# Too Many Trials, Too Few Judges?



## Ted Shih

The Retriever News has an interesting article entitled "Too Many Trials, Too Few Judges?"

Some interesting statistics from the article
- There are approximately 250 trials per year
- This translates to approximately 2000 judging assignments
- There are 1022 "Active" Judges, that is, people who have judged in the past five years

- 39.4% of those 1022 Active judges have 1-9 points
- 28% have 10-19 points
- 25.2% have 20-49 points
- 4.3% have 50-69 points
- 2.4% have 70-99 points
- .65 have 100 points or more


----------



## Dave Kress

Thanks for putting this out their Ted as my latest issue of the News has not yet arrived. 
So the points combine major and minor stakes and as an example appox 252 people have 20-49 points 
I just say wow as i never dreamed it was that thin 
Dk


----------



## Scott Adams

People need to be brought along in all aspects of the game. The only way it will happen is if people are out there training their own dogs, (at least 1 of them) and they are activley mentoring in both training and trials. If we don't do this, the level of experience becomes thin, and the quality goes down.


----------



## TBell

Thanks, Ted, for the stats. So what were their suggestions to remedy the situation?


----------



## huntinman

One of the suggestions was for clubs to be more active in pairing experienced judges with less experienced judges, so those newer could gain from the experience level of those who came before them. Makes sense to me.

Especially in the minor stakes.

PS... Another was to not forget about the minor stakes when it comes to experienced judges. If two fairly new judges are together trying to learn from each other, how rewarding is that going to be. Clubs, and their committees need to be more active in the selection process.


----------



## EdA

I have been an advocate of professional trainers judging, a proposal shared by few, if any, of the rule makers. While this would not be a long term solution it would provide an immediate infusion of qualified individuals to the judging pool.


----------



## Doug Main

Dave Kress said:


> Thanks for putting this out their Ted as my latest issue of the News has not yet arrived.
> *So the points combine major and minor stakes* and as an example appox 252 people have 20-49 points
> I just say wow as i never dreamed it was that thin
> Dk


I could be mistaken, but I think those stats are just for all-age stakes/points.


----------



## Gawthorpe

I applaud the writer of the article and Retriever News for publishing the facts and the Time Zones of the available judges.
Many of us have talked about this in the gallery, but did not have access to the real numbers.

I have the same thoughts as to how "thin" the actual number of judges are from 20-40 points. It seems that old thought for a field trial judges was let's get two all age judges and have a superb trial. Now the strategy needs to change to say how can we get less experienced individuals to judge with more experienced individuals. 

I have had several experienced judges request to only judge with less experienced individuals. I think it is part of the solution. 
The other part of the solution is to convince those competing the most and judging the least to increase their judges chair contribution. 
Another way to increase the numbers is to allow Professional Trainers to judge field trials.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras

EdA said:


> I have been an advocate of professional trainers judging, a proposal shared by few, if any, of the rule makers. While this would not be a long term solution it would provide an immediate infusion of qualified individuals to the judging pool.


Why do they not allow the pros?


----------



## EdA

Mary Lynn Metras said:


> Why do they not allow the pros?


Tradition, from the early days of field trials when professional trainers did not enter owner's homes by the main entrance.


----------



## Golddogs

EdA said:


> Tradition, from the early days of field trials when professional trainers did not enter owner's homes by the main entrance.


Ah yes, the Golden Age.

Funny how some things continue to hang on for no good reason. I wonder if some of the continued resistance is due to Pro trainers being allowed to judge Hunting Tests? Kind of a " if they are allowing it we will not " attitude.

Just a thought


----------



## Mark Littlejohn

Doug Main said:


> I could be mistaken, but I think those stats are just for all-age stakes/points.


Can't be only AA stakes if 250 trials = 2000 assignments; 250 x 2(judges) x 2(1 Open, 1 Am) = 1000. 



> Gawthorpe I applaud the writer of the article and Retriever News for publishing the facts and the Time Zones of the available judges.
> Many of us have talked about this in the gallery, but did not have access to the real numbers.
> 
> I have the same thoughts as to how "thin" the actual number of judges are from 20-40 points. It seems that old thought for a field trial judges was let's get two all age judges and have a superb trial. Now the strategy needs to change to say how can we get less experienced individuals to judge with more experienced individuals.
> 
> I have had several experienced judges request to only judge with less experienced individuals. I think it is part of the solution.
> The other part of the solution is to convince those competing the most and judging the least to increase their judges chair contribution.
> Another way to increase the numbers is to allow Professional Trainers to judge field trials.​


I think the demographics of the sport explain why these percentages are the way they are. How many 20 - 30 year olds do you see judging AA stakes? Take a look at a trial gallery and you'll see more grayheads than other. If a 50- or 60-something starts in the sport and judges 2 trials/yr, s/he's won't ever accumulate more than 30 - 40 AA judging points. Age and attrition will forever keep lower point judges in the majority.


----------



## DEN/TRU/CRU

The article in RTFN I believe was for AA judges. You don't get points for Minor stakes.


----------



## BBnumber1

DEN/TRU/CRU said:


> The article in RTFN I believe was for AA judges. You don't get points for Minor stakes.


Actually, you do get minor stakes points, and there is even a minimum number of total points between the 2 judges of a minor stake


----------



## Buzz

EdA said:


> Tradition, from the early days of field trials when professional trainers did not enter owner's homes by the main entrance.


I would think you would need the pros to travel outside of their circuit to judge to allow them to avoid as much as possible the possibility of them judging their clients and etc. Although I have judge my pro in minor stakes and thinking back I was probably subconsciously harder on his dogs so as not to have any appliance of favoritism. 

I believe that pairing amateur and or inexperienced judges with pros would be a great learning experience for the Ams.


----------



## Doug Main

EdA said:


> Tradition, from the early days of field trials when professional trainers did not enter owner's homes by the main entrance.


An old time trialer told me "It all started to go to hell when they first allowed the pros to the cocktail party at the national." I think he was joking, but maybe not.


----------



## Raymond Little

Buzz said:


> I would think you would need the pros to travel outside of their circuit to judge to allow them to avoid as much as possible the possibility of them judging their clients and etc. Although I have judge my pro in minor stakes and thinking back I was probably subconsciously harder on his dogs so as not to have any appliance of favoritism.
> 
> I believe that pairing amateur and or inexperienced judges with pros would be a great learning experience for the Ams.



Freezer, Refrigerator, Dishwasher or Washing Machine Favoritism??

I believe Pros judging would invaribly reveal any character issues they might have which is a good thing IMO.


----------



## Tim Carrion

Buzz said:


> I believe that pairing amateur and or inexperienced judges with pros would be a great learning experience for the Ams.


It could also be a learning experience for the pro.

Tim


----------



## Bill Billups

DEN/TRU/CRU said:


> The article in RTFN I believe was for AA judges. You don't get points for Minor stakes.


It was for AA assignments. I've judged about a dozen minor stakes and I wasn't listed


----------



## BonMallari

IMHO the 8 point rule is somewhat misleading..case in point

My brother is a well respected AA judge,has 80 + AA points on dogs he has personally owned/handled..BUT he has 6 AA judging points (all Open stakes)

My friend and hunting pal has well over the 8 AA judging points and you can count the number of AA points he has on one hand

Who would you rather have judging your trial ?


----------



## Charles C.

BonMallari said:


> IMHO the 8 point rule is somewhat misleading..case in point
> 
> My brother is a well respected AA judge,has 80 + AA points on dogs he has personally owned/handled..BUT he has 6 AA judging points (all Open stakes)
> 
> My friend and hunting pal has well over the 8 AA judging points and you can count the number of AA points he has on one hand
> 
> Who would you rather have judging your trial ?


The one that will answer your phone call and show up at the trial.


----------



## John Robinson

BonMallari said:


> IMHO the 8 point rule is somewhat misleading..case in point
> 
> My brother is a well respected AA judge,has 80 + AA points on dogs he has personally owned/handled..BUT he has 6 AA judging points (all Open stakes)
> 
> My friend and hunting pal has well over the 8 AA judging points and you can count the number of AA points he has on one hand
> 
> Who would you rather have judging your trial ?


First I have run under and against your brother and think he's a great judge and competitor, so lets leave him out of the equation and just pick some nameless person who has accumulated 80+ AA points, but hasn't judged very much. For me the answer to the same question is that it would depend on who was the better judge, not better dog handler or who has owned the more successful dog.

John


----------



## BonMallari

Charles C. said:


> The one that will answer your phone call and show up at the trial.


I think you would be surprised as to whose phone rings the most



John Robinson said:


> First I have run under and against your brother and think he's a great judge and competitor, so lets leave him out of the equation and just pick some nameless person who has accumulated 80+ AA points, but hasn't judged very much. For me the answer to the same question is that it would depend on who was the better judge, not better dog handler or who has owned the more successful dog.
> 
> John


John : the only reason I used my brother as an example was to give the question some validity...My friend is also a well respected judge whom you have run under but there is no need to use his name, but do you see the Catch 22 ?

Last year I went to a FT as a spectator, and a FT committee member asked me if I could get my brother to judge their next trial, I told them he wouldn't be able to because he was already making plans to run that trial. I was able to get them a National caliber judge with one phone call..My point being if I can find that type of judge (albeit he is a personal friend) then maybe the FTC needs to expand their horizons and update their contact lists or at least be open to some out of the norm thinking


----------



## EdA

BonMallari said:


> I think you would be surprised as to whose phone rings the most


Very true, I know some excellent very experienced judges who are rarely invited to judge.


----------



## John Robinson

BonMallari said:


> I think you would be surprised as to whose phone rings the most
> 
> 
> 
> John : the only reason I used my brother as an example was to give the question some validity...My friend is also a well respected judge whom you have run under but there is no need to use his name, but do you see the Catch 22 ?
> 
> Last year I went to a FT as a spectator, and a FT committee member asked me if I could get my brother to judge their next trial, I told them he wouldn't be able to because he was already making plans to run that trial. I was able to get them a National caliber judge with one phone call..My point being if I can find that type of judge (albeit he is a personal friend) then maybe the FTC needs to expand their horizons and update their contact lists or at least be open to some out of the norm thinking


I absolutely get your point. And to add a little more positive to the thread, I am noticing that out west, more and more handlers with five or more years experience running a dog are being invited to judge with a seasoned old time judge. I think more and more clubs are tired of inviting the same judges in a four or five year rotation. I know I have been approached with a "it's been a few years since you last judged our trial" invitation. I'm very happy to see relative new comers who I personally think have good dog sense, being given a chance to judge.


----------



## Chad Wilson

Bill Billups said:


> It was for AA assignments. I've judged about a dozen minor stakes and I wasn't listed


yes, same here Bill....I have judged 10+ times on minors and one AA about 5-6 years ago and was not listed


----------



## BonMallari

EdA said:


> Very true, I know some excellent very experienced judges who are rarely invited to judge.


Any idea Why ? are they afraid they wont judge, or that because they are not from that region that the circuit rank and file from that region will not like their(FTC) choices..


----------



## DEN/TRU/CRU

BBnumber1 said:


> Actually, you do get minor stakes points, and there is even a minimum number of total points between the 2 judges of a minor stake


Sorry for not clarifying, what I meant to say minor stakes don't add to AA stakes points. As the post before me ( we must of hit enter about the same time ). 4 x 250 =1000 not 2000. Now it would be interesting to see how many minor stake judges are out there to mix into the blend.


----------



## EdA

BonMallari said:


> Any idea Why ? are they afraid they wont judge, or that because they are not from that region that the circuit rank and file from that region will not like their(FTC) choices..


It mystifies me, perhaps they fear rejection or do not like judges who are known to put on difficult tests.


----------



## Huff

Dr Ed you can pm me those names I would love to have them. 

Russell


----------



## FOM

Huff said:


> Dr Ed you can pm me those names I would love to have them.
> 
> Russell


Me too...looking high and low for a 4th judge with no luck.


----------



## Ted Shih

Some thoughts on the numbers:

1. Taking the numbers at face value there are 333 judges who have over 20 All Age Judging Points.
2. If there are 250 trials with an Open and an Amateur, for the major stakes alone, you would need 500 judges with over 20 All Age Judging Points if you simply wanted to have one of the two judges in each All Age Stake have significant judging experience.
3. Some of the data is out of date. There are people listed who are dead. There are people listed who have turned pro. There are people who have left the sport. 
4. Of the 333 judges who have over 20 All Age Judging Points, not all are competent. So there must be some reduction of that number.
5. I remain skeptical about the claims of large numbers of qualified individuals who have simply to be asked to judge as a solution to the problem.

Conclusion - there are too many field trials and too few judges to staff them.

Solutions
1. The idea of pairing an old hand with an inexperienced judge is not without its issues:
- If I am judging a large Open or Amateur, I want someone experienced by my side, not a novice. 
- If I am running a large Open or Amateur, I like having two experienced judges, because there is less likelihood that one person will hold sway over the tests, the callbacks, and the placements. There is more give and take when you have two experienced judges. And the trial tends to more more quickly and smoother.
- Not all experienced judges are good teachers. The idea of pairing judges assumes that the experienced judges are.
2. I happen to think that the apprentice program is a good idea. A novice gets to follow around two more experienced judges. The novice is exposed to two different view points. The more experienced judges have one another to lean on to make sure that the trial runs smoothly.

Ted


----------



## JusticeDog

EdA said:


> Tradition, from the early days of field trials when professional trainers did not enter owner's homes by the main entrance.


Not such a bad tradition!  Bring this back, along with Jack Unbehan's hat of pins..


----------



## JusticeDog

John Robinson said:


> I'm very happy to see relative new comers who I personally think have good dog sense, being given a chance to judge.


yes. but I hate to see the newbie that doesn't really run AA stakes judging an open or am. There is something to be said for getting your behind handed to you on a platter on more than one occasion that teaches you the nuances of the open and the amateur. I also think the minor stakes are a good way to get your feet wet, and learn to make judging decisions. Many new judges can't or won't make decisions when judging AA stakes. And, I'm not just talking about placements. I'm also talking about set ups.


----------



## Barry

Ted,
You hit the nail right on the head! Way to many trials. Some clubs need to either go away or do one trial one trial a year
Just returned from California where there is a total of 16 trials within 700 mi. That equates to 64 AA judges not to mention judges for the minors. Who is going to judge all those trial. That's just their spring circuit.


----------



## Wade Thurman

Ted Shih;1206101
Conclusion - there are too many field trials and too few judges to staff them.
Ted[/SIZE said:


> [/FONT]


I made this comment a few weeks ago on a different thread. We have simply outgrown ourselves. I agree with Barry's first line completely.

I do believe the judges points listed in the RFTN are minor & AA stakes combined.


----------



## huntinman

Wade said:


> I made this comment a few weeks ago on a different thread. We have simply outgrown ourselves. I agree with Barry's first line completely.
> 
> I do believe the judges points listed in the RFTN are minor & AA stakes combined.


Wade, the retriever news article says "the following is a tabulation of lifetime *major stake* judging points for the active judges during the five year period between 2009 - 2013"


----------



## Ted Shih

Barry said:


> Ted,
> You hit the nail right on the head! Way to many trials. Some clubs need to either go away or do one trial one trial a year
> Just returned from California where there is a total of 16 trials within 700 mi. That equates to 64 AA judges not to mention judges for the minors. Who is going to judge all those trial. That's just their spring circuit.



After fighting to get more trials to reduce trial size, I am not in favor of eliminating trials. I would like to see the judging pool expand. I am not sure how, though.


----------



## blind ambition

Would it be reasonable to look at how judges are compensated for their efforts as a means of increasing the size of the judging pool?


----------



## mjh345

BonMallari said:


> IMHO the 8 point rule is somewhat misleading..case in point
> 
> My brother is a well respected AA judge,has 80 + AA points on dogs he has personally owned/handled..BUT he has 6 AA judging points (all Open stakes)
> 
> My friend and hunting pal has well over the 8 AA judging points and you can count the number of AA points he has on one hand
> 
> Who would you rather have judging your trial ?


The one who is the better judge


----------



## BonMallari

Barry said:


> Ted,
> You hit the nail right on the head! Way to many trials.* Some clubs need to either go away or do one trial one trial a year*
> Just returned from California where there is a total of 16 trials within 700 mi. That equates to 64 AA judges not to mention judges for the minors. Who is going to judge all those trial. That's just their spring circuit.


Barry : with all due respect, who would make that decision ? how would you go about taking away a trial date from a long standing club,especially when that trial is the only game in town, when the rest of the country is still in snow..If a club has earned the right to hold two trials, and continues to be in good standing with the AKC, why should they have their trial taken away...As for clubs needing to go away..seriously


----------



## BonMallari

blind ambition said:


> Would it be reasonable to look at how judges are *compensated *for their efforts as a means of increasing the size of the judging pool?


Not only NO ...but HELL NO....once you hint at any form of compensation, the possibility of tainted results will rear its ugly head


----------



## kpolley

Good thread.....one thing that judges can do is to be sure their contact info is updated in the judges directory. This thread prompted me to check mine and it is now current.


----------



## Gawthorpe

BonMallari said:


> Not only NO ...but HELL NO....once you hint at any form of compensation, the possibility of tainted results will rear its ugly head


Bon:
As you know many types of competition involve compensated judges. Show dogs, hunter jumper horses for example. 
Could it be part of the reason we do not have more younger and inexperienced judges & competitors is that they are in a stage of their life where the finances are not possible? 
The clubs I have been part of have an extremely tight budget and I don't see us being able to pay judges.

If the club is compensating the judge for the event then who would the paid judge be biased towards?


----------



## FOM

What, the standard $50 gift card isn't enough compensation? Plus the Monday morning back stabbing and RTF bus ride? The loss of valuable vacation days? Come on....it's all in good fun!  

The more I judge, the more I realize that FT judges are a special kind of crazy!


Edit: Yeah special kind of crazy, just booked a 6:45am flight out of Denver just to save the club as much $ as possible...it's going to be fun getting up at 4:00am to catch that flight!


----------



## Charles C.

FOM said:


> What, the standard $50 gift card isn't enough compensation? Plus the Monday morning back stabbing and RTF bus ride? The loss of valuable vacation days? Come on....it's all in good fun!
> 
> The more I judge, the more I realize that FT judges are a special kind of crazy!


What Lainee said. Judging is sort of like being in a bad relationship. You take the abuse and keep coming back. I was foolish enough to judge 2 weekends in a row recently. Here's a few gems just from those 2 weekends:

"Geez, did you or your co-judge pick out this mark?"

"This is a trained abilities test, not a natural test, but that's OK"

"I wouldn't have set up these marks, but I'm not judging"

"I can't see the ^%^&%*&)&$$ blind ... you've got to mark it where people can see it"

"As a member of the committee, I'm protesting this test" on what grounds? You think it's unsafe? "uhh, I don't like it"


----------



## John Robinson

Charles C. said:


> What Lainee said. Judging is sort of like being in a bad relationship. You take the abuse and keep coming back. I was foolish enough to judge 2 weekends in a row recently. Here's a few gems just from those 2 weekends:
> 
> "Geez, did you or your co-judge pick out this mark?"
> 
> "This is a trained abilities test, not a natural test, but that's OK"
> 
> "I wouldn't have set up these marks, but I'm not judging"
> 
> "I can't see the ^%^&%*&)&$$ blind ... you've got to mark it where people can see it"
> 
> "As a member of the committee, I'm protesting this test" on what grounds? You think it's unsafe? "uhh, I don't like it"


Yep, a pretty thankless job, I can't imagine why we have a shortage of judges.


----------



## Marvin S

Charles C. said:


> What Lainee said. Judging is sort of like being in a bad relationship. You take the abuse and keep coming back. I was foolish enough to judge 2 weekends in a row recently. Here's a few gems just from those 2 weekends:
> 
> "Geez, did you or your co-judge pick out this mark?"
> 
> "This is a trained abilities test, not a natural test, but that's OK"
> 
> "I wouldn't have set up these marks, but I'm not judging"
> 
> "I can't see the ^%^&%*&)&$$ blind ... you've got to mark it where people can see it"
> 
> "As a member of the committee, I'm protesting this test" on what grounds? You think it's unsafe? "uhh, I don't like it"


Consider the source - like the many meaningless compliments received you chalk it up to stupidity - 
like RTF there is no shortage of that.



John Robinson said:


> Yep, a pretty thankless job, I can't imagine why we have a shortage of judges.


I haven't read the article as my RN has not arrived but I can offer this - the 2007 issue of Callbacks has 170 pages of names with about 50+ names/page -
my database has 2562 names of AKC Approved (at the time) judges with 6037 dogs handles to placings - 

The only thought should be to ensure that at each trial there are competent & impartial judges 
sitting in judgment of these well trained retrievers.


----------



## mjh345

Marvin S said:


> Consider the source - like the many meaningless compliments received you chalk it up to stupidity -
> like RTF there is no shortage of that.
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't read the article as my RN has not arrived but I can offer this - the 2007 issue of Callbacks has 170 pages of names with about 50+ names/page -
> my database has 2562 names of AKC Approved (at the time) judges with 6037 dogs handles to placings -
> 
> The only thought should be to ensure that at each trial there are competent & impartial judges
> sitting in judgment of these well trained retrievers.


Hey Marvin is your website current?
If so what is its address?
Thanks


----------



## Barry

BonMallari said:


> Barry : with all due respect, who would make that decision ? how would you go about taking away a trial date from a long standing club,especially when that trial is the only game in town, when the rest of the country is still in snow..If a club has earned the right to hold two trials, and continues to be in good standing with the AKC, why should they have their trial taken away...As for clubs needing to go away..seriously


With all due respect, how about the people who run these clubs and complain that they can't get judges or help to run a trial. They will make the decision on weather or not to have a trial or fold a club. 

The thread seems to be to many trials, to few judges? My opinion was to many trials. In the past only a few clubs had two trials a year. Now there is more new clubs. Some clubs are trying to conflict trials which makes for new trials. So don't say that there isn't more trials now than say five years ago.
People used to stay home in the snow in years past because of work or business. Now retired they pick up and move during the winter. I think that has a lot to do with trial size. These same people run clubs or help run trials in there home areas. Most clubs only have a handful of workers if that. When it comes down to just a couple of people running a club it will go away. I'm seeing way to often people complaining about not enough help. It gets old. And yes seriously.


----------



## blind ambition

BonMallari said:


> Not only NO ...but HELL NO....*once you hint at any form of compensation, the possibility of tainted results will rear its ugly head*


Why would that necessarily be the case to any extent greater than may now exist with the current levels of compensation/remuneration? Would it make a difference real or perceived if the compensation scale were set at a national level rather than left to the local clubs? Is isn't just about finding quality qualified people it's also about finding people who like to become qualified to ensure there can be competitions in the future.

The problems of a judging pool being outstripped by demand is a serious one for all competitors engaged in retriever sports, I think the situation warrants examination from as many perspectives as possible.


----------



## BonMallari

Barry said:


> With all due respect, how about the people who run these clubs and complain that they can't get judges or help to run a trial. They will make the decision on weather or not to have a trial or fold a club.
> 
> The thread seems to be to many trials, to few judges? My opinion was to many trials. In the past only a few clubs had two trials a year. Now there is more new clubs. Some clubs are trying to conflict trials which makes for new trials. So don't say that there isn't more trials now than say five years ago.
> People used to stay home in the snow in years past because of work or business. Now retired they pick up and move during the winter. I think that has a lot to do with trial size. These same people run clubs or help run trials in there home areas. Most clubs only have a handful of workers if that. When it comes down to just a couple of people running a club it will go away. I'm seeing way to often people complaining about not enough help. It gets old. And yes seriously.


If a club chooses on their own to fold or stop putting on a second trial , then so be it..That is on them not you and me....

As for new clubs putting on conflicting trials, isn't there already a rule in place to protect that from happening?

There is a long history of clubs folding that were/are run by single entities...in fact the majority of Retriever clubs across the West (Calif,AZ,Utah) are controlled by an iron fisted minority of either one or two couples and a revolving door of passerby that make a brief stop with one dog. When those entities get out of the game or leave this world, THEN you will literally see clubs disappear and FT's to go with it..If a guy like Arnie Erwin can secure judges TWO YRS out then why cant others do the same

The dirty little secret in some FT clubs is that the judge selection committee is comprised of one or two people, and if one happens to be on their s*** list they will literally turn down a National caliber type of judge for a personal grudge or because they have an axe to grind...But yet it those same people that will bemoan that there are no judges available

Someone with a ton of experience mentioned to me that if someone like the Retriever News would publish a list of qualified and willing judges by region, then maybe it would alleviate people lamenting the lack of Qualified judges on the circuit and at least give them a resource to go to their "committee" with for the selection process


----------



## Gene

Not sure why the list of judges did not contain those with only minor stake assignments to date. Most start that way. Those are your future potential judges. Sure they need work and woking with experienced judges would help bring these people along. A couple people posted on this thread (Chad and Bill )who have had multiple minor stake assignments yet were not on the list. I happen to also be in that category. I haven't been as active the past couple years due to family obligations but time is starting to free up a little more. Still enjoy the sport just don't get to do it as much as I like. For discussion the less experienced judges should be in the mix as many of those will likely be the ones judging in the future if they are brought through the ranks.


----------



## BonMallari

blind ambition said:


> Why would that necessarily be the case to any extent greater than may now exist with the current levels of compensation/remuneration? Would it make a difference real or perceived if the compensation scale were set at a national level rather than left to the local clubs? Is isn't just about finding quality qualified people it's also about finding people who like to become qualified to ensure there can be competitions in the future.
> 
> The problems of a judging pool being outstripped by demand is a serious one for all competitors engaged in retriever sports, I think the situation warrants examination from as many perspectives as possible.


Not all clubs have the same financial resources, could you see the slippery slope it would lead to if Club A would be able to compensate Judge XYZ with $$$ Yet Club B was not able to offer that same judge the same renumeration for his services. You could literally end up with a pool of "professional traveling judges", and then what do you do for the club member that donates his/her time and a whole lot more to judge the same stake, do they receive the same compensation ?


----------



## Huff

Paying judges a appearance fee would also raise the cost of entry fees. Someone has to pay for the high dollar, national judge.


----------



## Mike W.

The state of the judging pool today is the biggest threat to Field Trials, in my view.


----------



## John Robinson

Mike W. said:


> The state of the judging pool today is the biggest threat to Field Trials, in my view.


Not arguing with your point, I just have to say your avatar really creeps me out. Where is that from anyway?

John


----------



## blind ambition

Better pray it's not from his family album!


----------



## russhardy

How about don't judge don't play - or rather you judge you get to play? 

What if it was required to have judged x number of FT's within the past y number of years to handle a dog in or own a dog entered in a National? I suspect most handlers in the National would readily meet the threshold that was deemed appropriate for both x and y. And/or if it was required to have judged x number of FT's within the past y number of years to handle or own a dog entered in a FT? Also, a grace period for newbies of z number of years.


----------



## John Robinson

russhardy said:


> How about don't judge don't play - or rather you judge you get to play?
> 
> What if it was required to have judged x number of FT's within the past y number of years to handle a dog in or own a dog entered in a National? I suspect most handlers in the National would readily meet the threshold that was deemed appropriate for both x and y. And/or if it was required to have judged x number of FT's within the past y number of years to handle or own a dog entered in a FT? Also, a grace period for newbies of z number of years.


No offence to anybody, but what percentage of handlers do you think would make good judges?


----------



## russhardy

Point taken. But how do you think we should encourage more folks to judge and become competent?


----------



## Ted Shih

There are days when I agree with you, John.
There are other days when I agree with you, Russ.


----------



## huntinman

Ted Shih said:


> There are days when I agree with you, John.
> There are other days when I agree with you, Russ.


Bet they'll both sleep better tonight;-)


----------



## John Robinson

russhardy said:


> Point taken. But how do you think we should encourage more folks to judge and become competent?


First Bill cracks me up...

To answer your question I think the best way is for the individuals that are in position to choose judges keep their eyes out for young blood. Those relative newcomers with maybe their first good all age dog who seem to get it. Let's face it even new comers are probably near fifty. You can tell by training with them, who the smart, hard workers are. Nurture them, take them under your wing, discuss bird placement in test during training, point out good and bad test at trials, discuss field trial mechanics, show them how to judge, then pair them up with good mentor type old judge. I was lucky to have great mentor co-judges who made sure that I was equal when it came to judging dogs. They took my ideas on setting up test seriously with a tweak here or there, showed me more about mechanics, and trial by trial taught me to be a judge.

John


----------



## Ted Shih

John Robinson said:


> First Bill cracks me up...
> 
> To answer your question I think the best way is for the individuals that are in position to choose judges keep their eyes out for young blood. Those relative newcomers with maybe their first good all age dog who seem to get it. Let's face it even new comers are probably near fifty. You can tell by training with them, who the smart, hard workers are. Nurture them, take them under your wing, discuss bird placement in test during training, point out good and bad test at trials, discuss field trial mechanics, show them how to judge, then pair them up with good mentor type old judge. I was lucky to have great mentor co-judges who made sure that I was equal when it came to judging dogs. They took my ideas on setting up test seriously with a tweak here or there, showed me more about mechanics, and trial by trial taught me to be a judge.
> 
> John



This would work if there was "young" or "new" blood entering in significant numbers. But, there isn't.


----------



## Breck

the coefficient of inbreeding within field trial judging is beyond the point of acceptance. 
To further the idea Ted & Ed presented to reduce AA entries I believe there may be a path to a solution for lack of availabe judges.
Just as there are requirements for a dog to Qualify there could be implimentation of a rule to limit a person to entering X field trial entries where that number would be reset once an AA assigment is completed. For sake of argument lets start with 25 entry credits per Judging assignment. For those no cutout for judging maybe 2 three day marshalling assignments or something could be equilivant to 1 judging assignment.


----------



## Scott Adams

The field trial game in USA is doing itself a great disservice by not allowing pro's to judge. The quality of tests and mentoring would increase dramatically. Pro trainers judge here in Canada, and it only helps our game. I am not aware of any conflict that has arisen with pros judging here. Our judging pool is tiny compared to AKC.


----------



## Criquetpas

Ted Shih said:


> This would work if there was "young" or "new" blood entering in significant numbers. But, there isn't.


I have a "young fellow" who trains with us on a regular basis for the past eight years. He now has a all-age dog that needs a win to title both ways, FC and /or AFC. He started judging all-age stakes about two years ago and now has 14 major points. Did two in Florida this year. He works hard trains his own dogs and I judged an Open with him early last year. He has learned fast and well. Comes from the HRC and AKC hunt test game, finished a Grand and a Master National with two different dogs. Has placed a dog on the National Derby list and beside the pointed all-age dog has another qualified all-age dog. He works a full-time job, is personable and friendly. He sets up sound tests in training and at trials. He is 53 years old! Now the profile of a judge is some of the things mentioned above needed to get asked to judge major stakes.
He has been mentored well I agree, most in our group are eight point judges (or working towards it), including a 100 plus. It aint easy folks but if you want to judge those are some of the hoops you have to jump through as an example.

