches with *** after their name, as I have been looking at pedigrees, competition history, success of relatives, and a whole slew of other things.

If someone is bedazzled by 3 little stars after a name, then they are not doing their research before buying a pup.


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

I may have missed this, but why isn't a Q at a Hunt Test open to all comers?


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

I think it bears remembering that:

1) The concept of an O/H Qual was put before the membership and all of the concerns raised here were raised then. The membership voted to allow an O/H Qual

2) Not all clubs hold an O/H Q. In fact, most that I see are not O/H

If you don't want it, don't have your club have one
If you do want it, then you can do as Henry and Erik do


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> I think it bears remembering that:
> 
> 
> 2) Not all clubs hold an O/H Q. In fact, most that I see are not O/H
> ...


A quick perusal of Entry Express shows them all as O/H. At least all of those associated with Hunt Tests.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Most FT clubs do not hold MH/Qual stakes


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Nashville has an O/H Qual at both the spring/fall FTs, and at the Fall HT.
Because, the members, *who do all the work*, want it that way..

N.Al. has a regular Qual, because, the members, *who do all the work*, want it that way.
End of story.

I might add, Nashville is a very healthy club, with both HT and FT members who support each other. We hope to keep it that way.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> I think it bears remembering that:
> 
> 1) The concept of an O/H Qual was put before the membership and all of the concerns raised here were raised then. The membership voted to allow an O/H Qual
> 
> ...


Perfectly put! And if the market swings one way or the other, that's an indication of what the participating Qual-running "customer base" wants. If the market wants it, the market will reveal it.


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

Rainmaker said:


> Now if they are listed with the HT, the Q has to be O/H per the regulations. .


So, a Qual. with a Hunt Test has to be O/H by regulation? Do you know the rationale behind this regualtion? Thanks.


----------



## Fast Woody (Apr 13, 2004)

Goldenboy said:


> I may have missed this, but why isn't a Q at a Hunt Test open to all comers?



Look in my opinion you should run your own dog, period...if you use a pro Great, BUT RUN your own dog.... unless you can not make the trial...If you want to be a better handler RUN YOUR OWN dog..period...the best lessons learned are from making mistakes..believe me I know because I've made plenty...but you know what... I don't make them twice very often. 
Reading books and videos are great but nothing compares to getting out there and doing it. Ok I'll get off my soap box.


Last year our Club had to take a placement away from some unnamed pro that said he owned the dog...After we checked with AKC we found out he lied to us when we questioned him at the event. Another un named pro put his name on the client dogs papers and he was able to run and he placed (no problems)...so the comment about ....no pro's run the O/H is just not accurate.
________
vapir one review


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

To John Fallon,

If there were a sudden influx of QAA bitches that earned the designation through "watered-down", "hunt-testy" events, and their litters wound up advertised in the classifieds, what is your end-concern? What negative does this create?

Does it put more puppies on the market that will wind up disappointing their owners due to false expectations and underperformance?
Does it artificially increase the selling price of puppies?
Does it narrow the price premium of litters "more deserving" of a better price out of "more accomplished" bitches?
I'm trying to understand the root concern.

John, is yours a concern more of emotion and "feel" rather than a specific tangible/quantifiable negative?

Thanks, Chris


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

Ted Shih said:


> Most FT clubs do not hold MH/Qual stakes


What's an FT club? The clubs around here that run MH with O/H Qual Stakes also run Field Trials.


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

Fast Woody said:


> Look in my opinion you should run your own dog, period...if you use a pro Great, BUT RUN your own dog.... unless you can not make the trial...If you want to be a better handler RUN YOUR OWN dog..period...the best lessons learned are from making mistakes..believe me I know because I've made plenty...but you know what... I don't make them twice very often.
> Reading books and videos are great but nothing compares to getting out there and doing it. Ok I'll get off my soap box.


