I am new to the dog games and I found the following evernt: Shreveport-Bossier Retriever Club 2008 Fall Hunt Test and Owner/Handler Qualifying. What is an "Owner/Handling Qualifying"?
Owner/Handler Qualifying??
tkpaul
21 - 40 of 75 Posts
Joined
·
12,852 Posts
regrettably I only have brothers, if I was lucky enough to have had a sister kissing her would not be an insignificant event.....
Joined
·
864 Posts
John I hear this all the time. Sometimes even from AMS who run O/H AMS. Can you say talking out both sides of your mouth?I did not see the words watered down, anti-pro, or missing a lot of the the really good/well trained dogs that are on the pros trucks, anywhere in the summations .
john
Joined
·
1,853 Posts
I don't need to read puppy adds, as a FT participant, I know exactly what QAA means, or doesn't mean.
I like the O/H qual.
Next, will be accused of being afraid of running against pros, couldn't be any other reason.
Joined
·
5,315 Posts
If not you, then we'll make that a figurative "YOU".I don't need to read puppy adds, as a FT participant, I know exactly what QAA means, or doesn't mean.
I like the O/H qual.
Next, will be accused of being afraid of running against pros, couldn't be any other reason.
john
Joined
·
74 Posts
John,
what exactly is wrong with trying to promote FT's in your area by hosting an O/H Q with your Hunt test? Having it as an O/H in my opinion has a better impact of bringing someone into the sport of Field Trials since there pro can't run it for them. Since alot of dogs run in the Master stake in my area are actually the owners I see it as a good opportunity to let them experience a FT and possibly gain some new blood into the sport.
The Owner/handler format to me personally shows the true spirit of the retriever sport (be it FT or HT) since it is an Owner running his/her dog in an event. I can't help but think that is exactly what our sport should embrace and not ridicule. What is wrong with the owners wanting to run their own dogs and making it a requirement that other owners run theirs? After all it is the Owners who put on trials/test and cater to those running their event in most cases. I'm not against Pro's by any means, heck my dogs spend time with a select few, but I also think the O/H is a great tool to be allowed to use in FT's.
If you think there is something wrong with this then please by all means give me a detailed reason why.
thanks
wesley
what exactly is wrong with trying to promote FT's in your area by hosting an O/H Q with your Hunt test? Having it as an O/H in my opinion has a better impact of bringing someone into the sport of Field Trials since there pro can't run it for them. Since alot of dogs run in the Master stake in my area are actually the owners I see it as a good opportunity to let them experience a FT and possibly gain some new blood into the sport.
The Owner/handler format to me personally shows the true spirit of the retriever sport (be it FT or HT) since it is an Owner running his/her dog in an event. I can't help but think that is exactly what our sport should embrace and not ridicule. What is wrong with the owners wanting to run their own dogs and making it a requirement that other owners run theirs? After all it is the Owners who put on trials/test and cater to those running their event in most cases. I'm not against Pro's by any means, heck my dogs spend time with a select few, but I also think the O/H is a great tool to be allowed to use in FT's.
If you think there is something wrong with this then please by all means give me a detailed reason why.
thanks
wesley
Joined
·
5,315 Posts
The OH concept was started in the Amateur for a reason that in and of itself is/was fostered by a lack of trust in ones fellow competitors, that is distasteful to me .
Be that as it may, there is no such "compelling" reason for an OH Qualifying. So Wesley, you tell me,what can be gained by having an OH Q at a HT that could not happen if a regular Q were allowed .
I'll tell you one of the things that is lost in this so called quest for inclusion..... The ability to participate by the working man who can not have his "training buddy " or someone else start his dog till he can get there from work.
Do any of you proponents of the OH Q have any objection to a dog that is co-owned simply to get around that restriction. If so what is it and why
How about in the Amateur where the AFC title is in the mix
john
Be that as it may, there is no such "compelling"
reason for an OH Qualifying. So Wesley, you tell me,what can be gained by having an OH Q at a HT that could not happen if a regular Q were allowed .I'll tell you one of the things that is lost in this so called quest for inclusion..... The ability to participate by the working man who can not have his "training buddy " or someone else start his dog till he can get there from work.
Do any of you proponents of the OH Q have any objection to a dog that is co-owned simply to get around that restriction. If so what is it and why
How about in the Amateur where the AFC title is in the mix
john
Joined
·
74 Posts
The OH concept was started in the Amateur for a reason that in and of itself is/was fostered by a lack of trust in ones fellow competitors, that is distasteful to me .
Be that as it may, there is no such "compelling"
I'll tell you one of the things that is lost in this so called quest for inclusion..... The ability to participate by the working man who can not have his "training buddy " or someone else start his dog till he can get there from work.