As Ted indicated this is the new blood and he was almost 50 years old when he judged his first major stake something to think about. He has high credentials for judging. Just some thoughts.


----------



## John Robinson

Good story Earl, just the kind of person I'm talking about. In our sport the terms _young_ and _new_ are relative. The _young_ people I'm talking about are 50ish, early retirees how finally have the time and resources to train and campaign a dog or two. I started in hunt test back in my early 40s, hunt test were viable for a working guy to train a few days after work and a day over the weekend. I got my first field trial dog when I was 45, but had to use a pro. My wife and I would throw birds for the pro on Saturday or Sunday and we slowly learned the field trial game. I think of a 40ish field trial person as being very young for our sport.

John


----------



## Criquetpas

John Robinson said:


> Good story Earl, just the kind of person I'm talking about. In our sport the terms _young_ and _new_ are relative. The _young_ people I'm talking about are 50ish, early retirees how finally have the time and resources to train and campaign a dog or two. I started in hunt test back in my early 40s, hunt test were viable for a working guy to train a few days after work and a day over the weekend. I got my first field trial dog when I was 45, but had to use a pro. My wife and I would throw birds for the pro on Saturday or Sunday and we slowly learned the field trial game. I think of a 40ish field trial person as being very young for our sport.
> 
> John


Your correct John. I forget sometimes on young vrs old. I was a mere 19 or 20 years old and fumbled around for nearly 20 years as a basically bird boy, grunt, gopher , for a bunch of "serious dog trainers", and didn't have anything competitive until I was in my early 40's . So young is relative .


----------



## BonMallari

As pointed out by some previous posters there are a group of judges who have multiple MINOR stakes experience, but probably have never been asked/invited to judge an AA event. 

That may be an area/resource that could be tapped. If someone has judged a Derby and a Qual, they are more qualified to step up to judge an AA stake then putting a clipboard with a novice club member along with an 8 point judge, which in essence turned the stake into a one man judging event. Now convincing the powers that be to give these minor judges the Open/Amateur assignments may be another ball of wax, but what are the alternatives


----------



## huntinman

Criquetpas said:


> Your correct John. I forget sometimes on young vrs old. I was a mere 19 or 20 years old and fumbled around for nearly 20 years as a basically bird boy, grunt, gopher , for a bunch of "serious dog trainers", and didn't have anything competitive until I was in my early 40's . So young is relative .


Yes... but you were absorbing the game the whole time. Knowledge that cannot be bought. Only gained through time in the field doing and observing. 

Hard to believe, but next year will be thirty years ago that I was a 26 year old newbie with a backyard bred chocolate trying to run my first derby! That didn't go all that well... but it kept me coming back.


----------



## FOM

John Robinson said:


> I think of a 40ish field trial person as being very young for our sport.


Guess I'm a baby to the sport  I was 28 when I got my first knucklehead and played HTs, got my first AA dog at 32...now I'm 42.

My only concern is complete and total burn out before I reach retirement!


----------



## FOM

BonMallari said:


> As pointed out by some previous posters there are a group of judges who have multiple MINOR stakes experience, but probably have never been asked/invited to judge an AA event.
> 
> That may be an area/resource that could be tapped. If someone has judged a Derby and a Qual, they are more qualified to step up to judge an AA stake then putting a clipboard with a novice club member along with an 8 point judge, which in essence turned the stake into a one man judging event. Now convincing the powers that be to give these minor judges the Open/Amateur assignments may be another ball of wax, but what are the alternatives


Only issue is the new requirements to become an AA judge and is the person with 8+ minors willing to jump through the hoops?


----------



## BonMallari

FOM said:


> Only issue is the new requirements to become an AA judge and is the person with 8+ minors willing to jump through the hoops?


You know as well as I do that working the minor stakes in any capacity is a thankless,non glam part of the sport. I also think that is where the disconnect happens and people new to the sport give up and say WTH am I doing out here busting my rear end, while all the name players are having fun at the Open/Amateur

Somehow the sport has to make the transition and incentive from the minor stakes to AA a smoother path, and something more attainable

The people who have judged the Q's and Derby have shown they are willing to jump through the hoops, but sometimes the hoops get moved like Lucy pulling the football while Charlie is approaching to kick it..Only takes one or two of those and Charlie is either going to kick Lucy in the behind or more than likely leave and take their toys and manpower/labor elsewhere


----------



## John Robinson

FOM said:


> Guess I'm a baby to the sport  I was 28 when I got my first knucklehead and played HTs, got my first AA dog at 32...now I'm 42.
> 
> My only concern is complete and total burn out before I reach retirement!


You're one of the young bloods I was thinking about when I posted my comment before. I'll admit we have a problem getting good judges, but I don't think it's all doom and gloom as I see good people like you and Dave, and a number of other good handlers getting their feet wet and starting to judge. I'll never forget judging with Judy Rasmusen a number of years ago, we worked well together, had a great time and put on a good trial, but I still considered myself the junior judge, though it was a total 50-50 deal. At the end she gave me a big hug, mentioned that with this being my fifth all age, I could technically be the senior judge on my next outing. Obviously you need way more than eight points to really start knowing it well enough to be that, but it was a cool comment and for the first time I started thinking of myself as a competent judge.


----------



## Criquetpas

Some of the issues of poor judging are persons selected to judge at a major stake level, after apprenticing. We have some judges who are now 8 point judges plus several times, who have not done much in a all-age stake but are asked to judge. Sometimes hard workers at club events become judges as rewards , even though they are limited in experience with the stake they are judging. Put a 8 plus point judge with an inexperienced judge and "you know who will run the stake". Then you have the issue of trading judges, you judge for us and we will give you an assignment. There are so many issues it is a myriad of problems. Then you have the issues of minor stake judges with sometimes dozens of assignments who never get asked to do the big dance. Some clubs will ask you to judge a minor stake first, then come back and do a major stake at a later date. I think that has merit.They get to test the waters, especially in a qualifying stake, to see how you perform. It also gives an experienced person to judge with a less experienced person, rather then "lets see if we can make the total needed for eight points" in the minors. From a personal standpoint I have judged in the 40's in major stakes or the RTFN range of 20 to 49, but,have judged scores of minor stakes before getting asked on a regular basis to do a major. It wasn't until I was running all-age stakes on a regular basis I was then asked to do a major stake even judging minors, both sanction and licensed for many years. I suppose hunt tests at the Master level could apply also to the above criteria. I am a eight plus point Master judge, but a relative newcomer at the hunt test game, with limited experience judging the Junior and the senior. I was immediately asked to judge a Master (have made five MH) but perhaps should have started at the junior and senior level. I have judged only one Junior, just saying. Perhaps apply the eight rule to the minor FT stakes and perhaps a eight point rule to the HT junior or senior before moving up to a master. Just a bunch of thoughts from a personal perspective. It was a beautiful training day with the water open and the snow gone on the Illinois/Wisconsin border.


----------



## DoubleHaul

FOM said:


> Only issue is the new requirements to become an AA judge and is the person with 8+ minors willing to jump through the hoops?


That is an interesting question. The hoops to judge an AA stake (with the right co-judge) one must either 1) apprentice twice at the AA level, apprentice at least once and judge two or more minor stakes or 3) handle a dog in 15 or more AA stakes in the previous 3 years and earn at least a JAM in one of them.

I know some good AA judges that have done it via apprenticeship or some combination thereof. For myself, although I am now an 8+ minor stake judge, I wanted to become qualified via the third track. This was partly because with all the working trials judging and running trials it is tough to make time to apprentice, even though it could well be a great learning experience, and partly because I just wanted to do it that way. Each way takes some commitment for sure and I am not sure which way is the best, but I do think that it is a good thing to have some hoops.


----------



## j towne

How much expierence do you think a person should have before they judge a field trial?


----------



## EdA

j towne said:


> How much expierence do you think a person should have before they judge a field trial?


They should have competed successfully at the level they are judging.


----------



## j towne

What is your idea of successful? 
If someone was going to judge derby and Q? 
I am thinking about getting approved


----------



## Mike W.

There are a plenty of 8 pt judges that I will not run under anymore.


----------



## Ted Shih

Mike W. said:


> There are a plenty of 8 pt judges that I will not run under anymore.



Without naming names, for what reasons will you not run under these people?


----------



## Tim West

Another issue that isn't being discussed that impacts getting judges is the economy of flying in qualified 8 pt judges. I figure we (Cimarron RC) can handle two judges that have to travel by plane or drive long distances. In some cases driving can be more expensive than flying. I could get four 8 pt judges quite easily for our trial. Getting them within a reasonable distance is the trick. We have lost money or barely scraped by the last four trials. We are down to one a year now, a combination of the members wearing out and the wallet wearing thin. I think the judging rules that were put in place several years ago made it much tougher for small, thin clubs to find judges. Again, a rule that was made (in my opinion) by folks in the sport that have clubs with many members and a thick bank account.


----------



## Vicki Worthington

This is a great discussion! Many have great ideas. I'd like to add a few thoughts as well. First, merely competing in an all-age stake--even if one is very successful does not really translate into being a good judge--especially if they don't train dogs and routinely set up tests. If, as a successful handler, all I do is learn to handle for field trials and show up to run my dog in training on a test that my pro has crafted, it does not bestow the ability to set up tests--real tests--not training drills--on me. One of the biggest complaints I've heard over the years is that field trial tests have become the latest control drills seen at professional training set-ups. 

I like the apprentice program, but how many folks are going to put up their own nickel to be at a trial to watch, hopefully have some input into the tests and evaluations, only to have to do that at least once more before being qualified to hold the book for an all-age stake. We used to have experienced _and knowledgeable_ judges for minor stakes. We would pair a less experienced person with them to give them more experience and insight into crafting tests. Those experienced judges must accommodate the newer judges to let them suggest tests, listen to why they want a test, and then _tactfully_ give feedback as to where the pitfalls may be or what may or may not happen. That's how they learn, not watching the next generation of control blind drills (like the ones that have given rise to running to the bird planter's feet, then buzzing the side of his chair for the next blind in a double set-up. To me, those are not field trial tests, they are drills.

I am firmly against allowing professionals to judge. Our sport is too small and our dogs/handlers too intertwined to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. I don't care how good of a person they are or now fair they are perceived to be, they derive their livlihood from training dogs for amateurs and they should not be judging. 

Money is always an issue with respect to trial expenses for the clubs. That said, if we are going to complain about the quality of judging or size of the trials, or any other aspect of putting on a good trial, we would be willing to pony up an entry fee that will enable the clubs to at least break even. For me, that would seriously limit the number of trials that I would run. It would likely make for smaller trials because I doubt I'm the only one that $100 or $150 entry fees would affect. 

Unfortunately, I think many have decided it's acceptable to blame poor performance on bad judges or bad trials, etc. It may be that it just wasn't our weekend; our dog wasn't on his game, or simply isn't talented enough, etc. But it seems the judges are always at fault.

One of the reasons that people like Mac/Lynne DuBose, Mark Medford, Bruce Hall, and many others who are routinely successful is because they buy the best that is available, not what is "within budget". (I apologize if I have left anyone out of the list--I know I did and I also acknowledege there are many successful trialers who do operate within budget & with hard work)

In short, it's not a simple answer. I do not believe there is a one-size-fits-all, so let's keep talking about it.


----------



## 24116

I agree with Vicki that this is a very complicated issue.
If the issue is not enough judges. Good luck solving that.
If the issue is quality of judges. It's my opinion that people do the best they can and they get better with experience. This will just take time.
If the real issue is poor set-ups. Why not ask the top pro's (2) at any trial to meet the AA judges to discuss and offer insight into the set-ups. 
I think you could develop some criteria using the Retriever News judges points as a guideline. Example...If total judges points don't add up to XX it's mandatory they meet with the pro's.
If the pro's refuse to play along have the AKC suspend them for X amount of time.

- 39.4% of those 1022 Active judges have 1-9 points
- 28% have 10-19 points
- 25.2% have 20-49 points
- 4.3% have 50-69 points
- 2.4% have 70-99 points
- .65 have 100 points or more


----------



## Steve Amrein

I guess I will put my 2 cents worth in. Our club just put on a trial and the entry numbers were low. We will lose money. Our club has been around for quite a long time and has a great membership that gets the job done. We also are on state land and those fees are relatively low. That said if we consistently had losers financially the club would go away. Having traveling/fly in judges is getting more expensive by the year. We have tried very hard to keep entry fees at a level of break even for the cost to put on a trial. I assume this is the same with other clubs. So unless entries go would increase the adding of out of area judges is not going to change from the current level.

Much has been discussed at nauseum about the relation of trial success, training of ones one dog vs having a pro trained dog. I think to use a black and white formula is a poor way to look at it. I have seen some folks judge that follow all Marvins golden judge rule that would do a poor job at a puppy stake. I also know a LOT of people that are good judges that have not owned a titled dog. Never got the win, dog died prematurely, had to step away from the sport for family/work reasons and so on. A good judge is just that if they are not dont ask them to judge. As for the number of points one has as a judge I feel that most people try to judge twice a year. Using that formula to get to 40 points . Also do you think some were celebrity judges?

To the last part is I will answer why I may not run under a judge. While working as a marshall or other worker how they treat the help. Poor attitude about the game and life. Willing to cut dogs just to get done early. Prejudiced against a female or brand of dog or even a newby. Disregard for the safety of participants human and canine. A favorite "trick" to drop dogs. Lastly I think a few times I have just been plain screwed over on a placement. 

All I want is to run a test and get a fair shake. Be judge on a equal and fair basis. hope they give the benifit to the dog. Someone will do the test the way the judges had it set up and hopefully it is me. 

One thing I did notice last weekend in the derby and the Q and after the awards were given. The pros that ran under me seemed to be genuine in giving thanks for taking time to judge. Tried to be at the stake where the marshals sent them. Most of all handed me the duck in a thoughtful manner not butt 1st haha.

BTW the derby had likely 60 points or more between us was that overkill ?


----------



## Steve Amrein

BTW I dont get RFTN currently how many points do I have? Doesnt AKC stop @ 8 minor/major?

Guessing around 25 total


----------



## EdA

My judging career began in an era when judges were expected to do a major and a minor stake which accomplishes two things, experienced judges for the minor stakes and a significant reduction in expenses for the club. I have not judged two stakes in the same weekend for a very long time and the last time I did it was a derby and qualifying (3 sets of judges). A few clubs still use just two sets of judges but not many.


----------



## John Robinson

Nice thread and good post, particularly this page. I just wanted to follow on Steve's last sentence regarding super experienced judges judging the derby. I was invited and encouraged by Roger Fangsrud to judge my first trial back in 1997. He put me with a very experienced, and more importantly great mentor, co-judge in the Open. I was startled to be judging the Open and asked why not the derby, it was Roger's viewpoint, and after judging a while I agree, that the derby is the hardest stake to judge. I learned the hard way when I was put with a zero point judge, I had two points to judge a derby. It was a disaster, too long a story to tell here, but I can honestly say that, though we worked our butts off and worried ourselves to death, we ultimately failed. It was a hard lesson that I took to heart and learned from.

Now I love the challenge and fun of judging the minor stakes. I don't like it when the minors stakes get the short end of the stick on grounds, judges and resources. Put an experienced-good judge with that newbie judge in all stakes.

John


----------



## John Robinson

EdA said:


> My judging career began in an era when judges were expected to do a major and a minor stake which accomplishes two things, experienced judges for the minor stakes and a significant reduction in expenses for the club. I have not judged two stakes in the same weekend for a very long time and the last time I did it was a derby and qualifying (3 sets of judges). A few clubs still use just two sets of judges but not many.


It still happens a little out west during the Spring and fall shoulder seasons. I like the 60-65 dog Open, 45 dog Amateurs that can be done in a day and a half leaving ample time for a 25 dog derby and 30 dog Qual. Those were the good old days to me.


----------



## Buzz

John Robinson said:


> It still happens a little out west during the Spring and fall shoulder seasons. I like the 60-65 dog Open, 45 dog Amateurs that can be done in a day and a half leaving ample time for a 25 dog derby and 30 dog Qual. Those were the good old days to me.


WNRC does...

I've done it here for derby/qual as most clubs do. It ends up being a long weekend when you have around 40 dogs in each stake.

I just finally satisfied qualifications for judging AA last summer (after playing with dogs for 10 years) but have not judged one yet, I'm still just getting my feet wet judging minors. I've only judged 5 and am on deck for 2 more. Personally I think it would be easier for me to do an Am in a weekend than two minors, especially since I believe judging derby is extremely difficult.


----------



## Ted Shih

Some thoughts:

1. We need more people with a passion to contribute to the sport. That includes putting on trials - and judging trials.
2. I happen to support the apprentice program. To those that say that it involves too much sacrifice, I say "so what." I want person who is willing to stay on the grounds until 7 pm on Sunday, if that is what is required to do right by the contestants and their dogs. Judging is hard work. It requires dedication and sacrifice. I want a person who understands and accepts that.
3. I would like to see more judging seminars, but unfortunately, the people who attend the seminars are not the ones who need them.
4. I am in favor of pros judging. I doubt it will happen, because the issue is too polarizing. 
5. I think the minor stakes are a good place for new judges to learn the ropes. However, when clubs fly out judges, it is usually for the major stakes - and when those stakes are larger, the imported judges do not judge the minors.


----------



## Vicki Worthington

*To Many Trials, Too Few Judges*

I too support the apprentice program. Recently we tried to get some folks to apprentice & they just plain out said they couldn't afford to burn the vacation days and the funds to "apprentice". Every person's circumstances are different, so that may not be a "popular" response insofar as deciding if that is a good route for developing new judges. But...it happened. The times that I have had an apprentice work with me, it's been a fun and, I hope, rewarding experience for the apprentice. There have, however, been a couple of times when the person apprenticing simply wanted to "punch their ticket" for the AKC, and I doubt they learned a darned thing. 

I think there are many who confuse "a fair shake" with leniency. It's very difficult to be lenient in 80-100+ dog stakes. It's not difficult to be fair. The sport has evolved into large entries, fewer handlers, and tough judgment calls. If that were not the case, we would not have the ever-present discussion about limiting entries at field trials. Being generous in one's callbacks takes on a different meaning when you still have the same amount of time to complete a stake, but you have often triple the number of entries that were experienced when the basic rules for conducting the stakes at a trial were conceived. So generous becomes more like small margin for error for judges faced with these numbers. That is why I made the statement earlier that it's easier to blame the quality of judging than to accept that each of us is part of the problem to greater or lesser degrees.

How are we part of the problem? By continuing to run up the entires in trials with multiple dogs to handle; by failing to accept some judging assignments each season; by complaining about large entries, but continuing to enter--even when the entry is large when we enter; and by complaining that judging is bad when all these other things are present as if "judging quality" is the one big "fix". By failing to work at weekend trials--most everyone wants to be on a national committee & get their name and photo in the recap edition of RFTN, but how many of us actually help a struggling club that needs help? I've had people tell me they have to concentrate on running their dogs, so they can't work or judge because they would be less successful! Don't that just beat all!

Maybe the standard should be that each person who enters "x" number of major stakes (or minor stakes if running at that level) must within the next calendar year meet the requirements to judge a major stake, and then those handlers must accept a judging assignment for each different dog they run during the upcoming trial season after attaining their qualifications. That might fix the "number of available" judges; but won't by itself address "quality". So...if you run 5 all-age dogs; you must judge 5 all-age stakes each year at a minimum. If you run 1 dog; judge 1 all-age stake each year at a minimum. That of itself may serve to give cause for pause about large numbers of entries!

I will also say this: Those club members who are responsible for obtaining judges have a difficult job and certainly need to be able to deal with rejection. But...they also have a huge responsibility to ask judges with experience and demonstrated knowledge. Let's face it, when someone is getting started on their judging career, they are extremely flattered when asked to judge. They don't question their credentials; they believe they are being asked because they in some way have demonstrated they have the right qualities to be asked! Most will not say, they can't because they aren't qualified. They will attempt to set up what they think they know--either good tests or poor tests--based upon their actual experience. They don't set out to be bad, and I sincerely don't think anyone sets out to be unfair to anyone. Different things appear to bear more weight with some judges than with others. 

The gallery at nearly every trial I have attended over the last 35 years seems to "judge" the judges; to criticize each mark and boldly point out what is "wrong" with the test, albeit in a "gallery" sort of way that "floats" up to the line, rather than direct conversation with the committee or the judges. I've heard more than a few comments from newish judges that they simply can't deal with the gallery behind them! 

All in all, it's still a very big problem. One thing is for certain, none of us should hold others to "our" standard of behavior or commitment when it comes to the sport we all love. After all "we" may not be as much a "pillar" of the sport as we think we are!


----------



## BonMallari

Making someone judge just to satisfy a requirement is not necessarily a good idea..That person may not be a good judge,or able to recognize good dog work, or even know how to set up a good test. You would actually be doing the trial itself an injustice by making someone judge a trial...its not like jury duty...Yes you would like everyone to contribute to the sport, but lets not go to the other end of the spectrum and have ill equipped judging assignments, there is way too much at stake in the stakes

Lets concentrate on making good judges, and getting good judges to accept those assignments...As Ted alluded to there are other areas that people can contribute to the society (trial) besides being a judge,plenty of work to be done at a trial


----------



## Buzz

BonMallari said:


> Making someone judge just to satisfy a requirement is not necessarily a good idea..That person may not be a good judge,or able to recognize good dog work, or even know how to set up a good test. You would actually be doing the trial itself an injustice by making someone judge a trial...its not like jury duty...Yes you would like everyone to contribute to the sport, but lets not go to the other end of the spectrum and have ill equipped judging assignments, there is way too much at stake in the stakes
> 
> Lets concentrate on making good judges, and getting good judges to accept those assignments...As Ted alluded to there are other areas that people can contribute to the society (trial) besides being a judge,plenty of work to be done at a trial


Not to mention what if no one liked your judging and no clubs would extend an invitation to you to judge their trial? Are you out of the sport because you can't fulfill the requirement to judge???

Also, like I've said, I have been playing with dogs for 10 years. In the last year I've been too busy to train as much as I'd like, but I have set up or helped set up a lot of training set-ups. But that's what they are is training setups, and a lot of what we set up to train would not be good weekend trial setups. I don't think training is the same at all, but it does teach you about dogs and how they react to factors in a test. I doubt that there is a substitute for actual judging experience. What has helped me the most is judging the occasional weekend club picnic trial with some of our old salts at SVRC.


----------



## Steve Amrein

I will say setting up marks while judging to hit it perfect is quite a challange. We talked at the trial how in most AA stakes you can usually tell when the wind,light and other factors are the best time to run. 10 feet can make all the difference in the world. I remember the 3rd or so AA stakes I judged it had always bothered me listening to the gallery judge the test. In the group was a RAC member a 2 time National judge and pro of equal experience all say what a stupid test it was and where they would put the birds. 2 of them picked up on the second and the pro got 2 or 3 dogs to do the test. All 3 said when they left the line what a nice test it was and was surprised. After that I figured I could do a decent and fair bird placement a could give a hoot what the gallery thought. 

I think often it takes the right person to judge. You will have to drop your friends dog that needs 1/2 a point 3 weeks before the cut off to the national. Your pro who has a dog or 2 of yours. You also have to listen to the BS from the gallery and the monday morning handler 3 states away from the trial. I think a lot of folks could be good judges because they can set up nice marks in training but dont want the BS. Who could blame them. I also do it to give back to the sport and because most of the time I like it. I like to see the dogs do good work . I like to see the handlers who can barely breath and about to puke watch the dog take a perfect line. 

Some one said maybe if they paid judges. I would not do it because if I had to be compensated the clubs could not afford it. My lawyer would be cheaper. All the fun out of it would be gone.


----------



## Buzz

Steve Amrein said:


> 10 feet can make all the difference in the world.


I don't think you can overstate that.


----------



## Mike W.

> Without naming names, for what reasons will you not run under these people?


There are several that I sincerely believe are dishonest.

There are others who consistently have set up bad tests. By bad, I mean rely on various tricks because I believe deep down they do not have confidence in their ability to place birds. I am by no means anywhere close to your level of experience Ted, but I have run enough dogs and trials to know what is a good test and what is not. After I see one of the two aforementioned reasons more than once from the same judge, I am done. 

I have a active career, a family, and other interests that bid for my time. I want to enjoy running the 7-10 trials per year that I run, even if I am not as successful as I might hope. So I am not going to give up a weekend and $400-600 to run under someone who I believe is dishonest or just hasn't demonstrated the ability to put up a nice trial.

One consistent theme is people who have been around a long time, but for whatever reason have not been competitive in years. They are deemed to be knowledgeable, but in fact have regressed to the point where it's just not worth it.


----------



## John Robinson

Being the glass half full guy I am, I have to point out that the flip side, those good judges that I will go out of my way to run under. I agree with Mike on the trick test judges. I don't mind super hard test, even like them, but I hate those trick test. One of them is setting up a key mark with the intention of making it hard for the dog to pick out, maybe the second bird with a flyer in the way. 

John


----------



## captain2560

Is the ability to transfer from a training mode to successful field trial marks( marks that get answers by having varying work) an automatic thing for most folks? Make your own conclusion. In the first series of a large trial its usually an elimination test, whereas in the last series it needs to be a marking test to differentuate the dogs that made it thru the first series as their work may be similar. In which case, if you dont have a marking test the trial may be decided by the blinds which is not the preferable answer. Sometimes the best college coaches were.not the most successful players but have a better understanding.of the sport. Train your dog and he or she will give you all the answers you seek. A good dog will.challenge you to be creative. Apply yourself as you expect your dog to apply theirselves.


----------



## John Robinson

captain2560 said:


> *Is the ability to transfer from a training mode to successful field trial marks( marks that get answers by having varying work) an automatic thing for most folks?* Make your own conclusion. In the first series of a large trial its usually an elimination test, whereas in the last series it needs to be a marking test to differentuate the dogs that made it thru the first series as their work may be similar. In which case, if you dont have a marking test the trial may be decided by the blinds which is not the preferable answer. Sometimes the best college coaches were.not the most successful players but have a better understanding.of the sport. Train your dog and he or she will give you all the answers you seek. A good dog will.challenge you to be creative. Apply yourself as you expect your dog to apply theirselves.


Definitely not, it's actually pretty hard and a lot of good handlers never get it. 

I agree that many times the first series of a large trial is designed to eliminate dogs, but I have run under a lot of good judges that eliminated dogs by having really hard marks. I believe that in most trials you get more answers about how good a marker a dog is in the first series rather than fourth. They are definitely different animals and water marks are very hard, but many times that winner comes down to the most courageous dog willing to make the big swims. That's a very good thing, and it requires a good marking dog with courage and conviction, but it is easier to recognize good marking in the first than the fourth. Just my opinion.

John


----------



## captain2560

I agree John, but if it is an elimination test in a large trial in the first , the judges need a marking test somewhere in the trial. Even if in the last test only 3 out of 10 do it without handling, if its a test where u miss the bird and handle the 3 that do it might have similar work. Always prefer challenging marks but sometimes conditions change ina test and definitely don't want to pencil dogs out.


----------



## Ted Shih

Brooks

You seem to be saying that a test that results in a significant number of dogs handling (that is, an elimination test) cannot have good marks.
If that is what you are saying, I disagree.

Ted


----------



## Dennis

A lot of what has been said here is worth talking about but it all boils down to were are we going to find enough good judges to acomadate the additional trials we all wanted in hopes that the entry's would become smaller that hasn't happen is most areas they just have stayed about the same.
Good dog people become good judges they are student of the game in every aspect of it. 
Some people just can't learn enough they want more hence they work in every part of our game they want to learn it all where else but joining a club chair a trial plant blinds run dogs do it all and this person will eventually become a judge and depending who the first 8 points are gotten with who knows what kind he will be until he or she finds their self and gets enough confidece to do there own thing.
It still boils down to the same thing we need new blood and let them judge,the game has changed and the new comers see it a little different than I.
I know that so I will join rather than be against the changes.


----------



## captain2560

I agree with Dennis on this.


----------



## BonMallari

Dennis said:


> Good dog people become good judges they are student of the game in every aspect of it.



Spot on statement there


----------



## huntinman

Vicki Worthington said:


> I too support the apprentice program. Recently we tried to get some folks to apprentice & they just plain out said they couldn't afford to burn the vacation days and the funds to "apprentice". Every person's circumstances are different, so that may not be a "popular" response insofar as deciding if that is a good route for developing new judges. But...it happened. The times that I have had an apprentice work with me, it's been a fun and, I hope, rewarding experience for the apprentice. There have, however, been a couple of times when the person apprenticing simply wanted to "punch their ticket" for the AKC, and I doubt they learned a darned thing.
> 
> I think there are many who confuse "a fair shake" with leniency. It's very difficult to be lenient in 80-100+ dog stakes. It's not difficult to be fair. The sport has evolved into large entries, fewer handlers, and tough judgment calls. If that were not the case, we would not have the ever-present discussion about limiting entries at field trials. Being generous in one's callbacks takes on a different meaning when you still have the same amount of time to complete a stake, but you have often triple the number of entries that were experienced when the basic rules for conducting the stakes at a trial were conceived. So generous becomes more like small margin for error for judges faced with these numbers. That is why I made the statement earlier that it's easier to blame the quality of judging than to accept that each of us is part of the problem to greater or lesser degrees.
> 
> How are we part of the problem? By continuing to run up the entires in trials with multiple dogs to handle; by failing to accept some judging assignments each season; by complaining about large entries, but continuing to enter--even when the entry is large when we enter; and by complaining that judging is bad when all these other things are present as if "judging quality" is the one big "fix". By failing to work at weekend trials--most everyone wants to be on a national committee & get their name and photo in the recap edition of RFTN, but how many of us actually help a struggling club that needs help? I've had people tell me they have to concentrate on running their dogs, so they can't work or judge because they would be less successful! Don't that just beat all!
> 
> Maybe the standard should be that each person who enters "x" number of major stakes (or minor stakes if running at that level) must within the next calendar year meet the requirements to judge a major stake, and then those handlers must accept a judging assignment for each different dog they run during the upcoming trial season after attaining their qualifications. That might fix the "number of available" judges; but won't by itself address "quality". So...if you run 5 all-age dogs; you must judge 5 all-age stakes each year at a minimum. If you run 1 dog; judge 1 all-age stake each year at a minimum. That of itself may serve to give cause for pause about large numbers of entries!
> 
> I will also say this: Those club members who are responsible for obtaining judges have a difficult job and certainly need to be able to deal with rejection. But...they also have a huge responsibility to ask judges with experience and demonstrated knowledge. Let's face it, when someone is getting started on their judging career, they are extremely flattered when asked to judge. They don't question their credentials; they believe they are being asked because they in some way have demonstrated they have the right qualities to be asked! Most will not say, they can't because they aren't qualified. They will attempt to set up what they think they know--either good tests or poor tests--based upon their actual experience. They don't set out to be bad, and I sincerely don't think anyone sets out to be unfair to anyone. Different things appear to bear more weight with some judges than with others.
> 
> *The gallery at nearly every trial I have attended over the last 35 years seems to "judge" the judges; to criticize each mark and boldly point out what is "wrong" with the test, albeit in a "gallery" sort of way that "floats" up to the line, rather than direct conversation with the committee or the judges. I've heard more than a few comments from newish judges that they simply can't deal with the gallery behind them! *
> 
> All in all, it's still a very big problem. One thing is for certain, none of us should hold others to "our" standard of behavior or commitment when it comes to the sport we all love. After all "we" may not be as much a "pillar" of the sport as we think we are!