Like you, I'm a huge proponent of hands-on experience. However, the proliferation of O/H Quals at Hunt Tests, and what I understand to be the rationale behind them, puts me off. I think that opening them up to Hunt Test pros would also serve to get more people interested in Field Trials. It might also lead to more Hunt Test pros training for, and running, Field Trials.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

cakaiser said:


> Nashville has an O/H Qual at both the spring/fall FTs, and at the Fall HT.
> Because, the members, *who do all the work*, want it that way..
> 
> N.Al. has a regular Qual, because, the members, *who do all the work*, want it that way.
> ...


Finally someone said it. Clubs have test and trials the way they do is because the folks that put them on want it that way. Pretty simple.

Its possible that a club may not want to put on trials for pros to come and over run the resources.


----------



## Fast Woody (Apr 13, 2004)

Goldenboy said:


> Like you, I'm a huge proponent of hands-on experience. However, the proliferation of O/H Quals at Hunt Tests, and what I understand to be the rationale behind them, puts me off. I think that opening them up to Hunt Test pros would also serve to get more people interested in Field Trials. It might also lead to more Hunt Test pros training for, and running, Field Trials. Otherwise, it's a watered down affair and ought to carry a different (unrecognized) designation than ***.



Not to hijack this thread but...*** and ** have always made me LOL what does that mean??? 
yeah *** = QAA ...so why not just put QAA after the name????

AND what does ** mean anyways....I thought Derby list.....is the dam of your litter on the derby list? 

RATIONALE???? 
Have you ever worked a 3 day HT or FT event???? 4-5 people usually do the loin share of the work at an event and the best way to get new blood into the game is the RATIONALE.

Our club wants to get more people to make the jump from HT to FT thats why we do it. I don't think a HT pro would change how he or she trains if we did not have a O/H.

We (Erik and I) like to see owners running there dog and getting to enjoy the ribbons instead of getting a phone call from their pro telling them how great fido did.

For the most part owners of dogs put on most events so they should get to decide if it's O/H or not. Are you a member of a club? if so are you a board member? if not you should be.
________
Chrysler Akino history


----------



## Goldenboy (Jun 16, 2004)

Fast Woody said:


> RATIONLE????
> Have you ever worked a 3 day HT or FT event???? 4-5 people usually do the loin share of the work at an event and the best way to get new blood into the game is the RATIONLE.


Henry,

We're coming at this from the same place, we just have different takes on it. I've been Head Marshall of our Trial for years, work the Hunt Tests every year as a volunteer, and do whatever is necessary to keep things afloat. That said, I really like competing against all comers. I've known from the start that Field Trials are a highly competitve game, and I enjoy the highest form of that competiton, win, lose, or get screwed ;-).


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Fast Woody said:


> ..... Are you a member of a club? if so are you a board member? if not you should be.





Goldenboy said:


> ....I've been Head Marshall of our Trial for years, work the Hunt Tests every year as a volunteer.....


And “done time” on our B.O.D.
Mark is a worker guys, I’ve seen it.
He even lets me give him wardrobe advice.;-)


.


----------



## Fast Woody (Apr 13, 2004)

Goldenboy said:


> Like you, I'm a huge proponent of hands-on experience. However, the proliferation of O/H Quals at Hunt Tests, and what I understand to be the rationale behind them, puts me off. I think that opening them up to Hunt Test pros would also serve to get more people interested in Field Trials. It might also lead to more Hunt Test pros training for, and running, Field Trials.


Okay, then vote to have a non O/H Qual at your home club and come down to Nashville and see a O/H Qual that is NOT watered down on Oct 8th.

As Charlotte Kaiser sayed MTARC has a strong club and we stay that way because we work hard to get new people involved in the games....VIA O/H Quals and seminars...we have had a Paul Sletten, Jim Van Engan and a few other pro's put on seminars for our members over the years.