Do any of you proponents of the OH Q have any objection to a dog that is co-owned simply to get around that restriction. If so what is it and why
How about in the Amateur where the AFC title is in the mix
john
John,
I already answered your question in my previous post, having an O/H Qual makes it to where the owner must get out and run their dog and not have a pro do it.
Now then you conveniently skirted around my question asking for a detailed reason why what the club is doing is wrong.......can you answer that?
What exactly do you feel is "lost" by having an O/H Qual? Are you one that thinks its the competition thing......don't forget that any dog in the country can run an O/H event, only thing is that their actual Owner has to run them. Wow what a strange idea it is to make people actually run their own dogs
thanks in advance for your detailed reasons.
wesley
Joined
·
5,315 Posts
And I answered your question before you asked it, or maybe you just did not read my first post .
At a FT where a group of A list handlers are excluded I find the potential to be
there for all of the negatives written about in my first post to be present
Your version of the true spirit of FT's aside.
We are trying to find the best dogs !!!!!!!! To to that end, you tell me what is gained with an OH "Q" with its potential for limiting the field?
There is nothing wrong with an owner wanting to run his own dog in the Q as long as they are willing to take on all comers.
Cowboy up regards
john
At a FT where a group of A list handlers are excluded I find the potential to be
there for all of the negatives written about in my first post to be present
At a Hunt test I see nothing to be gained by having an OH , unless you consider ducking some handlers something gained.
Your version of the true spirit of FT's aside.
We are trying to find the best dogs !!!!!!!! To to that end, you tell me what is gained with an OH "Q" with its potential for limiting the field?
There is nothing wrong with an owner wanting to run his own dog in the Q as long as they are willing to take on all comers.
Cowboy up regards
john
Joined
·
385 Posts
I agree toally with the proponents of O/H Qualifying. Our club began doing this three years ago, for two reasons: (1) Attract the attention of Hunt Test owners with good MH dogs, and (2) Attract both Hunt Test and Field Trial owners who are reluctant to enter their dogs if they must compete with the Pros. Our experience: Most Pros don't really complain, and our Q entry numbers have remained the same or larger. Even some of the Pros who concentrate on the minor stakes agree that the owners SHOULD be running their own dogs. My thought for the "ideal" world of today's field trials (I know, just dreaming!): O/H Derby and Qualifying, and the Pros put on their own Opens; Club will provide judges, birds, etc., but entrants would provide the workers. Sure would make it easier for us "gray-or-no hairs" still working in field trials!
Joined
·
5,315 Posts
Ft's are supose to be about finding the best dogs ...........end of story
Again, you could not prove that by reading the adds for working puppies
The QAA designations use is tantamount to a titles use when discribing the accomplishments of the untitled sire and or dam of a litter.
john
Joined
·
12,852 Posts
Exactly, and (John's indignation notwithstanding) the Qualifying is a meaningless stake other than the pride that comes from placing a dog in it.
If a club holds an Owner Handler Qualifying and the result is that a single person becomes interested in field trials then everyone benefits and there are no losers. The field trial people who oppose the O/H Qualifying could have no defense other than they feel that their only accomplishments in field trials are diminished because an otherwise unaccomplished amateur placed or won an Owner Handler Qualifying.
I am gratified when someone enters a field trial because they are at least intrigued by the idea of competition in which they might have a chance for success.
Initially I was opposed to the O/H Qualifying, now I am (and have been) a huge preponent
Joined
·
74 Posts
John,
In my opinion what is gained by a O/H Qual is the simple fact that all dogs are eligible, regardless of who's truck they are on or who is training them but their owners get the opportunity to run against other owners. The key ingredient is it rewards the owner that actually gets off of their arse and runs them themselves I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that in order to run the owner has to be at the reins.
Your reason of it keeping back the "strong competition" is BS in my opinion, what it does do is keep the Pro's from running unless they own the dog. You can voice your opinion all you like about the "lack of field", etc but I for one have full faith in the two judges to find a dog that is capable of the work required by the rule book and deserves the ribbons in the end.
In my opinion by your post saying " I did not see the words watered down, anti-pro, or missing a lot of the the really good/well trained dogs that are on the pros trucks, anywhere in the summations " is a complete slap in the face to the judges and competitors. Honestly I'm pretty happy your "against" the O/H Qual because that means you more than likely want show up, good thing as I would hate for someone who is excited about running the FT to meet you and get a bad taste in their mouth and associate all FTer's with the same attitudes as yours.