One thing I learned when playing baseball and basketball... You can't have "rabbit ears"... Or listen to the gallery comments. Maybe I'm just dense, but when I'm judging I'm oblivious to any comments from the gallery or anywhere else unless the marshal, FTC or my co-judge says something to me. No matter what you do, the comments and critique will be there, it's the nature of the game... I do it when I'm in the gallery too.


----------



## Buzz

huntinman said:


> One thing I learned when playing baseball and basketball... You can't have "rabbit ears"... Or listen to the gallery comments. Maybe I'm just dense, but when I'm judging I'm oblivious to any comments from the gallery or anywhere else unless the marshal, FTC or my co-judge says something to me. No matter what you do, the comments and critique will be there, it's the nature of the game... I do it when I'm in the gallery too.



I was judging a qualifying once. One of the club officers came up to us during a re-bird and says, well I just had to come and look at your test because all the pros are coming back to the open and saying how much the like it. Later an Am criticized me on our test, stating that if the pros like it, it's too hard. You need to set up something easier so the Ams can compete. So like you say, you can't win...


----------



## MikeBoley

We sure have a problem but maybe it is deeper than just lack of judges. Sportsmanship seems to be lacking. As good sportsmen we should take our time to judge and do the best we can, also encourage others to judge and if we feel the need offer constructive criticism, not just throw folks under the bus for poor test design. I always look at and ask those I think are good judges and handles to offer comments on my test after the trial. As far as getting less experienced judges more opportunity this should be a prioriety among the clubs. I have just 10 AA points so am I experienced not by most standards. Asking those less experienced to judge is going to be critical to expanding the pool. I always think what a waste when you see two judges who both have 100 points judge together although it is usually a good trial. Those that are good judges and mentors should insist on judgeing wilth less experienced folks to spread their knowledge base.


----------



## John Robinson

MikeBoley said:


> We sure have a problem but maybe it is deeper than just lack of judges. Sportsmanship seems to be lacking. As good sportsmen we should take our time to judge and do the best we can, also encourage others to judge and if we feel the need offer constructive criticism, not just throw folks under the bus for poor test design. I always look at and ask those I think are good judges and handles to offer comments on my test after the trial. As far as getting less experienced judges more opportunity this should be a prioriety among the clubs. I have just 10 AA points so am I experienced not by most standards. Asking those less experienced to judge is going to be critical to expanding the pool. * I always think what a waste when you see two judges who both have 100 points judge together although it is usually a good trial. Those that are good judges and mentors should insist on judgeing wilth less experienced folks to spread their knowledge base*.


Very good point, I feel the same way. Why fly two high point judges in when you could fly one experienced mentor judge to take a relative newbie under his or wing for the weekend. I know some would be worried that the old timer would dominate on test set up, call backs and placements, but that wasn't the case with the good judges I was put with in my early trials. These people to a man (women in one case), bent over backwards to insure I was 50% of the equation while teaching me a lot at the same time.


----------



## MikeBoley

John Robinson said:


> Very good point, I feel the same way. Why fly two high point judges in when you could fly one experienced mentor judge to take a relative newbie under his or wing for the weekend. I know some would be worried that the old timer would dominate on test set up, call backs and placements, but that wasn't the case with the good judges I was put with in my early trials. These people to a man (women in one case), bent over backwards to insure I was 50% of the equation while teaching me a lot at the same time.


Very true John, or fly in a less experienced and let one of the locals mentor them. Nothing says you cant bring in a less experienced judge and give them a good experience. Then the less experienced judge doesnt have to give up all thier weekends to judge trials only on thier circuit.


----------



## roseberry

as a note for those trying to solve the judging issues: i don't think statements like "we should all give back to the sport" is useful in the recruitment of "new people" to judge. 

most new people aint took nothin' yet!;-)


----------



## FOM

MikeBoley said:


> We sure have a problem but maybe it is deeper than just lack of judges. Sportsmanship seems to be lacking. As good sportsmen we should take our time to judge and do the best we can, also encourage others to judge and if we feel the need offer constructive criticism, not just throw folks under the bus for poor test design. I always look at and ask those I think are good judges and handles to offer comments on my test after the trial. As far as getting less experienced judges more opportunity this should be a prioriety among the clubs. I have just 10 AA points so am I experienced not by most standards. Asking those less experienced to judge is going to be critical to expanding the pool. I always think what a waste when you see two judges who both have 100 points judge together although it is usually a good trial. Those that are good judges and mentors should insist on judgeing wilth less experienced folks to spread their knowledge base.


I'm going to use this as an opportunity, since Mike won the particular Open I judged, I'm sure he won't mind, but he brought up a good point - the ability to provide feedback without throwing someone under the bus. This trial was at Red River this Spring. After the trail, a person who I respect in the game was having dinner with everyone (this person happened to go out in our first series), asked me what I learned from this assignment? What I would do different? What I thought of the setups? We went bird by bird and talked about the good and the bad. It was criticism without the venom of a Monday morning RTF bus ride, plus it gave me the opportunity to think about it all without the craziness of actually judging. I do know myself and my co-judge gave it our best, but sometimes it doesn't seem like it when you are a handler or an owner at home getting sketchy updates - it's easy to just blame the judges. I learned a lot and it was very helpful to talk with someone who saw our tests from the outside in, plus they were able to mentor indirectly without making me feel like a horses ass or feel the need to get defensive. So there are good sportsmen/women out their, just wished there were more - judging is thankless, but sometimes a friendly conversation can help you realize it isn't so bad and everyone isn't bitter over some perceived injustice.

I also know this person reads RTF, so thank you for our conversation and sharing your onion rings!


----------



## Gerard Rozas

Maybe I should start judging again?? Maybe not


----------



## EdA

Gerard Rozas said:


> Maybe I should start judging again?? Maybe not


And some might say let sleeping dogs lie. ;-)


----------



## MikeBoley

FOM that is how it should be. My last assignment there are some minor things I would like to have changed. If we could give feed back in a way to improve judging with out tthrowing people under the bus it would be great. Everyone who has judged has laid an egg. If you learned from it great. Just dont hatch it once you laid it.

On a side note I thought your test were good and fair, I truely didnt know I had won but was overjoyed to find out. Thanks again for giving up your time.


As to the person who said newbies havent taken yet I doubt that, start early giving back you will never give back as much as we all take.


----------



## FOM

MikeBoley said:


> On a side note I thought your test were good and fair, I truely didnt know I had won but was overjoyed to find out. Thanks again for giving up your time.


Hell I didn't know you won either until we had handed the placements to the Marshal and then I looked at the dogs...Chili just drilled all his marks, it was fun to watch!


----------



## Dennis

The news will soon publish"callbacks" which will have major and minor judges eg the traditional 8 major and 8minor list also that recent contact information if you have any changes they should be sent ASAP to Retrieve News.
We need the retriever community to be interest we need your comments they are so important to all, also we will be publishing a follow up article regarding community reactions and anyone is welcome to write to John Stracka with their private thoughts to be possibly included. Here is John email [email protected] don't just think about this then keep it to your self we are trying to get everyone involved to better this sport now come on let's get it started.


----------



## Ted Shih

John Robinson said:


> Very good point, I feel the same way. Why fly two high point judges in when you could fly one experienced mentor judge to take a relative newbie under his or wing for the weekend. I know some would be worried that the old timer would dominate on test set up, call backs and placements, but that wasn't the case with the good judges I was put with in my early trials. These people to a man (women in one case), bent over backwards to insure I was 50% of the equation while teaching me a lot at the same time.


John 

When I started the Open had 40 dogs. Now the Open has 60-100 dogs. An 80+ dog Open is not the place to earn your stripes. In the larger All Age Stakes, I think a club should have two experienced judges. I believe this is where the Apprentice program can be of benefit.

I also prefer the give and take of call backs and placements with two experienced judges rather than one experienced judge and a newbie

Ted


----------



## John Robinson

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one Ted.


----------



## Tim Carrion

Ted Shih said:


> John
> 
> When I started the Open had 40 dogs. Now the Open has 60-100 dogs. An 80+ dog Open is not the place to earn your stripes. In the larger All Age Stakes, I think a club should have two experienced judges. I believe this is where the Apprentice program can be of benefit.
> 
> I also prefer the give and take of call backs and placements with two experienced judges rather than one experienced judge and a newbie
> 
> Ted


This is the "catch 22".

Fewer trials = less demand for judges
BUT
Fewer trials will result in larger entries which increases the demand for experienced judges. Leaving us with the original problem of not cultivating the next generation of judges.

IMHO the added requirements for judging have decreased the quantity of potential judges without improving the quality. There is a vast difference between apprenticing and holding a "real book".

Tim


----------



## EdA

John Robinson said:


> Very good point, I feel the same way. Why fly two high point judges in when you could fly one experienced mentor judge to take a relative newbie under his or wing for the weekend. I know some would be worried that the old timer would dominate on test set up, call backs and placements, but that wasn't the case with the good judges I was put with in my early trials. These people to a man (women in one case), bent over backwards to insure I was 50% of the equation while teaching me a lot at the same time.


John, I judged my first all-age stake in 1974 with Andrius A. (Peter) Jones. I have no idea how many stakes I have judged and don't really care even though some keep precise records and consider it a badge of honor. Once I had 8 points I was often paired with someone less experienced, sometimes with someone who should not have been judging. The opportunity to be paired with someone knowledgeable was rare. While my memory is and has been poor I have few remembrances of having judged with someone of lesser knowledge who later became an excellent judge. Perhaps that is because I was an inadequate teacher or my co-judge was a poor student who never got it. I recall one inexperienced co-judge who later became one of the better judges who I had the opportunity to run under, otherwise my most pleasant judging experiences (few though they may be) were with competent 8+ point judges.


----------



## Ted Shih

Tim Carrion said:


> This is the "catch 22".
> 
> There is a vast difference between apprenticing and holding a "real book".



Better to learn from watching once or twice, where the new person can do no harm. Then from holding the book, where the new person can.


----------



## russell.jason2

New judge here, only judged 3 minor stakes. I can tell you my experiences were great as I had a chance to judge with two very experienced co-judges, both 8 + major and one of them will be judging the upcoming National AM (I have much respect for these very experienced judges taking time to judge minor stakes). Neither of these very experienced judges tried to bully me or had the attitude "just sit there and learn". Both allowed me to set up each series and made tweaks and explained why. I find some opinions on this thread pompous and arrogant about how a new person should come up. I had been asked to judged before and I said no because this is my first dog and I had not accomplished anything. Once she won a Q, I said to myself, now I will judge minor stakes. I kinda have the same attitude about judging all-age. I only have a JAM in all-age stake with my young dog so I do not feel comfortable judging all-age stake, my thoughts are who am I to judge someone who has won or placed in all-age stakes or produced titled dog(s). I have had a good mentor in this game, and gave me some great advice about judging; 1. Be fair 2. set up a test you would love to see your dog run. 3. there is no such thing as a senior judge, if you want to see a dog back then bring him back. 4. Once your done judging a field trial and you think you set up everything perfect then you need to quit judging because there is always something you could have done better. I train with a group of 3 guys who are relative new to the sport and we are lucky enough to each have a dog that can play and we learn a lot from each other. If you want to hear the thoughts of a new guy...1.) Don't treat us like a rookie, we know we are, treat us as a co-judge. 2.) We want to learn from you but not from some guy who treats us with "newbie" attitude. 3.) make us part of the team, because I'll be damned if I am going to spend a weekend sitting in a chair and have not be allowed to have any input. I want to thank the two co-judges I have judged with, because of you and how you taught and shared your experiences, I will judge again if asked because if my first experiences where with a co-judge with a "newbie" attitude I probably would not have judged again. I was in the military for 23 years and seen too much to put up with some co-judge who would have treated me like crap and one thing I learned in the Air Force is to train your replacements and the other thing I learned is"'newbies" can have great ideas. I judged because I do love the sport and want to give back. I have chaired a FT and helped out our club's hunt test and I know how much work goes into it and when I go to run a FT I have so much appreciation for the judges and the workers!


----------



## BJGatley

russell.jason2 said:


> New judge here, only judged 3 minor stakes. I can tell you my experiences were great as I had a chance to judge with two very experienced co-judges, both 8 + major and one of them will be judging the upcoming National AM (I have much respect for these very experienced judges taking time to judge minor stakes). Neither of these very experienced judges tried to bully me or had the attitude "just sit there and learn". Both allowed me to set up each series and made tweaks and explained why. I find some opinions on this thread pompous and arrogant about how a new person should come up. I had been asked to judged before and I said no because this is my first dog and I had not accomplished anything. Once she won a Q, I said to myself, now I will judge minor stakes. I kinda have the same attitude about judging all-age. I only have a JAM in all-age stake with my young dog so I do not feel comfortable judging all-age stake, my thoughts are who am I to judge someone who has won or placed in all-age stakes or produced titled dog(s). I have had a good mentor in this game, and gave me some great advice about judging; 1. Be fair 2. set up a test you would love to see your dog run. 3. there is no such thing as a senior judge, if you want to see a dog back then bring him back. 4. Once your done judging a field trial and you think you set up everything perfect then you need to quit judging because there is always something you could have done better. I train with a group of 3 guys who are relative new to the sport and we are lucky enough to each have a dog that can play and we learn a lot from each other. If you want to hear the thoughts of a new guy...1.) Don't treat us like a rookie, we know we are, treat us as a co-judge. 2.) We want to learn from you but not from some guy who treats us with "newbie" attitude. 3.) make us part of the team, because I'll be damned if I am going to spend a weekend sitting in a chair and have not be allowed to have any input. I want to thank the two co-judges I have judged with, because of you and how you taught and shared your experiences, I will judge again if asked because if my first experiences where with a co-judge with a "newbie" attitude I probably would not have judged again. I was in the military for 23 years and seen too much to put up with some co-judge who would have treated me like crap and one thing I learned in the Air Force is to train your replacements and the other thing I learned is"'newbies" can have great ideas. I judged because I do love the sport and want to give back. I have chaired a FT and helped out our club's hunt test and I know how much work goes into it and when I go to run a FT I have so much appreciation for the judges and the workers!


Good deal. Kudos.


----------



## DarrinGreene

BonMallari said:


> IMHO the 8 point rule is somewhat misleading..case in point
> 
> My brother is a well respected AA judge,has 80 + AA points on dogs he has personally owned/handled..BUT he has 6 AA judging points (all Open stakes)
> 
> My friend and hunting pal has well over the 8 AA judging points and you can count the number of AA points he has on one hand
> 
> Who would you rather have judging your trial ?


And there in lies part of the problem...

People try to recruit new judges and the first thing out of the gallery is "he's never owned or trained and AFC, what's he doing in the chair?" Fact is... very few will have the time and money to develop an AFC... That doesn't mean they don't know good bird placement or good dog work.

I've never been involved enough in FT to be stuck in that position but I've heard it in hunting test galleries more than once. So the reaction from AKC in that case has been to make it so difficult to become a judge in HT that the same problem is about to occur there as well.


----------



## EdA

Evaluating dog's performances is the easiest part of judging if one has the capacity to accurately record by diagram and word what happened. The second easiest part is the mechanical things. By far the most difficult part and the one which separates great judges from ordinary ones is designing tests which by their design and difficulty separates dog's performances. This ability is learned most often when training and observing dogs working. It is not an ability that can be taught or learned in a classroom. How can we expect someone who has never run, trained, or closely observed a number of highly competitive dogs to have any concept of what those dogs are capable of doing?


----------



## Granddaddy

russell.jason2 said:


> New judge here, only judged 3 minor stakes. I can tell you my experiences were great as I had a chance to judge with two very experienced co-judges, both 8 + major and one of them will be judging the upcoming National AM (I have much respect for these very experienced judges taking time to judge minor stakes). Neither of these very experienced judges tried to bully me or had the attitude "just sit there and learn". Both allowed me to set up each series and made tweaks and explained why. I find some opinions on this thread pompous and arrogant about how a new person should come up. I had been asked to judged before and I said no because this is my first dog and I had not accomplished anything. Once she won a Q, I said to myself, now I will judge minor stakes. I kinda have the same attitude about judging all-age. I only have a JAM in all-age stake with my young dog so I do not feel comfortable judging all-age stake, my thoughts are who am I to judge someone who has won or placed in all-age stakes or produced titled dog(s). I have had a good mentor in this game, and gave me some great advice about judging; 1. Be fair 2. set up a test you would love to see your dog run. 3. there is no such thing as a senior judge, if you want to see a dog back then bring him back. 4. Once your done judging a field trial and you think you set up everything perfect then you need to quit judging because there is always something you could have done better. I train with a group of 3 guys who are relative new to the sport and we are lucky enough to each have a dog that can play and we learn a lot from each other. If you want to hear the thoughts of a new guy...1.) Don't treat us like a rookie, we know we are, treat us as a co-judge. 2.) We want to learn from you but not from some guy who treats us with "newbie" attitude. 3.) make us part of the team, *because I'll be damned if I am going to spend a weekend sitting in a chair and have not be allowed to have any input. * I want to thank the two co-judges I have judged with, because of you and how you taught and shared your experiences, I will judge again if asked because if my first experiences where with a co-judge with a "newbie" attitude I probably would not have judged again. I was in the military for 23 years and seen too much to put up with some co-judge who would have treated me like crap and one thing I learned in the Air Force is to train your replacements and the other thing I learned is"'newbies" can have great ideas. I judged because I do love the sport and want to give back. I have chaired a FT and helped out our club's hunt test and I know how much work goes into it and when I go to run a FT I have so much appreciation for the judges and the workers!


Even the most rudimentary understanding of the governing rules, clearly indicates your input is both guaranteed & required because a dog cannot be eliminated without the consent of both judges, nor placements made without agreement - regardless of experience. Some judges can be a little too assertive but I have found very few who wouldn't discuss setups, bird placement, dog evaluations, mechanics etc.


----------



## huntinman

russell.jason2 said:


> New judge here, only judged 3 minor stakes. I can tell you my experiences were great as I had a chance to judge with two very experienced co-judges, both 8 + major and one of them will be judging the upcoming National AM (I have much respect for these very experienced judges taking time to judge minor stakes). Neither of these very experienced judges tried to bully me or had the attitude "just sit there and learn". Both allowed me to set up each series and made tweaks and explained why. *I find some opinions on this thread pompous and arrogant about how a new person should come up. * I had been asked to judged before and I said no because this is my first dog and I had not accomplished anything. Once she won a Q, I said to myself, now I will judge minor stakes. I kinda have the same attitude about judging all-age. I only have a JAM in all-age stake with my young dog so I do not feel comfortable judging all-age stake, my thoughts are who am I to judge someone who has won or placed in all-age stakes or produced titled dog(s). I have had a good mentor in this game, and gave me some great advice about judging; 1. Be fair 2. set up a test you would love to see your dog run. 3. there is no such thing as a senior judge, if you want to see a dog back then bring him back. 4. Once your done judging a field trial and you think you set up everything perfect then you need to quit judging because there is always something you could have done better. I train with a group of 3 guys who are relative new to the sport and we are lucky enough to each have a dog that can play and we learn a lot from each other. If you want to hear the thoughts of a new guy...1.) Don't treat us like a rookie, we know we are, treat us as a co-judge. 2.) We want to learn from you but not from some guy who treats us with "newbie" attitude. 3.) make us part of the team, because I'll be damned if I am going to spend a weekend sitting in a chair and have not be allowed to have any input. I want to thank the two co-judges I have judged with, because of you and how you taught and shared your experiences, I will judge again if asked because if my first experiences where with a co-judge with a "newbie" attitude I probably would not have judged again. I was in the military for 23 years and seen too much to put up with some co-judge who would have treated me like crap and one thing I learned in the Air Force is to train your replacements and the other thing I learned is"'newbies" can have great ideas. I judged because I do love the sport and want to give back. I have chaired a FT and helped out our club's hunt test and I know how much work goes into it and when I go to run a FT I have so much appreciation for the judges and the workers!



Heh heh... Hey Jason, sounds to me like you are off to a great start. Don't get a chip on your shoulder because of the internet opinion of anyone. Just keep doing what your'e doing... Training your dog, learning the game, and judging when you can. I think you'll be fine. ;-)


----------



## Steve Amrein

DarrinGreene said:


> And there in lies part of the problem...
> 
> People try to recruit new judges and the first thing out of the gallery is "he's never owned or trained and AFC, what's he doing in the chair?" Fact is... very few will have the time and money to develop an AFC... That doesn't mean they don't know good bird placement or good dog work.
> 
> I've never been involved enough in FT to be stuck in that position but I've heard it in hunting test galleries more than once. So the reaction from AKC in that case has been to make it so difficult to become a judge in HT that the same problem is about to occur there as well.



I know a bunch of people that have had it take 20 years to get a titled dog. Do we really want to lose the opportunity? If thats the case then we get what we deserve.


----------



## 24116

EdA said:


> Evaluating dog's performances is the easiest part of judging if one has the capacity to accurately record by diagram and word what happened. The second easiest part is the mechanical things. By far the most difficult part and the one which separates great judges from ordinary ones is designing tests which by their design and difficulty separates dog's performances. This ability is learned most often when training and observing dogs working. It is not an ability that can be taught or learned in a classroom. How can we expect someone who has never run, trained, or closely observed a number of highly competitive dogs to have any concept of what those dogs are capable of doing?


This is why I suggest getting the pro's involved in the set up.


----------



## BonMallari

B Peterson said:


> This is why I suggest getting the pro's involved in the set up.


People would scream unfair advantage if a competitor from the field has input into any set up whether they are an amateur or pro....let the judges judge...They are responsible for the tests they set up, lets not exert any undue influence into their tests


----------



## 24116

BonMallari said:


> People would scream unfair advantage if a competitor from the field has input into any set up whether they are an amateur or pro....let the judges judge...They are responsible for the tests they set up, lets not exert any undue influence into their tests


Ok...lets just keep things the same. that way ten years from now we can be bitching about the same problems. 
Or we could have the pro's give advice on whether that bird should be thrown left or right. In the water or ten yards up the bank...etc.
At some point we have to trust people for the betterment of the game.


----------



## dexdoolittle

Why not just let them judge for that matter??



B Peterson said:


> Ok...lets just keep things the same. that way ten years from now we can be bitching about the same problems.
> Or we could have the pro's give advice on whether that bird should be thrown left or right. In the water or ten yards up the bank...etc.
> At some point we have to trust people for the betterment of the game.


----------



## MikeBoley

Ted Shih said:


> John
> 
> When I started the Open had 40 dogs. Now the Open has 60-100 dogs. An 80+ dog Open is not the place to earn your stripes. In the larger All Age Stakes, I think a club should have two experienced judges. I believe this is where the Apprentice program can be of benefit.
> 
> I also prefer the give and take of call backs and placements with two experienced judges rather than one experienced judge and a newbie
> 
> Ted[/QUOTE
> So Ted are you saying all "newbie" judges are incapable of providing callbacks and placements? As Ed stated that is the easy part. If the "newbie" is a student of the game, then there should be no problem. Plus I havent found in the rulebook where it states there is a senior and junior judge. Please point this out. Not trying to be argumentative but how do you suggest the less experienced judges get that experience if every AA stake is judged by only very experienced judges?


----------



## Breck

EdA said:


> By far the most difficult part and the one which separates great judges from ordinary ones is designing tests which by their design and difficulty separates dog's performances.


.
Anyone want to see this up close and personal? Show up at the North Texas trial in OK and observe Ms Katie in the Open and Mr. Charlie in the Amateur & Qual.
Who picked these judges?


----------



## 24116

dexdoolittle said:


> Why not just let them judge for that matter??


I'd be against pro's judging. It's our game (Amateurs) let us keep the game in our hands. 
With that said maybe the game is already out of our hands as the RAC doesn't come to RTF for advice they go to the pro's and a handful of Ams.
They (pro's) just need to do a better job of teaching their customers in my opinion.


----------



## Steve Amrein

Not much will change I think in the near future. Might get some new blood with HT getting to popular. 

My last comment is can someone give a time that a trial was unfinished or no placements were given out. This reminds me of the corrupt judges thread a while back. Some judgements are good and some are bad. I think most times things are good enough. Better than major league and NFL refs .


----------



## Ted Shih

> So Ted are you saying all "newbie" judges are incapable of providing callbacks and placements? As Ed stated that is the easy part. If the "newbie" is a student of the game, then there should be no problem. Plus I havent found in the rulebook where it states there is a senior and junior judge. Please point this out. Not trying to be argumentative but how do you suggest the less experienced judges get that experience if every AA stake is judged by only very experienced judges?


Mike 

Of course, you are being argumentative. That's what people do on the internet

First, I never said all newbies were incapable of doing callbacks and placements. Implying that I did is argumentative.

Second, I said that I believe that a better quality experience results from having two experienced judges. Ignoring that comment is argumentative.

Third, the Rule Book says 8 combined points is sufficient. So, if your statement that we only need to comply with the Rule Book as though that were sufficient to provide a quality experience is argumentative.

Fourth, I think that we need to have 

a) Judging seminars
b) Apprentice program
c) More students of judging

I think if we had more "students" we would have better judging. If you retort that we need more teachers, I would respond that students seem to find teachers. I think that there needs to more commitment to becoming a better judge.

Ted


----------



## FOM

Unfortunately the pool of students is shallow and some might argue that the pool of teachers is just as shallow.


----------



## Glenda Brown

While reading this thread, a few things came to mind. One was a comment made by Peter Jones. Then I saw Ed's remarks about him and I realized at least one other person on RTF knew who Andrius A. "Peter" Jones was. Peter said "Some people owe it to the sport to judge. Others owe it to the sport not to judge."

Once when I was judging with Ben Baker, Ben brought up his early training group (composed of many of the top West Coast trainers/handlers of an earlier era). He said they almost always sat down after training and spent a great deal of time discussing the Rule Book. They knew it backwards and upside down as well as everything it contained. They would discuss why some rules were made; why some aspects were given more weight than others; and how important the Rule Book was to the sport. They would discuss set ups and bird placements. This is a practice that many of you might enjoy within your own training group. You may disagree with a Rule, and if so, discuss the pros and cons and why you feel it is included in the Rule Book. But, even if you disagree, know it is in there.

I was the marshal of one Open where I had one of the Open judges come running (truly running) over to me and asked me if a Rule was correct. I said it was and he asked me could I find a Rule Book and show the two Open judges just where it was. I went to my car and pulled out my copy and showed them. What was disheartening is that neither of them knew the Rule nor had gone over the Rule Book before their judging assignment. I know Ed will vouch for this as well---some judges will quote statements as being from the Rule Book that are not in there. Others base their understanding of the Rules on comments made around the campfire and not from having read it thoroughly themselves. For anyone who is interested in being a judge, understanding the Rule Book is essential. 

Glenda


----------



## Dave Farrar

Steve Amrein said:


> Not much will change I think in the near future. Might get some new blood with HT getting to popular


One would hope that's the case. Maybe clubs that have both HT and trials should recruit new blood from their HT people. FT clubs could go watch the young junior dogs and explain derbies to them. Just thinking out loud...


----------



## DarrinGreene

As long as there are giant pro trailers pulling up at trials with 20 bullets in the magazine, you're going to have a hard time ever solving the problem of new blood in the field trial game, much less developing qualified amateur judges. 

I was taking the grass off the duck boat the other day and a thought struck me. "I sure am glad I enjoy prepping this thing 'cause based on the number of ducks I killed, the rewards really don't justify the work."

That reminded me that the most successful people I know, amateur athletes, competitive dog trainers, business people... literally all of them, are willing to spend countless hours on preparation, in some cases to achieve objectives with very little tangible benefit. 

I then think about my 18 year old son and so many like them who have the world literally at their fingertips via the internet, Ipad, Iphone and every other imaginable piece of technology. 

A $5 ribbon, or even a bunch of $5 ribbons, and some braggin' rights in an obscure sport no one outside of dog people really understands is a pretty small prize considering the work and financial commitment it takes for an amateur to build an FC-AFC. 

As society marches forward there will be less and less people willing to put in the work required, simply for the love of the dogs, especially when they have to compete against the best bred dogs in the country trained from puppy-hood 6 days a week by an accomplished professional. 

The less of those there are, the less students there are. 

Solutions? I have few if any. I just see a very troubling direction for the game when I look at today's youth.


----------



## John Montenieri

I have to say that when I started judging FT's I was in no hurry to be an 8pt judge. I wanted to do minor stakes and get a feel for the process. I've had the good fortune to judge with some very experienced people and also train with some very experience people but with that being said it's a whole different thing to sit in that chair. My first all age stake was with a very experienced judge and he was as gracious as I could every hope for. Not demanding his way but encouraging me for input and how to setup our tests. It has left a profound mark on me and to this day when I judge I feel compelled to work as well as possible with my co-judge. I know that sounds obvious but I try not to be a problem. Are there things I like and dislike? Absolutely but I try to keep a very open mind about how people see things. If you've judged you know there are indeed limits, field size, grounds, logistics...........which may force your hand on some issues. I want my weekend to end knowing that when I walk off the grounds, I'm not the story, the winners are the story. When you look back are there things you might have done different? Probably so, but learn from them. It's a thankless, hard, mentally exhausting weekend but I feel this is an integral part of my participation in this sport. There are good people out there who judge. Some of you might think I'm being naive, but I'd like to think glass half full.


----------



## Vicki Worthington

Me either, but it does bother some folks. I've heard many comments about it bothering lots of newish judges and even some who have done it for quite awhile!


----------



## Todd Caswell

It's too bad more clubs can't get back to having more "club or Informal" trials, I feel there a great way of recruiting new blood into the sport not only for future judges but running dogs, and help.


----------



## MikeBoley

Ted,
Fourth, I think that we need to have 

a) Judging seminars
b) Apprentice program
c) More students of judging

I think if we had more "students" we would have better judging. If you retort that we need more teachers, I would respond that students seem to find teachers. I think that there needs to more commitment to becoming a better judge.

I agree with a and c, I am still on the fence about the apprenticeship. I feel there are plenty of teachers. I still think we need to develop a system where judges can get constructive feedback on thier test. Yes two more experienced judges "may" put on a better stake at a large trial, maybe not. If clubs only bring in two experienced judges how will the less experienced get that experience? Its a much different task to set up challegeing marks for Qual dogs as opposed to Open and Amature dogs. 

