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