Question:
Winter is upon us, which means I have more time to goof around with my computer database. Time to dust off the Triassic Numbers! Tell me what you'd like to see reported here on Team Chesapeake. I will continue with the current QAA report, broken down by year, but can do other things if people want to.

I can't promise to do it all! So I will do the one that gets the most votes, then work on the next runner-up, and so forth. If you have an idea of information you want to see posted on this site, contact me or Paul and we can look at putting it together for you if it is not listed here as a poll choice.

Although I can't include point totals for all Canadian years, I CAN include Canadian dogs for most of the reports listed below.

Lisa

Choices:
QAA dogs listed in order of total points earned
QAA dogs in alphabetical order with all titles, sire & dam, OFA & CERF
**, *** alphabetical lists with titles, sires & dams, OFA & CERF
Derby-listed dogs, in point order with sires & dams
Top FT producers listed in order of total # FT offspring

 

Lisa,

I've got another one I'd like to see. I'm sure many of you get continual ribbing from your lab training partners concerning labs vs. chessie in terms of field titles. One of my buddies says that if you really want a MH, that your best odds would be to buy a lab, I told him I didn't believe that was true based on the numbers of labs registered that recieve field titles vs the number of chessies registered that recieve field title (HT and FT). Do you have that information in your data base?


Bob Vander Meer

If you want to look really good compare peakes to goldens.

Nah, I don't have anything like that. I don't keep stats on Labs. I barely have time and interest enough to keep the information current on the Brown Dogs.

Well, if your friend keeps dogs because they fit some pre-conceived notion of statistical appropriateness, more power to him. Each to his own. I keep Chessies because they suit me, period.

Statistics can be manipulated to say whatever you want them to say. For instance, I could, in all honesty, tell you that on the average FT weekend, a larger percentage of the Chessies entered will get carried into the next series than the percentage of labs entered. For instance, the Derby that Billy and I almost judged together, there was one Chessie, a couple of Goldens and twenty Labs. At the end of the trial, there was one Chessie, no Goldens, and six Labs. Do the math, then tell a friend.

Lisa

I have always felt if you can get a well bred Peake --FT--- you can play better then the Labs.

In medicine, we have a phrase "shotgun approach", which means you don't know what the problem is *exactly* so you treat broadly, and hope the treatment fixes the problem.

Same thing with field trials. If all the dogs in the All-Age stake are Labs, well guess a Lab is bound to win it! *A* Lab, but not necessarily YOUR Lab. Just having a Lab isn't all the ticket you need, be it FT or HT. That is the shotgun approach. Just throw a treatment at it, and maybe it will work. Just throw a Lab at the test, and maybe it will pass. Or not. If all the dogs in a Master are Labs, all the qualifiers will be Labs. So will all the dogs dropped. Run that thought past your buddy.

Lisa

PS: Then there is the "Crude Van Loo Approach". The next time a Lab person starts busting your chops, just smile ever so nicely, and say that you just read a paper in Psychology Today that people who feel the need to beat up on other people because of their choice of dog breed only do so out of a deep-seated feeling of insecurity about the size of their...feet. That usually works!