In the long run those who are students of the game will continue to try and improve at all aspects of the game including judging. Others will muddle along and a few will just never get it.


----------



## David Barrow

*Too Many Trials, Too few Judges?*



MikeBoley said:


> Ted,
> Fourth, I think that we need to have
> 
> a) Judging seminars
> b) Apprentice program
> c) More students of judging
> 
> I think if we had more "students" we would have better judging. If you retort that we need more teachers, I would respond that students seem to find teachers. I think that there needs to more commitment to becoming a better judge.
> 
> I agree with a and c, I am still on the fence about the apprenticeship. I feel there are plenty of teachers. I still think we need to develop a system where judges can get constructive feedback on thier test. Yes two more experienced judges "may" put on a better stake at a large trial, maybe not. If clubs only bring in two experienced judges how will the less experienced get that experience? Its a much different task to set up challegeing marks for Qual dogs as opposed to Open and Amature dogs.
> 
> In the long run those who are students of the game will continue to try and improve at all aspects of the game including judging. Others will muddle along and a few will just never get it.



Ted, Thanks for starting this thread, and thanks to all that have responded. 
Hosted a Judges Seminar here last year in the East, and was very educational, more are needed, and more need to attend, it is a Great Way To Give Back!


----------



## Glenda Brown

I totally agree with Todd. That is the way many people got started in local training/fun club matches, etc. Everyone had a great time and often learned a lot. Both handlers and young dogs would gain experience. A knowledgeable Club judge would hook up with a newcomer and explain how to set up tests together and then judge them. This brought a lot of newcomers into the club. 

Judging seminars are great as well. We used to have them on a regular basis, but that doesn't seem to be the case as much now. One of the best ones was where we had three judges describing their philosophy, then setting up tests. We had a pro who then analyzed the test and described how he would run it. Then had a few dogs run each set up. Everyone left that seminar feeling good. I attended a lot of seminars over the years, and there was always something worthwhile to be gained from each of them. We had some outstanding judges presenting them--all with a lot of experience, many had or would be judging Nationals at some point. And, they all encouraged newcomers to get their feet wet re judging.

Glenda


----------



## Mike W.

> I have to say that when I started judging FT's I was in no hurry to be an 8pt judge.


Good point. I know people that want(ed) to get to the 8pt status as soon as possible. Rushing it for the sake of being an "8 pointer" is not a good thing either, _if it is not done in the right way with a desire to really be a student._

I have 3 points soon to be 4, over the course of 3 years. I have been in the sport for almost 5 years. I try to be a student of the game and am fortunate to have a great mentor. Whether I turn out to be one of the good 8 point judges, time will tell.

To me, the critical components are:

1) test must be safe
2) dogs must be visible on blinds and dogs can hear the whistle
3) get answers for the right reasons, no tricks
4) judge it honestly and fairly
5) set up a test that I would think would be worthwhile to drive 200 miles to run and enjoy

Just my .02


----------



## russell.jason2

To get more judges, you need grow our sport, I think everyone agrees with that. Our Club has attracted new member but all the new members go to the hunt test side of our club. Face it FTs are very hard and unforgiving. Our new members have a blast at hunt test. Field Trials need more equality, especially in the AM. No I am not complaining about how folks have unlimited resources to go through dogs to get the right one. The average person can take a nice dog and with work can play very successfully in hunt test. You take the same average person with the same dog and he can train his/her but off and more times than not will be unsuccessful in field trials. Again I am not complaining about amateurs who have the means to train when they want, have as many dogs as they want, have pro's train their dogs...hell I am a republican, more power to them. However it is what it is. I have heard the saying many time "you need to start judging because you want other judges to know you will hold the book sometimes". Think about that for a second, what kind of crap is that but that stigma is out there. I started judging because I love this sport and I run FTs because I love to compete and I keep coming back for more, glutton for more punishment. I think the amateur stake need some overhauling, more attractive to the "average" person who loves to compete. The most successful sport in our country is football and they have a salary cap, gives all teams a chance not just the New England Patriots and Dallas cowboys of the world. I not saying to change the standards to make it easier but we need to do something to get more people involved and more people equal more judges!!!


----------



## Buzz

Glenda Brown said:


> I totally agree with Todd. That is the way many people got started in local training/fun club matches, etc. Everyone had a great time and often learned a lot. Both handlers and young dogs would gain experience. A knowledgeable Club judge would hook up with a newcomer and explain how to set up tests together and then judge them. This brought a lot of newcomers into the club.
> 
> Glenda


This is what has been the most help to me. Judging club picnic trials with guys who have been doing it for 30-40 years.


----------



## huntinman

Glenda Brown said:


> While reading this thread, a few things came to mind. One was a comment made by Peter Jones. Then I saw Ed's remarks about him and I realized at least one other person on RTF knew who Andrius A. "Peter" Jones was. Peter said "Some people owe it to the sport to judge. Others owe it to the sport not to judge."
> 
> Once when I was judging with Ben Baker, Ben brought up his early training group (composed of many of the top West Coast trainers/handlers of an earlier era). He said they almost always sat down after training and spent a great deal of time discussing the Rule Book. They knew it backwards and upside down as well as everything it contained. They would discuss why some rules were made; why some aspects were given more weight than others; and how important the Rule Book was to the sport. They would discuss set ups and bird placements. This is a practice that many of you might enjoy within your own training group. You may disagree with a Rule, and if so, discuss the pros and cons and why you feel it is included in the Rule Book. But, even if you disagree, know it is in there.
> 
> I was the marshal of one Open where I had one of the Open judges come running (truly running) over to me and asked me if a Rule was correct. I said it was and he asked me could I find a Rule Book and show the two Open judges just where it was. I went to my car and pulled out my copy and showed them. What was disheartening is that neither of them knew the Rule nor had gone over the Rule Book before their judging assignment. I know Ed will vouch for this as well---some judges will quote statements as being from the Rule Book that are not in there. Others base their understanding of the Rules on comments made around the campfire and not from having read it thoroughly themselves. For anyone who is interested in being a judge, understanding the Rule Book is essential.
> 
> Glenda


Good post Glenda... To add to that, any judge worth his salt should have a rule book with him at all times while judging. One never knows when he might need it, and you can't always count on someone else to provide you with one. I have the printed copy, and a digital copy on my phone and ipad with me at every trial.


----------



## huntinman

Ted Shih said:


> Mike
> 
> Of course, you are being argumentative. That's what people do on the internet
> 
> First, I never said all newbies were incapable of doing callbacks and placements. Implying that I did is argumentative.
> 
> Second, I said that I believe that a better quality experience results from having two experienced judges. Ignoring that comment is argumentative.
> 
> Third, the Rule Book says 8 combined points is sufficient. So, if your statement that we only need to comply with the Rule Book as though that were sufficient to provide a quality experience is argumentative.
> 
> Fourth, I think that we need to have
> 
> a) Judging seminars
> b) Apprentice program
> c) More students of judging
> 
> I think if we had more "students" we would have better judging. If you retort that we need more teachers, I would respond that students seem to find teachers. I think that there needs to more commitment to becoming a better judge.
> 
> Ted


Ted, I'm pretty sure most everyone reading the thread gets it. You favor the apprenticeship program. You have made the point ad nauseum. 

Just because others may have a differing viewpoint doesn't make them wrong. Like Vicki and others have stated, its a good discussion with many ideas on how to address the issue. 

Personally, I would put fewer limitations on initial all age assignments and pair the newbie with an older experinced hand. Folks have too many demands of their time as it is. If the game makes even more demands just to "qualify" to judge, many who might otherwise be good candidates may just say the heck with it.


----------



## Criquetpas

huntinman said:


> Ted, I'm pretty sure most everyone reading the thread gets it. You favor the apprenticeship program. You have made the point ad nauseum.
> 
> Just because others may have a differing viewpoint doesn't make them wrong. Like Vicki and others have stated, its a good discussion with many ideas on how to address the issue.
> 
> Personally, I would put fewer limitations on initial all age assignments and pair the newbie with an older experinced hand. Folks have too many demands of their time as it is. If the game makes even more demands just to "qualify" to judge, many who might otherwise be good candidates may just say the heck with it.


I agree a longtime judge training partner and friend, now deceased, made very profound statements that I still remember, "one long swim will get you all the answers you need " and no one pays any attention to you until you are holding the book on them too". Perhaps everyone is in a hurry to hold the book, rather then gain the experience. There are apprentices and there are apprentices. There are folks who want to learn and seek knowledge.


----------



## Mike W.

The words "average" and "field trials" do not go together, in any way shape or form...by definition.


----------



## EdA

The apprenticeship I prefer is the one I followed, you get your backside kicked running your dog for a significant period of time and you learn what it takes to be competitive, then if someone recognizes your persistence you are asked to judge, hopefully and preferably with someone who knows a lot more than you.


----------



## Mike W.

> ...you get your backside kicked running your dog for a significant period of time and younlearn what it takes to be competitive, then if someone recognizes your persistence you are asked to judge, hopefully and preferably with someone who knows a lot more than you.


That is my world right now. Good post.


----------



## MikeBoley

I would hope clubs would be selective in pairing more experienced judges with the "newbies". If the more exp. judge isnt willing to take on the role as mentor, for the assignment then you could have the example Ted put forth of a one person show. We have all seen that. I have been fortunate to have been assigned with judges that have been more than willing to share their knowledge with me. I hope that I do the same as I get paired with "newbies". Also some of those with vast experience that are willing should make it know to clubs that they would like to mentor a "newbie" when asked to judge. 

There is a vast resource that needs to be tapped with the experienced good judges. Untill you hold the book you can watch and apprentice all you want its not the same. Just as runnning a dog in training is not like stepping to the line.


----------



## Jonathan McClendon

DarrinGreene said:


> As long as there are giant pro trailers pulling up at trials with 20 bullets in the magazine, you're going to have a hard time ever solving the problem of new blood in the field trial game, much less developing qualified amateur judges.
> 
> Or giant amateur trailers pulling up with 20 bullets in the magazine.


----------



## Vicki Worthington

Chris, can we have a "like" button or something similar. There were a lot of really good posts that I would like to simply say "ditto"!

One thing that everyone--experienced and inexperienced alike--need to keep in mind. The rule book is a guide to making sure tests are proper and that judgements follow a general thread insofar as what's bad and good. But...every judging assignment is also subjective. It will remain that way as long as we aren't rated solely against a blueprint or standard with only pass/fail as the criteria. Subjective is different with every set of judges. They may even like/dislike the same things, but their subjective interpretation of the severity of an offense or the appealingness of a success is often very different.


----------



## Lpgar

Another thing to keep in mind is that the development of the kind of passion that has people studying the game...training their own dogs....competing at the highest level....then someday becoming superior judges starts with the simple training day when someone new joins the group. How you welcome a person and develope a keen interest on just what these magificeint animals can do when challenged goes along way to "helping them along the path". I would like to thank all of those great folks that have welcomed Me and gave my the insight along my journey. Let's all help out by throwing a couple of puppy retrieves for the newbies.


----------



## DarrinGreene

EdA said:


> The apprenticeship I prefer is the one I followed, you get your backside kicked running your dog for a significant period of time and you learn what it takes to be competitive, then if someone recognizes your persistence you are asked to judge, hopefully and preferably with someone who knows a lot more than you.


With the way society is headed Ed, I think we're going to see less and less people willing to take that path as time marches on.


----------



## Dave Farrar

DarrinGreene said:


> With the way society is headed Ed, I think we're going to see less and less people willing to take that path as time marches on.


We now live in the world of instant gratification. Microwaves now cook our food in minutes. Drive thru's were made to make fast food faster. Cell phones replaced looking for a public pay phone. Pro dog trainers have made it so anyone with some $$ can have a good dog without any effort other than writing a check.


----------



## John Robinson

Great thread Ted, lots of really good comments. Here's some random thoughts in no particular order:

*- New Blood;* I just received my Retriever news yesterday and saw the article that prompted this thread. I counted 52 1-9 point judges in the Mountain time zone, the other zones looked similar. Among those listed I saw a lot of names I recognize as new blood, good amateurs, dedicated to the sport, students of the game. This is encouraging to me. There is little doubt that our sport doesn't really cater to 30-something people with kids, jobs and such, but somebody just starting out at 40 or so leaves lots of time to learn the sport and become passionate about it. It wasn't that long ago people were saying our sport was dying and there wouldn't be enough dogs to even have a trial. Looks like our problem is just the opposite.

*- Mentoring;* There is argument among smart, reasonable and experienced judges on how best to do this. I don't think there is any one truth as long as you have good and dedicated people recognizing talent and taking them under their wing, you will succeed. Personally I'm not sold on the apprentice thing, but I'm not vehemently opposed to it either. I also differ in that I think new judges should learn both AA and Minor stakes, preferably in a lower stress, low-medium numbers trial where they get to judge a Derby-Open or Qualifying-Amateur.

*-Club-Training group mentoring;* This one does worry me a bit. I had great experience with picnic trials and mentoring in my own training group when I was starting out. I remember both Don Berrard and Roger Fangsrud taking me under their wing to discuss bird placement, letting me set up test and showing me how it could be improved. Lots of discussion about natural dog tendencies. Good and bad test mechanics. The difference between a training test and natural marking test. They showed me how to draw diagrams, even had me "judge" the whole truck on paper and critiqued my method. I don't see this that much any more, I'll have to do more myself to emulate the mentors I grew up with.

*- The Rule Book;* Somebody advised me early on to read the book cover to cover the day before every judging assignment, I do that to this day. I also keep the books including "Dealing with Misconduct" in my kit next to my judging chair.

*-Pros:* I'm on the side of letting Pros judge. I don't exactly how this would work, I assume having them judge two time zones away, same rules about not judging their own clients. Regardless I believe that they would be as honest as any amateur judge, they certainly know way more than the average amateur about setting up test, and I believe having been on the other side all these years would be very sensitive to the handler.

Just some random thoughts, like I said, great thread.


----------



## huntinman

John Robinson said:


> Great thread Ted, lots of really good comments. Here's some random thoughts in no particular order:
> 
> *- New Blood;* I just received my Retriever news yesterday and saw the article that prompted this thread. I counted 52 1-9 point judges in the Mountain time zone, the other zones looked similar. Among those listed I saw a lot of names I recognize as new blood, good amateurs, dedicated to the sport, students of the game. This is encouraging to me. There is little doubt that our sport doesn't really cater to 30-something people with kids, jobs and such, but somebody just starting out at 40 or so leaves lots of time to learn the sport and become passionate about it. It wasn't that long ago people were saying our sport was dying and there wouldn't be enough dogs to even have a trial. Looks like our problem is just the opposite.
> 
> *- Mentoring;* There is argument among smart, reasonable and experienced judges on how best to do this. I don't think there is any one truth as long as you have good and dedicated people recognizing talent and taking them under their wing, you will succeed. Personally I'm not sold on the apprentice thing, but I'm not vehemently opposed to it either. I also differ in that I think new judges should learn both AA and Minor stakes, preferably in a lower stress, low-medium numbers trial where they get to judge a Derby-Open or Qualifying-Amateur.
> 
> *-Club-Training group mentoring;* This one does worry me a bit. I had great experience with picnic trials and mentoring in my own training group when I was starting out. I remember both Don Berrard and Roger Fangsrud taking me under their wing to discuss bird placement, letting me set up test and showing me how it could be improved. Lots of discussion about natural dog tendencies. Good and bad test mechanics. The difference between a training test and natural marking test. They showed me how to draw diagrams, even had me "judge" the whole truck on paper and critiqued my method. I don't see this that much any more, I'll have to do more myself to emulate the mentors I grew up with.
> 
> *- The Rule Book;* Somebody advised me early on to read the book cover to cover the day before every judging assignment, I do that to this day. I also keep the books including "Dealing with Misconduct" in my kit next to my judging chair.
> 
> *-Pros:* I'm on the side of letting Pros judge. I don't exactly how this would work, I assume having them judge two time zones away, same rules about not judging their own clients. Regardless I believe that they would be as honest as any amateur judge, they certainly know way more than the average amateur about setting up test, and I believe having been on the other side all these years would be very sensitive to the handler.
> 
> Just some random thoughts, like I said, great thread.


Good points John. Did you also notice how many long time, successful handlers were on the list in the 1-9 range? Some of those folks could step up to the plate and judge a little more... But maybe it's like others have said, some folks may be better off not judging. 

I know it is hard to give up a trial when your dog is running well. But the folks at the top of the game are exactly the folks we need to be more active in the judging pool. When I lived in Alaska, that was always one of my frustrations with Roy and Lenny. They would never judge an all age stake up there... I understand why... But, my point to them was we needed their experience to help train the newer judges... Even if it was only one stake a year each. I committed to it my last few years up there... But they still wouldn't do it. (Even though they they both ran trials outside the state in the fall every year)


----------



## jrrichar

Lpgar said:


> Another thing to keep in mind is that the development of the kind of passion that has people studying the game...training their own dogs....competing at the highest level....then someday becoming superior judges starts with the simple training day when someone new joins the group. How you welcome a person and develope a keen interest on just what these magificeint animals can do when challenged goes along way to "helping them along the path". I would like to thank all of those great folks that have welcomed Me and gave my the insight along my journey. Let's all help out by throwing a couple of puppy retrieves for the newbies.


As a new person, I think this exactly the mind set that might help infuse new "good" handlers that later become judges into the arena. The problem is that as well intentioned as a majority of people are they simply do not mentor new people. I understand given how time consuming it could be. However, the way I look at it is...everyone started at square one in something and are an expert at something else. What it took to be an expert is typically hard work, time, and a lot effort. I think reaching that apex in anything demands a responsibility to pass the knowledge on and spend some time on the people in back of you instead of just focusing on the front. 

I am new in this but consider myself an expert in other pursuits. Judging is a way of "giving" back, but if you never took the time to really instill a welcomed apprentice-learning environment to new handlers then by the time they get to that position some of them just aren't willing to spend time in an arena that everything was so hard to earn and few provided a helping hand. 

Some of the avenues I would consider to be in expert in were hard fought by people who wanted me to "earn my stripes." When I got to where they stood I made sure to not repeat that attitude. Don't get me wrong you don't want to make everything easy street, but there is enough about this venue that makes it very demanding and difficult without adding a haze like atmosphere, or go it alone until you get to X level then I am interested/join us.


----------



## Steve Amrein

Dave Farrar said:


> We now live in the world of instant gratification. Microwaves now cook our food in minutes. Drive thru's were made to make fast food faster. Cell phones replaced looking for a public pay phone. Pro dog trainers have made it so anyone with some $$ can have a good dog without any effort other than writing a check.



Judging the dogs work not who/how the dog is trained........


----------



## dexdoolittle

It goes to show you that people want to complain about problems but really don't want solutions. I posted a solution rather right or wrong and only one person addressed it, and no offense but I didn't recognize him. The idea I gave would double the judging pool immediately but not one word. I have no skin in the game and could careless. I was in the game for 12 years and could go back and count the new people in those years on one hand. I could take almost any pro truck and do the same. Y'all are dreaming thinking that it's the new ones that need to step up. $1000 a month fees are keeping them out. Finding judges isn't a new problem.


----------



## John Robinson

dexdoolittle said:


> It goes to show you that people want to complain about problems but really don't want solutions. I posted a solution rather right or wrong and only one person addressed it, and no offense but I didn't recognize him. The idea I gave would double the judging pool immediately but not one word. I have no skin in the game and could careless. I was in the game for 12 years and could go back and count the new people in those years on one hand. I could take almost any pro truck and do the same. Y'all are dreaming thinking that it's the new ones that need to step up. $1000 a month fees are keeping them out. Finding judges isn't a new problem.


What was your solution? With 17 pages of post I must have missed it, I'm sure others did too. I believe people do want solutions, and there have been many good points brought up.

John


----------



## FOM

John Robinson said:


> What was your solution? With 17 pages of post I must have missed it, I'm sure others did too. I believe people do want solutions, and there have been many good points brought up.
> 
> John


Not Dex, but he was advocating letting Pros judge.

BTW Dex - am I one of those newbies? Bullet says hello.


----------



## russell.jason2

Do folks really want solutions??? What a wonderful games this is but the knock on the game is that it is too hard and favors the select few. I really don't think the issue is too few judges, the root cause is the game is getting smaller (in my humble newbie experience). The conversations are out there and no one wants to hear it. Just look at past results, the same folks win/place/finish week in and week out...these are things that folks talk about that want to get in the game but refuse to. I am not saying anything is unfair, so please don't go there. I believe the game is for the most part ran and judged by honest folks. That is why I suggested earlier, the amateur needs to be revamped. There are people that really want to play this game. Education goes a long way and new folks need to be educated on the game and what it takes and time it takes to get your dog competitive. The hunt test game welcomes everyone and the Field Trail seems to be a closed community. You can bury your head in the sand and don't believe it or won't talk about it but the stigma is there. I truly hope in 20 years there are as many folks in field trials as there are today. The times are changing fast and we need new folks.


----------



## Chris Atkinson

dexdoolittle said:


> It goes to show you that people want to complain about problems but really don't want solutions. I posted a solution rather right or wrong and only one person addressed it, and no offense but I didn't recognize him. The idea I gave would double the judging pool immediately but not one word. I have no skin in the game and could careless. I was in the game for 12 years and could go back and count the new people in those years on one hand. I could take almost any pro truck and do the same. Y'all are dreaming thinking that it's the new ones that need to step up. $1000 a month fees are keeping them out. Finding judges isn't a new problem.


Dex. I searched and found a post that says:



> Why not just let them judge for that matter?


Is that the solution you mention?


----------



## Ted Shih

russell.jason2 said:


> Do folks really want solutions??? What a wonderful games this is but the knock on the game is that it is too hard and favors the select few. I really don't think the issue is too few judges, the root cause is the game is getting smaller (in my humble newbie experience). ... Just look at past results, the same folks win/place/finish week in and week out...these are things that folks talk about that want to get in the game but refuse to. ....That is why I suggested earlier, the amateur needs to be revamped. .



So how do you propose to "revamp" the Amateur?


----------



## BonMallari

russell.jason2 said:


> Do folks really want solutions??? What a wonderful games this is but the knock on the game is that it is too hard and favors the select few. I really don't think the issue is too few judges, the root cause is the game is getting smaller (in my humble newbie experience). The conversations are out there and no one wants to hear it. Just look at past results, *the same folks win/place/finish week in and week out.*..these are things that folks talk about that want to get in the game but refuse to. I am not saying anything is unfair, so please don't go there. I believe the game is for the most part ran and judged by honest folks. That is why I suggested earlier, the amateur needs to be revamped. There are people that really want to play this game. Education goes a long way and new folks need to be educated on the game and what it takes and time it takes to get your dog competitive. The hunt test game welcomes everyone and the Field Trail seems to be a closed community. You can bury your head in the sand and don't believe it or won't talk about it but the stigma is there. I truly hope in 20 years there are as many folks in field trials as there are today. * The times are changing fast and we need new folks.*


Ever wonder why it seems like the same people win year in year out..its because they stay in the game and become good at it...There are new people like yourself coming to the game all the time BUT how long do they actually stay in the game...probably less than 5 years, or about the average career of an AA dog..For some people after they "make" their first dog, they come to a crossroad of if they want to make another 10 year comittment to another dog...its alot like asking a decorated war hero if they are willing to go into battle one more time

For some people,LIFE gets in the way, kids,family,careers take center stage. You cant be successful at the FT game on a part time basis, you're either all in or you're just spending cash and playing around..

What does it have to do with judging ? If the average trialer only stays in the game between 5-10 years, its very difficult to get them to the point where they are a top notch 8 point judge. they would have to judge almost two trials a year to get to that level at the same time that they are trying to title and compete with a dog that has the same career length of an NFL running back

When I look back at the men/women that have stayed in the game all these years, it has come with a price. Almost to a person the game has taken a toll on their personal lives, personal fortunes,or maybe even their health. Those same people would also probably not be long in this world if they didnt have dogs in their life, its what gives them a purpose in life,its what they live for, its in their DNA...

You cant make people want to stay in the game, you cant make people become a student of the game, You cant make people want to judge and give back to the game...I wish we could but the game itself just doesn't seem to do that


----------



## Marvin S

Vicki Worthington said:


> One thing that everyone--experienced and inexperienced alike--need to keep in mind. The rule book is a guide to making sure tests are proper and that judgements follow a general thread insofar as what's bad and good. But...every judging assignment is also subjective. It will remain that way as long as we aren't rated solely against a blueprint or standard with only pass/fail as the criteria. Subjective is different with every set of judges. They may even like/dislike the same things, but their subjective interpretation of the severity of an offense or the appealingness of a success is often very different.


One does not need to be particularly bright to understand the founding fathers wanted a large, talented & varied judging pool. They wanted to see variations in testing. "Ingenuity on the part of judges should be encouraged, not only in planning customary tests, but also in devising some of which are unusual & quite different from those customarily used at Field Trials". How many judges today do you think could set marks W/O the use of retired guns & get answers.



huntinman said:


> I know it is hard to give up a trial when your dog is running well. But the folks at the top of the game are exactly the folks we need to be more active in the judging pool. When I lived in Alaska, that was always one of my frustrations with Roy and Lenny. They would never judge an all age stake up there... I understand why... But, my point to them was we needed their experience to help train the newer judges... Even if it was only one stake a year each. I committed to it my last few years up there... But they still wouldn't do it. (Even though they they both ran trials outside the state in the fall every year)


That those guys did not judge at least once on every trip down here is a sad testament to trial giving clubs. They are not the only top notch dog folks whose judging career is sadly lacking!



EdA said:


> The apprenticeship I prefer is the one I followed, you get your backside kicked running your dog for a significant period of time and you learn what it takes to be competitive, then if someone recognizes your persistence you are asked to judge, hopefully and preferably with someone who knows a lot more than you.


Exactly - I equate the apprentice program to auditing a class for no credit. There is a lot to be learned taking birds at the line, throwing birds, marshaling, & generally working Go-Fer duties. What I see in most of the newby posts is: 1) I want to be a judge because that will make me somebody, 2) If I by a dog with a fancy pedigree for a lot of money I've arrived & 3) working a trial is for the hired help.

& for the people who don't believe you need to be successful to understand what's going on - there is a venue for you & it's not judging Ft's.

Solving the problem:

1) Have a minimum requirement in stakes judged, placings in that stake & dogs in competition before someone is asked to judge the Nationals.

2) Have a requirement that, at the least, 1 for 1 on stakes judged vs stakes placings - every trial has 4 new candidates for the judging pool in the 4 placements in the Amateur. 

3) Have these people who want to be in the judging pool judge the Qual - It's a stake where little can go wrong for a real FTer except winning out before your dog is ready to be a big dog. That would take the place of the club & sanctioned trials in the old days. 

4) Make sure that at least one of the Derby judges has actually trained, run & placed Derby dogs with some consistency. 

5) Don't throw people who have enjoyed success in the sport out of the judging pool because they are no longer active campaigners. Set a standard for continuance & keep them, should they be willing active. Ed talks of the work it is for him to do a trial, I've had this same conversation with Charly Hill with the same answer. Most who do the job right put a major effort into it, which includes being adequately prepared for the assignment before acceptance. 

6) Forget about the pros, you don't want the pro's who have time to do an assignment 2 time zones away as they probably know less than the top 25% of the active Amateurs.

That should be enough to chew on for awhile!


----------



## BJGatley

russell.jason2 said:


> Do folks really want solutions??? What a wonderful games this is but the knock on the game is that it is too hard and favors the select few. I really don't think the issue is too few judges, the root cause is the game is getting smaller (in my humble newbie experience). The conversations are out there and no one wants to hear it. Just look at past results, the same folks win/place/finish week in and week out...these are things that folks talk about that want to get in the game but refuse to. I am not saying anything is unfair, so please don't go there. I believe the game is for the most part ran and judged by honest folks. That is why I suggested earlier, the amateur needs to be revamped. There are people that really want to play this game. Education goes a long way and new folks need to be educated on the game and what it takes and time it takes to get your dog competitive. The hunt test game welcomes everyone and the Field Trail seems to be a closed community. You can bury your head in the sand and don't believe it or won't talk about it but the stigma is there. I truly hope in 20 years there are as many folks in field trials as there are today. The times are changing fast and we need new folks.


You made this statement within you. You made this statement outside of you. Now that it is exposure by you for reasons by you. 
Old dogs and young need reasons to....

Edit to post: Good comment from you Marvin S...


----------



## John Robinson

russell.jason2 said:


> Do folks really want solutions??? What a wonderful games this is but the knock on the game is that it is too hard and favors the select few. I really don't think the issue is too few judges, the root cause is the game is getting smaller (in my humble newbie experience). The conversations are out there and no one wants to hear it. Just look at past results, the same folks win/place/finish week in and week out...these are things that folks talk about that want to get in the game but refuse to. I am not saying anything is unfair, so please don't go there. I believe the game is for the most part ran and judged by honest folks. That is why I suggested earlier, the amateur needs to be revamped. There are people that really want to play this game. Education goes a long way and new folks need to be educated on the game and what it takes and time it takes to get your dog competitive. The hunt test game welcomes everyone and the Field Trail seems to be a closed community. You can bury your head in the sand and don't believe it or won't talk about it but the stigma is there. I truly hope in 20 years there are as many folks in field trials as there are today. The times are changing fast and we need new folks.


Russell, I felt kind of like you do when I transitioned into field trials back in the mid nineties. The first thing I felt was though nobody was unfriendly, the FT gallery wasn't as fun and welcoming as HT were. On top of that the average field trial dog was super well trained with the top dogs unbelievably good. It was clear from the beginning that FTs would be way more challenging and way less gratifying than HTs, but the high would be way higher.

That said, I think you have a few misconceptions. #1, FTs aren't dying. When I started in FTs a 65 dog Open was a big trial, every weekend trial had only two sets of judges who judged all four stakes. Now 90 -100. Dog Opens are common as are three sets of judges. If anything, FTs are too popular.

2) each circuit has a small number of dominant dogs that a over the top talented, well trained with excellent handlers. These dogs can get on a roll and place week in and week out with different judges and different test. Those of us that run against them just shake our head at how good they are.

3) I really didn't understand the rest of your post about changing the amateur, please elaborate. I don't think anyone is hiding their head in the sand, hence an 18 page thread.


----------



## Marvin S

BonMallari said:


> When I look back at the men/women that have stayed in the game all these years, it has come with a price. Almost to a person the game has taken a toll on their personal lives, personal fortunes,or maybe even their health. Those same people would also probably not be long in this world if they didnt have dogs in their life, its what gives them a purpose in life,its what they live for, its in their DNA...
> 
> You cant make people want to stay in the game, you cant make people become a student of the game, You cant make people want to judge and give back to the game...I wish we could but the game itself just doesn't seem to do that


Many years ago I'm sitting at a Dog Banquet with Andy Pruitt & his wife, Don Hutt & his wife & my wife. I said to Andy "Look around the room (of about 250) & tell me who has the same wife they started this sport with?" Other than our table & Jim Heneghan & his wife, there were none. It's brutal & there is no halfway if you are going to be competitive. 

