[Gerard Rozas]

Given that FT clubs are in dire straights for new members, and given that growth is not likely to come from new derby dogs, but HTers with older MH dogs looking for something new. What would be the opinion of a Owner-Handler Qualifying that started on Saturday.

Some of the benefits - would not have to miss work to run.
% pro is less in the Q than the Derby or Open
Clubs that still want (need) pro income from the Q could have a reqular Q

PS - I generally believe the Q is the hardest stake to compete in and all the hardest to judge. Mainly because the talent of the dogs is so "diverse". You normally have a few dogs that will finish an AA stake in a short amount of time. To seperate these dogs - you might have to butcher alot of the field. The majority of the dogs are good solid dogs, with a few that are - well - just thrown in. Sometimes when you waterdown tests too much, the cream will not rise to the top, but it becomes more a roll of the dice.

 

[EdA]

Here we go again, Gerard. Another hot potato? I think not, but O/H qual is an interesting concept. It was my understanding that the original intent of hunt tests was to creat a venue for people to compare their dogs to a standard, to make them better trained and not to create an entire subculture, complete with another group of professional trainers. Hence the O/H qual might provide something else for retriever afficianados who chose not to pit their skills against professionals. I must however disagree with you on one account. I believe that the easiest accomplishment in field trials is to place a dog in the qualifying, and I personally believe that the qualifying is by far the easiet stake to judge(IMHO).

 

[Ted Shih]

Gerard

I believe that we now have O/H Qualifyings as an option for FT.

I don't have an opinion one way or another - other than I was in favor of allowing the O/H Q as an option for clubs who felt they were being overrun by pro trucks in the winter

However, if you water down the field by eliminating pros - are QAA dogs from such trials really ready to run the AA stakes?

Ted

 

[Gerard Rozas]

Ed,
I too believe that QAA a dog is the easiest FT accomplishment. But my post I stated that judging one can sometimes be alittle tricky. What I mean by tricky is that there can be a HUGE difference in the difficulty of the test for Q to Q. Judged a 60 dog Q a couple of years ago that I personally knew 10 or so dogs were doing quads on Alist Pro trucks. Had 17 dogs in the last series - almost all clean. Retired two guns across big water and had 7 do it - 2 really nicely. Also have judged a 6 dog Q (no minimun on a Q). I think half the field had to handle on a 180 double.

But the Q would be a natural for change because you would not be messing with Derby points or the derby list - which is sometimes just as competative as the AA.

Ted
A mature 5-6 year old MH dog would be very competative with a little FT training. What would it hurt QAA a few more dogs? 90+% of most open fields are already QAA. And a dog can enter an Open without being QAA already. Specials or Limited are still large numbers - and I don't see the extras QAAs you would reward driving up the numbers of AA entrys.

 

[Joe S.]

However, if you water down the field by eliminating pros - are QAA dogs from such trials really ready to run the AA stakes?

Ted

Ted -

Guess they would be in the mind of Judges that week-end or the places wouldn't be awarded, huh? (Who loves ya, baby? hehehe...I kill me!!)

Perhaps Tim C. will tell us how the Q went with the HT his Club held recently.

Hey, could a Pro run his own dog in a O/H Q?

Joe S.

 

[Ted Shih]

Ted
A mature 5-6 year old MH dog would be very competative with a little FT training.

Gerard

If by this you mean competitive in the Q, I agree. If you mean competitive in the Am or Open - I disagree, depending on what you mean by competitive

 

[Gerard Rozas]

Sorry Ted - my keyboard locked up and I had to go back and edit my second post. Yes I mean in the Q. That is all most people want is just one stake that they have a chance of finishing. Why run anything that you just know you will go home after the first series? It is really hard to convince someone to stay and help a club and work all weekend when they are just sitting on the sidelines. If a O/H Q would enable more people to play - more power to them. I don't think it would drive the numbers in the AA up.

 

[EdA]

Even if it did drive the numbers up, those are the kinds of people we need, people who participate with their own dog. If O/H qualifying would get a mere handful of people involved in the game, we'd all be better off for it.

 

[junbe]

Qualifying

Last year at the Blackhawk Ret. Club we started running our Qualifying on Saturday and our Derby on Friday. We did this at the request of hunt test people who said they would enter their Master Hunter in the Qualifying. I think this has been a success based on the number of entries we have had in the last 2 years. This week end we have 39 qualifying dogs running and 23 derby dogs. Here in the upper midwest the size of derby stakes has been low this spring--many in the teens.
It is interesting to note the comments on the owner handler qualifying. Our club voted for the recommendation, but I think very few clubs would use this option.
Also note that the qualifying stake originated in the early 50's. Prior to that the equivalent stake was called a nonwinners stake. AKC allowed an option to have an amateur nonwinners stake. The rules then were the first 3 places in the nonwinners stake qualified the dog to run a limited.
Also the first 3 places in the Derby qualified a dog to run a limited.
What we need is more competing field trials, especially in the early spring when many of the pros are in the south.

 

[Ted Shih]

Re: Qualifying

What we need is more competing field trials, especially in the early spring when many of the pros are in the south.

This, of course, requires more workers, more givers

 

[Emily Faith]

I think the O/H Q is a great idea. It would most likely help with trial mechanics, too, since the Q would not be waiting for the pros to come over from the Open and run. If the Q is not so intimidating to new people it would bring in more new blood and we would all benefit.

 

[Chris Kingrea]

I'm a little confused here. Wasn't it said before that "new blood" isn't always a good thing ?

How do you get it to work ? Where the club grows, yet withstands from being succumbed to a "hostile takeover."

Guys like myself just getting started, we just wanna play, help, do whatever it takes. Really don't need any "special incentive." Nor do I mind running against the Pros, so an O/H Q really doesn't do much for me.

 

[Shayne Mehringer]

Hey, could a Pro run his own dog in a O/H Q?
Joe S.

That's a good question. I assume he could.

Shayne

 

[Gerard Rozas]

Since it is not an Amatuer - don't see why he could not. He just has to own the dog.

 

[Polock]

:drinking:

 

[Evan]

I think an O/H Q is a nice idea without a future. Interesting and well intended, but not likely.

Evan

 

[john fallon]

With the new rule there is now no need for them.

john

 

[Hidden Valley]

That is all most people want is just one stake that they have a chance of finishing. Why run anything that you just know you will go home after the first series?.

Being a new comer(starting this fall), I would LOVE to finish every trial. But only if my dog deserves it. I'm very competetive and don't want things given to me. Sure it would be great at first, but b4 long I'd want more."MOST" would feel the same way, i believe.

 

[Losthwy]

With the new rule there is now no need for them.

john

What rule? :?:

 

[john fallon]

With the new rule there is now no need for them.

john

What rule? :?:

I think there is a new stipulation in the rules that the Pros must be at the "Q" within 15 min of when they are suppose to run or have someone there to run their dogs or be put on the clock.
Think being the operative word.

Be there or be square regards,

john