The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 910111213 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 123

Thread: New suffix title QA2

  1. #101
    Senior Member Gerry Clinchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,852

    Default

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    However, it can make those breeds better (more field capable overall) for the attempts at improvement. Probably there will always be people who would rather have a Chessie than a Lab, no matter what; or a Flat-Coat or a Curly or a Golden or a Toller or an IWS. I can see no downside to attempting to make each of them as good as they can be in their field aspect.
    G.Clinchy@gmail.com
    "Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

    ​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

  2. #102
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Pa.
    Posts
    5,317

    Default

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

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

    For those not well-versed in the FT game ... they have the same problem in discernment when faced with someone who is promoting a dog's QAA status or QA2 status. They don't know what either one really means anyhow. It is for those well-versed that the designations carry any meaning at all.Many FT people acknowledge that the skill level of a Q today is very much higher than it was 20 years ago, yet we really wouldn't down-grade some of the great dogs of even 30 or 40 years ago. I suspect that this raising of the bar trend even applies to the O/H Q level. If history is any guide, this trend is likely to continue. So, by encouraging these O/H Qs will make for a broader base of quality as the trend continues.

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

    However, it can make those breeds better (more field capable overall) for the attempts at improvement. Probably there will always be people who would rather have a Chessie than a Lab, no matter what; or a Flat-Coat or a Curly or a Golden or a Toller or an IWS. I can see no downside to attempting to make each of them as good as they can be in their field aspect.
    The good newa is that it's not FUBAR yet....

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

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

    The button is on the AKC's coat.

    I won't hold my breath....

    john
    "i guess the old saying 'those of us that think we know everything annoy those of you that does' " --bobbyb 9/13/06

    "A Good Dog is a Good Dog"

  3. #103
    Senior Member Micah Duffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Meridian Idaho
    Posts
    156

    Default

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

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

    CPR Duffys FIre Eyed Jade
    CPR GMPR Duffys Jazzed Up Rippin Ruby QAA
    up and coming: Duffys Jazzy Jaded Emeralds got a Chance JH

  4. #104
    Senior Member DoubleHaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    N. Cackalacky
    Posts
    2,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john fallon View Post
    The good newa is that it's not FUBAR yet....

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

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

    The button is on the AKC's coat.

    I won't hold my breath....

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

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

  5. #105
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    414

    Default

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

  6. #106
    Senior Member Sabireley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Culpeper VA
    Posts
    1,077

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beverly Burns View Post
    Do you diminish the accomplishment of a 1st or 2nd place in an Amateur of Open if the field size of entry isn't large enough? Do you give more accolade if the Derby is small or large? It's all the same in the record books on Sunday afternoon and congratulations to all.
    I agree with Bev. While I have dogs with AA AM and Open placements and JAMs that would qualify for QA2, I don't think there is any reason to disqualify OH stakes. Do that, then also don't allow a win at a OH AM count toward the AFC title or Q 1st or 2nd to count at a minor breed specialty. Let people enjoy their qualification toward the title at any FT venue without any further restrictions. It does not affect anybody's quest for an FC or AFC. Go to EE and look it up if you want to find out how a dog achieved its QA2 title. There seems to always be those who want to rain on someone else's parade. Let's people have some fun achieving goals with their dogs.

    Steve

  7. #107
    Senior Member DoubleHaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    N. Cackalacky
    Posts
    2,509

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sabireley View Post
    There seems to always be those who want to rain on someone else's parade. Let's people have some fun achieving goals with their dogs.
    I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade. Just wondering where the folks that felt like there was some qualifications on OHQs might come out. It is definitely an issue in the derby. While someone who wins a 9 dog derby might be just as excited as if they won a 20 dog derby, the points don't count for the derby list.

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

  8. #108
    Senior Member EdA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,712

    Default

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

  9. #109
    Senior Member Gun_Dog2002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Mohawk Valley
    Posts
    8,642

    Default

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

    /Paul
    Paul Cantrell
    Black Ice Retrievers
    Marcola OR

    Too many dogs to list (By some Bitch)

    https://www.facebook.com/BlackIceRetrievers
    http://gundog2002.blogspot.com/
    "Helping Hunters Train Their Dogs"

  10. #110
    Senior Member EdA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,712

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gun_Dog2002 View Post
    For those against this new title, why do you support green "also ran" ribbons?
    /Paul
    If your implication was me I have come to the conclusion that if this is important enough to involve new amateurs in field trials it is not a bad thing. People have been listing their dogs as QAA without any official verification, at least a recognized designation will be easily verifiable.

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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •