# Marvin's List



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

I thought I would start a new thread devoted to Marvin's perception of what makes a qualified and maybe good judge.

I will agree that consideration for the person and at what level of training they are with their dog does have some merit. My problem (along with many others) is that this is not the only, nor the best indicator of a good judge.

First and foremost a judge must have integrity. No amount of experience and success means anything without honesty and fairness. This is why some people are routinely "passed over" for judging assignments (and rightfully so).

Unfortunately Marvin only uses a dog and handlers colored ribbon count for measuring. How foolish. No accounting of super dogs trained or bought from others with marginal handlers. No accounting for handlers that train very marginal dogs to higher levels. No accounting for green ribbons that often are harder to come by in one region or on a particular weekend than some blue ribbons.

Look at all the dogs a pro washes out. Compare that to the Amateur owner that never washes out a dog, but, occaisonally gets a green ribbon.

As also been stated previously, some handlers have FC/AFC dogs that they have titled, yet they can't set up good tests.

Some folks only run a few trials per year, yet train and set up test daily.

Some have much experience with running dogs and judging at local club trials. Sometimes they even beat local "big time" dogs, yet this means nothing in your equation.

Being away five years, or even three years is an eternity in the ever- evolving world of field trials. I would rather be judged by someone that trains/competes regularly and gets a green ribbon from time to time than by someone with a pro trained dog that places yet lacks "retriever knowledge".

I sure wish more people would visit Marvin's site. Then I would have more time to run my dogs and perhaps be more "qualified" to judge since according to Marvin's Magical Formula I have no business judging AA stakes at all.

Remember, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and half of the story (or less) will often lead to a faulty conclusion.

I'm off to judge a trial I'm "barely" qualified for. :wink: 


John


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Good luck hacking your way through it John. Hey, when you come back from donating your time, money and efforts that are doomed to failure, you can throw yourself under the bus by explaining how messed up your test was....

/Paul


----------



## Polock (Jan 6, 2003)

John Gassner said:


> I'm off to judge a trial I'm "barely" qualified for. :wink:
> 
> 
> John


John, yer judgin' the Junior Stakes again.................. :lol: 

Don't worry yer time will come as ya grow in retriever savy...........


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

I guess I agree with a lot of what John says. It occurs to me that field trials are not hunt tests where you have to meet a certain standard with a dog and you title it. You compete against the best trained and best bred dogs out there. I can believe that there are many extremely competent dog people out there that take many years before they find the right dog that they start bringing in ribbons with.

Does that make them less able than those who can afford to get their dog pro trained, washing out many dogs in rapid succession in search of the special dog or dogs?


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

John

I would appreciate your going to my website & reading all the JUDGES page. Then would you explain to me how you came to the conclusions about my thinking that were in your post!!

Marvin S


----------



## Debbie (Jun 26, 2003)

Hey, I'm running Dazee in the stake John is judging this weekend so I'll give you all an honest critique of his test setups and judging abilities . . . 

. . .

of course, Dazee's final placement in the stake will have absolutely no bearing on my opinions :lol:

Debbie


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Hey Hey Hey dont get on poor ole John dont let him fool you he co-owns a dog with JH behind his name. Dont ever short sell yourself buddy I am behind you 100%


----------



## John Gassner (Sep 11, 2003)

Marvin, I have visited your website several times. I just checked it again to make sure that no major changes had taken place. It still looks about the same.

You have created your website to promote your ideas/thoughts/opinions. Some I agree with. Others I don't. 

Just because they are your opinions (or even mine) doesn't make them automatically right or wrong. You express them like they are ALL facts. I have a slight problem with this, but again-it's your website, just don't expect everyone to agree with you. I think I am entitled to form my own opinions such as how to train my dogs and who to run under and when I am qualified to judge a certain event.

Your "factoids" are not entirely correct. This is a bigger problem for me. I only checked out the one judge I know all the facts about.....ME, and they were wrong! Your whole site exists on the premise of the "facts" being accurate and the primary criteria for judging ability since it is the only formula you use to "qualify" or approve judges.

You are using flawed logic. Your premises are not complete and valid and therefore your conclusion is flawed.

Please let me know of one single field trial giving club and/or judges selection committee that has used your formula exclusively. Just one. Do you think they/we are all wrong? Do you think the Emperor wears nice clothes?

If your facts were correct, then your site and statistics would be mildly entertaining/interesting trivia. Unfortunately this is not the case.

I agree with many of your opinions as do many others. I just don't agree with your opinion that your flawed stats are the best way to determine one's ability to judge.

With apologies to Melanie regards

John


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Debbie said:


> Hey, I'm running Dazee in the stake John is judging this weekend so I'll give you all an honest critique of his test setups and judging abilities . . .
> 
> . . .
> 
> ...


Look at it this way. If you win, you're automatically a better judge than everyone else entered.... :lol: :lol: :lol: 

/Paul


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

John, if you're not qualified to judge am I going to have to do all of the work when we judge the Open at the Chessie National this fall?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

itilii said:


> I would appreciate your going to my website & reading all the JUDGES page. Then would you explain to me how you came to the conclusions about my thinking that were in your post!!


It appears to me the "Judges Page" is full of idealistic platitudes with which few would care to disagree.

But it has nothing to do with the statistical premise of the rest of the site. :?


----------



## Debbie (Jun 26, 2003)

[quote="Gun_Dog2002
Look at it this way. If you win, you're automatically a better judge than everyone else entered.... :lol: :lol: :lol: 

/Paul[/quote]

Then the phone will be ringing off the hook with judging assignments and if I take them I won't be able to train and trial as much and my dog might not get any more placements - but, what the heck, I'll be one heck of a judge . . . for a while, anyway :roll: . . . until the stats catch up with me. :twisted: 

Debbie


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Has anyone noticed that John and Keith are *on the same side*in this discussion? Is this a first time ever event, or I just havent been around long enough? :?


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Debbie said:


> [quote="Gun_Dog2002
> Look at it this way. If you win, you're automatically a better judge than everyone else entered.... :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> /Paul


Then the phone will be ringing off the hook with judging assignments and if I take them I won't be able to train and trial as much and my dog might not get any more placements - but, what the heck, I'll be one heck of a judge . . . for a while, anyway :roll: . . . until the stats catch up with me. :twisted: 

Debbie[/quote]

Its a vicious cycle...

/Paul


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

wheres guthrie on this topic? :lol:


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

fowl hunter said:


> wheres guthrie on this topic? :lol:


He's not qualified and judging with KG did'nt help :wink:


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

I think Marvin does not like things as they are now and is doing something about it. Is it right or wrong? Who knows but you can’t fault the guy for causing as much discussion as there has been on the topic on various boards. His may not be the solution, but maybe somewhere in the discussions a good idea will come up and make the entire sport better. Or not. Can’t fault him for trying


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

2tall said:


> Has anyone noticed that John and Keith are *on the same side*in this discussion? Is this a first time ever event, or I just havent been around long enough? :?


you haven't been around long enough to know that John Gassner and John Fallon (Keith's protagonist) are very far from being the same person :wink:


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> I think Marvin does not like things as they are now and is doing something about it. Is it right or wrong? Who knows but you can’t fault the guy for causing as much discussion as there has been on the topic on various boards. His may not be the solution, but maybe somewhere in the discussions a good idea will come up and make the entire sport better. Or not. Can’t fault him for trying


Ditto!

Good or bad, at least someone is TRYING to do something. Is it perfect? No. Can it get better with time and more input? Probably.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

John

I won't try to answer all your comments but do want to go at your comment of saying your record is wrong on ftretrieverjudge.net. 

On the JUDGES page - COMMENTS - 3rd line down - ftretrieverjudge.net speaks only to item (2) - The known qualifications with dogs & trials.
On the APPROVED page - Added 3-21-2007 - There will be new notations behind some judges names: ---- the 2nd - Co-Owner - is a temporary response to giving some credit for co-ownership situations. There is more if you care to read it. Previously no credit was given. 

Judge ID Z4167 means your data may not be complete (STATUS)

You have owned 1 dog - Colonel Jack, GM, born 6-17-1990. placed 3rd in a Derby in 1992.

You Co-Own AFC Lacrosse Max Q Jake, GM, with Andy Whitely

Tell me what was missed.

Marvin


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Hey John it sucks to be you. According to marv derby 3rd in 1992 Mine says derby 4th in 01 :roll: Watcha been doing the last 15 years. Do you want to call the FTC and cancel your upcoming judgeship or should I :wink:


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

fowl hunter said:


> wheres guthrie on this topic? :lol:


I laying in the weeds waiting for Jackie Chan to reply........

Then ba bam....................I'll be in here like swim wear.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> [
> 
> Then ba bam....................I'll be in here like swim wear.


Does that mean you'll be wearing a speedo for dog training this summer? 
Ed, say it ain't so!


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Mr Booty said:


> Ken Guthrie said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> I think Marvin does not like things as they are now and is doing something about it. Is it right or wrong? Who knows but you can’t fault the guy for causing as much discussion as there has been on the topic on various boards. His may not be the solution, but maybe somewhere in the discussions a good idea will come up and make the entire sport better. Or not. Can’t fault him for trying


While the motives maybe noble the process and results could be damaging to the sport. We must ask: Is poor judging a frequent problem?

Judging is something most do as a means of giving back to the sport. Do we really want to grade our volunteers and eventually tell them that their time and effort was not worthy of our FT? Why would any sane person subject themself to this?
Like most populations the judging pool has always been 10% excellent, 80% adequate, and 10% subpar. Since there are 2 judges the chances of bad judging is 1%. IMHO an acceptable rate.

Tim


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> Ken Guthrie said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...


Nope....................

Free Willy.......... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

By the way Franco..........

Good luck this weekend. I won't see you there.............

But drink a beer @ Papa's on the Water for me. :wink:


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Ken Guthrie said:


> By the way Franco..........
> 
> Good luck this weekend. I won't see you there.............
> 
> But drink a beer @ Papa's on the Water for me. :wink:


Heck, my poor doggie hasn't run any trials in a month and I'm missing Brazosport too. A friend is going to handle him in the Am for me. I'm just glad Smith is going. I was looking forward to hitting Papa's on Saturday night but, not this year. Too much going on here in town!

See ya there next year.

Free Willy!


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Marv,

Rex Carr never handled a dog, much less ever placed in an AA stake. Does that disqualify him from judging?

That might be an extreme example, but the point is the same. There is no reasonable correlation between experience at handling/winning and being a good judge.

There are just too many with a wealth of the former that are bad at the latter; And too many lacking at the former that are quite good at the latter.

Sorry.

Experience helps, no doubt about it. But nothing beats education.


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2007)

itilii said:


> You have owned 1 dog - Colonel Jack, GM, born 6-17-1990. placed 3rd in a Derby in 1992.
> 
> You Co-Own AFC Lacrosse Max Q Jake, GM, with Andy Whitely
> 
> ...


FC AFC LaCrosse Max Q Jake JH co-owned with Andy Whiteley.

That's what you missed.

Melanie

ps And if you guys don't stop it with the free willy stuff...well..forget it, I can't do anything about it anyway.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

you haven't been around long enough to know that John Gassner and John Fallon (Keith's protagonist) are very far from being the same person :wink:[/quote]

Oh  thanks for that info. I guess I can put away the champagne I was getting ready to open for the new world peace pact


----------



## Jim Pickering (Sep 17, 2004)

badbullgator said:


> I think Marvin does not like things as they are now and is doing something about it. Is it right or wrong? Who knows but you can’t fault the guy for causing as much discussion as there has been on the topic on various boards. His may not be the solution, but maybe somewhere in the discussions a good idea will come up and make the entire sport better. Or not. Can’t fault him for trying


Something I can agree with Badbullgator on; it certainly will not be on politics.

When I first saw Marvin’s add for his website in the RFTNews, I check it out. There wasn’t much information there back then and there still isn’t, but I for one applaud his effort to do something about improving the quantity and quality of field trials judges. That is more than can be said about most of us. The fact that some are so quick to run him over with the bus implies that those folks are quite pleased with the state of field trial judging.

I have never met or spoken to Marvin Sundstrom. He may well be more of a GOF than I am, but my read of his website gives me the impression of someone who genuinely cares about the field trial game and who sincerely would like to contribute to some improvement as respects judging.

Are there good judges who have had little to no field trial success? Certainly there are. Are there good judges who do not train their own dogs? Certainly there are. Are there bad judges who have collected a lot of placement ribbons? Most definitely there are. Are there people who have trained and handled their own dogs with notable success and who otherwise have all the qualities to be good judges, but who are not willing to put up the crap that goes with judging? I suspect that many of the potential judges that Marvin is looking for fall into this category.

Mr. Sundstrom’s data may well be incomplete and his logic imperfect, but it is an effort which I appreciate.

However, what would be far better than times judged, times placed, dogs trained or money paid to pros would have been critiques of those who have judged with and who have run under the individuals. Until there is a system for evaluating judges, a system approved and supported by RAC, the National Clubs and maybe even the AKC, judging is not going to improve.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Jim Pickering said:


> badbullgator said:
> 
> 
> > I think Marvin does not like things as they are now and is doing something about it. Is it right or wrong? Who knows but you can’t fault the guy for causing as much discussion as there has been on the topic on various boards. His may not be the solution, but maybe somewhere in the discussions a good idea will come up and make the entire sport better. Or not. Can’t fault him for trying
> ...


Jim, i don't agree with Marvin's theories or methodologies but I still offered to help him with designing such an evaluation. The response I got was go away piss ant, you're not good enough to assist. To this day he refuses to answer any question I put in front of him nor respond to any question I pose to him. I'm afraid any survey he puts together will be done with the same ill formed logic and personal opinions that his current website promotes. He's earned his reputation and is doing all he can to maintain it.

/Paul


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

itilii said:


> John
> 
> I won't try to answer all your comments but do want to go at your comment of saying your record is wrong on ftretrieverjudge.net.
> 
> ...


This is the kind of pompous ass mentality that seems to thrive in field trial game and drives out new blood and good people. 

Someone needs to start a list of individuals that support this “Marvin List” so the field trial community can avoid them like the plague


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> itilii said:
> 
> 
> > John
> ...


Should be easy, so far there are only 4 that agree with him, considering that I would expect him to vote for himself, if he believes in himself, that makes 3 that need avoiding. Wonder where those 20000 people that made the 20000 hits are in support of him?

/Paul


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Maybe we should start a poll


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> Maybe we should start a poll


That is a great idea.

http://retrievertraining.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=43374

/Paul


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Patrick Johndrow said:


> itilii said:
> 
> 
> > John
> ...


While I am pretty sure John would answer for himself if not for the fact he is taking time off from work that he will not be paid for to go and judge.
He also has owned other dogs with placements that marv has missed. 

The fact that somone that sits on his high thrown and make comments about someone that they dont know anything about is insulting at best. John has given back to the hunt test, field trial, Golden Ret. Club and continues to help newcomers to the game. I guess co-owning a 100% amatuer trained FC-AFC that qualified for the nationals again is not good enough for marv. Marvin I dont know you personally but you outlook towards what I believe you feel about the little people make me sick.
I case you want to correct me again I believe you said people without notable success.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

I've said this in the past but since it's back as a topic I will say it again.

I don't know Mr. Marvin........

I don't know any of his dogs........

I do know he obviously has concern about the way our dogs are being judged.

I do know he has implemented an information source in a manner he feels may help in a possible solution to the concern.

Now, I ain't saying his website is valid. Nor am I saying it's not.

I don't think that should be the issue. 

More or less, the issue is that I still don't understand why folks can't visit the website and either chose to take away information they feel valuable or disregard anything he provides.

In my humble opinion...the way our dogs are being judged ain't ever gonna change. AKC can implement tests, siminars, ect. but that still doesn't give a judge common sense or the ability to look into a field and set up a test.

But again, I don't think that's the issue.........

This game is complex. The people involved, the different training theories, the standards we use to judge them.

Bottom line still will always be.................

You have the choice to show up and run your dog under a set of judges that are announced before you enter.

Once that entry is sent..............

Show up, run your dog, and let the chips fall where they fall.

Yes, there will be ignorant tests. Yes, there will be good tests. And yes, sometimes it might rain.

But if you let the bad things about this game beat you down you might as well quit now.

Cause for the life of me..............I believe there are many more bad things about this game than good things.

But, the bottom line..........I love my dog. I enjoy the opportunity to showcase his talents among the best. Will he prove this? To me he will. Do I care if the retriever community accepts him as a good retriever? Actually I could care less.

Because when it's all said and done, I've spent time in various fields with a creature I have a spiritual relationship with.

All you folks that consume your time chasing ribbons in efforts to achieve social status through your dogs are missing the big picture.

It is recently I have accepted that whether or not my dog earns another 2.5 points to obtain an AFC doesn't change the fact that he has given me every once of effort he has. And I have benefited from this through the things I've learned and the enjoyment I gain through him.

So what does this have to do with Marvin and his theories you ask? Nothing more than he is a person who shows me he may care for his dog and the dogs as a whole.

Whether or not I agree with his opinions on the status of our judging panel is the last thing I worry about.

The information is there. I will chose to use it how I see fit. But bottom line, it's there.

If you have a better idea, let's see it. If not..........

Shut up and run your dog.

Ahhhhhhhh...........I feel better now.

And finally, think when you sit and smile at Aycock's stories about the great dogs he been associated with, I'm sure there is more interest on how he was as a companion vs. how he was as a competitor.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

After reading Marvin’s List, his cowboy quote of “all hat and no cattle” reminded me of another “never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear, or a fool from any direction. “ :wink:


----------



## Lynn Moore (May 30, 2005)

Ken Guthrie said:


> The information is there. I will chose to use it how I see fit. But bottom line, it's there.
> quote]
> 
> The thing is, it's not accurate, so you can't really call it information.
> LM


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

EdA said:


> you haven't been around long enough to know that John Gassner and John Fallon (Keith's protagonist) are very far from being the same person :wink:


"*Ant*agonist," not "protagonist."

A protagonist is an ally, an antagonist is a critic.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> EdA said:
> 
> 
> > you haven't been around long enough to know that John Gassner and John Fallon (Keith's protagonist) are very far from being the same person :wink:
> ...



Ed was trying to be PC....he should have just called him a "sh!t disturber" :wink:


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

One thing we do know about Marv's website --

The statistics posted there can be used as critical fodder by the gallery about the judge.

In example -- "No wonder s/he didn't call my dog back. S/He doesn't know good dog work. In the last four years s/he has only placed ( ) times in AA stakes!"

Those who support Marv's endeavor apparently do not care if the arguments postulated by those statistics are invalid.

I am all for information -- the more the better!!! But all the information in the world is useless and potentially dangerous, without valid reasoning.


----------



## Ken Guthrie (Oct 1, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> In example -- "No wonder s/he didn't call my dog back. S/He doesn't know good dog work. In the last four years s/he has only placed ( ) times in AA stakes!"


Than shame on the contestant that came to that conclusion.