I promised my wife on our 50th that there would be no more Retrievers (that does not mean I don't love the breed & their performance oriented ways) as I knew if I got one it would get the training & if good enough the same vicious circle would start for another 8 years. I can still evaluate a test & realize what the judges will get from it. 

What the game has lost is that dedicated cadre of folks who made trials happen because they loved good dog work & that's what's sad. The personal stories you heard when manning a station told you a lot about the quality of people that contributed to the sport.


----------



## russell.jason2

Ted Shih said:


> So how do you propose to "revamp" the Amateur?


Ted, I PM'd you...share if you like


----------



## russell.jason2

BonMallari said:


> Ever wonder why it seems like the same people win year in year out..its because they stay in the game and become good at it...There are new people like yourself coming to the game all the time BUT how long do they actually stay in the game...probably less than 5 years, or about the average career of an AA dog..For some people after they "make" their first dog, they come to a crossroad of if they want to make another 10 year comittment to another dog...its alot like asking a decorated war hero if they are willing to go into battle one more time
> 
> For some people,LIFE gets in the way, kids,family,careers take center stage. You cant be successful at the FT game on a part time basis, you're either all in or you're just spending cash and playing around..
> 
> What does it have to do with judging ? If the average trialer only stays in the game between 5-10 years, its very difficult to get them to the point where they are a top notch 8 point judge. they would have to judge almost two trials a year to get to that level at the same time that they are trying to title and compete with a dog that has the same career length of an NFL running back
> 
> When I look back at the men/women that have stayed in the game all these years, it has come with a price. Almost to a person the game has taken a toll on their personal lives, personal fortunes,or maybe even their health. Those same people would also probably not be long in this world if they didnt have dogs in their life, its what gives them a purpose in life,its what they live for, its in their DNA...
> 
> You cant make people want to stay in the game, you cant make people become a student of the game, You cant make people want to judge and give back to the game...I wish we could but the game itself just doesn't seem to do that


Thanks, What you say makes perfect sense. I would like it to be more attractive for the true amateur. I don't want to stir any pot, just would like to this wonderful game to be able to sustain itself.

Jason


----------



## russell.jason2

John Robinson said:


> Russell, I felt kind of like you do when I transitioned into field trials back in the mid nineties. The first thing I felt was though nobody was unfriendly, the FT gallery wasn't as fun and welcoming as HT were. On top of that the average field trial dog was super well trained with the top dogs unbelievably good. It was clear from the beginning that FTs would be way more challenging and way less gratifying than HTs, but the high would be way higher.
> 
> That said, I think you have a few misconceptions. #1, FTs aren't dying. When I started in FTs a 65 dog Open was a big trial, every weekend trial had only two sets of judges who judged all four stakes. Now 90 -100. Dog Opens are common as are three sets of judges. If anything, FTs are too popular.
> 
> 2) each circuit has a small number of dominant dogs that a over the top talented, well trained with excellent handlers. These dogs can get on a roll and place week in and week out with different judges and different test. Those of us that run against them just shake our head at how good they are.
> 
> 3) I really didn't understand the rest of your post about changing the amateur, please elaborate. I don't think anyone is hiding their head in the sand, hence an 18 page thread.


Thanks for the understanding. I hope I am in this for the long haul and will be unless something unfortunate happens. In the short 5 years since I started this journey, I have had the privilege to train with some outstanding folks in several different states and it just seems I hear the same conversations about concern for the sport.


----------



## BonMallari

russell.jason2 said:


> Thanks, What you say makes perfect sense. * I would like it to be more attractive for the true amateur*. I don't want to stir any pot, just would like to this game that I fell hard for be able to sustain itself.
> 
> Jason


I can read between the lines and I know what you are inferring,but the TRUE amateur went by the wayside years ago, and except for a literal handful that I could list on a 3x5 index card, those days wont be returning. It is the way the game has morphed, you can have you Owner-Handler Amateur and you can limit the number of entries that one may have but the quest to have a titled dog has no boundaries, except how much time and money are you willing to invest in pursuit of being a "player"..

Heck even my brother who was a TRUE amateur went over to the other side and hired a pro to run his dogs for a few seasons because he couldn't be at the clinic and the FT at the same time..but that left him very empty and he has returned to training and running his own dogs,and vows that if he cant run/train his own dog, he just wont run any longer....


And to stay on the topic of Judging...the newbie amateur has no reputation, no street cred, so until they show that they have the talent to set up good tests and not just mimic what their pro showed them,they aren't going to get asked to judge..The other catch-22 is that with the newbies in the sport now taking over in the FTC, they have no idea who some of the past people who could be at their disposal as a judge. All they know is who they read about in the Retriever News in the last six months or whose name they saw here on the RTF events page..We have done a poor job on educating newbies to a brief history of the game and to be quite honest there are quite a few people who took a ton of information, and possible tutelage to their graves with them, they were selfish and did not give back to the fraternity once they got their frat pin and learned the "secret handshake"....


----------



## copterdoc

DarrinGreene said:


> With the way society is headed Ed, I think we're going to see less and less people willing to take that path as time marches on.


 Those goddamned Millennials.


----------



## copterdoc

EdA said:


> ......By far the most difficult part and the one which separates great judges from ordinary ones is designing tests which by their design and difficulty separates dog's performances........


 How to write tough questions into a test, without asking trick questions.

A trick question has no right answer. 
The ones that answer it right only do so by actually being wrong.


----------



## lanse brown

*Too many trials*

I was delighted to have my name omitted from The RN list. I will not accept an all-age assignment UNLESS the club has a cancelation at the last minute(3-4 days advance notice) Then IF the other judge is NOT an opinionated, rude, unimaginative horse's ass who has never attempted to commit themselves to ALL facets of the game I will drop everything and be there. As to Minor stakes- I LOVE to judge Derby and Quals-especially for the chance to encourage newcomers. I try to judge by humiliation NOT elimination- if after 5 series the Derby has had 10 birds and the finalist has had 7 weak birds(NOT FAILURE) then the 3 good birds have justified a JAM,and with that JAM come tears, exaltation, and a reenforced commitment to the game- who knows perhaps they will be helping at the next trial. Treat them with disdain and it will be you who will be helping by yourself next week. I like to start with 20 entries and end with 22. If it is not fun for me I do not want to be there. Just the viewpoint of a fossil who needs the dogs and loves the sport.


----------



## lanse brown

An after thought- In 2007 I sent out 113 letters to people whom I considered to be the best,most knowledgable, honest individuals I knew. Did I "like" them? no, but they filled my criteria. This past spring-Kamphius & Goodale were the end of the 5 years.Now when I thanked Clint Joiner for judging he replied" Lanse,it is hard to turn a person down 5 years in advance. The responsibility lies with the club to think ahead, not only re dates, birds, grounds but QUALITY judges not warm bodies who know little and say lots-I cannot afford the luxury of that type of weekend, and thus will probably run 8-12 trials not 21.


----------



## David Colwell

EdA said:


> The apprenticeship I prefer is the one I followed, you get your backside kicked running your dog for a significant period of time and you learn what it takes to be competitive, then if someone recognizes your persistence you are asked to judge, hopefully and preferably with someone who knows a lot more than you.


Yep, Ed I'm in that apprentice program. My backside gets handed to me a lot. Perseverance is part of being an amateur as well as a good dog.


----------



## Criquetpas

EdA said:


> The apprenticeship I prefer is the one I followed, you get your backside kicked running your dog for a significant period of time and you learn what it takes to be competitive, then if someone recognizes your persistence you are asked to judge, hopefully and preferably with someone who knows a lot more than you.


That was my apprenticeship , many years, many going out in the first series, many just happy to get to the water blind, driving hours only told to get my dog the minute I pulled up, no Dow, just a nobody where the somebodies are sandbagging it or I'am still in the open, even if they have 20 dogs before they run..it was a very long apprenticeship.


----------



## 24116

dexdoolittle said:


> It goes to show you that people want to complain about problems but really don't want solutions. I posted a solution rather right or wrong and only one person addressed it, and no offense but I didn't recognize him. The idea I gave would double the judging pool immediately but not one word. I have no skin in the game and could careless. I was in the game for 12 years and could go back and count the new people in those years on one hand. I could take almost any pro truck and do the same. Y'all are dreaming thinking that it's the new ones that need to step up. $1000 a month fees are keeping them out. Finding judges isn't a new problem.


No offense taken but to be honest I don't recognize your name either. Isn't the internet great?
Much like you and others I've been out of the game for years. Yes we have no skin in it but we do have opinions or solutions on the problems that the game faces today and into the future. Unfortunately people like you me and others don't have access to the people in power so the more things change the more things stay the same. Maybe the new RAC will be more open....heavy sarcasm!
As for pro's judging... Bill Fabian and Bobby George have both judged AA stakes in the past 5 yrs. Maybe the RAC should contact them and their judging partners for feedback on the pro topic. Or at least talk to the competitors at those events and ask if the test and judging were so much better with a pro holding the book.
But your statement that pro's would double the judging pool ...really? There are maybe 40 AA pro's in the country. Even if you added gun dog, hunt test and derby dog trainers you would have a hard time getting to one hundred. And most of the former would be no better than warm bodies IMO.
I do agree with you for the most part on newbies. But I'm not sure it's the $1000 a month that keeps new people out. Pro's no longer want a 3 month commitment (winter trip) they want a 3-5 year commitment or $36000-$60000. Few can afford that.


----------



## captain2560

I would be OK with pros judging the next time zone over, and obviously no clients running. I also believe pros need to dedicate 2 weekends a year to help out at a trial of their choice, just like the amateurs do.


----------



## John Robinson

captain2560 said:


> I would be OK with pros judging the next time zone over, and obviously no clients running. I also believe pros need to dedicate 2 weekends a year to help out at a trial of their choice, just like the amateurs do.


I also am ok with Pros judging, but don't think it will ever happen. I do want to point out how much the Pros I know help out or even completely run field trials around here. Many of the field trials I attend out west have pro help. They help organize the grounds, they offer their very good throwers to throw at the trial, we use their equipment, sometimes shoot the flyer. It would be a lot harder or even impossible without Pro help at many of our trials. On top of that I can think of three trials that are completely run by a small band of Pros. Just wanted to get that out there, I imagine it's the same in other parts of the country.

John


----------



## Ted Shih

John Robinson said:


> I also am ok with Pros judging, but don't think it will ever happen. I do want to point out how much the Pros I know help out or even completely run field trials around here. Many of the field trials I attend out west have pro help. They help organize the grounds, they offer their very good throwers to throw at the trial, we use their equipment, sometimes shoot the flyer. It would be a lot harder or even impossible without Pro help at many of our trials. On top of that I can think of three trials that are completely run by a small band of Pros. Just wanted to get that out there, I imagine it's the same in other parts of the country.
> 
> John



The PRTA puts on a number of field trials in the various time zones each year. 

I ran the Coastal Bend trial in February on Dave Rorem's Property. Dave worked that trial. 
I ran the Bluebonnet trial in April on Danny Farmer's Property. Danny worked that trial
The Brazosport Trial is being held on Dave Rorem's Property.

Bart Peterson plays a big role in the West Nebraska trial.
Kenny Trott and Marcy Wright play a big role in the two trials for the Centennial Retriever Club
Paul Knutson plays a big role in the two trials for the Rocky Mountain Retriever Club.

Pikes Peak holds part of its trial on Kenny Trott and Marcy Wright's property.

I have judged for Cape Fear.. Alan Pleasant and his wife, Gwen, work hard at that trial.

So, my experience is similar to yours, John.

Ted


----------



## Scott Adams

The question is not "do pros contribute to the work of putting on a trial." 
The question is " Would the overall quality of judging be improved if pro's judge'
How could it not be? They go to line more than anyone. The upside far outweighs any perceived downside. 
If you want quality mentoring of test design, dog work assessment etc, I see a resource being squandered.


----------



## Tim Carrion

Ted Shih said:


> So how do you propose to "revamp" the Amateur?


A beginning would be to allow Amateur stakes to be held without Opens and with 1 minor stake more than the once every 2 years with 2 minor stakes that is now proposed,
These trials could be reduced to 2 days requiring less grounds, workers and judges. These 2 vs 3 day trials would be more attractive for HTers to take the jump, attracting a new and generally younger group to FTs.

Tim


----------



## Buzz

Tim Carrion said:


> A beginning would be to allow Amateur stakes to be held without Opens and with 1 minor stake more than the once every 2 years with 2 minor stakes that is now proposed,
> These trials could be reduced to 2 days requiring less grounds, workers and judges. These 2 vs 3 day trials would be more attractive for HTers to take the jump, attracting a new and generally younger group to FTs.
> 
> Tim


The thing that would be fun about this is that at most of the trials I go to, the best resources get devoted to the Open. It would be nice seeing the Amateur getting dibbs.


----------



## GG

Ed, have you discussed this prospect with any professionals?
I would be reluctant to accept a judging assignment. Hell, after thinking about it, maybe I'm just afraid of losing my critic's license ☺


----------



## EdA

GG said:


> Ed, have you discussed this prospect with any professionals?
> I would be reluctant to accept a judging assignment. Hell, after thinking about it, maybe I'm just afraid of losing my critic's license ☺


During my days as an activist (long ago), when I thought I had a chance to change the world I talked to several top field trial pros and all were receptive to the idea of judging.


----------



## helencalif

Tim Carrion said:


> These 2 vs 3 day trials would be more attractive for HTers to take the jump, attracting a new and generally younger group to FTs.
> 
> Tim


Sounds good in theory. We thought that HTers would participate in Double D-Qs, too. For several years clubs in CA sponsored Sat-Sun D-Qs thinking that this would appeal to the HTers. It didn't. The clubs lost money due to low entries so stopped holding D-Qs.

Helen


----------



## Sabireley

helencalif said:


> Sounds good in theory. We thought that HTers would participate in Double D-Qs, too. For several years clubs in CA sponsored Sat-Sun D-Qs thinking that this would appeal to the HTers. It didn't. The clubs lost money due to low entries so stopped holding D-Qs.
> 
> Helen


DQ's do pretty well in the mid atlantic. They attract some HT folks as well, but not many have made the jump to AA stakes. That's fine, though. It still takes substantial training and a good dog to be competitive in the Q and results in more interest in FT from those who aspire to a higher level of training and performance.


----------



## John Lash

Marvin S said:


> Many years ago I'm sitting at a Dog Banquet with Andy Pruitt & his wife, Don Hutt & his wife & my wife. I said to Andy "Look around the room (of about 250) & tell me who has the same wife they started this sport with?" Other than our table & Jim Heneghan & his wife, there were none. It's brutal & there is no halfway if you are going to be competitive.
> 
> I promised my wife on our 50th that there would be no more Retrievers (that does not mean I don't love the breed & their performance oriented ways) as I knew if I got one it would get the training & if good enough the same vicious circle would start for another 8 years. I can still evaluate a test & realize what the judges will get from it.
> 
> What the game has lost is that dedicated cadre of folks who made trials happen because they loved good dog work & that's what's sad. The personal stories you heard when manning a station told you a lot about the quality of people that contributed to the sport.[/QUOTE]
> 
> Marvin,
> I was with a group of those dedicated folks this weekend in New Jersey, and last fall in North Carolina and this spring in another place in North Carolina. I'll be with a smallish group this summer in Pennsylvania. We're still here...
> With the number of trials that are being put on around the country I'd say there must be more than a few dedicated people doing it. Just as dedicated as the old timers who are gone.
> Oh yeah, it's still brutal and there are bigger trials.
> There are people who get divorced in record numbers who've never been to a Field Trial.


----------



## Marvin S

John Lash said:


> There are people who get divorced in record numbers who've never been to a Field Trial.


Good Point! My wife went to a trial with me early on, about 1965 - Her comment "Do you really call this fun?"

Got my Retriever News yesterday - they used a smaller database than I did & now call it Active rather than Approved - 
Nothing really new but I thought the setting of a minimum standard for National judges to be a plus, it was just too minimum .

I recognize 32 names on here that have participated in the judging threads - so looked them up in the database. 
12 or 37.5% have never placed a dog or only placed a Derby dog yet judge AA stakes & consider themselves qualified.
12 or 37.5% have placed between 1 & 5 dogs in the AA stakes.
8 or 25% have placed over 6 dogs in licensed trials. Of that group 6 have judged a National. All 8 have qualified for, run & 
worked Nationals. 

Of the above there is an average of 4.3 dogs per handler (which includes Derby Dogs), considerably above the 2.3 dogs
shown in my database (2562 judges & 5921 dogs). 

Not all of the 8 are listed as active judges though all are capable & knowledgeable - Someone needs to recognize that 
those folks are a wasted asset in the judging pool. Certainly more so than someone who has never placed a dog & hangs 
around hustling judging assignments however current!

I always thought it smart to have the facts in front of me before I made decisions, apparently that is not the case with the 
ruling class in this sport .


----------



## Steve Amrein

So Marv when is your next judging assignment ?


----------



## Marvin S

Steve Amrein said:


> So Marv when is your next judging assignment ?


A member of the 1st 12 has ID'd themselves !


----------



## Todd Caswell

Marvin S said:


> Good Point! My wife went to a trial with me early on, about 1965 - Her comment "Do you really call this fun?"
> 
> Got my Retriever News yesterday - they used a smaller database than I did & now call it Active rather than Approved -
> Nothing really new but I thought the setting of a minimum standard for National judges to be a plus, it was just too minimum .
> 
> I recognize 32 names on here that have participated in the judging threads - so looked them up in the database.
> 12 or 37.5% have never placed a dog or only placed a Derby dog yet judge AA stakes & consider themselves qualified.
> 12 or 37.5% have placed between 1 & 5 dogs in the AA stakes.
> 8 or 25% have placed over 6 dogs in licensed trials. Of that group 6 have judged a National. All 8 have qualified for, run &
> worked Nationals.
> 
> Of the above there is an average of 4.3 dogs per handler (which includes Derby Dogs), considerably above the 2.3 dogs
> shown in my database (2562 judges & 5921 dogs).
> 
> Not all of the 8 are listed as active judges though all are capable & knowledgeable - Someone needs to recognize that
> those folks are a wasted asset in the judging pool. Certainly more so than someone who has never placed a dog & hangs
> around hustling judging assignments however current!
> 
> I always thought it smart to have the facts in front of me before I made decisions, apparently that is not the case with the
> ruling class in this sport .


Are you more qualified to judge if you have acually trained a dog to that level or more qualified to judge if you are a good handler and have placed dogs at that level?


----------



## Steve Amrein

Marvin S said:


> A member of the 1st 12 has ID'd themselves !



1st off I have multiple placements in D, Q and AA stakes with 2 of the 3 dogs I have owned. So I guess this means your data base needs updated from 10 years ago or so. My AA dog passed a few years back and have not run a AA stake for 5 years or so. Have not trialed in a few years as that dog could not cut it as a AA dog. I am currently not campaigning a dog. AKC has me approved with 8 pts minor and major. 1st trial in 2001, last one I Judged a D and a Q a few weeks ago. 


So now back to my question which I believe is certainly fair. Do you have any upcoming judging assignments ? I tried to look you up on the AKC site but could not find you. I am not trying to be a dick but every time a judging thread comes up you have comments. Now your saying some folks are (in your opinion) not AKC's qualified to judge. So if your qualified to judge the judges I am just looking for some context. Are you a AKC Judge? Have you judged recently? Upcoming. Most of the folks commenting here are currently judging and have upcoming assignments.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp

helencalif said:


> Sounds good in theory. We thought that HTers would participate in Double D-Qs, too. For several years clubs in CA sponsored Sat-Sun D-Qs thinking that this would appeal to the HTers. It didn't. The clubs lost money due to low entries so stopped holding D-Qs.
> 
> Helen


HTer don't do it because they don't see the point, most of them, who run and train their own dogs are of the hard worker (step by step) set = (you put in enough work = pass/ribbon= enough passes= title, move on to next title). Derby (is only til 2 yr.) & Qual; have nothing to keep a long term worker in them (for any period of time). I don't see the new Qa2 really doing anything for that. As it's not a hard work = accumulation of passes/points title. It's a win or a second = (instant gratification or nothing)title. Now if they were to make the Qa2 a point system like the AFC-FC, where 4 3 2 1 all added to points, and enough points/win etc. = title. I can see HTers giving it a try, there's steps and goals such a systems, and you don't have to win to show progress. But to only get a title with 1st & 2nd competing with pros who train for and run the things week in and week out; until they can't run them anymore. Nope I don't see many HT people lining up to donate $ nor their free time to FTs, when they can go to a hunt-test and after putting in enough work consistently get pass ribbons and titles. Now we did have a bunch of entries down here for a O/H qual and a bunch of HT people pulled their dogs out for that. Why? (because it was only one trial, in a good location, no pros), you might just win; you only need a win/2nd..so why not?  Now a couple of amateurs, might've got QAA and might try another couple of quals. for an official QA2, but there were 20 something other handlers, who didn't get 1st/2nd and aren't gonna get hooked on a system with little-no return, where they can't see progress, being made toward a goal.


----------



## Todd Caswell

Steve Amrein said:


> 1st off I have multiple placements in D, Q and AA stakes with 2 of the 3 dogs I have owned. So I guess this means your data base needs updated from 10 years ago or so. My AA dog passed a few years back and have not run a AA stake for 5 years or so. Have not trialed in a few years as that dog could not cut it as a AA dog. I am currently not campaigning a dog. AKC has me approved with 8 pts minor and major. 1st trial in 2001, last one I Judged a D and a Q a few weeks ago.
> 
> 
> So now back to my question which I believe is certainly fair. Do you have any upcoming judging assignments ? I tried to look you up on the AKC site but could not find you. I am not trying to be a dick but every time a judging thread comes up you have comments. Now your saying some folks are (in your opinion) not AKC's qualified to judge. So if your qualified to judge the judges I am just looking for some context. Are you a AKC Judge? Have you judged recently? Upcoming. Most of the folks commenting here are currently judging and have upcoming assignments.


Steve I'm kind of in your shoes, had one pretty good dog, just started to run AM. and sold him, have 2 young ones and have pretty much done most of the work myself, it takes much longer doing that and neither one of them will ever be AA material, haven't run a dog in a FT since 2010 so according to some I'm really not qualified, all iv'e done is Derbys and Q's I have been asked many times to judge a AM, Nope I personally know I'm not qualified to judge one, I'm not willing to give up two more weekends to apprentice between stake chairing, chairing, and minor judging assingments I already give up 5 weekends a summer sorry not interested. But I do enjoy doing the minors. Iv'e been lucky to have judged with some really good and knowlagable people, that helped me out a ton and let me have alot of input. I have also judged with some that have had alot of success at all levels with many placements and titles but have never trained a dog personally to the MH level but there plenty qualified.. Iv'e got a dog that will be 4 this summer, and I'm going to run him in a couple Q's mainly because I feel if your judging you should be running something. Iv'e got 2 assingments this summer and have one for 2015 and then unless something changes personally for me I'm going to hang up the FT judging book and continue running masters with my dogs and maybe get into judging HT's, because I really do enjoy judging..


----------



## Wade Thurman

Marvin S said:


> Not all of the 8 are listed as active judges though all are capable & knowledgeable - Someone needs to recognize that
> those folks are a wasted asset in the judging pool. Certainly more so than someone who has never placed a dog & hangs
> around hustling judging assignments however current!
> 
> .


Hi Marv,

I don't think alot of us are out there campaigning to judge a ton of trials. I do feel however that those who are running dogs and/or are active in the game will man up when they are asked to judge. I think alot of FTers put limits on the number they will do each year. For some it's 1 a year, for others maybe it's 3. I am not aware of to many that "hang around and hustle assignments"


----------



## huntinman

Hunt'EmUp said:


> HTer don't do it because they don't see the point, most of them, who run and train their own dogs are of the hard worker (step by step) set = (you put in enough work = pass/ribbon= enough passes= title, move on to next title). Derby (is only til 2 yr.) & Qual; have nothing to keep a long term worker in them (for any period of time). I don't see the new Qa2 really doing anything for that. As it's not a hard work = accumulation of passes/points title. It's a win or a second = (instant gratification or nothing)title. Now if they were to make the Qa2 a point system like the AFC-FC, where 4 3 2 1 all added to points, and enough points/win etc. = title. I can see HTers giving it a try, there's steps and goals such a systems, and you don't have to win to show progress. But to only get a title with 1st & 2nd competing with pros who train for and run the things week in and week out; until they can't run them anymore. Nope I don't see many HT people lining up to donate $ nor their free time to FTs, when they can go to a hunt-test and after putting in enough work consistently get pass ribbons and titles. Now we did have a bunch of entries down here for a O/H qual and a bunch of HT people pulled their dogs out for that. Why? (because it was only one trial, in a good location, no pros), you might just win; you only need one win..so why not?  Now a couple of amateurs, might've got QAA and might try another couple of quals. for a QA2, but there were 20 something other handlers that didn't and aren't gonna get hooked on a system with little-no return, where they can't see progress, being made toward a goal.


Good post and I see your points. But as a guy who got my start in HT years ago... I see it the other way around. 

To me, whats the point of taking a great dog out and getting a "pass" for exceptional work. And some other dog barely makes it through, but somehow achieves a passing score... And gets the same ribbon and recognition that the exceptional work got? That's what drove me to FT's. If I'm going to put all that work into it, I want to be able to see the separation at the end of the day, weekend, etc... Let's see who the better dogs are.

If you and your dog are good enough... The personal satisfaction is there...

Different strokes for different folks.


----------



## Rnd

^^^^^^X2^^^^^

i haven't read the entire thread but I agree with Bills post....
There are a few folks that followed the same path...


----------



## Criquetpas

huntinman said:


> Good post and I see your points. But as a guy who got my start in HT years ago... I see it the other way around.
> 
> To me, whats the point of taking a great dog out and getting a "pass" for exceptional work. And some other dog barely makes it through, but somehow achieves a passing score... And gets the same ribbon and recognition that the exceptional work got? That's what drove me to FT's. If I'm going to put all that work into it, I want to be able to see the separation at the end of the day, weekend, etc... Let's see who the better dogs are.
> 
> If you and your dog are good enough... The personal satisfaction is there...
> 
> Different strokes for different folks.


I came the opposite way, running field trials for years, then decided to try AKC hunt tests. I ran one of the first Master Invitationals in 1990 (the year before the first Master National) , I think there were two that year. Anyway we did a nice job throughout the three day event. Ray Muth a former field trialer turned hunt tester came up and shook my hand , told me my dog was the only dog that didn't handle on 27 marks during the event. Ribbons were awarded and my ribbon was the same color, type ribbon 
as all who had completed the event, even though we had not handled on a single mark and as I remember the blinds were very good too. Hmm! I thought welcome to the soon to be Master National. I looked at that ribbon just today along with the Amateur All age first place the same dog won earlier, the weight of the two just didn't see the same. Still run hunt tests and field trials, but, would rather get to the water blind in the all-age then finish a master.


----------



## Marvin S

Todd Caswell said:


> Are you more qualified to judge if you have acually trained a dog to that level or more qualified to judge if you are a good handler and have placed dogs at that level?


The former shows your ability to recognize what to expect of a dog performance, the latter shows how well you respond to pressure.



Steve Amrein said:


> 1st off I have multiple placements in D, Q and AA stakes with 2 of the 3 dogs I have owned. So I guess this means your data base needs updated from 10 years ago or so. My AA dog passed a few years back and have not run a AA stake for 5 years or so. Have not trialed in a few years as that dog could not cut it as a AA dog. I am currently not campaigning a dog. AKC has me approved with 8 pts minor and major. 1st trial in 2001, last one I Judged a D and a Q a few weeks ago.
> 
> 
> So now back to my question which I believe is certainly fair. Do you have any upcoming judging assignments ? I tried to look you up on the AKC site but could not find you. I am not trying to be a dick but every time a judging thread comes up you have comments. Now your saying some folks are (in your opinion) not AKC's qualified to judge. So if your qualified to judge the judges I am just looking for some context. Are you a AKC Judge? Have you judged recently? Upcoming. Most of the folks commenting here are currently judging and have upcoming assignments.


As for your performance with dogs, I'm sure you kept a record - tell me the trials & stake, I can recognize your name . 
Q's don't count! I'm fairly sure my site is correct, there are not a lot of Steve Amrein's.

About 3 years after I last judged my name disappeared from the AKC site, i would not have noticed had someone not said something. 
I did not contact AKC as I have a full life & believe that if someone wanted me to judge it could be fixed. I have a story about that but 
will save it for a more opportune time. As for your being a dick, only you know intent!

I have been a critic of the way judges are chosen & the attendant results for a long time - I have offered solutions that have never 
gained traction. My name 1st appeared in FT News in 1965 & last appeared in 2008, along the way I threw a lot of birds, popped at 
a lot of stations, marshaled a few times, worked a few Nationals, worked as a go-fer & on occasion judged. Like EdA I find it a tough
weekend judging with someone who knows little & does not carry their weight, I don't need that. A lot of the folks would not judge 
with me as I do not seek compromise where none was due, I do not play politics, what a contestant gets is what happens in front of 
the Judge's chair.. To me the goal one should seek as a judge would be for no one to remember who judged the trial but remembered 
the tests which exhibited the dogs at their best level of performance.

I await your reply!


----------



## Steve Amrein

OK Marv you win I dont have time to pull the records to give you the time date and what I was wearing that day when I had placements. I sure you wont be inviting me to judge anytime soon. I think I recall that your not a member of a club. BTW you website list is either not working properly or its not been updated since 2009. So if AKC has dropped you name of the records I guess as of now you would have to take the test if you were to test again. I am sorry but using your formula your no longer qualified to judge. 

I actually think one of the reasons the sport is not getting into judging are the reasons Marv gives. The condescending attitude that you have only been in the game 10 years and only have a few placements you not worthy to judge. Or you pay to have your dogs trained so you should not judge either. Or not kissed the ring of a FT legend.

The way I look at it when asked to judge and you suck at it or your a jerk people wont ask you to judge anymore. The problem is solved. On the other hand if you are stupid enough to put yourself under the microscope for 3-4 days. Take time from work or running your own dog or whatever. Manage to not wizz the FT community off and are asked again cause it was not to bad then you should do so. The judges selection committee thought you did a job worthy to represent the FT community and their club. 

Marvin I have enjoyed our banter about judging for years and obviously dont think not much will change in the future. Some day if I get asked to Judge out you direction I hope you still in good enough shape you can come watch and critique in person. The go have a beverage and discuss it. Thank God we at least agree about politics.....


