# How to improve hunt test judging



## HoHum's Retrievers (Mar 22, 2007)

There is always a discussion on how to improve judging. Often times on Monday morning after a challenging or failed weekend, or while in the gallery after you have had your lunch handed to you. So the question is what can YOU do to strengthen the judging pool. I have your answer...JOIN IT!

Yep, there are lots of hoops to jump through to become a hunt test judge. More hoops than most likely any other venue. And yep, the rewards usually involve driving long distances, sweating for two or three days in the mud, dirt, dust, sun, rain and mosquitos, and then hear and see many complain about the job you did or didn't do. But besides all those really great enticements, you most likely will never learn more on how to improve your own handling and training than by sitting behind the clipboard or interacting with judging colleagues. You get the opportunity to return the favor to those who have judged you and your dog as you have come up through the ranks and to pay it forward to the new crop of handlers coming along behind you.

So the first step in becoming a judge is to attend a basic seminar. They can sometimes be few and far between, but they are out there, and most are probably using an online entry service we are all familiar to get you registered. It is a day of reading and discussing the rulebook led by a field rep of the AKC. Then you can apprentice and become part of the judging pool.

What if your are a current judge who has already attended the basic seminar. Attend the AKC Advanced Judges' Seminar! Those are even fewer and farther between. The advanced seminars are two day and involve a day and a half of actually going out to a field and setting up tests and running dogs on them. The participants score the dogs and discuss the how's and why's they scored the runs the way they did. And the honchos from the AKC are there to lead the discussion and give the AKC interpretation of the rules, regulations and procedures.

For those of you in the Midwest, there is an AKC Advanced Judges' Seminar being held at the Central Minnesota Retriever Club near St. Cloud, Minnesota on April 18 and 19. It is a great club with hard workers and very supportive of all things retrievers. They have a great group of people there putting on this event to benefit the judging pool. You can find the event on EE by searching for seminars in Minnesota.

So instead of complaining about the judges and telling us all how you would do it, show us! Join us!


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

While I agree with you to some extent, everyone isn't cut out to judge much less be a good judge. Contribution is the key whether it be marshaling, shooting or just help cleaning up.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions as long as they are stated properly. Usually the type of people who complain about judges are either the type who shouldn't be judging or the type who could never get along with a co judge.

Just my .02 cents


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

See my post re: What I learned at the Hunt Test this weekend.

I have a Master dog (who has been run by a pro.) So, I've only been observing Masters Stakes. By just sitting and watching the Senior judges, I really came away with new respect for their knowledge about how advanced concepts are judged in dogs who are in the process of becoming proficient in the game.

Heck, I'd like to attend judges seminars (of whatever level) just to become more knowledgeable. But I'm curious. How many judges are not actually hunters?


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

1tulip said:


> See my post re: What I learned at the Hunt Test this weekend.
> 
> I have a Master dog (who has been run by a pro.) So, I've only been observing Masters Stakes. By just sitting and watching the Senior judges, I really came away with new respect for their knowledge about how advanced concepts are judged in dogs who are in the process of becoming proficient in the game.
> 
> Heck, I'd like to attend judges seminars (of whatever level) just to become more knowledgeable. But I'm curious. How many judges are not actually hunters?


I would guess 50-75%, but that isn't as important to me as a
Judge who understands dogs, good bird placement and is respectful to handlers and workers.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Thomas D said:


> I would guess 50-75%, but that isn't as important to me as a
> Judge who understands dogs, good bird placement and is respectful to handlers and workers.


Yes, indeed.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Good post. There is a seminar coming up 6/6/2015 in Ocala, FL for those in the sunbelt.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Who's putting that on? MFGRC?

I'm usually in a traffic back up on I75 long enough to attend a seminar.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

> But I'm curious. How many judges are not actually hunters?


Id'e rather have a judge with a small degree of common sense and dog sense over a "hunter" any day..


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

Todd Caswell said:


> Id'e rather have a judge with a small degree of common sense and dog sense over a "hunter" any day..


Hmmm. Hunt test, hmmm. Seems like a hunter would have a better idea of what happens while actually hunting rather than setting up artificial scenarios to trick dogs into thinking they are hunting. Personally I prefer hunting experience and Todd's preference all working together.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

jacduck said:


> Hmmm. Hunt test, hmmm. Seems like a hunter would have a better idea of what happens while actually hunting rather than setting up artificial scenarios to trick dogs into thinking they are hunting. Personally I prefer hunting experience and Todd's preference all working together.


Jacduck... I'm not going to disagree. My hunting has been limited only by my dislike of the taste of game, preference for avoiding duck blood and slime, unwillingness to be cold and wet in the wee-dark hours, better fashion sense than to be seen in insulated camo, and an inability to hit what I'm shooting at. Apart from that...

Here's the deal, how about more hunters get involved with HT's (or FT's) and stop settling for such low-common-denominator-dog-behavior? Honest to Pete... I don't hunt. But dad did (a LOT) and he had an abysmal opinion of the retriever breeds simply because he had more than a few days hunting ruined by his buddies' "good" dogs.