By the way...I'm Henry Ragle aka Fast Woody..........Goldenboy who are you? and Do you run your dogs or does your pro run them? You can put your pro's name on your dogs and he or she can run them at our O/H (Non watered down) Q
________
A engine


----------



## Fast Woody (Apr 13, 2004)

Rainmaker said:


> Watered down? There are plenty of "amateurs" I'd fear more than some pros, if that was my rationale for not running something. Aside from that, a really and truly amateur trained dog that does well has some worth in and of itself, vs a completely pro trained/run one, IMO. If a dog does well despite all the typical newby/amateur mistakes, then I guess it is a pretty fine dog. Those that want to preserve the status of QAA for puppies, bitches, sales, or whatever, get real. Anyone with a computer can look up a record on EE and see what the dog has done and who with and where it QAA'd. If people think that all FC AFC or MH or QAA are created equal, they aren't, and if they fall for just the title without any research, they get what they get. No different than all the other hype BS marketing on any product anywhere.
> 
> HT were created for the average person who could not or did not want to pursue FT but wanted a dog game outside of hunting season, so I'm told, then pros found a lucrative market and lo and behold, we have some pretty extreme HT setups that bear about as much resemblance to hunting as FT do and force average joe to do some pretty significant training to be able to pass. Yep, HT are a standard and the average joe has more chance of passing for that reason alone, even though pros dominate, at least at the MH level, but pretty much everyone who has run for a while has to admit how much MH tests have changed over the years. So have Qual and Open and AM setups. Everything evolves and market, as Chris A. has stated repeatedly, dictates that evolution. HT aren't dying. Judging from the entries in FT, neither are they, but costs are up and new blood is always needed in both venues. It's all good, arguing over who gets to do what and if those three letters QAA means anything is ridiculous. A good dog is a good dog and it takes a good dog to finish a Q, watered down, hunt testy, dumbed down or open to everyone. HOW GOOD is up to the people interested in that particular dog, any offspring and is pretty much open to research and interpretation. Here's to hoping for more MH and hopefully some QAA and maybe some Derby points someday, walking to the line is the best thing about any dog game, whatever happens, whatever color the ribbon.



I agree 100% with Kim on this post....
________
buy vaporizers


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> To John Fallon,
> 
> If there were a sudden influx of QAA bitches that earned the designation through "watered-down", "hunt-testy" events, and their litters wound up advertised in the classifieds, what is your end-concern? What negative does this create?
> 
> ...


As I mentioed earlier I've been messing around with Q's at FT's for a good long time, and based on the sum total of the experiences of those years I do not feel that the exclusion of any dog for any reason other than an AKC suspension is in the best interest of the sport. This along with the other periphal reasons I have articulated throughout this thread and others over the years, and the posts of others that I have referenced pretty much states my position on the matter. 

At this point, if you disagree with me, rather than frutlessly restating what has already been said , we will just have to agree to disagree.;-)

john


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Henry,
Mark is the real deal. Have seen his Golden at mike Lardy's workshop do some pretty awesome stuff. He's a good trainer. Completed __?? series of Canadian Nat. Amat. this yr. 
Pro's at H.T. ............................It's all their fault that Hunt tests have gotten to the point that they're at
98% of people have trained on their property, asked advise of,etc..........
watched their DVD's, read their books or trained with them regularly.
If you look at the big picture...........
It's pretty amazing................
20yrs ago litters were sired by FC/AFC out of bitches that had no titles,were just house pets or maybe hunting dogs.
Now we are complaining that the symbols *** or ** are meaningless.
Look how now the training is better, the training devices are better the Pro's. that teach are better and yes the pedigrees are better.
I asked Mike lardy yrs, ago at one of his workshops," Where do you see Trials going in the next 20 yrs.?"
Good question LOL was his response.
Is there any easy answer or correct one to this thread????????????
It's made for a good debate.............
Judge the dogs on any given weekend. Use the grounds and time to make good decisions to get the winner.
For me, I like to compete with the best and train accordingly(when I do).
Bring em on.
IMHPO,
Sue