----------



## K G

Steve, I actually had the pleasure of meeting Marvin while setting up and during the rebirding of a 4th series Open test I co-judged in Washington a few years ago. He and I used to spar regularly in somewhat the same manner as you and he have on this thread prior to my accepting that assignment. I remember hoping that he would show up at the trial, and sure enough he did. He was a gentleman and actually complimentary of the last series my co-judge and I had set up (the only set-up he saw). We had a good discussion after the trial before I was off with my co-judge to set up the Derby. Our relationship on RTF changed after he saw that I knew what I was doing (or at least my co-judge knew what HE was doing! ).

Great overall discussion, great thread in general. The only "thought" I will add is that some clubs take the path of least resistance when it comes to finding judges. Some get REALLY lucky when it comes to getting judges (right place, right time), some have a good network or "quid-pro-quo" arrangement to get help and, in turn, give help...and some do it the old-fashioned way and send out 100+ letters out five years in advance and "stock up" (I have ALWAYS been a fan, Lanse Brown!). 

Darrin Green's post back on page 5 pretty much sums up my feelings on the situation. It's a grand game, one I'm happy to be associated with...but it has some issues, and unless some new approaches are attempted to solve some of these problems (hint: relying solely on "new blood" ain't gonna cut it), the judging situation will only get worse.

Peace, ya'll...  Going back to my quiet place now...

K G


----------



## EdA

K G said:


> Steve, I actually had the pleasure of meeting Marvin while setting up and during the rebirding of a 4th series Open test I co-judged in Washington a few years ago. He and I used to spar regularly in somewhat the same manner as you and he have on this thread prior to my accepting that assignment. I remember hoping that he would show up at the trial, and sure enough he did. He was a gentleman and actually complimentary of the last series my co-judge and I had set up (the only set-up he saw). We had a good discussion after the trial before I was off with my co-judge to set up the Derby. Our relationship on RTF changed after he saw that I knew what I was doing (or at least my co-judge knew what HE was doing! ).
> 
> Great overall discussion, great thread in general. The only "thought" I will add is that some clubs take the path of least resistance when it comes to finding judges. Some get REALLY lucky when it comes to getting judges (right place, right time), some have a good network or "quid-pro-quo" arrangement to get help and, in turn, give help...and some do it the old-fashioned way and send out 100+ letters out five years in advance and "stock up" (I have ALWAYS been a fan, Lanse Brown!).
> 
> Darrin Green's post back on page 5 pretty much sums up my feelings on the situation. It's a grand game, one I'm happy to be associated with...but it has some issues, and unless some new approaches are attempted to solve some of these problems (hint: relying solely on "new blood" ain't gonna cut it), the judging situation will only get worse.
> 
> Peace, ya'll...  Going back to my quiet place now...
> 
> K G


Nice hearing from KG, I miss your thoughtful responses!


----------



## mjh345

EdA said:


> Nice hearing from KG, I miss your thoughtful responses!


+1 Quit beng a stranger Keith, your input was valuable and is needed


----------



## John Gassner

Hi Keith!

Welcome to RTF!!!!!!!

Hope you stick around.

John


----------



## TBell

K G said:


> Darrin Green's post back on page 5 pretty much sums up my feelings on the situation. It's a grand game, one I'm happy to be associated with...but it has some issues, and unless some new approaches are attempted to solve some of these problems (hint: relying solely on "new blood" ain't gonna cut it), the judging situation will only get worse.
> 
> Peace, ya'll...  Going back to my quiet place now...
> 
> K G


X2 this quote, Keith. 

I know you have probably been the sole person to find judges for the Chattanooga club, so you are definitely qualified to post on this topic. If those of you who have posted here haven't been on a judges committee for a while, times are hard. You can use the 80/20 rule here. 80% of the participants give back and 20% don't. 

Some ideas, and yes let the bus run over me as it has in the past.....but maybe it is about time to have a few HANDLER requirements to qualify for the National AMATEUR in order to perpetuate the sport, get better judges, and therefore spread the workload to the 20% who are not participating.

a) All handlers at the National Amateur MUST have earned 2 judges points during the qualifying year.
b) Give 1/2 point for a minor stake and 1 point for an all-age stake earning CHAMPIONSHIP points.
c) Also, for the argument of those who have limited weekends to qualify their dogs because of real jobs, allow the 2 points to count towards their dog who has a win, but not the 2 points.

This would be a WIN/WIN situation for all of us in the sport. I can think of many reason's to implement this new rule and not many negatives. I'm sure you will now all have your say on the PROS and CONS, but it bears some discussion. Have at it!


----------



## EdA

TBell said:


> a) All handlers at the National Amateur MUST have earned 2 judges points during the qualifying year.
> b) Give 1/2 point for a minor stake and 1 point for an all-age stake earning CHAMPIONSHIP points.
> c) Also, for the argument of those who have limited weekends to qualify their dogs because of real jobs, allow the 2 points to count towards their dog who has a win, but not the 2 points.


a) what if said handler is not asked to judge, has health problems or personal conflicts that prevent them from judging, are we going to eliminate that person from competing when they have qualified their dog? That will never fly.

b) & c) I do not understand


----------



## Goldenboy

The Keith (KG) that I remember often had a little "bite" in his comments. Kinder, gentler, KG, the new-age man! 

Number me amongst those who believe that some exposure to actual placements in the stakes that you are judging is invaluable, dare I say essential, to most likely being a capable judge. Judges must have ribboned within the previous five years in the stakes they can judge in the Hunt Test game. New blood is a great idea but, in my opinion, some folks I've seen have no business (no credentials) to judge all-age stakes.


----------



## K G

Tammy, Trip Smith has done most of the heavy lifting for the CRC relative to getting judges for the past few years. I get called in from time to time if needed, but mostly I just handle the administrative stuff prior to and during the events.

I think there is a way to get more people into judging, but all the ideas in the world won't help people get their hearts "right" with regard to the concept of "giving back." Unfortunately, a great number of folks are "takers" who will run every trial they can run without lifting a finger to help clubs get the events done. Granted, most "newbies," particularly those brought into the sport by pros, don't know which end is "up" relative to how a field trial works; they just show up, run their dog(s), pull out a chair/umbrella/popup, and proceed to "watch" all day, at least as long as their dog(s) is/are still in the stake(s) they entered. Their primary concerns are the running order and callbacks...and where they or their pro has to be next. In most cases, if they know that, they've helped us get the trial done mechanically...but as far as knowing what makes a field trial happen, too many of them don't. Sadly, too many of them don't seem to care very much about finding out, either. "I paid my entry fee...THAT is how I support your club." Anybody heard THAT one before? 

Don't get me wrong: I don't think the sport as a whole, especially the abilities of the dogs, would be where it is/they are today without the participation and influence of professional trainers. Several folks that I consider good friends are professional trainers and to their great credit, they encourage their clients to get involved and to ask when/if they can be of help at a trial. Some pros even lend their own helpers to clubs as bird boys/shooters/helpers, and that is ALWAYS appreciated. I guess my point is that you can learn a TON by helping out at a trial, most of the time a LOT more than you can up in the gallery bs'ing with everyone else who has a dog on that pro's truck.

Mark, I hope these comments don't have you rethinking your "kinder, gentler, new age man" comments...I'm just speaking from what I've seen over the years. 

Fortunately, there will always be people with a passion to learn about dogs and what makes them do what they do. I have been in that camp since the first time I ever sat in judgment of dogs at a licensed field trial in 1985. Sometimes I'm more right than others...anyone who has ever judged/ever will judge a field trial is one event away from laying an egg. The idea is to learn from your mistakes (understand WHY what happened, happened), listen to folks whose opinions your trust and value, and do better next time. Sometimes Mother Nature gives you the finger, sometimes she's your best friend...but these are ALL things that can only be learned with EXPERIENCE. People who want to "get" from the game need to "give" to make it continue in a better way.

I'm rambling now, so I'll stop...but I hope I've made my point. If we all made it a point to make a conscious effort to make our own field trial experiences more enjoyable, perhaps those that we want to become more involved would follow our lead...perhaps more consideration of "The Golden Rule" on an everyday basis might make that happen...can't hurt to try! :razz:

K G


----------



## Steve Amrein

Goldenboy said:


> The Keith (KG) that I remember often had a little "bite" in his comments. Kinder, gentler, KG, the new-age man!
> 
> Number me amongst those who believe that some exposure to actual placements in the stakes that you are judging is invaluable, dare I say essential, to most likely being a capable judge. Judges must have ribboned within the previous five years in the stakes they can judge in the Hunt Test game. New blood is a great idea but, in my opinion, some folks I've seen have no business (no credentials) to judge all-age stakes.



While I wholeheartedly agree with the some experience /placements in a stake to judge. I personally know a few people that have judged a national, have had a "N" dog and or have owned 100+ point dogs. They have taken a bit of time off for health or personal reasons and dont currently have a competitive AA dog. To disqualify these folks are doing a huge disservice to the game. These folks dont post here and I am not going to post the names. 

I also think most folks are happy to give back to the sport by judging but if were not asked would not be overly put out. I think when people are disqualified when a rule is black & white without looking at the picture and taking away from the judges selection committee is like adding rules/laws to legislate common sense.


----------



## canuckkiller

*Judges ... Untapped*

I have remained silent during the bruhaha about the RFTN article. Several reasons.
However, the "A, B, C", post of T. Bell is absolutely contrary to everything, not the
least tradition, good common sense and panders to those who have agendas for
"change" when change is not the solution.

Bill Connor


----------



## RookieTrainer

Marvin S said:


> Like EdA I find it a tough weekend judging with someone who knows little & does not carry their weight, I don't need that.


Since I got into this addiction a scant 3 years ago, I have had several folks really go out of their way to help me. Probably not coincidentally, they to a person have drummed home the message about giving back to the sport, that being the only way it can continue to thrive and grow. Like most of the rest of you, I have marshaled, shot flyers, etc., because folks have done that and more for me. If nothing else I owe.

The next logical step would be judging, but I have some real qualms about it because of statements like the one above. When I started with the dog I am training, my first, I knew little (probably still the case) and I could not carry my weight at a training day. I'm not even sure I knew enough to be dangerous at that point. But folks stuck with me, and I got better. There were a couple training days where I felt like I was holding everything up because they had to stop and explain EVERYTHING that was going on so I would have a prayer of knowing what to do. But I listened, worked at it by reading/watching various training materials out there, and tried to do everything I could to improve on my own without help. But, as I am sure you would expect, I needed lots of help outside of that.

What if, when I showed up at my first training day and quickly proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that I had really no idea what I was doing, the guys who took me under their wings said "Well, we'd like to help, but it is tough training with somebody who knows little and cannot carry their weight?" Note that I would assume we would all distinguish "ignorant (knows very little)" from "stupid (doesn't care to know)" and further that we would all distinguish "cannot (yet)" from "will not".

I'm not really directing this at anyone because I think it probably describes just about everyone who is involved in the dog games. You started out being a sort of "net taker" of knowledge and training day efforts simply because you didn't know anything that would allow you to add any value. As you stuck with it, likely because one or more persons took you on as a project and helped you through the hard spots, you changed that, but it took some help from someone more experienced than you. And you inconvenienced that person or persons by taking extra time at training days, spending untold amounts of time on the phone with you troubleshooting "problems", etc.

My question is why would we not want to take that same approach to judging? And how else do you expect to find judging candidates other than ignorant and eager? They need to be taught how to judge (setups, etc.) just like they needed to be taught how to train a dog at some point. Why is judging different?


----------



## TBell

I'll give a very brief response to each reply, as I have many commitments to attend to this week....one of which is a judging assignment in CA.



EdA said:


> a) what if said handler is not asked to judge, has health problems or personal conflicts that prevent them from judging, are we going to eliminate that person from competing when they have qualified their dog? That will never fly.
> 
> b) & c) I do not understand


a) If handler is not asked to judge, there may be good reason. My suggestion would be to actually VOLUNTEER to judge. Call clubs and ASK for a judging assignment. I promise you will get one.

Too bad of health to judge 4 days a year or personal conflicts, Dr. Ed, but still able to run a dog and qualify???

b) Handlers already earn either Champion or Minor points for judging per the AKC Judges Directory but they stop at 8. (ie. Champion - 8 Minor - 8 Year Last Judged - 2013)

Give handlers 1 point for an All-age stake and 1/2 point for a minor stake. These would accumulate just as their dog points.

c) Per your argument of health, time, etc., allow your judges points earned through the year to count towards one dog with a win. Example: You have a dog with an Amateur win, but not the additional two points needed to qualify for the National Am. Now lets say you have been busier judging than running your dog this year and have judged two Opens. This gives you two Handler points which you can apply to the points your dog needs to qualify to run the NARC.....dog earned the Am Win and you earned the two additional points. You BOTH have qualified for the NARC.



canuckkiller said:


> I have remained silent during the bruhaha about the RFTN article. Several reasons.
> However, the "A, B, C", post of T. Bell is absolutely contrary to everything, not the
> least tradition, good common sense and panders to those who have agendas for
> "change" when change is not the solution.
> 
> Bill Connor


Life is about changes, and sometimes they are good ones. Mine is only a suggestion for thought. Another suggestion would be to allow the more active participants of field trials decide what rules should be changed and/or added. A person who has not judged many recent trials or handled a dog in the last several years could not know the challenging situation in obtaining good, qualified judges.


----------



## Glenda Brown

I was asked to marshal at the first seven field trials I ever ran. At the first one, they put me with an experienced marshal---and having had umpteen years working at sporting events with the kids, competing with horses, I felt nothing could be harder to handle than a little league parent so had at it! As a result, I got to know the people, see the dogs running, listen to the judges, and really become involved. It was a good way to start to feel immediately part of the game.

As Lanse wrote, we would line up judges 5 years out. When I was President of the SCRC, I would call them and send them a letter once a year reminding them of when they would be judging for us. In those days, we always tried to bring in two outside 8 pt judges, each to do one of the major stakes. We always had a big tailgate Saturday night, again, which everyone attended and got to know one another. And---the trials often were smaller although no less competitive re the quality of the dogs. Bringing in outside judges not only helped educate our local members who would often be co-judges, but we saw different set-ups, got to know dog people from other areas of the country, made new friends.

Economically, it has become harder to bring in outside judges and in some cases and in some areas, the judging almost becomes incestuous as the same people are recycled on a regular basis. It was discussed here earlier about in "the old days" clubs had more training days, encouraging non-club members to attend, helping them train their young dogs and encouraging them to be a part of the group. I know times have changed, but this is something to give some thought to reviving. Also, some clubs and areas are excellent about having judging seminars---these are especially attractive if you bring in some "names" to give them a taste of the bigger field trial community. Field trial clubs could put on one hunt test a year, work at it, and get to know the hunt test people. I started in hunt tests and then went on to field trials. I often have run hunt tests with trial dogs and have had some FC-AFC-MH dogs as do some of the other field trial people in my area. Meeting and mingling allowed members of both venues to realize we have much more in common than we have separating us. 

The same as Ed, I had a lot of wet saddle blankets, i.e., getting out there training by myself, competing and getting my rear kicked, before I first judged. I also had some wonderful mentors that took me under their wing and provided me with support, encouragement, and educating me along the way. If all those that judge now, start acting as a mentor (and I know many of you already do), it might embolden some others to become new judges. There are some who hear only criticism of tests and judges so are reluctant to put themselves in that position. Maybe, while sitting in the gallery, pointing out what is good in a test and how important it is to have those judges give up the days that they do in an effort to give back to the sport instead of criticizing, might encourage a few more to step up to the plate.

Glenda


----------



## Marvin S

K G said:


> Great overall discussion, great thread in general. The only "thought" I will add is that some clubs take the path of least resistance when it comes to finding judges. Some get REALLY lucky when it comes to getting judges (right place, right time), some have a good network or "quid-pro-quo" arrangement to get help and, in turn, give help...and some do it the old-fashioned way and send out 100+ letters out five years in advance and "stock up" (I have ALWAYS been a fan, Lanse Brown!).
> 
> Darrin Green's post back on page 5 pretty much sums up my feelings on the situation. It's a grand game, one I'm happy to be associated with...but it has some issues, and unless some new approaches are attempted to solve some of these problems (hint: relying solely on "new blood" ain't gonna cut it), the judging situation will only get worse. K G


You've been around long enough to know this is not a new issue - but it seems every solution enacted only makes things worse. 



Steve Amrein said:


> OK Marv you win I dont have time to pull the records to give you the time date and what I was wearing that day when I had placements. I sure you wont be inviting me to judge anytime soon. I think I recall that your not a member of a club. BTW you website list is either not working properly or its not been updated since 2009. So if AKC has dropped you name of the records I guess as of now you would have to take the test if you were to test again. I am sorry but using your formula your no longer qualified to judge. (Not mine, probably RAC)
> 
> I actually think one of the reasons the sport is not getting into judging are the reasons Marv gives. The condescending attitude that you have only been in the game 10 years and only have a few placements you not worthy to judge. Or you pay to have your dogs trained so you should not judge either. Or not kissed the ring of a FT legend.
> ...


In 2009 our Mayor fired the best member of her work force - I thought it pretty stupid & am now involved in city politics. Very time consuming!

The info is there & IMO relevant, but for now it's not being used. The new rules, rather than improving judging will lower quality - 
time will tell & by then those who could have assisted in improvement will no longer be available. 



canuckkiller said:


> I have remained silent during the bruhaha about the RFTN article. Several reasons.
> However, the "A, B, C", post of T. Bell is absolutely contrary to everything, not the
> least tradition, good common sense and panders to those who have agendas for
> "change" when change is not the solution.
> 
> Bill Connor


Agree, though like EdA I'm not entirely sure of what she's posting!

I do believe some standards are in order but should be of the carrot variety rather than the stick - 
You would be amazed at the number of people who have shown to be good with dogs & are very 
good judges who judge very little. I'm inclined to think that many of the club people doing the 
asking are intimidated when dealing with someone of perceived stature, so settle for someone on
their stature level.


----------



## Marvin S

RookieTrainer said:


> Since I got into this addiction a scant 3 years ago, I have had several folks really go out of their way to help me. Probably not coincidentally, they to a person have drummed home the message about giving back to the sport, that being the only way it can continue to thrive and grow. Like most of the rest of you, I have marshaled, shot flyers, etc., because folks have done that and more for me. If nothing else I owe.
> 
> The next logical step would be judging, but I have some real qualms about it because of statements like the one above. When I started with the dog I am training, my first, I knew little (probably still the case) and I could not carry my weight at a training day. I'm not even sure I knew enough to be dangerous at that point. But folks stuck with me, and I got better. There were a couple training days where I felt like I was holding everything up because they had to stop and explain EVERYTHING that was going on so I would have a prayer of knowing what to do. But I listened, worked at it by reading/watching various training materials out there, and tried to do everything I could to improve on my own without help. But, as I am sure you would expect, I needed lots of help outside of that.
> 
> What if, when I showed up at my first training day and quickly proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that I had really no idea what I was doing, the guys who took me under their wings said "Well, we'd like to help, but it is tough training with somebody who knows little and cannot carry their weight?" Note that I would assume we would all distinguish "ignorant (knows very little)" from "stupid (doesn't care to know)" and further that we would all distinguish "cannot (yet)" from "will not".
> 
> I'm not really directing this at anyone because I think it probably describes just about everyone who is involved in the dog games. You started out being a sort of "net taker" of knowledge and training day efforts simply because you didn't know anything that would allow you to add any value. As you stuck with it, likely because one or more persons took you on as a project and helped you through the hard spots, you changed that, but it took some help from someone more experienced than you. And you inconvenienced that person or persons by taking extra time at training days, spending untold amounts of time on the phone with you troubleshooting "problems", etc.
> 
> My question is why would we not want to take that same approach to judging? And how else do you expect to find judging candidates other than ignorant and eager? They need to be taught how to judge (setups, etc.) just like they needed to be taught how to train a dog at some point. Why is judging different?


Your analogy falls flat! Someone who agrees to judge has a responsibility to be prepared to do same .


----------



## DoubleHaul

Goldenboy said:


> The Keith (KG) that I remember often had a little "bite" in his comments. Kinder, gentler, KG, the new-age man!
> 
> Number me amongst those who believe that some exposure to actual placements in the stakes that you are judging is invaluable, dare I say essential, to most likely being a capable judge. Judges must have ribboned within the previous five years in the stakes they can judge in the Hunt Test game. New blood is a great idea but, in my opinion, some folks I've seen have no business (no credentials) to judge all-age stakes.


I agree with you, generally. Thinking about the good and bad judges I know, some of the best are running every trial (and helping) with the dog they have and training it when they get a chance. They do have lots of exposure to the stakes, but simply are not ever going to have the 'pelts' Marvin and others seem to think are required. On the flip side, the few judges that cause me not to waste my money on entry fees are very experienced, but they aren't good judges for various reasons.

I think that Ted sort of summed it up earlier--all these factors should make better judges but don't always. All things being equal, a judge who has run a bazillion dogs in AA stakes should be a better judge than the judge with two apprenticeships under his or her belt, but I can say that it isn't a lock that is true.


----------



## huntinman

Glenda Brown said:


> I was asked to marshal at the first seven field trials I ever ran. At the first one, they put me with an experienced marshal---and having had umpteen years working at sporting events with the kids, competing with horses, I felt nothing could be harder to handle than a little league parent so had at it! As a result, I got to know the people, see the dogs running, listen to the judges, and really become involved. It was a good way to start to feel immediately part of the game.
> 
> As Lanse wrote, we would line up judges 5 years out. When I was President of the SCRC, I would call them and send them a letter once a year reminding them of when they would be judging for us. In those days, we always tried to bring in two outside 8 pt judges, each to do one of the major stakes. We always had a big tailgate Saturday night, again, which everyone attended and got to know one another. And---the trials often were smaller although no less competitive re the quality of the dogs. Bringing in outside judges not only helped educate our local members who would often be co-judges, but we saw different set-ups, got to know dog people from other areas of the country, made new friends.
> 
> Economically, it has become harder to bring in outside judges and in some cases and in some areas, the judging almost becomes incestuous as the same people are recycled on a regular basis. It was discussed here earlier about in "the old days" clubs had more training days, encouraging non-club members to attend, helping them train their young dogs and encouraging them to be a part of the group. I know times have changed, but this is something to give some thought to reviving. Also, some clubs and areas are excellent about having judging seminars---these are especially attractive if you bring in some "names" to give them a taste of the bigger field trial community. Field trial clubs could put on one hunt test a year, work at it, and get to know the hunt test people. I started in hunt tests and then went on to field trials. I often have run hunt tests with trial dogs and have had some FC-AFC-MH dogs as do some of the other field trial people in my area. Meeting and mingling allowed members of both venues to realize we have much more in common than we have separating us.
> 
> The same as Ed, I had a lot of wet saddle blankets, i.e., getting out there training by myself, competing and getting my rear kicked, before I first judged. I also had some wonderful mentors that took me under their wing and provided me with support, encouragement, and educating me along the way. If all those that judge now, start acting as a mentor (and I know many of you already do), it might embolden some others to become new judges. There are some who hear only criticism of tests and judges so are reluctant to put themselves in that position. Maybe, while sitting in the gallery, pointing out what is good in a test and how important it is to have those judges give up the days that they do in an effort to give back to the sport instead of criticizing, might encourage a few more to step up to the plate.
> 
> Glenda


Good post Glenda! As usual...


----------



## canuckkiller

*Judges ... Untapped*

In response to T. Bell's statement -
"A person who has not judged many recent trials or handled a dog in the last several years could not know the challenging situation in obtaining good qualified judges".

This statement is incongrous, wrong and BIAS!!

The insinuation is that unless one is currently handling a dog on the circuit that/
those individuals are not qualified to judge. Poppycock!!

I do not believe there is a true shortage of judges notwithstanding the explosion
of the number of clubs & trials. The phone doesn't ring for many good judges
because of a myriad of reasons. That's a whole new book/post.

W. D. Connor


----------



## Charles C.

1. Lots of judging points doesn't make someone a good judge. One of the dumbest marks I've ever seen was thrown by a "legend" of the sport. 
2. The idea that most relatively inexperienced judges are dead weight and can't go on to be good judges is pompous and ridiculous. Most people running field trials are successful, intelligent people and are capable of learning given the opportunity. 
3. I'm sure I'm on someone's list as a bad judge. You can't make everyone happy. I was recently accused of favoring a friend in placements even though we went through the sheets 2 or 3 extra times just to make sure we couldn't find a dog with better work. I'd drop my mother if her dog didn't do the work. 
4. Some people who are takers (don't judge and/or help put on events) probably don't realize they are takers, but I'm not sure that says much for their intelligence. 
5. I'd like to know who these good, qualified judges are that aren't being asked to judge.


----------



## Goldenboy

My personal experience pales in comparison to many, many more accomplished handlers and trainers. But, over the years, I have come to realize how little I knew about training and what it took to be competitive in all-age stakes until I started handling a dog in the third series of major stakes and failed and failed and failed and then, started making it through on occasion and then failing and failing fourth series and then making it through on occasion, and then, even more infrequent, winning a few ribbons along the way. Then, being asked to judge major stakes but getting paired with experienced and considerate judges like Pat Martin, Don Driggers, Loren Morehouse, Duncan Christie and others who mentored yet didn't condescend or bully and who respected my desire to do well, my achievement, knowledge and ability. And, I put in my time as a club member, marshall, thrower, gunner, re-birder, FT committee member, etc. 

Someone here was once castigated, unfairly in my opinion, for referring to a judging assignment as a "vacation". If you love watching dogs work, thoroughly enjoy the environment and culture of a Field Trial, and sincerely want to give back to the sport, a weekend in a judges chair watching incredible dogs in what is usually a magnificent setting certainly beats a day at the office or mowing the lawn.


----------



## Marvin S

DoubleHaul said:


> I agree with you, generally. Thinking about the good and bad judges I know, some of the best are running every trial (and helping) with the dog they have and training it when they get a chance. They do have lots of exposure to the stakes, but simply are not ever going to have the 'pelts' Marvin and others seem to think are required. On the flip side, the few judges that cause me not to waste my money on entry fees are very experienced, but they aren't good judges for various reasons.
> 
> I think that Ted sort of summed it up earlier--all these factors should make better judges but don't always. All things being equal, a judge who has run a bazillion dogs in AA stakes should be a better judge than the judge with two apprenticeships under his or her belt, but I can say that it isn't a lock that is true.


There is no reason those people cannot acquire "pelts" as many who are posting on this thread have done. To say any less is to say you don't have the confidence 
that you can measure up to those of the past, when most here know some will take that challenge. If FT'ing was easy, it would lose it's allure .

Placings are the only way of telling from afar who is involved with their dog - over time in the AA stakes one can see those whose only placings are in the AM, 
& possibly minimal in the Open, while their dog has FC in their title & is normally run in that stake by their trainer. The training of a dog & the failures inherent 
in that endeavor will teach you more than any paper exercise. In sports it's about reps, there are not many reps in writing a monthly check or observing the 
goings on at a trial. Reps are accomplished by doing something that may have a consequence. I've been to a number of judging clinics, if you walk away from 
any of them with a couple of useful ideas your ahead of the game & that's only you know enough to recognize what's happening. 

Many years ago during my time in the service I was chosen to put on the Base Golf tournament. The last two people to show up were a colonel who was a 
regular at the national Am & an individual who set a course record at a local course. We're playing Indian Hills in Omaha & they invite me along - to say I'm
a duffer would be a real compliment, but I go. On the 3rd hole I'm 75 feet from the pin & uphill with a very unlevel green, I step up, address the ball & proceed 
to make the putt. Both gentlemen congratulate me, I'm too stupid to know what happened because I have no inkling of what is involved. For the Newby's that 
take offense at my comments, it's not personal. But you need to get a thicker skin . 

Your last sentence is, at the least, about as weasel worded as a statement can get. Most of us have the understanding that when dealing with people on an
unlevel playing field, there are no absolutes.


----------



## DoubleHaul

Marvin S said:


> Your last sentence is, at the least, about as weasel worded as a statement can get. Most of us have the understanding that when dealing with people on an
> unlevel playing field, there are no absolutes.


About as weasel worded as constantly referring to a magic database that has not been updated or even available on your web site for years? 

Put it this way. I do not think you can, a priori, come up with a level of accomplishment or lack thereof that correlates with judging ability or quality. To paraphrase an old saw: Good judges are good judges. For every prerequisite you come up with to judge, I am sure i can find a good one that doesn't meet that term and bad ones that do.


----------



## Wade Thurman

Person A runs 35 AA trials a year in various parts of the country.

Person B sits and watches 35 AA stakes a year in various parts of the country. Person B does have an AA dog


Would one be any better than the other in the judging selection process?


----------



## Doug Main

canuckkiller said:


> I do not believe there is a true shortage of judges notwithstanding the explosion
> of the number of clubs & trials. *The phone doesn't ring for many good judges
> because of a myriad of reasons.* That's a whole new book/post.
> 
> W. D. Connor


I would like to know who these people are and why the phone doesn't ring? Maybe that's the problem?

Do they really exist? The only ones I know don't want to judge.


----------



## John Robinson

Charles C. said:


> 1. Lots of judging points doesn't make someone a good judge. One of the dumbest marks I've ever seen was thrown by a "legend" of the sport.
> 2. The idea that most relatively inexperienced judges are dead weight and can't go on to be good judges is pompous and ridiculous. Most people running field trials are successful, intelligent people and are capable of learning given the opportunity.
> 3. I'm sure I'm on someone's list as a bad judge. You can't make everyone happy. I was recently accused of favoring a friend in placements even though we went through the sheets 2 or 3 extra times just to make sure we couldn't find a dog with better work. I'd drop my mother if her dog didn't do the work.
> 4. Some people who are takers (don't judge and/or help put on events) probably don't realize they are takers, but I'm not sure that says much for their intelligence.
> 5. I'd like to know who these good, qualified judges are that aren't being asked to judge.


So many good points on this page, but I'll quote yours as I agree totally. Of course you would expect the more time spent on line running and training a dog, the better judge you would be, but I think that's way too simplistic. I have personally seen some people relatively new to the sport just _get it_, for whatever reason. Maybe they are inherently more intelligent, have born in dog sense, try harder to be a student of the game, whatever, they just get it. On the other hand I have seen people with decades of experience, even having titled dogs, that don't get it. They either don't pay attention or somehow don't have the aptitude to understand dogs. Then there are philosophical issues, some judges lean on tight technical test as a crutch while others utilize bird placement to get answers. Finally, I don't believe great success in titling dogs is necessarily a better indicator of being a good judge than those who have had less success. Some people have just been blessed with better dogs to start with while others stuck with one ore two dogs for the lifetime of those dogs regardless of how competitive those dogs were.

I think the best way forward is for the people choosing judges keep they eyes out for those who seem to have a natural talent for judging dog work and try to place them with some good mentors.


