RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner

Shoud AKC create new "intermediate" field title?

1 - 20 of 339 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,806 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
I think it would be a good thing and I will quote Lee here since my opinion is identical....

WRL said:
I would think Lisa that a QAA title would be great. I DO think it would help keep people in the game and would "hopefully" create more workers for the events.

I would also think that you would get a greater percentage of HTers moving to the FT avenue if there were such a title.

I think that the QAA title would go before the name as those are dog vs dog titles and for a dog to be QAA it did in fact "beat" other dogs. Obviously, a Jam in the Open vs the win would have to be designated somehow. But I would think something like QAA-8 would be excellent as it would designate the dog is QAA and has 8 AA pts vs a dog that is QAA but has no points because they won a Q.

WRL
Shayne
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,112 Posts
I voted No!!

I guess the question is: Why?

What is missing form the current structure that warrants a change?

Does the need to give "real amateurs" an opportunity to compete in FT justify the addition of a QAA title?

Joe Miano
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,089 Posts
Why?....the better question Why NOT?

Besides the points that have already been made. Many people are advertising the dogs as QAA, its good info on the pedigree. SO for breeding purposes, or buying a pup, it could be good to know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,383 Posts
I voted yes. What is missing from the current structure is a recognition that virtually all of us refer to a QAA dog as a dog who has met the qualifications necessary to participate in a Limited AA stake.

Also for that reason, I would not change the qualifications.

To me, it is not so much the creation of a new structure as it is the recognition of an informally recognized previous structure.

Ted
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,700 Posts
Definately YES. Have had QAA dogs for over 10 years and it's difficult to explain why a JH, SH, and MH have titles and QAA that means something to field trialers and should as a producer, but does not register as a title on a pedigree. Unless you have competed in a qual, you don't realize the competition out there. Not only would it draw more hunt testers and workers to field trials, it would recognize excellence, particularly in non-Black Labs and non-Labs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
I voted yes!
Correct me I'm wrong(I usually am), but doesn't *** after the name mean QAA. If so, why not make it in front?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
890 Posts
Shayne said:
I think it would be a good thing and I will quote Lee here since my opinion is identical....

WRL said:
I would think Lisa that a QAA title would be great. I DO think it would help keep people in the game and would "hopefully" create more workers for the events.

I would also think that you would get a greater percentage of HTers moving to the FT avenue if there were such a title.

I think that the QAA title would go before the name as those are dog vs dog titles and for a dog to be QAA it did in fact "beat" other dogs. Obviously, a Jam in the Open vs the win would have to be designated somehow. But I would think something like QAA-8 would be excellent as it would designate the dog is QAA and has 8 AA pts vs a dog that is QAA but has no points because they won a Q.

WRL
Shayne
Ditto again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,166 Posts
I agree with Ted, we should move toward official recognition of something that has been both "understood" as well as "misunderstood" since the 1940s.

I know of more than one person who, in looking for something beyond the MH, ventured into FT. Several had the luck (or misfortune) to WIN their first two Quals. This automatically knocks them out of ever running in the Qual again. Recognizing that they have neither the time nor the grounds to go after an AA title FTB, they dropped back out of the game as fast as they came up ino it.

Some people aren't even interested in doing much more than putter around in the Q and the Am. Some people aren't interested in getting rid of their current dog to pursue the FC title. Surely there is a place for people like this, many of whom are dedicated workers. I think a QAA title might just keep this type of person involved.

Lee wrote:
But I would think something like QAA-8 would be excellent as it would designate the dog is QAA and has 8 AA pts vs a dog that is QAA but has no points because they won a Q.
This is interesting. Would we want to redefine QAA (the way CKC did), or keep it the same (equal to the definition of "qualified to run Limited")? I vote keep it the same...for now. But there may be a need for a QAA title, AND some kind of a "point dog" title. In my breed, there have been dogs that achieved QAA status by virtue of getting a red ribbon in a 12-dog Qual. Contrast this to the dog that has all his/her points but just needs a win, or the dog with the all-breed win that got injured before it could get the title. Which is more valuable? Under the present, unofficial "system", they are all known as QAA.