----------



## Mitch Patterson (Feb 20, 2003)

This is what is posted for my wife for the NARC:


> Z4719 Linda Patterson
> 2 ALL-AGE Placing DOGS, including 1 Dual-AFC, 1 FC-AFC



Linda has placed dogs many times in All-Age stakes including 4 (THAT IS FOUR DUAL CHAMPIONS!) and 1 FC-AFC

As I have stated to the author of the site, if you're going to use placements in All-Age stakes as some type of arbitrary criteria to assume competency as a judge, then at least get the numbers right. 

BTW - The thought that judging dogs somehow makes you a good handler and/or a handler with dogs that place will make you a good judge is like comparing apples to bricks. 

A DOES NOT EQUAL B

Understanding dogs and learning to train and handle will make you a better handler, understanding dogs and learning to judge will make you a better judge. Simple formula

Mitch Patterson


----------



## Paul Rainbolt (Sep 8, 2003)

I agree with Mitch. I have run under people who have been in the game for decades, owned, trained and handled their own dogs and judged many AA stakes and still set up chicken **** test. I believe there are a lot of old timers who know how to get dogs but not how to set up a fair marking test and blinds or don't have the stones to.


----------



## Southern Rebel (Feb 18, 2005)

I don't know anything about Marvin or his list, but it sounds like the information is not really "incorrect" but rather "incomplete". There is a difference. 

Why doesn't someone set up a judge's list with a star rating system like E-bay or Amazon? Then everyone can "voice" their opinion and the results will be much more accurate. 

I totally agree with Ken Guthrie, that ultimately it is your choice to run under that judge or not. A poor judge will be painfully obvious given the numbers of entries received, they won't be asked to come back and the word will be out. If people continue to "chase ribbons" this will not happen. They will care more about the ribbon than who the judge is.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Southern Rebel said:


> IA poor judge will be painfully obvious given the numbers of entries received, they won't be asked to come back and the word will be out. If people continue to "chase ribbons" this will not happen. They will care more about the ribbon than who the judge is.


Unfortunately for many of us with limited opportunities to run our dogs we just have to accept what's offered or stay home, when a field trial is less than 2 hours from home it is difficult to stay home even if the judge(s) is/are suspect 8)............surprisingly after 35 years the list of those who I would not run under is very very short :shock:


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Jim Pickering said:


> badbullgator said:
> 
> 
> > I think Marvin does not like things as they are now and is doing something about it. Is it right or wrong? Who knows but you can’t fault the guy for causing as much discussion as there has been on the topic on various boards. His may not be the solution, but maybe somewhere in the discussions a good idea will come up and make the entire sport better. Or not. Can’t fault him for trying
> ...


When I started ftretrieverjudge.net an individual who is well known stated to me "Using this approach is not going to make you the most popular guy at the Field Trial, people are vain & they don't like facts to interfere with perception".

The APPROVED page shows those individuals who HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY the AKC to JUDGE THE TRIAL. ftretrieverjudge.net only posts their record as an OWNER-HANDLER for the time frame covered by STATUS. If you are an unrelated Co-Owner there is no posting.

If anyone who posts here is familiar with the "Art of Negotiation' then they would understand what is happening. 

Now Jim Pickering's last paragraph - I do not sense that RAC or AKC have the will or expertise to tackle this issue. I do think the National Clubs have some who see that there is a need to make changes but they need more of a catalyst than is presently being used. 

EXPERIENCE, EDUCATION & OVERSIGHT are what is needed to ensure that there are Competent & Impartial judges on the line to judge the dogs many put such great effort into prior to presenting them to the viewing community.

EXPERIENCE takes many forms - With dogs in the field, training your own dogs, handling at trials, working with other individuals who have great knowledge of dogs (whether they be Amateur or Professional) & doing the routine through a succession of dogs.

EDUCATION can include seminars, clinics, viewing tapes, reading books & the various events that happen while an individual gains experience. 

OVERSIGHT happens when you evaluate the judges on their performance & audit their work. An evaluation procedure is being worked on working=-retriever.com (it's still in it's infancy) & I will be proposing a system for audits in the near future on that website.

ftretrieverjudge.net was started to provide a measurable form of an individuals involvement & success in the sport. It fits as a form of measuring EXPERIENCE. If any of you have something measurable that is BETTER I will drop this effort & help you. I seriously doubt that you will find it. An example - A high volume poster & self anointed expert on this site had a dog that attained 44 Open ALL-AGE points. with 1 placing as Owner-Handler - My database tells me that person showed up on Saturday morning to take his dog off the Pro's truck. The database shows more than the website.

Another subject 

Quote - as I have stated to the author of the site, if you're going to use placements in All-Age stakes as some type of arbitrary criteria, then at least get the numbers right. [end of quote]

Mitch, 

You received a reply from me, which apparently YOU CHOSE TO IGNORE. Don't try to pass off on me what YOU failed to do!!

Marvin S


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

itilii said:


> Jim Pickering said:
> 
> 
> > badbullgator said:
> ...


Well Marvin, at least 4 other people agree with your theory. That should make you feel better. The poll has no timeframe so you could still catch up

http://retrievertraining.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=43374

/Paul


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

itilii said:


> Mitch, You received a reply from me, which apparently YOU CHOSE TO IGNORE. Don't try to pass off on me what YOU failed to do!!


Are we to imply from this missive that if YOU get your statistics wrong, it is incumbent upon others to supply you with the correct info? It is not your responsibility to be correct, it is the responsibility of others to correct you?

So what is to prevent you from in the first place just putting up a website with a bunch of falsified numbers if it is not your responsibility to be correct?

We need a new poll! -- How long before Marv is threatened with a lawsuit?


----------



## Mitch Patterson (Feb 20, 2003)

> Another subject
> 
> Quote - as I have stated to the author of the site, if you're going to use placements in All-Age stakes as some type of arbitrary criteria, then at least get the numbers right. [end of quote]
> 
> ...


MS,

We emailed and my follow-up was, and is, expressed by my no-further response to you. I offered some of my thoughts, you chose to ignore. It was your choice. 

Although I read RTF daily, I post infrequently. I posted here because you’re wrong.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Hey Mitch tell the truth you would not run under Linda anyway :roll: :wink: 

To keep pokin this with a stick isnt Linda one of the judges for the national AM. 8) 


Sorry its friday and I could not help myself


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Tulsa Slim said:


> I agree with Mitch. I have run under people who have been in the game for decades, owned, trained and handled their own dogs and judged many AA stakes and still set up chicken **** test. I believe there are a lot of old timers who know how to get dogs but not how to set up a fair marking test and blinds or don't have the stones to.


. . .And surprisingly enough I do too.

I will go even farther, and repeat what I have been saying all along. . .