----------



## BonMallari

TBell said:


> Some ideas, and yes let the bus run over me as it has in the past.....but maybe it is about time to have a few HANDLER requirements to qualify for the National AMATEUR in order to perpetuate the sport, get better judges, and therefore spread the workload to the 20% who are not participating.
> 
> a) All handlers at the National Amateur MUST have earned 2 judges points during the qualifying year.
> *b) Give 1/2 point for a minor stake and 1 point for an all-age stake earning CHAMPIONSHIP points.*
> c) Also, for the argument of those who have limited weekends to qualify their dogs because of real jobs, allow the 2 points to count towards their dog who has a win, but not the 2 points.
> 
> This would be a WIN/WIN situation for all of us in the sport. I can think of many reason's to implement this new rule and not many negatives. I'm sure you will now all have your say on the PROS and CONS, but it bears some discussion. Have at it!


I dont see how you could be awarded Championship Points that were not attained on the field of competition, especially if those points ultimately went toward titling a dog and giving them an FC or AFC.



With all the National Amateur qualifiers from the last two years, I think you would be hard pressed to find more than a dozen that would meet the criteria of having judged two events in the same year as the year they qualified a dog


Theoretically if you took the 110 + qualifiers and had them judge two trials each, you could run into the scenario where you would be getting the same judges year in year out as they continue to have champions...What about the owners with multiple dogs. Would they be required to judge the amount of trials equal to their entries

Lets leave qualifying for a major championship on the field where it belongs and not legislate participation from an individual..There is enough of that already with our country


----------



## RookieTrainer

Marvin S said:


> Your analogy falls flat! Someone who agrees to judge has a responsibility to be prepared to do same .


Point taken. Since at some point you quite obviously considered yourself prepared to judge without ever having judged before, perhaps you could share the methods you used to discharge this responsibility to be prepared in the manner you describe.


----------



## roseberry

i want to make a point from the perspective of trial worker/marshal. 

a person who does not WANT to judge should NEVER judge. they are no fun for anyone!


----------



## TroyFeeken

All this jabberin and no one's offered to judge my Amateur in June!


----------



## dexdoolittle

That is because you do not have this secret list of Judges that no body ever calls. Got to be on the inside...



TroyFeeken said:


> All this jabberin and no one's offered to judge my Amateur in June!


----------



## Wade Thurman

I'll tell you what Troy. I can't do your June trial but how about I do your Open in August?



TroyFeeken said:


> All this jabberin and no one's offered to judge my Amateur in June!


----------



## K G

dexdoolittle said:


> That is because you do not have this secret list of Judges that no body ever calls. Got to be on the inside...


Now THAT was funny... 

k g


----------



## Gawthorpe

Tammi Bell has a very interesting approach and it certainly adjusts the "Overton window." Change is coming because we have a huge problem in our sport that could eventually run the true contributors out if this great passion. 

The most hated quotes heard from a field trial or hunt test chairman are
"I cannot judge because i need to run my own dogs for the 20th weekend this year"
Or
"I cannot run lunches out to the volunteers because I have 5 dogs to run in the open, 5 in the amateur and don't forget I entered your qual to really screw up the operations of your weekend. Can I run now?


----------



## cakaiser

Gawthorpe said:


> Tammi Bell has a very interesting approach and it certainly adjusts the "Overton window." Change is coming because we have a huge problem in our sport that could eventually run the true contributors out if this great passion.
> 
> The most hated quotes heard from a field trial or hunt test chairman are
> "I cannot judge because i need to run my own dogs for the 20th weekend this year"
> Or
> "I cannot run lunches out to the volunteers because I have 5 dogs to run in the open, 5 in the amateur and don't forget I entered your qual to really screw up the operations of your weekend. Can I run now?


Oh yeah.
You are indeed, a fast learner.


----------



## HarryWilliams

"If you always do what you've always done. You always get what you've always got." I like history, tradition and have respect for those that came before. Change is tough especially when you can't agree on what needs a changin'. The people in the trenchs might not have a good view of the horizon. Those that are trying to get there don't know the journey yet. Those that came first probably spend time looking backwards.

I don't have any answers. I don't see any insurmountable problems. Times are tough all over. See ya in the field. Harry


----------



## TroyFeeken

Wade said:


> I'll tell you what Troy. I can't do your June trial but how about I do your Open in August?


Smarty pants! I might actually see about apprenticing you and Ted if that's alright.


----------



## Ted Shih

TroyFeeken said:


> Smarty pants! I might actually see about apprenticing you and Ted if that's alright.



Wade and I think that would be great if the club approves. Ask Brad if it is okay. If so, you will need to contact the AKC to get the necessary paperwork and then notify EE, so that they can modify the premium


----------



## Wade Thurman

Maybe Brad can bring Raymond out of retirement as our test dog!!!




TroyFeeken said:


> Smarty pants! I might actually see about apprenticing you and Ted if that's alright.


----------



## Ted Shih

BonMallari said:


> With all the National Amateur qualifiers from the last two years, I think you would be hard pressed to find more than a dozen that would meet the criteria of having judged two events in the same year as the year they qualified a dog



I am pretty sure that you are wrong about this, Bon. 

Off the top of my head, I can think of the following:

Ed Aycock
Robbie Bickley
Duncan Christie
Julie Cole
Jason Fleming
Chris Hatch
Linda Harger
Roy Morejon
Larry Morgan
Jim Powers
James Roberts
Carl Ruffalo
Chuck Schweikert
Dave Seivert
John Stracka
Ray Vreeland
Al Wilson
Lyn Yelton
Gary Zellner

Ted


----------



## TroyFeeken

Ted Shih said:


> Wade and I think that would be great if the club approves. Ask Brad if it is okay. If so, you will need to contact the AKC to get the necessary paperwork and then notify EE, so that they can modify the premium


Im the club as well Ted


----------



## Ted Shih

TroyFeeken said:


> Im the club as well Ted



In that case, contact the AKC and EE, and get ready to have a fun weekend.


----------



## Randy Bohn

One of the BEST judges out there is Mitch Patterson....the reason??? He sets up smart tests, common sense tests, doesn't take much to fool a dog kind of test: If your confused...
1) If you set guns in shadows for half the field and don't care...
2) If you make guns so tight behind one another and don't care...
3) If you hide a key gun halfway behind a tree and don't care...
4) If you set up long marks that are retired in high humidity and heat and don't care...
5) If you set up tests looking east and don't care....
6) If you set up tests where dogs run across ditches but don't see the ditch till there in it and don't care...
7) If you shoot flyers 10 yds. off line to see if dogs will break and don't care...

Shame on you...common sense works all the time.....!!!


----------



## EdA

I really like TBell's idea, get an amateur win, then judge a bunch and get points to qualify for the National Amateur, a big money saver for people like me who aren't retired but would like to be. The down side for the National Amateur is that qualification just became easier, win an Amateur or Open then judge for the other 2 points.


----------



## BonMallari

Ted Shih said:


> I am pretty sure that you are wrong about this, Bon.
> 
> Off the top of my head, I can think of the following:
> 
> Ed Aycock
> Robbie Bickley
> Duncan Christie
> Julie Cole
> Jason Fleming
> Chris Hatch
> Linda Harger
> Roy Morejon
> Larry Morgan
> Jim Powers
> James Roberts
> Carl Ruffalo
> Chuck Schweikert
> Dave Seivert
> John Stracka
> Ray Vreeland
> Al Wilson
> Lyn Yelton
> Gary Zellner
> 
> Ted


Thanks for looking it up and proving me wrong...so 20 out of 110,what about the other 90...Yes is shows what a small percentage are judging two or more trials and qualifying a dog, but it also shows that if one were to expect the other 80-90 entrants to judge two events, there would be a long list of people looking for assignments

Glass half full vs half empty

If one was to legislate participation in order to run a National event, then you have to give points to people such as yourself who work National committee thankless positions such as game stewards, traffic,hostesses,gunners,throwers,marshals and people who work similar positions at their local level just so an event comes off...You would even agree it takes a ton of nameless, faceless workers who dont do it for the recognition or the points to make an event happen..The trial itself is just a net result of their hard work


----------



## Ted Shih

BonMallari said:


> Thanks for looking it up and proving me wrong...so 20 out of 110,what about the other 90...Yes is shows what a small percentage are judging two or more trials and qualifying a dog, but it also shows that if one were to expect the other 80-90 entrants to judge two events, there would be a long list of people looking for assignments
> 
> Glass half full vs half empty
> 
> If one was to legislate participation in order to run a National event, then you have to give points to people such as yourself who work National committee thankless positions such as game stewards, traffic,hostesses,gunners,throwers,marshals and people who work similar positions at their local level just so an event comes off...You would even agree it takes a ton of nameless, faceless workers who dont do it for the recognition or the points to make an event happen..The trial itself is just a net result of their hard work



Bon 

You are beginning to sound like Marvin. 

You make an unsupported accusation. I bring up facts to dispute your contention. You say - go find more proof. I guess that's the way of the internet. 

My guess is that if I were to look at EE and figure out who judged last year - I would find that better than 50% of the participants judged at least two trials a year. 

Ted


----------



## BonMallari

Ted Shih said:


> Bon
> 
> You are beginning to sound like Marvin.
> 
> You make an unsupported accusation. I bring up facts to dispute your contention. You say - go find more proof. I guess that's the way of the internet.
> 
> My guess is that if I were to look at EE and figure out who judged last year - I would find that better than 50% of the participants judged at least two trials a year.
> 
> Ted


You completely took my post the wrong way...I am glad you proved me wrong...I could only come up with six names..Please do not associate me with others on this thread, I openly admitted I was wrong...Lets see who else has the nads here on the RTF to do that


----------



## 3blackdogs

Ted Shih said:


> I am pretty sure that you are wrong about this, Bon.
> 
> Off the top of my head, I can think of the following:
> 
> Ed Aycock
> Robbie Bickley
> Duncan Christie
> Julie Cole
> Jason Fleming
> Chris Hatch
> Linda Harger
> Roy Morejon
> Larry Morgan
> Jim Powers
> James Roberts
> Carl Ruffalo
> Chuck Schweikert
> Dave Seivert
> John Stracka
> Ray Vreeland
> Al Wilson
> Lyn Yelton
> Gary Zellner
> 
> Ted


I agree Ted. Add Jeff and I to the list:

I qualified Rocky (AFC Mitimat Rock Paper Scissors) for the 2013 NARC, and judged the Open at Manitowoc and the Am at Lincoln Trail. (And was committed to judging two other AA stakes in 2013, but the trials were both rescheduled to dates that I could not do, as I was working a more than full time job and couldn't accommodate a relatively last minute change..)

I know that Jeff judged two AA stakes the year that we qualified FC AFC Jewel for her first NARC the following June. 

I know there are more, I hope they post.


----------



## Ted Shih

BonMallari said:


> You completely took my post the wrong way...I am glad you proved me wrong...I could only come up with six names..Please do not associate me with others on this thread, I openly admitted I was wrong...Lets see who else has the nads here on the RTF to do that


My apologies 

Ted


----------



## Golddogs

BonMallari said:


> You completely took my post the wrong way...I am glad you proved me wrong...I could only come up with six names..Please do not associate me with others on this thread, *I openly admitted I was wrong...Lets see who else has the nads here on the RTF to do that*


You were wrong Bon. ;-)


----------



## TBell

golddogs said:


> you were wrong bon.


omg too funny! :BIG:


----------



## Goldenboy

Originally Posted by *BonMallari*  
You completely took my post the wrong way...I am glad you proved me wrong...I could only come up with six names..Please do not associate me with others on this thread, *I openly admitted I was wrong...Lets see who else has the nads here on the RTF to do that*




Golddogs said:


> You were wrong Bon. ;-)


One of the best comebacks I've seen here in some time. Hats off to you, Golddogs, and to your "nads".


----------



## BonMallari

Even I can admit that was funny


----------



## Marvin S

Ted Shih said:


> You are beginning to sound like Marvin.
> 
> Ted


I'm curious - just what does Marvin sound like to the great one?


----------



## BonMallari

Marvin S said:


> I'm curious - just what does Marvin sound like to the great one?


That's a gimme......You're starting to sound like Bon :razz::razz:


----------



## Marvin S

RookieTrainer said:


> Point taken. Since at some point you quite obviously considered yourself prepared to judge without ever having judged before, perhaps you could share the methods you used to discharge this responsibility to be prepared in the manner you describe.


I started in the sport wanting a well mannered hunting dog - I did what I was told to do during training sessions & observed. The only book 
available was James Lamb Free of which I have several copies. There were no videos, there was an occasional Judges Seminar. there were no
clinics, if you needed to correct your dog there were humane ways to reach them & of course, your tennis shoes. There were no training aids. 
So I did what they say you should do, I learned from experience with dogs in the field. I threw a ton of birds, planted a few 
blinds, & judged a ton of sanctioned & picnic trials. A 500 mile one way trip on 2 lane roads was rarely done. The trials were also small enough
you could watch all dogs in all stakes. 

By the time I co-judged my 1st AKC Derby with Gus Rathert (1965 NAFC Rebel Chief of Heber) in 1969 I already had my 2nd self trained AA dog,
mostly done by working alone after work & with a group of folks on weekends. Though when I worked in the mines I had Bob Sparks & his Yellow
dog, FC-AFC Copper City Buck & his Derby dog at the time who became 1967 NFC-AFC Butte Blue Moon to watch during training. Sometime after 
that I judged with Richard Ellis (FC-AFC Lucifer's Lady) & Marvin Hoffman (AFC Allo-Dere-Louise). I don't remember which one was 1st & am too
lazy to look it up. 

I became more confident in what I could be done spending about 20 years day training at least once a week with one of the top pro's in the country.
I learned a lot about bird placement from the late Mike Greene. When I agreed to an assignment I judged with whoever the club put with me. That, 
along with those who questioned on occasion by competitors who also judged as to why they were not called back told me there were people out there
who failed all requirements to be a judge yet were asked to on a regular basis. They also judge twice or more a year!

I used to keep a rough score card on competing dogs to test my knowledge, if you are a competitor in that stake be prepared to wonder what is going
on, serious mistakes just overlooked? 

This was reported to me - at a training session there was a discussion about who would you get to judge that was both knowledgeable & fair. The usual 
suspects were bandied about until someone whose dog knowledge I have a great respect for said "I'd nominate Marvin - he really likes stylish dogs, knows how
to train one & set the tests that show they can do the job under control while being fair & impartial, as he really doesn't like anyone associated with dogs". 
I consider that an endorsement of how I feel because of the source. 

Those who train with their fingertips on RTF don't normally have that level of dog knowledge!!!!


----------



## Doug Main

Marvin S said:


> I'm curious - just what does Marvin sound like to the great one?


Ted can answer for himself. Now I don't know you, but to me on this forum, you sound like a grumpy old man that can't get along with anyone and is used to bullying his way through life.

I also wonder if you are "all hat - no cattle" or not and if I should just put you on ignore. I don't really care what happened in the 60's, nor do I think it is relevant to today's trials. Maybe you could answer a few questions for me. 
1 - When was your last all-age placement or jam?
2 - When was the last all-age stake you ran?
3 - When was the last all-age stake you judged?

I assume you have my info in your database.

I have couple criticisms of you criteria for determining whether or not someone was qualified to judge an all-age stake. 

First of all, it only used one criteria, all-age placements. While important, it's not the whole picture. 

Second, there is no time factor. An all-age placement in 1966 is the same as one obtained last week (assuming your database is that current).

So for example by your criteria, an Amateur 3rd from a 25 dog amateur in 1968 counts, but a Res-Jam earned in a 90 dog open last week by a one-dog amateur that does his own training doesn't.


----------



## Marvin S

Doug Main said:


> Ted can answer for himself. Now I don't know you, but to me on this forum, you sound like a grumpy old man that can't get along with anyone and is used to bullying his way through life.
> 
> I also wonder if you are "all hat - no cattle" or not and if I should just put you on ignore. I don't really care what happened in the 60's, nor do I think it is relevant to today's trials. Maybe you could answer a few questions for me.
> 1 - When was your last all-age placement or jam?
> 2 - When was the last all-age stake you ran?
> 3 - When was the last all-age stake you judged?
> 
> I assume you have my info in your database.
> 
> I have couple criticisms of you criteria for determining whether or not someone was qualified to judge an all-age stake.
> 
> First of all, it only used one criteria, all-age placements. While important, it's not the whole picture.
> 
> Second, there is no time factor. An all-age placement in 1966 is the same as one obtained last week (assuming your database is that current).
> 
> So for example by your criteria, an Amateur 3rd from a 25 dog amateur in 1968 counts, but a Res-Jam earned in a 90 dog open last week by a one-dog amateur that does his own training doesn't.


1) 1999 - 
2) again 1999 - had 2003 born Derby dog placed in 2004 with health issues but ready to run AA in 2006 - looked at judges for 12 trials 
I normally run with only one good judges pairing - decided doing the same thing & expecting different results was stupid. Went hunting .
3) Sometime in early 2000's - don't track that, AKC does.

I don't remember doing an assignment under 50 dogs & as high as 75 - nor do I remember running any of the 25 dog trials so fondly 
remembered though I did work one with 20 Open dogs in 3' high snowdrifts with the previous years NC. Won by Mirk of Daingerfield, 
2nd was a titled yellow dog, 3rd was the previous years NC, 4th was an FC, actually a fairly good field. It took several martinis to thaw 
me out & by them I was unable to enjoy my steak. My experience with 100 dog Opens is, a lot rides on having a good 1st series. 

As for greenies, I have enough for a lawn, some very hard earned, most with a deficiency in performance unworthy of any recognition 
other than to say we, as a team, participated & finished. My own on the ground experience said there is too much variation in performance 
& criteria for award to use.


----------



## JS

Doug Main said:


> Ted can answer for himself. Now I don't know you, but to me *on this forum, you sound like a grumpy old man that can't get along with anyone and is used to bullying his way through life*.
> 
> .....


Doug, I think you just made his day!

He seems to take a lot of pride in that. 

JS


----------



## Marvin S

JS said:


> Doug, I think you just made his day!
> 
> He seems to take a lot of pride in that.
> 
> JS


Everyone usually has, at the least, some redeeming quality. Some people make a point of finding 
that quality in another individual, others don't care. I try to strike a balance, there are some who 
I do a diligent search to find it, others I do not. If you are in the latter category you have probably 
earned that consideration. 

I make it a point to defend what I believe in strongly. I usually have a set of facts or experiences 
to back up those beliefs. 

Sticks & stones can break my bones but names will never hurt me! Many on this forum fall in the IDGARA 
what they think as their opinion is meaningless, but there are a few whose opinion I value. That does not 
mean they can change how I believe about some issues.

JS, this thread is about FT's. What brings you here? Have you ever had a successful FT dog? Or are you one 
of those who is peltless but babbles on?


----------



## JS

Marvin S said:


> .....
> 
> JS, this thread is about FT's. What brings you here? Have you ever had a successful FT dog? Or are you one
> of those who is peltless but babbles on?


Well, if it’s OK with you Marvin;


Yes, I have a trial dog.


And yes, I think she has been successful.


And yes, you would probably say I am “peltless” by your definition.


I have 2 red Q ribbons circa 1968 that I still carry around in my truck to keep me motivated when I start to feel things (or people) are getting the best of me. You probably aren’t impressed with 2 red Qs. Most folks aren’t, but for a young, working stiff with 5 daughters under the age of 8 and a hunting dog … Golden Retriever at that … I’m proud of it.


1968 is not very current, I know. But since getting back in the game, it appears I have run MANY, worked MANY and judged a few since YOUR last one. (not that it’s important to ME … those are YOUR benchmarks.) I have never had a titled dog. My AA dog … the only real well-bred trial dog I have ever sought … has only a handful of AA greenies, Open and Am. But she has put on some awesome performances and we have been standing there at the end with some of the best. At least a half dozen judges who have watched us have wanted to be on the puppy list.


What they didn’t know, and what most others didn’t know until recently when I quit running her, is that she has been dependent on phenobarbital since the age of 3. Do a little research on what that does to a dog, both physically and cognitively. Most would have put her on the bench immediately and saved the $$$ because there was to be no return from puppies.


But that’s another thing I’m proud of. I play with the dog I have. Every dog that has come to live with me has stayed for the duration, with the exception of a few gun dog puppies back in the day, that I kept for the purpose starting and selling. I know perfectly well that is contrary to competitive wisdom: “Don’t collect dogs.” And I have absolutely no problem with those who wash dogs. It’s part of life if you want to be competitive and most will re-home a dog that is not working out to expectations. That’s fine. I just love the challenge of trying to get the best out of whatever dog I have. I put a Master Hunter title on a show champion, for God’s sake. I will contend that’s a far greater challenge than taking a Lean Mac pup to the National!


I have always done my own training and have had the privilege of throwing thousands of birds for a couple of the best pros in the game and some outstanding National level amateurs. I have spent winters watching National Finalists day in and day out scorch a test today and fail a test tomorrow.


I do not campaign for judging assignments. In fact, I don’t care to judge, have only taken assignments for a friend who is in a pinch, and don’t even do that any more. I’m sure some will tell you I’m an OK judge and some will tell you I suck. That’s fine. I would rather do my “giving back” in other ways.


But one thing I do know, your attempt to quantify everything and determine anyone’s judging qualifications based on their “pelts” is flawed and ridiculous. You see, you aren’t supervising a bunch of engineers any more and you don’t get to make the rules. By your definition, Dan Marino is also “peltless”. I’m OK being in that kind of company.


So if you think MY dog doesn’t measure up to YOUR standards well, “IDGARA” about your opinion either! Most folks who have seen my dog run a few times will say she’s a damn nice dog.


JS


----------



## Criquetpas

Hmm! Doug you sound a little "elderist" if there is such a word against us older then dirt folks.


----------



## JS

Criquetpas said:


> Hmm! Doug you sound a little "elderist" if there is such a word against us older then dirt folks.


Earl, you are not even dry behind the ears yet.

JS


----------



## Criquetpas

JS said:


> Earl, you are not even dry behind the ears yet.
> 
> JS


Will be 21 years past my first AARP card in September.....You mean you are older then that! Look good for your age. Of course haven't see you for a few years.


----------



## JS

Criquetpas said:


> Will be 21 years past my first AARP card in September.....You mean you are older then that! Look good for your age. Of course haven't see you for a few years.


Got you beat by a handful, son. 

JS


----------



## Marvin S

JS said:


> But one thing I do know, your attempt to quantify everything and determine anyone’s judging qualifications based on their “pelts” is flawed and ridiculous. JS


Our quest is improvement of the various retriever breeds. That we gain personal satisfaction along the way is incidental. 
But, & you'll have to take my word for this, the issue is about 50-50 based on the e-mails I have received. Those in the 
peltless camp being against what I have presented & those in favor sitting in the camp with pelts. 



Criquetpas said:


> Will be 21 years past my first AARP card in September....


I am now in my 19th year on Medicare - hope I don't have to use it any more than I have to date .


----------



## Doug Main

Criquetpas said:


> Hmm! Doug you sound a little "elderist" if there is such a word against us older then dirt folks.


Hey Earl, now you know I've got a lot of respect for the "older than dirt" guys especially those that train their own dogs nor did I mean any disrespect to the "grumpy old men" training group at Madison.  

Years ago, your elder training partner told me that the only guys that really stay in this game are those that truly enjoy training dogs. 

You are one of those guys that told me that those all-age tests from the 60's trials were more like today's master than the all-age tests.;-)

You and Dorobek judged the 1st Open I ever ran at Wis Am. I entered my barely 3 year old HT dog in the open just so that I had an excuse to watch the Open. That's what you call baptism by fire. There were 7 dogs entered that already had titles starting with a "N" and more that did in then next few years. Even though she picked up the poison bird on the water blind, I felt good about getting that far.

We borrowed some of the elements from those tests in that Open in the Amateur I judged there last Spring.


----------



## Jerry S.

Doug Main said:


> Hey Earl, now you know I've got a lot of respect for the "older than dirt" guys especially those that train their own dogs nor did I mean any disrespect to the "grumpy old men" training group at Madison.
> 
> Hey, I just trained with those guys today. Sig Vilagi turns 90 on Wednesday. He was upset that he wasn't mentioned in the article as he has over 140 points!!  The three others I trained with probably have a combined age of 220!


----------



## Criquetpas

Jerry S. said:


> Doug Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Earl, now you know I've got a lot of respect for the "older than dirt" guys especially those that train their own dogs nor did I mean any disrespect to the "grumpy old men" training group at Madison.
> 
> Hey, I just trained with those guys today. Sig Vilagi turns 90 on Wednesday. He was upset that he wasn't mentioned in the article as he has over 140 points!! The three others I trained with probably have a combined age of 220!
> 
> 
> 
> More then a few weren't mentioned...Sig is one of the good guys in the game! He forgot more about dogs and judging then I know , hope I have another 20 years in me.
Click to expand...


----------



## Criquetpas

Doug Main said:


> Hey Earl, now you know I've got a lot of respect for the "older than dirt" guys especially those that train their own dogs nor did I mean any disrespect to the "grumpy old men" training group at Madison.
> 
> Years ago, your elder training partner told me that the only guys that really stay in this game are those that truly enjoy training dogs.
> 
> You are one of those guys that told me that those all-age tests from the 60's trials were more like today's master than the all-age tests.;-)
> 
> You and Dorobek judged the 1st Open I ever ran at Wis Am. I entered my barely 3 year old HT dog in the open just so that I had an excuse to watch the Open. That's what you call baptism by fire. There were 7 dogs entered that already had titles starting with a "N" and more that did in then next few years. Even though she picked up the poison bird on the water blind, I felt good about getting that far.
> 
> We borrowed some of the elements from those tests in that Open in the Amateur I judged there last Spring.


Thanks you redeemed yourself as an elderist and remember the open, not one someone would want to cut their teeth on!


----------



## j towne

How do you become a judge. I saw to judge D and Q just take a test and score above a 85%. Is that it?
Where is test?


----------



## Marvin S

Doug Main said:


> You are one of those guys that told me that those all-age tests from the 60's trials were more like today's master than the all-age tests.;-)


I've thought about this statement for the last day -

Yes - Tests were shorter in general as most throwers were in camouflage, white coats had not yet arrived -
Judges actually knew how to get answers with shorter tests as some judges still do today, even with white coats
Yes - There are more really quality dogs today than then so tests have more meat in them to get separation -
But many of the dogs of yesteryear could still compete today, I believe that to be the training they receive
Yes - We trained differently - there was no way to reach your dog instantly, so methods were devised that 
enabled trainers to communicate with their dogs, even in those days

There is a reason MH's pursue QAA placings without success today - Is it the training or is it the dog, I don't know?


----------



## Criquetpas

Marvin S said:


> I've thought about this statement for the last day -
> 
> Yes - Tests were shorter in general as most throwers were in camouflage, white coats had not yet arrived -
> Judges actually knew how to get answers with shorter tests as some judges still do today, even with white coats
> Yes - There are more really quality dogs today than then so tests have more meat in them to get separation -
> But many of the dogs of yesteryear could still compete today, I believe that to be the training they receive
> Yes - We trained differently - there was no way to reach your dog instantly, so methods were devised that
> enabled trainers to communicate with their dogs, even in those days
> 
> There is a reason MH's pursue QAA placings without success today - Is it the training or is it the dog, I don't know?


Marv sometimes things that you say come back to haunt you, those are the things Doug brought up. I agree there are equal bitches today with titles due to the training methods. Those bitches Ft and HT are producing good dogs, rather then the "brood bitches of old" with little or no training, just a pig in a poke. However there is a water blind at Bong Recreational Area that was run in the 1977 National Amateur, have run it many times . I have watched more then a few Master hunters get it in a few whistles along with some handling derby dogs, whats all that mean , heck I don't know, but, I think the dogs and the training level, probably due in part to the e-collar . better dogs, more sophisticated trainers in their new methods, have contributed. Not taking away from the 1977 National Amateur Champion River Oaks Rascal son of the famous all-time points "Corky" who won it. Rascal with more enhanced training would certainly be in the top dogs today! Now that the thread has been hi-jacked hope it gets BACK ON COURSE.


----------



## canuckkiller

Earl, in response to your referance to the '77 water blind at Bong & the 1977 National Amatreur -

We had 3 water blinds at Bong. 1st water blind was the 2nd series Tuesday morning. 73 dogs remained from the 86 that started Monday morning. The line was 40+ yards from the water, into a shallow marshy lake, thru a break in the tules at 80-90 yards, down a channel picture to a rat trap at approx. 150 yds.
14 dogs were lost, more than any series. 2nd water blind was the 5th series with 38 dogs Thursday morning. Line was back about 30-40 yards from an angle entry into a channel after picking up a diversion dead duck thrown from the left over the initial line to a point on the right. Then over a point, then by a 3rd
point to the blind at 180-200 yards. 9 dogs lost on this 5th test. The 9th series was the 3rd WB after picking up a shot flying drake mallard on the right, from a line 40 yards from the water over a sand bar to the blind at 120 yards. 3 dogs were lost. At 1535 Friday PM, a horrific summer Wisconsin rain storm 
began that lasted for an hour before the 10th, a flying triple that homogenized the field and River Oaks Rascal emerged as the Winner, running the trial of his life.

Earl, I think the water blind you talk about is the first blind ran Tuesday morning.

Bill Connor


----------



## Criquetpas

canuckkiller said:


> Earl, in response to your referance to the '77 water blind at Bong & the 1977 National Amatreur -
> 
> We had 3 water blinds at Bong. 1st water blind was the 2nd series Tuesday morning. 73 dogs remained from the 86 that started Monday morning. The line was 40+ yards from the water, into a shallow marshy lake, thru a break in the tules at 80-90 yards, down a channel picture to a rat trap at approx. 150 yds.
> 14 dogs were lost, more than any series. 2nd water blind was the 5th series with 38 dogs Thursday morning. Line was back about 30-40 yards from an angle entry into a channel after picking up a diversion dead duck thrown from the left over the initial line to a point on the right. Then over a point, then by a 3rd
> point to the blind at 180-200 yards. 9 dogs lost on this 5th test. The 9th series was the 3rd WB after picking up a shot flying drake mallard on the right, from a line 40 yards from the water over a sand bar to the blind at 120 yards. 3 dogs were lost. At 1535 Friday PM, a horrific summer Wisconsin rain storm
> began that lasted for an hour before the 10th, a flying triple that homogenized the field and River Oaks Rascal emerged as the Winner, running the trial of his life.
> 
> Earl, I think the water blind you talk about is the first blind ran Tuesday morning.
> 
> Bill Connor


You are correct Bill and you can no longer do the 40 yard entry, which made the blind, because of the trees growth, so the blind is run as a no seeum about 10 yards from the water. There is a horse bridle path there now. It is called the stick pond , beavers come in and dam it up on occasions. Late summer it sometimes mostly dries up. The shorter distance was I was referring to, not so much the entries. Entry for water blinds was in some respect more difficult because technical water had not come into play around the Midwest, it was more natural water with cover. Many of the newbie dogs of this era are more lining dogs because of the technical nature of water. Your dog with natural water, better be a good handling dog too. Either way 10 year old Rascal was one heck of a "creeping" animal and he would bait the honor dog, Joe Pilar spoke of it, as I said with enhanced training, Rascal would be up there with the best of them in 2014.