Not all of us have had the luxury of owning an FC AFC dog, to some of us we still get excited about running minor stakes, hell we may even get excited about green ribbons
, it may be the only ones we run but we are also the same ones that will continue to throw birds, work at trials, etc. so that owners pro's can run their dog while they stay at home and search the internet and complain about people not getting the results up fast enough.I can promise you someone will walk away from this trial with a great big smile on their face, if you would like me to pass along your phone number to that person so that they can call you and you can give them your opinion on how their placement isn't worth anything because they were "scared" to run against the Pro's, I would be more than happy.
willing to bet you wouldn't do it regards,
wesley
Joined
·
5,315 Posts
Joined
·
3,637 Posts
Ed-
I admittedly deleted most of your post, but as for the quote above-are Qs (not just O/H Qs, but Qs in general) truly the Rodney Dangerfield of the FT world? If so, is it because the setups aren't considered challenging or that the competition is not the best? Disappointing to me if Qs are really not considered to carry much weight because the ones Ive seen seemed to have some meat in them, but maybe it's because I'm so new to FTs. I guess I'm one new person who had hoped to take some pride in eventually doing well in them.
M
Joined
·
1,662 Posts
Miriam, All things are relative. For you the Q is worthy. For others it is not. To those that think it's meaningless, I say don't bother. To those that think it's worthy, I say have some fun. It's not life or death. At least not to me. There are competitors and there are participants. Every once in a while even us participants might get a reward. Try telling them that it's not worthy. HPW
Joined
·
1,853 Posts
Miriam,
I'm sure Ed will answer for himself, but here is how I feel.
It takes a tremendous amount of work and a good dog to finish a Derby, or a Qual. Anyone who does this should be rightfully proud and excited. It is a huge accomplishment.
But for those who have been around for a while, and whose goals are FC-AFC, minor stakes tend to become not quite so important. Many don't even run Derbies, and spend little time in the Qual.
While any dog that becomes QAA is talented and well trained, we know just how far that is from the initials that go at the front of the name
This in no way denigrates the people who only can make it this far, just different goals, that's all.
Hope this doesn't sound too snotty, not meant to be.
I'm sure Ed will answer for himself, but here is how I feel.
It takes a tremendous amount of work and a good dog to finish a Derby, or a Qual. Anyone who does this should be rightfully proud and excited. It is a huge accomplishment.
But for those who have been around for a while, and whose goals are FC-AFC, minor stakes tend to become not quite so important. Many don't even run Derbies, and spend little time in the Qual.
While any dog that becomes QAA is talented and well trained, we know just how far that is from the initials that go at the front of the name
This in no way denigrates the people who only can make it this far, just different goals, that's all.
Hope this doesn't sound too snotty, not meant to be.
Joined
·
3,637 Posts
cakaiser-
Thanks-that explanation makes perfect sense & paints a completely different picture than that the Q has no merit. For those that have tasted success in all age stakes, I can absolutely see a not-looking-back-now approach to Qs & I can respect that.
As for me-I've only run a few Qs (ee doesn't show my dogs scratches-there were a few he didn't run) & the furthest I have gotten is losing him at the bitter end of the water blind & then running the water marks as test dog. Had a blast & thoroughly enjoyed the setups. I guess we'll just keep playing as long as it's fun!
M
Thanks-that explanation makes perfect sense & paints a completely different picture than that the Q has no merit. For those that have tasted success in all age stakes, I can absolutely see a not-looking-back-now approach to Qs & I can respect that.
As for me-I've only run a few Qs (ee doesn't show my dogs scratches-there were a few he didn't run) & the furthest I have gotten is losing him at the bitter end of the water blind & then running the water marks as test dog. Had a blast & thoroughly enjoyed the setups. I guess we'll just keep playing as long as it's fun!
M
Joined
·
3,062 Posts
IF the Opens continue to have entry restrictions due to numbers, there will always be folks, even with top notch dogs that run the Q in one incarnation or another just to get the dogs QAA to run in the big league.
14 yrs ago, I got my first ribbon in a Q, with my first dog. That 2nd made her QAA and the fact that there were only 10 starters had done nothing to diminish the memory. (this was before the O/H Q). I like and will continue to run the O/H Q when its available but when not will continue to run the regular Q.
14 yrs ago, I got my first ribbon in a Q, with my first dog. That 2nd made her QAA and the fact that there were only 10 starters had done nothing to diminish the memory. (this was before the O/H Q). I like and will continue to run the O/H Q when its available but when not will continue to run the regular Q.
Joined
·
2,625 Posts
Qualifying stakes are a lot like a Senior HT.
They can be "entry level" Q's, sometimes barely a step up from a tough derby, or they can be pretty meaty, one bird short of an Open.
Even the tough ones pale if you go watch a few Opens!
JS
21 - 40 of 75 Posts
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