The practice of getting a pair of 8 point judges for the sake of the *points*, often by someone on a _committee_ who knows little or nothing about Judging themselves is the root cause of a large part of the problem.

A total of EIGHT points by people who know dog work is all that is necessary to fulfill both the *letter* and the* intent *of the RR&G.

john


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Steve Amrein said:


> Hey Mitch tell the truth you would not run under Linda anyway :roll: :wink: . . . .Sorry its friday and I could not help myself


Careful, careful! Less than a week to go before you are here. :wink:


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

I am not sure if it sad or ridiculous that someone that has had such a positive impact on the sport as Mitch and Linda even have to respond to Marvins site. 

I am looking forward to seeing all the folks at the trial. I will try my very best to do a good job. At the very least I will bring a compass so I know the direction the sun sets. It should be fun.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> We need a new poll! -- How long before Marv is threatened with a lawsuit?


Can you sue someone for not thinking straight?


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

john fallon said:


> often by someone on a _committee_ who knows little or nothing about Judging themselves is the root cause of a large part of the problem.
> 
> 
> > & normally won't ask for help because they do not want to show their lack of knowledge. So they do the my friend is a warm body with points action.
> ...


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

You have quoted only a part of my post.
To keep it in context, let me say it again. . .the Rules are very specific about this. . . "A total of EIGHT points (by people who know dog work) is all that is necessary to fulfill both the letter and the intent of the RR&G." 
The RR&G say two 8 point Judges are not necessary , on this point I will defer to their wisdom.

john 

Heck—I know a National competitor/Dbl. Header winner *without* 8 points to his credit.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Steve Amrein said:


> I am not sure if it sad or ridiculous that someone that has had such a positive impact on the sport as Mitch and Linda even have to respond to Marvins site.
> 
> I am looking forward to seeing all the folks at the trial. I will try my very best to do a good job. At the very least I will bring a compass so I know the direction the sun sets. It should be fun.


Steve----

Prior to sounding off why don't you find out what happened?

Mitch Patterson contacted me by e-mail stating his record was not right. I responded by e-mail that whoever filled out their entry forms was not identifying the handler.

The handler could have been Mitch, Linda, a DH &/or a Pro. but I was willing to accept his word on who the handler was if he sent me a letter by USPO signed by both he & LInda which included Trial, stake, date & handler. I know the dog did something, I just have no way of providing handler credit. There was no response. Mitch has stated on this post that there will not be a response, he also says that I am wrong. Steve, you took Mitch's side, now you can explain to me where that is my fault?

Everyone is just a judge ID & a name on ftretrieverjudge.net. Individiuals fill out their own entries to trials, AKC APPROVES the judges & ftretrieverjudge.net posts their record in competition on the APPROVED page of the website. Again, AKC APPROVES the judges & ftretrieverjudge.net posts that individuals competitive record. IT'S THAT SIMPLE!!!!! 

You've tried to make an issue of giving back to the sport by judging on previous posts. You're going to be judging the Open ALL-AGE stake this coming weekend @ Midwest RC. I wish you all the success in the world!! Given that you & your Co-Judge have similar competitive records in the All-Age stakes who will you turn to if you have a difficult situation arise? That's quite a responsibility!! 

It's just the 2 of U & the Rule book!!!

Marvin S


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

itilii said:


> I was willing to accept his word on who the handler was if he sent me a letter by USPO signed by both he & LInda which included Trial, stake, date & handler.


 :shock: :lol:


----------



## Jerry (Jan 3, 2003)

Just out of curiosity Marvin, what does your site show for me?

Jerry


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

You'll have fun figuring out my stats as I'm judging under my married name now and ran my dog's derby career and the majority of Quals under my maiden name.....

FOM


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Do me a favor and make sure my name never appears on your website without written notorized authorization from me.

/Paul


----------



## m blank (Apr 2, 2006)

John,
I never write on this RTF. I read it but...
I just read that "Marvin's List". How long has he been on a judge's selection board? Is it more than 15 years? Has he had to beg people to judge time after time? Year after year? Has he had to pay back the favor with his own time because when you ask someone to judge they expect you to return the favor? What club is he in charge of getting judges for? I am guessing that club has perfect judges.
If he thinks the Judging Pool is so big...then let me know what he thinks after 15 years, twice a year, finding and asking people to judge. Until then don't "preach" to people who do that job. They are doing the best they can and unless you want that job for more than one or two years, just say "thanks".
Thanks for judging for us at Linc. Trail.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> An example - A high volume poster & self anointed expert on this site had a dog that attained 44 Open ALL-AGE points. with 1 placing as Owner-Handler - _My database tells me that person showed up on Saturday morning to take his dog off the Pro's truck. The database shows more than the website_.


How is it it _possible_ that your database tells you that? And on the statistically remote chance that it can, doesn't that throw ALL of your OWNER data into question? Can you DOCUMENT your findings with actual PROOF rather than your single-minded _*opinion*_? 

It could be that _that_ ONE OAA placement was the ONLY OAA stake that person ever handled that dog in. Did that Open start on Saturday, Marv? And I suggest that you _be careful_ about putting into writing what you _think_ you know, as opposed to what you can legally _confirm_.

Be _very_ careful, Marv.

Mitch Patterson wrote:



> MS,
> 
> We emailed and my follow-up was, and is, expressed by my no-further response to you. I offered some of my thoughts, you chose to ignore. It was your choice.
> 
> Although I read RTF daily, I post infrequently. I posted here because you’re wrong.


Then you shouldn't be surprised by what you read, Mitch...and thanks for posting up. That info on Linda was the _coup de grace_! :lol: 

kg


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

K G said:


> > An example - A high volume poster & self anointed expert on this site had a dog that attained 44 Open ALL-AGE points. with 1 placing as Owner-Handler - _My database tells me that person showed up on Saturday morning to take his dog off the Pro's truck. The database shows more than the website_.
> 
> 
> How is it it _possible_ that your database tells you that? And on the statistically remote chance that it can, doesn't that throw ALL of your OWNER data into question? Can you DOCUMENT your findings with actual PROOF rather than your single-minded _*opinion*_?
> ...


You think he would have learned something from the rumor/opinion/gossip illustration i presented to him on WRC, but apparently the concept of proof and facts is lost on him. But it did piss him off enough he quit replying to me so in the end I believe I won...

/Paul


----------



## junbe (Apr 12, 2003)

I just saw this thread and called up the website. I was surprised to see that I have never judged a derby or placed in a derby, although I have been doing both for over 3 decades. 