----------



## canuckkiller

*Rascal*

Earl -

In the spring of 1977 T.W. judged Rascal at Midwest or American Amateur. 
Later Cotton complained about Rascal's creeping. I laughed and told T.W.
'that's just the way he was'. I reminded Cotton about the Weldon Springs
'74 National when Joe had Rascal absolutely anchored, staunched and he
couldn't pick up the double mark in the 1st series - dropped.

In the 10th at Bong, a flying triple ... and the throwing & gunning was
unbelieveable, high, long consistent falls, Rascal crept out on each bird
but accurately marked the test with tight hunts in the AOF. Contenders
switched, lined thru the test, handled. It was Rascal's greatest
performance and he was the clear winner.

Bill Connor


----------



## Todd Caswell

j towne said:


> How do you become a judge. I saw to judge D and Q just take a test and score above a 85%. Is that it?
> Where is test?


Contact AKC and they will mail it to you, can't remember the ladys name though..


----------



## j towne

Todd Caswell said:


> Contact AKC and they will mail it to you, can't remember the ladys name though..


Thank you.


----------



## Chris Atkinson

Todd Caswell said:


> Contact AKC and they will mail it to you, can't remember the ladys name though..


my records show Tonya Romano at the AKC. 
(919) 816-3904
[email protected]


----------



## 2tall

Is this for real? I mean this is ALL it takes to be a minor stake judge? No proof of running any trials, much less taking home a ribbon? This explains quite a bit of the set ups I have seen. I think I'll try apprenticing first.


----------



## Chris Atkinson

2tall said:


> Is this for real? I mean this is ALL it takes to be a minor stake judge? No proof of running any trials, much less taking home a ribbon? This explains quite a bit of the set ups I have seen. I think I'll try apprenticing first.


She was the person that you contacted to get the written AKC Field Trial Judge test a few years ago. 

I'm not sure if she is the current contact or not.



Chris


----------



## Ted Shih

2tall said:


> Is this for real? I mean this is ALL it takes to be a minor stake judge? No proof of running any trials, much less taking home a ribbon? This explains quite a bit of the set ups I have seen. I think I'll try apprenticing first.


Carol 

You really need to familiarize yourself with the Rule Book. It has the answers to many of your questions. 

To be eligible to judge a derby, you must have passed the test. 

However, per page 32 of the Rule Book, the combined experience of the judges must be as follows:




> In a Derby and Qualifying Stake the experience of the Judges selected shall be such that their combined experience satisfies at least one of the following
> standards: (a) the judging of two stakes carrying championship points; (b) the judging of one stake carrying championship points and the judging of three
> minor stakes; or (c) judging five minor stakes.



Ted


----------



## DarrinGreene

Right so you pass the test and judge with an "experienced" person.. and you're in. 

How could this be that much easier than hunting tests?

Rhetorical question, of course...


----------



## 2tall

Ted and Darrin, that is exactly my point. I DID read the rule book on this and was still surprised at the relative ease of qualifying to judge a minor in a FT versus a junior hunt test. I feel I do not qualify, per the written rule, to judge the hunt test because I do not hunt. I do want to participate, so I will seek opps to apprentice before actually holding a book beside the experienced judge.


----------



## j towne

Chris Atkinson said:


> my records show Tonya Romano at the AKC.
> (919) 816-3904
> [email protected]


Thanks Chris. I will take the test and get approved. Not sure anyone will call me but I will try to give back.


----------



## FOM

Just cause you take the test doesn't mean you will be ask to judge. And really I think one should wait until they have been asked to judge and have the FTC/FTS order the test for ya....but that's me.


----------



## Todd Caswell

> I DID read the rule book on this


Reread what Ted wrote there is no apprenticing for minor stakes. I think alot of new people in our area get started doing Picnic or club trials for a few years, start with the puppy's and work your way up


----------



## FOM

Todd Caswell said:


> Reread what Ted wrote there is no apprenticing for minor stakes.


shhhh....she read the rule book! And she threw judges under the bus all in one post! Awesomeness!


----------



## j towne

FOM said:


> Just cause you take the test doesn't mean you will be ask to judge. And really I think one should wait until they have been asked to judge and have the FTC/FTS order the test for ya....but that's me.


Why would anyone ask you to judge if you haven't even taken the test? Do clubs have a habit of asking people to judge that haven't gotten approved?


----------



## FOM

j towne said:


> Why would anyone ask you to judge if you haven't even taken the test? Do clubs have a habit of asking people to judge that haven't gotten approved?


My first judging assignment came after I had been running minor stakes for a while and after i won the q with my dog...a person who had watched and judged me run asked if I'd judge a minor stake for his club...he knew I hadn't taken the test. He ordered it for me and I judged for his club later that year...so from my experience yes. I assume I proved I at least knew how to successfully compete at the minor stake level.


----------



## Todd Caswell

j towne said:


> Why would anyone ask you to judge if you haven't even taken the test? Do clubs have a habit of asking people to judge that haven't gotten approved?


I think alot of the time it starts with your own club, asking if you would be interested in judging after you have ran a dog for awhile and worked your tail off then it all goes down hill from there J/K.. Most of the time judges are contacted years in advance so if someone thinks you are a good candidate then there is plenty of time for you to get the test done before they have to finalize and get the judges approved.


----------



## j towne

FOM said:


> My first judging assignment came after I had been running minor stakes for a while and after i won the q with my dog...a person who had watched and judged me run asked if I'd judge a minor stake for his club...he knew I hadn't taken the test. He ordered it for me and I judged for his club later that year...so from my experience yes. I assume I proved I at least knew how to successfully compete at the minor stake level.


Gotcha thanks for the info.


----------



## BBnumber1

I was actually asked quite a few times to judge before I took the test. I didn't take a minor stake assignment until I felt I had at least some experience at that level. I am going to apprentice before I judge All Age.


----------



## Ted Shih

2tall said:


> I DID read the rule book on this and was still surprised at the relative ease of qualifying to judge a minor in a FT versus a junior hunt test.


Carol 

I took a HT Judging seminar for grins and one of the things I like is that judges had to work their way up the ladder. 

Ted


----------



## FOM

BBnumber1 said:


> I was actually asked quite a few times to judge before I took the test. I didn't take a minor stake assignment until I felt I had at least some experience at that level. I am going to apprentice before I judge All Age.


Not to mention that you have ran my dog in the Am and Open numerous times, even getting a RJ with him!


----------



## j towne

Well no wonder there are not enough judges.


----------



## Todd Caswell

Ted Shih said:


> Carol
> 
> I took a HT Judging seminar for grins and one of the things I like is that judges had to work their way up the ladder.
> 
> Ted


The HRC program is the same way, makes it really tough to find Finished Judges, because there are not alot of them at least in our region , but the end result is Judges that have experience not only judging at each level but running dogs at each level..


----------



## 2tall

Todd, I do understand that apprenticing is not needed to judge the minors. I just feel that I would need to do that to get comfortable with the mechanics of the job before doing it. Surely it is not a problem to apprentice a few times under good judges if they are amenable? And Ted, I agree, the hunt test requirements do seem to be a logical progression. As usual, there are still plenty of obstructionist that discourage a new pool of judges.


----------



## Todd Caswell

2tall said:


> Todd, I do understand that apprenticing is not needed to judge the minors. I just feel that I would need to do that to get comfortable with the mechanics of the job before doing it. Surely it is not a problem to apprentice a few times under good judges if they are amenable? And Ted, I agree, the hunt test requirements do seem to be a logical progression. As usual, there are still plenty of obstructionist that discourage a new pool of judges.


 (a) the judging of two stakes carrying championship points; (b) the judging of one stake carrying championship points and the judging of three
minor stakes; or (c) judging five minor stakes.


Not only is it not needed it isn't done, by putting you with a judge that has A, B or C your first time this is your apprenticing, one thing you could do is volenteer to be the stakes chair for X amount of trials, opens your eyes to alot of things...


----------



## russhardy

Just within this past week, on behalf of our Club, I have ordered the HT and the FT judges test from Patricia Conaway in the Performance Events department. Her email is: [email protected].

When I took the FT Judges test she emailed me my results within a couple of days.


----------



## Granddaddy

In the final analysis the idea of too many field trials for the number of qualified, willing & available judges is actually self-regulating. If there are too many trials to find qualified judges, some trials will cancel their events. Others will have limited fields because folks know the judges to be unreliable or inexperienced. While I understand the frustration for clubs & handlers, in the end it takes care of itself - because the only answer to developing & finding more qualified judges is for owners to actually handle their dogs in training & at trials (classes just won't get it done). And unfortunately the trend is against the owner/handler in favor of owners having pros train their dogs virtually exclusively & handle those dogs predominately in open stakes.


----------



## Chris Atkinson

j towne said:


> Why would anyone ask you to judge if you haven't even taken the test? Do clubs have a habit of asking people to judge that haven't gotten approved?


I believe this is a fairly common practice.

I think that many new judges request the test after being asked to judge a stake by someone who respects and appreciates their potential.


----------



## John Robinson

Chris Atkinson said:


> I believe this is a fairly common practice.
> 
> I think that many new judges request the test after being asked to judge a stake by someone who respects and appreciates their potential.



Yeah that is the normal route.


----------



## j towne

Chris Atkinson said:


> I believe this is a fairly common practice.
> 
> I think that many new judges request the test after being asked to judge a stake by someone who respects and appreciates their potential.


So basically If there is a problem of to many trials or not enough judges the clubs have caused this problem. They should have less trials or ask more people to judge.


----------



## John Robinson

j towne said:


> So basically If there is a problem of to many trials or not enough judges the clubs have caused this problem. They should have less trials or ask more people to judge.


That's the way I see it. Keep you eye out for promising talent, nurture that talent then put them with some known good mentor type judges.


----------



## j towne

John Robinson said:


> That's the way I see it. Keep you eye out for promising talent, nurture that talent then put them with some known good mentor type judges.


It's hard to crack into that good ol boy club. .


----------



## 2tall

Hmmm, so the old guard has a problem filling the seats because they want to run their own dogs more. But they also want to "hand pick" their friends to fill those same seats. Seems like eating their cake. This certainly does not jive with the opinion stated earlier that bad or ill informed judges will weed themselves out. Good luck growing the sport. I guess I'll just keep training my dogs and playing when I can. Shaking my head . . .


----------



## TroyFeeken

2tall said:


> Hmmm, so the old guard has a problem filling the seats because they want to run their own dogs more. But they also want to "hand pick" their friends to fill those same seats. Seems like eating their cake. This certainly does not jive with the opinion stated earlier that bad or ill informed judges will weed themselves out. Good luck growing the sport. I guess I'll just keep training my dogs and playing when I can. Shaking my head . . .


I don't think that's the problem at all. The major problem is that with this sport of Field trials and even Hunt Tests becoming more and more dominated by professionals and fewer and fewer amateurs running their own dogs, the knowledgebase with amateurs is getting smaller thus fewer "good" judges. It doesn't necessarily take a handler that has been successful to be a good judge but it helps.


----------



## j towne

TroyFeeken said:


> I don't think that's the problem at all. The major problem is that with this sport of Field trials and even Hunt Tests becoming more and more dominated by professionals and fewer and fewer amateurs running their own dogs, the knowledgebase with amateurs is getting smaller thus fewer "good" judges. It doesn't necessarily take a handler that has been successful to be a good judge but it helps.


Sounds like it takes a handler with the right friends.


----------



## Ted Shih

2tall said:


> Hmmm, so the old guard has a problem filling the seats because they want to run their own dogs more. But they also want to "hand pick" their friends to fill those same seats. Seems like eating their cake. This certainly does not jive with the opinion stated earlier that bad or ill informed judges will weed themselves out. Good luck growing the sport. I guess I'll just keep training my dogs and playing when I can. Shaking my head . . .


Carole 

I don't know why you insist on making generalizations about matters on which you know little or nothing. Most clubs struggle to find judges. And, in my experience, they do not hand pick people who will favor them.

Once you start to play, you can make your own conclusions and if you reach the same one, I will simply disagree. But, then your opinion will be informed. 

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih

j towne said:


> Sounds like it takes a handler with the right friends.



I will say the same thing to you as I did to Carol. You are making assumptions about a topic on which you know little. Most clubs around the country - and I have either competed or judged in most areas of the country - are run by five to ten amateurs. They are not paid for their efforts, they do it for the love of the sport. Their reward is the satisfaction of a job well done, and criticism from people like you and Carole, who watch from the internet and criticize. At the club level, where most things are done, there is no secret handshake club, there is no good old boy club. There are just people working hard to put on a trial. One of the more difficult things is trying to find good judges - because as the Retriever News Article points out, there is a shortage. 

If you - or Carol - or anyone else, wants to get welcomed into Field Trials, then all you have to do is volunteer to help. Once you do, you will discover how mis-informed you are.

Ted


----------



## FOM

j towne said:


> It's hard to crack into that good ol boy club. :wink:.





2tall said:


> Hmmm, so the old guard has a problem filling the seats because they want to run their own dogs more. But they also want to "hand pick" their friends to fill those same seats. Seems like eating their cake. This certainly does not jive with the opinion stated earlier that bad or ill informed judges will weed themselves out. Good luck growing the sport. I guess I'll just keep training my dogs and playing when I can. Shaking my head . . .


Now explain to me how I'm suppose to ask you to judge if I've never seen you handle a dog to tell if you even know which way to point the dog, let alone which end to feed. Second why on God's green Earth would anyone think they should pass judgement on other people's dogs if they themselves can't atlest consistently show up and play? Third why would I think you care about the FT world if all you do is show up and run your dog and I never see you work a trial in any other form other than a handler?

Yes I'm making a broad assumption - but for most who have the job of finding judges they aren't going to ask the first newbie to walk onto the scene to judge - sorry. I have a newbie ask me to judge PPRC and I know for a fact he is not ready as he is at that stage in his adventure that he knows just enough to be dangerous and is unwilling to learn - and yes we've attempted to mentor him, but he knows it all already.

There is no "good ol boys club" or people trying to "hand pick their friends"....long ago someone told me that the average life span for a FTer is around 5 years, if they stay longer than you more than likely have a lifer, other wise they are just dust in the wind...so I think when people are looking for new judges, they are looking for the longevity of the game and the betterment of the sport, not just some flash in the pan, there is plenty of those. If you are dedicated to the sport, want to learn, give back and put in your time filling in the other important roles of putting on a FT, you will eventually get asked to judge. And honestly judging isn't all it's cracked up to be...pretty thankless and if I had half a brain I would of never started judging in the first place!

Oh yeah, it use to bother me when people would say "you got to pay your dues" - unfortunately I know understand where they are coming from...judges are only one piece of the puzzle.


----------



## 2tall

Ted, now I have questions regarding your own reading comprehension. I am replying to actual comments made on this thread about choosing judges, testing later. People of your experience should be the very ones to encourage and educate those that would like to learn, but are not "in" with a particular group. This is not about me, but the whole process. Do you want new blood or not?

Just read another post I have to reply to. I have in fact, helped at trials and test in every way possible. I have not been so active out west because I am so far from everything. When we have attended events while traveling across the country, my husband and I have worked all day throwing birds and shooting flyers. Don't make these kind of judgements from your own small perspective.


----------



## DoubleHaul

j towne said:


> Sounds like it takes a handler with the right friends.


If by right friends, you mean half the gallery, then you are correct.

Basically if you run or work enough FTs somebody is going to ask you to judge, unless you show yourself to be a total douche. If you say "I haven't taken the test", they will usually say "take it and we can hook you up with some good judges under whom to apprentice". Or, "take it and we will hook you up with a great experienced co-judge for our derby next Spring".

If you think there is some secret handshake to become a judge you are just as deluded as Marvin with his secret list of great judges who are never asked to judge. It is hard enough to keep the judges chairs filled, especially with someone different. Once folks learn your name, you will be asked to judge. If you are a member of a club, the folks responsible for getting judges will ask you to get qualified so they don't have to judge a trial for every judge they get themselves.


----------



## Ted Shih

2tall said:


> Hmmm, so the old guard has a problem filling the seats because they want to run their own dogs more. But they also want to "hand pick" their friends to fill those same seats. Seems like eating their cake. This certainly does not jive with the opinion stated earlier that bad or ill informed judges will weed themselves out. Good luck growing the sport. I guess I'll just keep training my dogs and playing when I can. Shaking my head . . .


Carol 

I think my reading comprehension is just fine. I think your writing composition and consistency need work. 

From my small perspective

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih

FOM said:


> Oh yeah, it use to bother me when people would say "you got to pay your dues" - unfortunately I know understand where they are coming from...judges are only one piece of the puzzle.


​Ha Ha. That did not take too long.


----------



## Chris Atkinson

j towne said:


> Sounds like it takes a handler with the right friends.


You asked for the contact information to get the test.

I provided that information.

My read on your comments is that you are making this more complex than it needs to be. If you want to get more involved in Field Trials, then just do it. Just get more involved. The rest will fall into place. There's no "secret handshake" or "pledge program". 

Go ahead and call Tonya today and get your test moving.... No problem mon.

Chris


----------



## John Robinson

2tall said:


> Ted, now I have questions regarding your own reading comprehension. I am replying to actual comments made on this thread about choosing judges, testing later. People of your experience should be the very ones to encourage and educate those that would like to learn, but are not "in" with a particular group. This is not about me, but the whole process. Do you want new blood or not?
> 
> Just read another post I have to reply to. I have in fact, helped at trials and test in every way possible. I have not been so active out west because I am so far from everything. When we have attended events while traveling across the country, my husband and I have worked all day throwing birds and shooting flyers. Don't make these kind of judgements from your own small perspective.


Carol, please read DoubleHauls post right below your's, he is right on about the real world on how judges become judges. I think most people are shocked the first time somebody approaches them about judging. Up to that point they were just learning the game, training and running their dogs without a thought about judging. Most of these people actually didn't consider themselves qualified to judge and were a little bit afraid of it. They haven't taken the test, but they have accumulated a lot more knowledge about evaluating dogs than they know, have proven themselves to be fair, honest hard workers and just seem like good candidates to those that know more, so they are approached. I would be more worried about the aggressively ambitious person who early one decides they want to judge, takes the test and lobbies for an assignment.


----------



## huntinman

John Robinson said:


> Carol, please read DoubleHauls post right below your's, he is right on about the real world on how judges become judges. I think most people are shocked the first time somebody approaches them about judging. Up to that point they were just learning the game, training and running their dogs without a thought about judging. Most of these people actually didn't consider themselves qualified to judge and were a little bit afraid of it. They haven't taken the test, but they have accumulated a lot more knowledge about evaluating dogs than they know, have proven themselves to be fair, honest hard workers and just seem like good candidates to those that know more, so they are approached. *I would be more worried about the aggressively ambitious person who early one decides they want to judge, takes the test and lobbies for an assignment.*


Ditto.......


----------



## Chris Atkinson

One additional thought: 

When I interviewed for my first job out of school, a guy told me a simple line that I think over almost daily:

_"Friends buy from friends". _

My personal experience has shown that this principle carries over most facets of life. Others' mileage may vary.

I believe that most human tendencies are for folks to work with, hang out with, buy from, etc.....friends. 

So in some ways, the comment about judging for others in post #323 (can you believe it's that long?!):



> Sounds like it takes a handler with the right friends.


 is accurate. When people are comfortable with you, have a relationship with you, have trust, or respect, they will choose to spend time, money, trust, etc. with you. Whether it's judging a trial, pledging a fraternity, getting a job interview, running for election, etc.


----------



## j towne

Chris Atkinson said:


> You asked for the contact information to get the test.
> 
> I provided that information.
> 
> My read on your comments is that you are making this more complex than it needs to be. If you want to get more involved in Field Trials, then just do it. Just get more involved. The rest will fall into place. There's no "secret handshake" or "pledge program".
> 
> Go ahead and call Tonya today and get your test moving.... No problem mon.
> 
> Chris


I did intend to until I was informed it doesn't work that way. After your post the next couple posters said you waited untill someone ask you to judge then get your test. Like John Robinsons post.


----------



## John Robinson

j towne said:


> I did intend to until I was informed it doesn't work that way. After your post the next couple posters said you waited untill someone ask you to judge then get your test. Like John Robinsons post.


JTowne, take the test, at least you'll know the rules inside and out regardless. You never know when you'll be asked to judge, it sure wouldn't hurt to have that hurdle out of the way. I was just posting my experience in how it usually works, and by that I certainly didn't meant to imply it was a good old boy club. Like Lainee said, the people who are charged with having good, honest qualified judges at each stake, have their work cut out for them.


----------



## j towne

Thanks for the info on how it works.


----------



## Ted Shih

j towne said:


> I did intend to until I was informed it doesn't work that way. After your post the next couple posters said you waited untill someone ask you to judge then get your test. Like John Robinsons post.



I don't think it hurts to take the test. It is primarily intended to familiarize you with the Rule Book - which is a good thing to do anyway. The test results do not expire. 

The bigger issue is how to become part of the sport. I think that is not that different from any other venture. 

First, you show up.
Second, you pitch in.
Third, you demonstrate that you are a good egg.
Fourth, you demonstrate a passion about the sport and a desire to learn.

You do those four things and you will find yourself welcomed to the sport. And you will discover how much gets accomplished with so few people.

Ted


----------



## Gun_Dog2002

Ted Shih said:


> Carole
> 
> I don't know why you insist on making generalizations about matters on which you know little or nothing. Most clubs struggle to find judges. And, in my experience, they do not hand pick people who will favor them.
> 
> Once you start to play, you can make your own conclusions and if you reach the same one, I will simply disagree. But, then your opinion will be informed.
> 
> Ted


You started two whole threads where you clearly knew little or nothing. Lets not point fingers about being "uninformed." Isn't the purpose of a discussion thread to learn something...?

/Paul


----------



## j towne

Ted Shih said:


> I don't think it hurts to take the test. It is primarily intended to familiarize you with the Rule Book - which is a good thing to do anyway. The test results do not expire.
> 
> The bigger issue is how to become part of the sport. I think that is not that different from any other venture.
> 
> First, you show up.
> Second, you pitch in.
> Third, you demonstrate that you are a good egg.
> Fourth, you demonstrate a passion about the sport and a desire to learn.
> 
> You do those four things and you will find yourself welcomed to the sport. And you will discover how much gets accomplished with so few people.
> 
> Ted


You forgot number five. Get rid of chesapeakes and get some black labs 
Chris I am working 24 hours today but I will call tomorrow.


----------



## Todd Caswell

> JTowne, take the test, at least you'll know the rules inside and out regardless.


No Kidding, the way that the questions jump around you will have read the book at least 5 times before you are through, and you will certainly find stuff that you didn't know before at least I did.


----------



## Chris Atkinson

j towne said:


> You forgot number five. Get rid of chesapeakes and get some black labs
> Chris I am working 24 hours today but I will call tomorrow.


Tonya has left the AKC. The new contact is:

Patricia Conaway <[email protected]>
919-816-3904
AKC Performance Events

They now email the test. No more waiting for the mailman at your mailbox. I have the current test fresh from this AM. I will forward it to you. Just PM me your email address.

Chris


----------



## j towne

Chris Atkinson said:


> Tonya has left the AKC. The new contact is:
> 
> Patricia Conaway <[email protected]>
> 919-816-3904
> AKC Performance Events
> 
> They now email the test. No more waiting for the mailman at your mailbox. I have the current test fresh from this AM. I will forward it to you. Just PM me your email address.
> 
> Chris


Thank you sir


----------



## K G

There are NO negatives with regard to taking the test, whether you ever intend to judge or not.

A more informed populace/gallery might cut down on the amount of discontent and comments from folks who've never read the rules, much less judged. It might also help you understand what you see at a field trial and WHY you are seeing it.

At the VERY least, it will make you sound more educated (hopefully) should you choose to comment...

IMHO, as always... 

k g


----------



## Marvin S

Chris Atkinson said:


> One additional thought:
> 
> When I interviewed for my first job out of school, a guy told me a simple line that I think over almost daily:
> 
> _"Friends buy from friends". _
> 
> My personal experience has shown that this principle carries over most facets of life. Others' mileage may vary.
> 
> I believe that most human tendencies are for folks to work with, hang out with, buy from, etc.....friends.
> 
> So in some ways, the comment about judging for others in post #323 (can you believe it's that long?!):
> 
> is accurate. When people are comfortable with you, have a relationship with you, have trust, or respect, they will choose to spend time, money, trust, etc. with you. Whether it's judging a trial, pledging a fraternity, getting a job interview, running for election, etc.


I'd take it a step further - people are comfortable with people like themselves. A rookie in this sport is easily 
intimidated by the real players, those who are not are few & far between & that is usually a function of what 
they do in real life. So the rookie invites another rookie to judge because they are comfortable with them. What 
can go wrong with a deal like that?


----------



## Chris Atkinson

Marvin S said:


> I'd take it a step further - people are comfortable with people like themselves. A rookie in this sport is easily
> intimidated by the real players, those who are not are few & far between & that is usually a function of what
> they do in real life. So the rookie invites another rookie to judge because they are comfortable with them. What
> can go wrong with a deal like that?


What percentage of today's trials utilize rookies to recruit and obtain judges?


----------



## Marvin S

Chris Atkinson said:


> What percentage of today's trials utilize rookies to recruit and obtain judges?


Probably a lot more than is healthy for the sport - just on this thread there has been the lament by Lainee 
to get another judge - Troy Feeken is the club where he is - Ted in the past has talked of the clubs along the 
Rocky Mountain front with there one or two or three folks doing all the organizing - that's not healthy depth 
& is being done by people relatively new to the sport - there are more areas where this is the norm

My own experience as the person arranging for judges was: of the 11 officers including 7 directors - all were active 
trialers with numerous FC-AFC's to their credit, a couple of those being national winners. That meant there had been 
lots of views of potential judges & pairings. 

I don't sense from the postings on this forum that most have that wealth of experience, including some of their own, 
to draw upon in today's trial environment. 

I believe that shows there is a rookie dealing with rookie environment! Anyway that's what I see .


----------



## FOM

I wouldn't necessarily call myself a rookie...I do talk with other FTers that I respect and have more experience to help determine potential list of judges to ask - my issue is in finding local judges and less experienced judges to judge with my experienced judges - who I find first and try to pair with those I know who are up and coming judges. I can find plenty of out of state judges, but I also need to balance my club's finances and attempt not to blow the budget.

And yes it gets tiresome to have to keep calling and begging and pleading to find judges...I do have the foresight if a good judge is booked to ask them "What about next year or the following?" 

So please take a look at PPRCs judging panel since 2009 and you tell me how "rookie" my judges selections have been - there is not a single person on the list I would consider a poor selection. And I've always attempted to pair the less experienced with the experienced...

Or would you rather me, leave the choosing of judges to the club board how compromises mostly HTers? They have zero insight to FTs? I may be a rookie in your eyes, but I do my due diligence when trying to find judges. So go throw stones is some one else's glass house.

And yes, I'll whine about the difficulty of finding judges - when you have to beg a newbie judge to be a co-judge with the likes of Mitch Patterson, it makes me very frustrated...."I'd rather run my dog" is a poor excuse for pissing away a golden opportunity, just glad Bob had the desire to learn and knew the importance of judging with the likes of Mitch.

FOM


----------



## Wade Thurman

Easy there Lainee, I didn't see where there was any direct name pointing. For what its worth, I find it more frustrating when people can't return a call than someone telling me they don't want to judge.




FOM said:


> I wouldn't necessarily call myself a rookie...I do talk with other FTers that I respect and have more experience to help determine potential list of judges to ask - my issue is in finding local judges and less experienced judges to judge with my experienced judges - who I find first and try to pair with those I know who are up and coming judges. I can find plenty of out of state judges, but I also need to balance my club's finances and attempt not to blow the budget.
> 
> And yes it gets tiresome to have to keep calling and begging and pleading to find judges...I do have the foresight if a good judge is booked to ask them "What about next year or the following?"
> 
> So please take a look at PPRCs judging panel since 2009 and you tell me how "rookie" my judges selections have been - there is not a single person on the list I would consider a poor selection. And I've always attempted to pair the less experienced with the experienced...
> 
> Or would you rather me, leave the choosing of judges to the club board how compromises mostly HTers? They have zero insight to FTs? I may be a rookie in your eyes, but I do my due diligence when trying to find judges. So go throw stones is some one else's glass house.
> 
> And yes, I'll whine about the difficulty of finding judges - when you have to beg a newbie judge to be a co-judge with the likes of Mitch Patterson, it makes me very frustrated...."I'd rather run my dog" is a poor excuse for pissing away a golden opportunity, just glad Bob had the desire to learn and knew the importance of judging with the likes of Mitch.
> 
> FOM


----------



## j towne

FOM said:


> And yes, I'll whine about the difficulty of finding judges - when you have to beg a newbie judge to be a co-judge with the likes of Mitch Patterson, it makes me very frustrated...."I'd rather run my dog" is a poor excuse for pissing away a golden opportunity, just glad Bob had the desire to learn and knew the importance of judging with the likes of Mitch.
> 
> FOM


I would jump at the chance. 
I got to train with Mitch and his wife last fall and had a blast and learned a lot. They are the nicest people He even let me set up a series


----------



## K G

j towne said:


> I would jump at the chance (to judge with Mitch Patterson).
> I got to train with Mitch and his wife last fall and had a blast and learned a lot. They are the nicest people He even let me set up a series


So would I! 

I've judged with Linda and we made a good team. I respect Mitch on so many levels that judging with him would be one of those "no matter what the conditions are, it'll be a FUN experience" kind of thing.

He's one of the good guys.

k g


----------



## Buzz

John Robinson said:


> Carol, please read DoubleHauls post right below your's, he is right on about the real world on how judges become judges. I think most people are shocked the first time somebody approaches them about judging. Up to that point they were just learning the game, training and running their dogs without a thought about judging. Most of these people actually didn't consider themselves qualified to judge and were a little bit afraid of it. They haven't taken the test, but they have accumulated a lot more knowledge about evaluating dogs than they know, have proven themselves to be fair, honest hard workers and just seem like good candidates to those that know more, so they are approached. I would be more worried about the aggressively ambitious person who early one decides they want to judge, takes the test and lobbies for an assignment.



That's how I ended up judging the first time. I was asked to judge and asked if I had taken the test. I said, sure I'll judge, how do I go about taking the test? The club secretary said, don't worry about it, I'll have it mailed to you. I still feel like I have a lot to learn, but in 10 years of playing with dogs, I'm not too worried about not knowing enough about dogs to judge. And as studies have shown, the least competent in life are the most confident in their abilities. They don't know enough to know that they don't know. The most competent people are also the ones who are most inclined to question themselves, because they at least know enough to have some idea where they stand in the grand scheme of things. So, I can take some solace in the fact that I feel a little apprehension about judging sometimes.


----------