In a breed like mine, where the gene pool is SO small, it becomes very important to identify the marginal QAA dogs from the more consistent performers. That's why I posted the FULL QAA records of all QAA dogs from the last 22 years. All QAA dogs are not alike.

Lisa
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,806 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
subroc said:
What is missing form the current structure that warrants a change?
The attraction of people like me is missing. HT titled Qual level dog that will never be an all age player. The field trial public's perception of success is a title. If i know i'm not going to title or do anything beyond Q level work, why bother? The possibility of attaining a recognized field trial title with my current dog would likely result in me entering several trials a year... and a huge movement into trials from the "been there done that" hunt test folk.

Qual level title = a LOT of new blood in the sport.

Shayne
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
I vote YES for the reason Ted mentioned. Making the informal formal.

I need to think more if any tweaking of the current "requirements" would be necessary.

As Lisa said "All QAA dogs are not alike", but couldn't the same be said for any FC, AFC, MH, SH, champion butt sniffer ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
146 Posts
A definite YES... it would certainly get my training group's interest.
My only question would be, what would it do to the size of the qual? I would imagine that it would increase significantly.. And that may not be a bad thing.
It is pretty hard for an amatuer trained and handled dog to compete at the open and Am level, regardless of the talent level of the dog. yeah, give us a level to play at too.. it wont detract from the FC and AFC titles in the least.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,700 Posts
I vote just go for the QAA title and don't muddle it up with a point system. People can look up the points just like they do on all age dogs. The qual is a competition and yet has no real title and the Hunt tests have titles but are judged against the standard. I know what QAA really means but people are title conscious since the hunt tests came into existence, and it's time to recognize it as a title.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
942 Posts
ErinsEdge said:
I vote just go for the QAA title and don't muddle it up with a point system. People can look up the points just like they do on all age dogs. The qual is a competition and yet has no real title and the Hunt tests have titles but are judged against the standard. I know what QAA really means but people are title conscious since the hunt tests came into existence, and it's time to recognize it as a title.
This sounds like a plan...

Joe S.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,996 Posts
QAA

I would like to see it with a disclaimer.
QAA-Gold Qualified under 25 months of age.
QAA-Silver Qualified under 31 months of age.
QAA-Bronze Qualified under 36 months of age.
QAA-Wood Qualified over 36 months of age.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,146 Posts
a QAA title would be a good thing, and doesn't take anything away ffrom the existing structure while identifying dogs that we might want to see in a breeding program.-paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,314 Posts
Ted Shih said:
I voted yes. What is missing from the current structure is a recognition that virtually all of us refer to a QAA dog as a dog who has met the qualifications necessary to participate in a Limited AA stake.

Also for that reason, I would not change the qualifications.

To me, it is not so much the creation of a new structure as it is the recognition of an informally recognized previous structure.

Ted

Erins Edge said:
I vote just go for the QAA title and don't muddle it up with a point system. People can look up the points just like they do on all age dogs. The qual is a competition and yet has no real title and the Hunt tests have titles but are judged against the standard. I know what QAA really means but people are title conscious since the hunt tests came into existence, and it's time to recognize it as a title.
_________________
Nancy
Combine these two ideas.I won't have to add anything :!:
John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
paul young said:
a QAA title .... identifying dogs that we might want to see in a breeding program.-paul
Dang straight ! A QAA female holds a LOT of weight in my eyes. Having a certified record/title to verify legitimacy would be welcomed.

What's it gonna take to get it done ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,806 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
I'll send Keith a PM and he should have it implented and the new rulebooks on the press by close of business tomorrow.

So tell us Keith, who do we need polariods of to get this off the ground?

Shayne
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,916 Posts
I would assume that AKC already has the info on dogs to verify it or not ,and don't see any reason why it couldn't be included as a suffix.

I have to mark a box on every entry stating that my dog is or is not Qualified for a Limited, etc. Why not just have it as part of the dogs name?

Jerry
 
1 - 20 of 339 Posts
Top