Jack


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

You do realize that it's YOUR responsibility to correct that, Jack! :lol: 

Just follow the instructions above that he gave to Mitch on how to verify your info and you're IN!:wink:

kg


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

Throughout history, the ones that were able to cause change usually had charisma. HPW

1 : a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

itilii said:


> Mitch Patterson contacted me by e-mail stating his record was not right. I responded by e-mail that whoever filled out their entry forms was not identifying the handler.
> 
> The handler could have been Mitch, Linda, a DH &/or a Pro. but I was willing to accept his word on who the handler was if he sent me a letter by USPO signed by both he & LInda which included Trial, stake, date & handler. I know the dog did something, I just have no way of providing handler credit. There was no response. Mitch has stated on this post that there will not be a response, he also says that I am wrong. Steve, you took Mitch's side, now you can explain to me where that is my fault?
> Marvin S


Logic rivaled only by the U.S.Gooberment. How and the hell is it anyone's responsibility to correct your half-baked logic?

This is the pinnacle of self-importance. :roll:


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

HarryWilliams said:


> Throughout history, the ones that were able to cause change usually had charisma. HPW
> 
> 1 : a personal magic of leadership arousing special popular loyalty or enthusiasm for a public figure


http://retrievertraining.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=43374

Hey, he's won over a few people apparently.


/Paul


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

> ...now you can explain to me where that is my fault?


You have stated MANY times that your website is "accurate and correct." YOUR words. Now, you've shown proof both on this post and elsewhere that credibility is NOT your primary concern, yet you say you're "accurate and correct" with the info on your site. Two folks here....two VERY credible long-time-in-the-field-with-credentials-out-the-ying-yang individuals....have displayed YOUR errors....yet you say it's up to them to do YOUR work for YOU?????

Well said, Patrick.....well said.... :?

kg


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

It is an impossible task! I judged over the last weekend with a "older man", I am early Social Security Age and he is about 20 years older.
This older guy was asked how many he had judged and he thought about 120. He shows 47. I am listed as 17. He has had many titled dogs and those on the Derby list. The records are so inaccurate it would be next to impossible to track down all the co-owners, all the former owners, all the former co-owners, all the dogs that were run by someone other then listed on the offical premium. Perhaps from this day forward! without a "past" would be where to start. Having said that the "road to hell is paved with good intentions ". Six Derby list dogs, a couple of titled dogs, dogs that were "passed on" to new owners, with all-age placements, dogs that had all-age placements that were not titled, etc, etc in my case are not listed in the stats? also.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

I think I like this database, because it will most likely let me off the hook from putting myself in the hot seat for a LONG LONG time, maybe forever, for being unqualified.

Sticking to the gun stations regards...


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

People SEE what they want to SEE -- HEAR what they want to HEAR -- & BELIEVE what they want to BELIEVE. When Columbus went sailing to find a new route to India MOST people thought the world was flat & his ships would sail off the edge at some point.

Earl

If you take the time to read STATUS you would know that records are only complete for judges to about Z7500!! Those judges who have been around longer will have incomplete records. They will eventually be completed. If you read the APPROVED page you would know who receives no handling credit at this time.

To whomever

Access to Fort Lewis is covered by government regulation:


> UNAUTHORIZED ACTIVITIES FOR FORT LEWIS MANEUVER AREA
> 
> 7) Commercial activities conducted for profit ---------- including dog training for reimbursement. [end of Quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

itilii said:


> People SEE what they want to SEE -- HEAR what they want to HEAR -- & BELIEVE what they want to BELIEVE. When Columbus went sailing to find a new route to India MOST people thought the world was flat & his ships would sail off the edge at some point.
> 
> Earl
> 
> ...


----------



## Jeff Bartlett (Jan 7, 2006)

itilii said:


> People SEE what they want to SEE -- HEAR what they want to HEAR -- & BELIEVE what they want to BELIEVE. When Columbus went sailing to find a new route to India MOST people thought the world was flat & his ships would sail off the edge at some point.
> 
> Earl
> 
> ...


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

WTF!!!!!!!! I came back to this thread after about 2 days and they are talking about activities on a military installation. What the h*ll does any of this have to do with determining judging qualifications? As a total newbie, I would love someday to have the ability to set up tests and judge as a thank you for those that go before. But you know what, I dont have a fkilling clue! So I have to trust those that love the sport to do their very best to show me what to do. Lets dont get off on these crazy tangents that I can not learn from or share in. Lets train dogs.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

> To whomever
> 
> Access to Fort Lewis is covered by government regulation:
> 
> ...


----------



## BamaK9 (Sep 29, 2004)

itilii said:


> > To whomever
> >
> > Access to Fort Lewis is covered by government regulation:
> >
> ...


----------



## Lonny Taylor (Jun 22, 2004)

Marvin,

Gawd!! See you are still good at pissing in your own nest. lol. As you remember I used to train out at the FT. when I lived there and as I recall there was plenty of room for everyone to train. What did Jim do to piss you off so bad???? I think you had best let it be and not pursue this or the local folks will not think any more kindly of you than they already do. Specially if everyone gets kicked off the Fort.

LT


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2007)

Marv, you appeared to have no problem training "with Jim Gonia on the fort" when you trained with Jim Gonia! What's up now????

If you think the pros are imposing on your training areas, what about this incident? As I recall a few weeks ago,you showed up at the north cove and so rudely proceeded to take your dogs and bumpers out to train without even asking me if I was done with the water. Good thing I was done, huh!
And you think the pros are imposing...

You ARE NOT HELPING anything as you claim with any of your approaches.

Kim Johnston

Unhappy people make more unhappy people......


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Heres a Idea :lol: :twisted:


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

I think I'll download that from audible.com and put it on my iPod.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Here's the book he has been working from...










and he's studying this one now....










/Paul


----------



## AQUADOG (Sep 15, 2004)

Ditto what Kim said

Paul
Don't do that so late in the day I have to drive home and try to train dogs tonight. But I can't flipping stop laughing

Marvin
Keep it up on writing letters to the fort like the last one and all of us will me gone you including. We need to policy ourselves we do not need them in our business. I'm still not to sure why you did it to start with there 89,000 flipping acres can't you find a place to train away from folks.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

AQUADOG said:


> Ditto what Kim said
> 
> Paul
> Don't do that so late in the day I have to drive home and try to train dogs tonight. But I can't flipping stop laughing
> ...



