[Chris Kingrea]

One more

If you're in favor of tweaking, you might as well start making a list here.

 

[john fallon]

If it is going to be a Title it should take more than a 1st or 2nd in the Q ,or a AA JAM to get it :!: Lets start with 15 points :wink: I might come down a little if you twist my arm.

 

[Andy Carlson]

I say leave the requirements as they are. At least in my opinion, getting your dog QAA is a big accomplishment. Why try to make it even more difficult? I don't think it should be a watered down version of a FC - my vote - leave it as is - something that with alot of work is attainable for somebody that may not have the resources to go on to getting that FC.

Andy

 

[Jerry]

Leave the requirements as they exist. Just add the letters to the dogs name.

What's difficult about that?

If one thinks that a 1st or 2nd in a Qual is easy, then they havent run one.

Jerry

 

[W Knight]

I think 10 points and 5 of those should be the win. Of course I think the AFC should be obtained with 10 points, just like the FC.

Someone needs to come up with a politically correct title.

 

[ErinsEdge]

I think 10 points and 5 of those should be the win. Of course I think the AFC should be obtained with 10 points, just like the FC.

Someone needs to come up with a politically correct title.

And WHY is it politically incorrect? Then there is another term for people not to understand. FTers know what it means.

QAA shows a dog has achieved a certain level of accomplishment. There is no need to define it any other way. The more rhetoric and stipulations, the more difficult it becomes to draft and change. The stars are used for the Goldens, just substitute with QAA.

 

[Brian Cockfield]

I don't see any reason to change them.

 

[Franco]

dogs

I'm for tweaking. Mainly because of the O/H Qualifying. I don't see any clubs holding an O/H Qualifying in the southeast. Getting a 1st or 2nd in an O/H Q is not the same as when all dogs handled by Amt.'s and Pros can compete.

 

[clipper]

So if you change the requirements for the title/designation, then does that mean you are changing the requirements for QAA?
leave it be... just make what has been informal now a formal designation/title/whatever.

 

[Lisa Van Loo]

Getting a 1st or 2nd in an O/H Q is not the same as when all dogs handled by Amt.'s and Pros can compete.

Following this logic, then points earned in an O/H Amateur are of a lesser quality than the regular Amateur, where the Pro's truck may be run by his talented amateur client. It's the same difference. If you change the requirement for QAA to exclude O/H Qual placement, then by extension, O/H Amateur placements should carry less points (3, 2, 1, 0, as opposed to 5, 3, 1, 1/2?), since they exclude "ringer" handlers.

Personally, I don't see the O/H Qual as any kind of big deal. Let's let some clubs actually start holding O/H Quals before we decide whether the O/H Qual is or is not going to significantly impact the quality of QAA dogs. Creating a rule change in anticipation of a problem that may never materialize is tilting at windmills. First, see if there is a problem. Then deal with it.

Lisa