Just what would a person be exactly bragging about?
The younger females being bred?/
I'm assuming that you are referring to the Dam of the litter?
If so then No that's NOT what I am talking about.
I am looking at the entire pedigree , siblings ,health issues if any, temperament, size, sometimes color if it's a Lab.
I wouldn't choose a stud because that boy has his Master especially in Labs. where I have a huge gene pool to choose from & tons of FC/AFC or qual. all-aged boys THAT list is endless.........
Goldens maybe especially If I am looking at what is further back in the pedigree. Again the whole picture.
Just my 2cents :/
Have a great day.
Sue, I was agreeing with you.
I was disagreeing with those here who feel that the extra titles will be a factor in knowing how good a dog is, etc. and those who were saying that the extra titles would be helpful in picking a puppy.
I see no reason for these extra titles. Once you have an MH on your dog he/she has proven that he/she can do the work.
I feel if the AKC and the retriever world was about improving the breeds and not about the money. They wouldn't come up with these new titles. They would say after your dog has failed a given number of tests and has not titled, that dog would be unable to run hunt tests at that level, or the dog would only be able to run under a limited reg. and unbreedable. I see way to many dogs that are given master titles after failing several HT's at that level. I feel we are starting to promote dogs with bad training habbits and poor marking ablitity.
Originally Posted by Lady Duck Hunter
Where does it end and where do these committees come up with this stuff?
Happy some states legalized recreational use. Now we see the pit falls.
I've decided to look at this another way, I still think the changing a title every MH pass, to sort've put one dog above another in terms of one being better in skill is ludicrous. But I could get behind such if it were considered a life-time achievement type of reward, akin to those of other venues. Other venues get recognized for 500pt, 1000pt, etc. which-by not every test and point is counted but a life-time of effort is recognized. I've noticed that the type of person who achieve such titles are usually a very dedicated owner-handler who just likes to run their dog. So if the AKC were to have recondition for say Silver 30, Gold 40 and Platinum 50 passes; That's something someone could aspire to for the life-time of the dog, and not something a instant title-gratification type person would see much benefit in.
Not sure if I'm reading you correctly, but are you saying AKC should be allowed to limit breeding to only dogs with titles? ("They would say after your dog has failed a given number of tests and has not titled, that dog...and unbreedable."). Not sure how AKC could tell an owner/breeder which dogs they can/cannot breed, and not sure why you'd want this to be the case? Breeding decisions, at least those made by good breeders, take into account much more than just an animal's title/s; for instance, health clearances, Coefficients of Inbreeding, etc. In some breeds, such as the CBR, the gene pool is already small and the breed is affected by a number of significant health concerns, such as DM. Limiting breeding to only 'titled' animals would be a disaster for the breed. (FYI, I'm not a breeder.)
Originally Posted by Golden Boy
IMHO, when AKC decides to add titles, their prime motivator is to increase the number of fees they can collect, like when they switched the CGC from a 'certificate' to a 'title' which costs the owner an additional fee.
i'd just like to see QAA made an AKC title
No way! We need to make more numbers behind a master hunter dog than recognize the minimum achievement in a field trial. Lol
Originally Posted by blake_mhoona
well derby list might be considered minimum achievement but i think thats more of retriever news thing rather than akc?
Originally Posted by Paul "Happy" Gilmore