Geez, 89000 acres? I can't even imagine having grounds like that. I also can't imagine that someone who has spent a lifetime in this sport would be so selfish as to jeopardize the entire grounds over someone being in the spot he wanted to be that day. In my family we'd take someone like that bear hunting in the woods and save time by letting the bait walk in on his own. I'd sure hate to be on the hall of fame committee for him. Here you have a guy with a lifetime of experience in the sport, with no doubt so much to share, passed it on to his kids and had some measure of successful dogs in his life yet chooses to do nothing positive with it. Course he might get in because he's done something no other hall of famer has done. He's managed to insult every judge and handler across the entire nation by putting up a website that inaccurately reflects their abilities as a handler and judge in a negative way while single handedly losing 90000 acres of public training grounds for an entire region of FT and HT retriever trainers. Move over Rex Carr we need to hang a new picture...

/Paul


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Lonny Taylor said:


> Marvin,
> 
> Gawd!! See you are still good at pissing in your own nest. lol. As you remember I used to train out at the FT. when I lived there and as I recall there was plenty of room for everyone to train. What did Jim do to piss you off so bad???? I think you had best let it be and not pursue this or the local folks will not think any more kindly of you than they already do. Specially if everyone gets kicked off the Fort.
> 
> LT


Lonny

Long time absent, but it's nice to hear you have the same high opinion of me that your mentor has!! Other than the fact that you would recognize me on the street, you have no idea who I am or what I stand for, which puts you in the same company as about 85% of the posters on this subject. That said, there are about 15% of the posters that have the intellectual capacity to see the potential in what is being done even though they do not know me.

Things change when you leave an area. The fort does not look like it did when you were here. It is overgrown with Scotch Broom & many of the other properties we were able to train on are accessible to only a select few, if at all. This includes the property of one of the principals in this discussion. A group of Amateurs, spearheaded by Ken Lee have made some of the areas on the fort more usable, including the North Cove. Ken & his group also do the bulk of the yearly maintenance on those areas.

The principals in this issue know all the facts. If one of them chooses to involve others that is their right. They can also put their version of spin on the issue. If they do not want to risk everyone not being able to train on the fort they need to follow the posted regulations, IT'S THAT SIMPLE!!! 

As for e-mails & or letters I have never written one to any authority regarding the subject of unauthorized use. Whoever says that has happened is a Liar!!!

As for making friends, if I have to censor my comments or limit my actions to follow a supposed politically dog correct position, you can forget that. No one is exempt, in my world there are only those icons who have earned the status. I wouldn't still be doing the sport but happen to really enjoy the process of training a successful dog. As I have said before, the professional guidance I received in the past was invaluable, & for that I am grateful. I do what I am doing so those who follow in the sport can enjoy the outcome of my efforts, which would be a level playing field irregardless of one's circumstance.

Marvin S


----------



## Lonny Taylor (Jun 22, 2004)

Marvin,

I am glad that you have not written any authority and I hope that you wouldnt drop a dime. I do hope that this would be taken care of amongst the folks that train there. I dont understand why you put this on this thread anyway. I was being very amused reading about your judges rating systems until I saw your blurb about the Fort and the threads that followed. 

As far as knowing you marvin, I do know you quite well. I have been laughing reading the inputs about what you have stirred up. You have always been very opinionated and people have to take it or leave it. 

If the fort has problems then it sounds like what Ken Lee is doing is good. I would hope that you would join in and support his efforts and maybe Jim and alot of others would help. The club I helped form back here in kansas occasionally has a work day on grounds that we train on and run our events. Draggin up a regulation that has never been enforced is not the answer. If you have a problem with Jim I would hope that you would confront him personally not via the internet or just mouthing off to folks. 

Hope your dogs are doing as well as your internet adventure. :lol: 

LT


----------



## Jeff Bartlett (Jan 7, 2006)

itilii said:


> Lonny Taylor said:
> 
> 
> > Marvin,
> ...


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

I was thinking about going over to the fort to train. But, I think I'll buy me some urine proof training clothes before I do. There's bound to be some splatter from some of the contestants. HPW 

OH, I forgot something. :lol: :wink: :shock: Now I'm done.


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2007)

one day while i was training with the entire tacoma training group, including navy capt ken lee and army officer gordon flowers, long time trialer and club member bob crabb and others, we were interrupted by a group of local police,mp's and range control officers. our activities were brought to their attention by the number of vehicles in our group. since there were several vehicles in the group they asked if we were professional dog trainers. we all laughed, said stick around and watch our dogs, that should answer their questions! they checked every vehicle for a valid pass and found no problems.
i then asked them if they could tell me why the sudden check on people on the fort, was it routine or spearheaded by someone or a group of someones. did we, as dog trainers in general upset someone?? the others followed in as well with their questions about this.
i was asked by one of the range control officers if i would like to see emails sent to them which prompted this action. of course, and i was given a printout of emails to read right there on the fort. this series of emails specifically name several pros in the area, including jim gonia and mark madore and the one allegation that stood out was that they were holding seminars on the fort for profit. I told the officers this was untrue, if it were true i would be at these seminars learning! everyone agreed, laughed and then gave a detailed description of what we, as well as the pros were actually doing on the fort. we told them that in the case of the pro, the clients pay the pro a monthly fee to train their dog. this may include at home, on the road, and any where else they train. the officers seem to think this was ok and asked us why this guy was raising such a stink, does he have a grudge against someone????

marvin says he did not write these emails. marv, ask ken lee and bob crabb who's name was in these emails.

i agree that the fort is slowly becoming limited in usable training areas, and i hate it when i cant use an area because someone is already there, someone who owns a personal area to train when this is all i have.
but this has been going on this way for 40 years. why, when we are already having a difficult time obtaining grounds for our trials due to military training for iraq, would you stir up such a mess that will only have more negative affects on our club and the amateur dog trainers in the area????
when the fort kicks us out, who cares why?????? all we know is that you started this and nobody in this area can see a justifiable reason.
that so called 15% that understands your motives, they dont matter here because they dont train here.

kim johnston


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2007)

if marv denies emailing compaints to the fort, does he also deny having anything to do with prompting the actions of area access regarding the pro's training at the fort or any other such activities??


