AKC is proposing to create a new field title that might actually be attainable for dogs and people that aren't dedicated solely to field trials. The title will be QA2 and would go at the end of the name. It would be similar to the commonly used (but not a title) QAA, which stands for Qualified all age. There have been some conformation dogs who were QAA - Ch Topform Edward MH, for instance. To be QAA, a dog has to finish first or second in a qualifying stake or get at least a JAM in an all age stake at a field trial. To get the QA2, a dog has to qualify twice. Owner-handler Qs are run at some hunt tests and would count toward this title.
It's a big step from MH to Qual, with longer distances on marks and blinds, retired guns, and competing against field trial pros who are getting dogs qualified to run limited all age stakes. But it seems to me it is worth pursuing for someone who has that great marking MH who loves field work. It is being discussed heavily on the retriever training forum, and I thought it should be mentioned here so that people who are doing MH work with their dogs would at least be aware of it. Some of the field people think it's meaningless, but most are in favor of it.
I think it is great that there are more events that people can try with their dogs. But I also think events with longer and longer "marks" are getting so far away from real hunting that it is more a sport than a true evaluation of functionality. I know people justify the really long marks (400+) by saying dogs do have to trail cripples, etc. I would much rather see a dog demonstrate true trailing (which is a skill) than setting up artificial measures of this. I could see a long blind, on occasion. I always wonder how many of these dogs are truly marking rather than trained to take a certain line. I also do not think this breed is meant (if the standard is followed) to be running 400+ upland yards on a continual basis; this is primarily a water retriever.
I think dog sports are fun but I would not use most of them to evaluate my dogs as breeding stock as the traits required for success do not always align with the standard for this breed.
The alternative to these sports- and I certainly agree that they are sports, is to actually go out hunting with the dog to see how it performs. Most people don't have the opportunity to evaluate potential studs that way. A dog with a MH or QAA has demonstrated its ability to mark, use its nose to find a down bird, and accept rigorous training. Many of the dogs with those titles hunt, and they are good hunters if given the opportunity. I like to sell some of my dogs to hunters to test their ability to find birds and flush them, to work long periods of time, and to be a good companion in the field, but if I'm choosing a stud dog on that basis, I either have to see the dog work or trust someone else's opinion. If the dog has a field title, I know what standards he has met.
I agree, I just do not think that some of the more extreme versions of this sport are necessary in evaluating dogs - they are really getting away from their original intent (not to mention the style of dog required) in order to produce a "winner", which is not the same thing as meeting a standard.