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

For the record, the OH Quals at HT I have worked have been tougher than quals I have run, and they have had field trialers bomb out in the 1st series. The last one I was at had 3 dogs that finished. I don't know what all this fuss is about, the same judges judge them, that judge all age stakes. It lets people get their feet wet in quals and see what they have to train for, and the entries are very good and the clubs gain new blood and workers for FT. If the clubs choose to run them, who cares? (except John)


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Fast Woody said:


> Okay, then vote to have a non O/H Qual at your home club and come down to Nashville and see a O/H Qual that is NOT watered down on Oct 8th.
> 
> As Charlotte Kaiser sayed MTARC has a strong club and we stay that way because we work hard to get new people involved in the games....VIA O/H Quals and seminars...we have had a Paul Sletten, Jim Van Engan and a few other pro's put on seminars for our members over the years.
> 
> By the way...I'm Henry Ragle aka Fast Woody..........Goldenboy who are you? and Do you run your dogs or does your pro run them? You can put your pro's name on your dogs and he or she can run them at our O/H (Non watered down) Q


I
It's not always that the test that is watered down............

I'd be be willing to bet that if some of the big names in the HT Pro world from down that way were allowed to run one of them would WIN:razz:

john


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

ErinsEdge said:


> For the record, the OH Quals at HT I have worked have been tougher than quals I have run, *and they have had field trialers bomb out in the 1st series.* (except John)


At the end of the day, they are just dogs! ;-)


----------



## Fast Woody (Apr 13, 2004)

john fallon said:


> I
> It's not always that the test that is watered down............
> 
> I'd be be willing to bet that if some of the big names in the HT Pro world from down that way were allowed to run one of them would WIN:razz:
> ...



Pro's are allowed to run their own dogs and they can put their name on the client dog if they want to run that bad...

Fallon........are you a member of a club and if so are you a board member? if so then vote to have a regular Qual at you event....

I would rather an owner handler (Pro or not) place or get a ribbon. The amatuers are the life blood of the sport...the sport will survive with out pros competing in events but it will not survive with out the owner amateur putting on the events. No pro is going to put on 4 events a year...if you know of one I want his or her name so I can pat them on the back. I can give you 5-10 names of hard working owner handler amateurs in my area that work their ass' off and they are the ones that give up their time and vacation...and if they (we)decide to have a O/H then good for them (us).
________
Subaru BRAT specifications


----------



## 24116 (May 8, 2004)

Fast Woody said:


> No pro is going to put on 4 events a year...if you know of one I want his or her name so I can pat them on the back. (us).


I'm not sure but I think if you asked Angie she would be willing to do it
just say'n


This was taken from a different thread
Quote:

I know of at least 2 trials that would have ceased to exsist if a pro hadn't taken over those trials. The club still holds the check book but the pro's chair and run the event. 

If a burned out club went to a pro that ran their fall and spring trial and said "Look,,,, we can't and don't want to do this anymore. Unless you take over the running of this event, it's not going to happen." 

What do you think he or she would say?

Angie


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Fast Woody said:


> Pro's are allowed to run their own dogs and they can put their name on the client dog if they want to run that bad...
> 
> *Fallon........are you a member of a club and if so are you a board member? if so then vote to have a regular Qual at you event....*
> 
> I would rather an owner handler (Pro or not) place or get a ribbon. The amatuers are the life blood of the sport...the sport will survive with out pros competing in events but it will not survive with out the owner amateur putting on the events. No pro is going to put on 4 events a year...if you know of one I want his or her name so I can pat them on the back. I can give you 5-10 names of hard working owner handler amateurs in my area that work their ass' off and they are the ones that give up their time and vacation...and if they (we)decide to have a O/H then good for them (us).


I am a working member of the local club and a multi year past President with several years as VP also under my belt .I am currently in my second year of a three year term on the BOD. With that said I still only have one vote.