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

suprdogs said:


> one day while i was training with the entire tacoma training group, including navy capt ken lee and army officer gordon flowers, long time trialer and club member bob crabb and others, we were interrupted by a group of local police,mp's and range control officers. our activities were brought to their attention by the number of vehicles in our group. since there were several vehicles in the group they asked if we were professional dog trainers. we all laughed, said stick around and watch our dogs, that should answer their questions! they checked every vehicle for a valid pass and found no problems.
> i then asked them if they could tell me why the sudden check on people on the fort, was it routine or spearheaded by someone or a group of someones. did we, as dog trainers in general upset someone?? the others followed in as well with their questions about this.
> i was asked by one of the range control officers if i would like to see emails sent to them which prompted this action. of course, and i was given a printout of emails to read right there on the fort. this series of emails specifically name several pros in the area, including jim gonia and mark madore and the one allegation that stood out was that they were holding seminars on the fort for profit. I told the officers this was untrue, if it were true i would be at these seminars learning! everyone agreed, laughed and then gave a detailed description of what we, as well as the pros were actually doing on the fort. we told them that in the case of the pro, the clients pay the pro a monthly fee to train their dog. this may include at home, on the road, and any where else they train. the officers seem to think this was ok and asked us why this guy was raising such a stink, does he have a grudge against someone????
> 
> ...


Uuuuuuhhhhhh Marv...... You might want to check with /Paul to see if he as some extra ass laying around that you can borrow for a while. Just one ******* opinion, but it would appear that your's just got BADLY mangled.

Nothing like facts and data to clear the air regards

Bubba


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

suprdogs said:


> if marv denies emailing compaints to the fort, does he also deny having anything to do with prompting the actions of area access regarding the pro's training at the fort or any other such activities??


Not being as computer literate as some I have not done e-mail until ftretrieverjudge.net was opened, that has changed somewhat as individuals have e-mailed with concerns which I have tried to answer. 

At permit renewals 2 times ago I asked area access why they were allowing non-citizens access to the fort. They asked me what this individual was doing, when I told them they said they had no control over non-citizens being on the fort. That was an MP thing. They also asked if any other individuals who were citizens were doing the same thing & I told them, which may have prompted their actions. Area Access may have initiated the action based on my question, I did not e-mail anyone. If my name was on the e-mail it was not as originator! You should have known that with all your computer literacy!! What I did do is send a letter to one of the principals with my concerns, whether that took or not I can't answer. I also had a conversation with one of the principals.

While this may have gone on for 40+ years is not the issue. The issue is that it is not acceptable regardless of the spin put on it. Additional training groups that should not be there in an already diminishing asset is the issue. When trainers (the non-citizen) exercise their dogs in the middle of your test, people are driving through your test looking for their other training group & tests are set up without regard to others that are training then the answer is - if you shouldn't be there you need to leave. 

Remember, Amateurs have a right to be there if they've gone through the proper sequence, those training for reimbursement do not regardless of what sequence they follow!!!! 

I'm done with this subject & I'm sure others are getting bored with the back & forths, so let it die!!!

Marvin S


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

/Paul


----------



## Ga Woodrow (Mar 4, 2006)

Hey Marv, why do you think they do not give you the respect when you are training??? You are a tool. (as the youngins say) I have run across alot of back-ends such as yourself in many differant fields,and many differant venues, and I have come to the same conclusion about the whole lot. YOU DO NOT MATTER. Keep promoting yourself, and you will sleep well in the p.m.. I am truly sorry for you.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

Hey GA Woodrow....how you feelin' _NOW_ 'bout my post at the bottom of page 2 of "Small Derbies"...........?

:wink: !

Time reveals all regards,  

kg


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Ga Woodrow said:


> Hey Marv, why do you think they do not give you the respect when you are training??? You are a tool. (as the youngins say) I have run across alot of back-ends such as yourself in many differant fields,and many differant venues, and I have come to the same conclusion about the whole lot. YOU DO NOT MATTER. Keep promoting yourself, and you will sleep well in the p.m.. I am truly sorry for you.


I can imagine people push Marva’s buttons just for fun…I know I would. :lol:


----------



## Ga Woodrow (Mar 4, 2006)

KG, as much as I would like, I cannot put my words in such an eloquent fashion. I am working on it, and until his thread reached out and started harming others in a way they just could ignore, I was laughing. I in some respect feel very sorry for this person, he has alot of issues, many of which it is obvious he will never overcome. I fear he is lacking in his life and will die a miserable old beet. Sometimes it is best to tell it like it is. Can't get nothing on you though, but I cannot monitor this site 24-7 such as yourself. I gotta make a living. Priorities you know. PEACE!! Hope ya'll have a great week.


----------



## K G (Feb 11, 2003)

GA W, I was simply referring to your "change of heart" on this particular issue, style notwithstanding. You do a FINE job of expressing yourself...IMHO, anyway.

A regular, for sure....but _not_ "24-7" regards, :wink: 

kg


----------



## Ga Woodrow (Mar 4, 2006)

You tha man.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I like how we've come all the way around to ignorance being his defense...

/Paul


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Bump. Bump


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

2202 judges over 6,000 dogs entered into database; 
Some folks have records with over 60 dogs, many have 
multiples into up to the 30's. Most have records like ZF390, 
a lot of the biggest bitchers on this thread have records 
like yours, NONE. 

Lanse Brown, who is the only person besides myself to 
have seen the database stated, a lot of folks aren't going 
to be happy this exists. 

You have no stake in this, why comment?



mjh345 said:


> Bump. Bump


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

If someone wants to look up my AKC judging record, ZF390, they will see that you are lying. On purpose. On a public Forum. Out of spite. Official records don't lie. -Paul




__





American Kennel Club - Whoops! An Unexpected Error Has Occured


AKC



www.apps.akc.org


----------



## drunkenpoacher (Dec 20, 2016)

We need a distraction……….Take it away Randy


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

drunkenpoacher said:


> We need a distraction……….Take it away Randy


So much to do over a “pelt” from over 25 years ago


----------



## Paul "Happy" Gilmore (Aug 4, 2021)

Marv you're getting so popular they be bringing back up stuff from the early 2000's! 🤣 it's funny because most folks wouldn't want that happening. Rumor mill could churn out some fine grade flour.


----------



## Ed Wojciechowski (Sep 15, 2021)

paul young said:


> If someone wants to look up my AKC judging record, ZF390, they will see that you are lying. On purpose. On a public Forum. Out of spite. Official records don't lie. -Paul
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is Marv's website still up and if so whta secret code ?


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> Marv you're getting so popular they be bringing back up stuff from the early 2000's!
> 🤣 it's funny because most folks wouldn't want that happening.
> Rumor mill could churn out some fine grade flour.


Those with clean records don't care.
The folks in the hilited line should have kept their record or lack of same quiet.
I wish Lanse were here, he would be livid about some happenings & vocal.
I no longer care, this is entertainment. I know what I know. Nothing more stupid 
than entering a discussion with no ammunition.


----------

