[Shayne Mehringer]

You've got a hundred threads already to voice your opinion on why or wny not... no need to post it again here.... just shaddup and VOTE. :lol:

Shayne

 

[Vicki Worthington]

QAA Title

How many of the people voting actually compete in field trials?

 

[Gerard Rozas]

I do! I do!

 

[K G]

How many of the people voting actually compete in field trials?

I'm curious, Vickie...why would that matter?

KG

 

[Tim Carrion]

I voted NO!
I compete in FTs.
I'm a minority breed owner.
My dogs are 100% amat. trained and handled.

IMHO even the minority breeds would not be helped with this added designation of working adequacy. If I have a dog of QAA talent and want a suffix I will run a couple HTs and get a MH.
This "title" would only serve owner's ego not dogs.

Tim

 

[AmiableLabs]

This "title" would only serve owner's ego not dogs.

For the thousandth time -- the purpose is to attract more people to the FT sport from the HT roster, and to formally recognize what we already informally acknowledge. It is not just to add another title.

 

[AmiableLabs]

Re: QAA Title

How many of the people voting actually compete in field trials?

The more important question is how many of the people voting own run Master dogs in HTs?

 

[drbobsd]

With two Amish dogs its the only chance I have. A title would be too cool.

 

[Vicki Worthington]

QAA

Kevin, I'm not sure that lowering the standards as Dr. Ed says to the least common denominator is what we need to do to attract people.

That said, I believe it is the field trial community who should decide what affects the field trial game, not people who are not involved. The fact that someone runs hunt tests and has a master hunter should not determine if changes should be made to field trials.

Speaking of field trials....how many have YOU run Kevin?

Keith, the relevance is in the first 2 paragraphs IMHO. I'm in favor of having people enter the trial game. I'm not in favor of tailoring the trial game to attract a lesser level of competition. The Qual was never intended to be the end--it was and should remain a measure of when you are ready to move up--not a title or marketing tool! It's a pit stop along the way to a real title. It's a measure of what dogs CAN be competitive at the all-age. If you are truly wanting to succeed in field trials, dogs that can't get past the Qualifying either get out or get sold to make room for a dog that can.

 

[drbobsd]

If a MH goes on a title wouldn't you think QAA is more difficult??? Therefore just as deserving as JH, SH or MH.

 

[W Knight]

Shayne

I vote with Vicky,

Wait until you have a 100 dog Qualifying.

You will need 3 sets of big time judges. and on and on and on

This is really

Knight e Knight

 

[Gerard Rozas]

If a MH goes on a title wouldn't you think QAA is more difficult???

No - I don't think QAA is more difficult.

QAA measures a dogs performance on one day - against an unknown quality of dogs and doing an unknown quality of tests. So basicly, to me, QAA does not tell me a damn thing about a dog or its qualities

BTW - I have judged a 6 dog Qual that we did 180 degree seperated 100 yard marks and one easy easy blind. Still had two dogs pick up.

I have judged a 65 dog qual that Schrader, Mosher, and Fabian were calling Open B. We retired two guns in the 4th.

Both dogs that won became QAA. Were their "accomplishments" equal?
No Way.

 

[KJB]

Re: QAA

I'm in favor of having people enter the trial game. I'm not in favor of tailoring the trial game to attract a lesser level of competition. The Qual was never intended to be the end--it was and should remain a measure of when you are ready to move up--not a title or marketing tool! It's a pit stop along the way to a real title. It's a measure of what dogs CAN be competitive at the all-age. If you are truly wanting to succeed in field trials, dogs that can't get past the Qualifying either get out or get sold to make room for a dog that can.

Pretty much sums it up for me.

 

[drbobsd]

Ok let's say 25 dog minimum.

 

[Gerard Rozas]

So now you are going to limit the dog?

See how things are creeping.

Why does MH deserve a title and QAA doesn't?

Because MH requires a REPEATED demonstration of ability against a written standard.

QAA does not. Can a dog that wins a Q mark? Don't know - he found 6 marks in one day - that is all you can say.

Can he run blinds? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the blinds in the Q.

Now we have all seen tough Qs and I KNOW we have all seen easy Qs, so for me - QAA is a designation. Thats all.

 

[drbobsd]

Isn't there a minimum to win an open and have it applied toward FC?????

 

[drbobsd]

And make it that you have to have a 1rst and 2nd at minimum at a QAA with at least 20 dogs.

 

[Tim Carrion]

5 open points for the Win requires 12 QAA dogs and 1 MUST be declared the winner! That is it.

tim

 

[Gerard Rozas]

So is that 12 strong dogs or 12 weak dogs?

How many derby points must the field have?

How many must be professionally trained?

How many must be pure FT dogs and how many can be HT trained for it to count?

Does the tests have to include a retried gun?

How many marks under 200 yards are allowed?

How many FC-AFCs must the handlers have titled before it counts?

Is a double allowed or must all the tests be triples?

 

[drbobsd]

How many do you have to have in your Am's or open's??????? Should be the same. 8) 8) 8)