I train my own dogs and for the most part run them myself but if I can't be there because of work, then I should be SOL according to you.
I would rather the best two dog there be able to run that day and get the 1ST or 2ND place.

john


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

john fallon said:


> As I mentioed earlier I've been messing around with Q's at FT's for a good long time, and based on the sum total of the experiences of those years I do not feel that the exclusion of any dog for any reason other than an AKC suspension is in the best interest of the sport. This along with the other periphal reasons I have articulated throughout this thread and others over the years, and the posts of others that I have referenced pretty much states my position on the matter.
> 
> At this point, if you disagree with me, rather than frutlessly restating what has already been said , we will just have to agree to disagree.;-)
> 
> john


 
Well John,

I think you are dodging my question. You wrote that "more QAA bitches are problematic". You challenged me to consider that point.

So I'm trying to understand, if you feel it is problematic, then what is the specific problem that makes it problematic. I laid out a few bullet-pointed problems that could possibly be on your mind. 

Funny that you mentioned "dodgeball" being outlawed...wasn't that you? I think I tried to get you out of the game, and I missed. Nice dodge! 

Have a good one buddy, and I"m sincerely happy that all is copacetic between you and me.

Chris


----------



## Rick_C (Dec 12, 2007)

John Daniels said:


> ...For example, I would view all dogs with a HRCH or MH title as being equal. They ran a number of tests against a standard and passed...


While I do see your point, I don't agree with this statement at all.

I've seen MH dogs I'd gladly pay good money for a pup out of and others I wouldn't want a pup from if it were free. All MH's are not created equal.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Just curious. If someone looked at the recent OH Quals run with HTs, could one guess how many more dogs would have been entered in the Qual if the pros' dogs had also run? 

I would imagine that not all the MH entries would be of a calibre that would be worth running in the Qual. 

An enormous Qual entry might also make it hard for a club to finish a huge Qual in one day? When I saw a 100-dog Qual some years ago, they could barely get through the opening series land triple in one day. 

So, the OH specification may be about the only way to control the number of entries. 

The reason for even having a Qualifying Stake:


> At each trial having an Open All-Age, Limited All-
> Age, Special All-Age, an Amateur All-Age, an Owner-
> Handler Amateur All-Age or Restricted All-Age Stakes
> the Field Trial Secretary in his or her report must certify
> ...


Back in the very beginnings of field trials (it was explained to me), there was some fear that the championship should not be awarded for just "showing up". The requirement of having 12 "qualified all-age dogs" entered was to assure that the dogs who won points would have done so among a sufficient number of dogs who were of a certain level of proficiency. 

Since only dogs who take 1st or 2nd in the Qual are considered to be QAA, one might guess that it was expected that the Qual stake was less demanding than the championship stakes. Only the most proficient at the Qual level would be considered proficient enough to make the championship stake competive enough to merit points toward a championship.

It seems unlikely now (and for many, many years in the recent past) that there will be a shortage of enough proficient dogs in the major stakes. Yet, the reason for the Qual stake remains on the books. It seems unlikely that it will ever be needed for all-breed trials. However, there are some specialty trials limited to a minority breed where it still might be the making or breaking of championship points being available.

It is also reasonable to expect that as the major stakes have become more demanding, the Qual would also have evolved to continue to fulfill the original intention. Since the purpose of the Qual is to provide for competency to compete at the major stake level, the Qual would also need to evolve on a parallel course.

Regardless of where or when a Qual is run, OH or not, why would one want to make the tests any more or less than they are supposed to be? It would appear to be in the hands of the judges to assure that the testing of the dogs is appropriate to fulfilling the purpose of the Qual stake.


----------



## Jacob Hawkes (Jun 24, 2008)

Buzz said:


> At the end of the day, they are just dogs! ;-)


You mean they're not these robots people make them out to be?


----------