So, yes. Hunters know a great deal more about hunting scenarios. But as a species, they have almost no idea what phenomenal animals they have beside them in the boat or blind. Either that, or they find learning to train them too tedious.

Just sayin'


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

jacduck said:


> Hmmm. Hunt test, hmmm. Seems like a hunter would have a better idea of what happens while actually hunting rather than setting up artificial scenarios to trick dogs into thinking they are hunting. Personally I prefer hunting experience and Todd's preference all working together.


Regulations & Guidelines for AKC Hunting Tests for Retrievers
Chapter 1 Section 6. Judges Eligibility.

It's all there in black and white and underlined for emphasis.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

1tulip said "So, yes. Hunters know a great deal more about hunting scenarios. But as a species, they have almost no idea what phenomenal animals they have beside them in the boat or blind. Either that, or they find learning to train them too tedious."

I tend to agree mostly but not all hunters fit any mold as HT/FT folks are not all the same. I could tell story after story of my experience with 17 labs over 65 or so years. And I was really unaware of what retrievers could do until we started testing 5 years ago. But for me I had dogs that could and would do things my highly trained HT dogs do not.

And yes we give back by judging a little. I agree all should give it a try just to give back.


----------



## Kajun Kamakazi (May 17, 2011)

There are too many hoops to jump through to become a judge IMO. Even with all the obstacles, there are people in the HT judges pool that have NO business judging other people's dogs. When you have more judging assignments than entries on EE, there's a problem.


----------



## HoHum's Retrievers (Mar 22, 2007)

I agree with the statement made earlier that not everyone is cut out to be a judge. But educating yourself by attending a seminar to improve your knowledge and skills as a handler or as a judge surely won't hurt anyone. A person who believe they have no desire to be a judge may turn out really enjoying the experience and becoming very successful at it. I attended my first seminar probably 15 years ago because my home club was hosting, I could attend for free as my club would pay for me to attend and I wanted to learn more about what the judges were looking for as I was advancing in the game. Turned out I began judging. I now have over 50 points as a judge at all levels of the AKC game. I am not going to say every series I have ever set up made every handler happy, but I know there were some winners in there. I must have done something ok to have accumulated that many points, and I do really enjoy it. Those folks who don't make good judges usually get weeded out over time. Either they realize it just ins't their cup of tea or clubs quit inviting them. 

Whatever your goals, support the clubs in the country who are hosting the seminars. Judging seminars seldom make a profit. Clubs host them to provide a service to the judges and the clubs in their area to ensure there are qualified judges to adjudicate the tests offered. Here in Minnesota we are fortunate to have a well oiled machine to put on annual judges'/handlers' seminars. A number of years ago we organized most of the retriever hunt test clubs to form a statewide organization called the Greater Minnesota Hunt Test Association. The organization includes as members nearly all of the AKC, HRC and NAHRA hunt test/trial clubs in the state. Currently that has 14 member clubs, with a few from just across our borders with Wisconsin and Iowa. One of the first things we did when we organized was to set up a rotation for hosting judges' seminars so that every year there was at least one basic seminar offered someplace in the state. Currently on the even years there are two seminars planned, one in the northern part of the state and another in the southern part of the state. On the odd years we have one basic seminar, usually in a centrally located location. This year we are fortunate to be able to offer not only the basic seminar last month in Owatonna, but the advanced seminar in St. Cloud in April. We have also established a system to help financially if a club hosts a seminar so no club has to loose money to provide this service to the judges and clubs in our area. If you are interested in seeing what other activities our GMHTA organization hosts to encourage and support the retriever hunt test activities you can check out our website at gmhta.org. However the website needs to be updated for the 2015 season, but you can see what we have done in the past there.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

The greatest deterrent are the hoops it takes to become a HT judge. I don't have time to go to seminars , apprentice , etc.Judge a bunch of juniors ( nothing wrong with jr) and so on. I understand the need to know what you are doing but look at all the comments about judging poorly going on today anyway. The only way to get good dog people to come to the plate is make it worth their while and not take the great amount of time involved to qualify.
Yes, I have given back by judging FT.
Jeff


----------



## HoHum's Retrievers (Mar 22, 2007)

Kajun Kamakazi said:


> There are too many hoops to jump through to become a judge IMO. Even with all the obstacles, there are people in the HT judges pool that have NO business judging other people's dogs. When you have more judging assignments than entries on EE, there's a problem.


I agree the hoops to jump through to become a judge can be cumbersome. However, your statement about having more assignments than entries supports the need for some of those hoops. Currently a judge coming up through the system has to have experience of passing a dog at the level they wish to apprentice/judge, or a higher level, before they can complete that judging assignment. At least one of the judges of a tandem needs to have at least 4 passes at the level they are judging or higher to judge. Apprenticing at each level as you come up and judging at least twice at each level as you work your way up, in theory, will help in ensuring judges gain the experience and knowledge needed to construct and judge tests effectively.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Have seen some of the processes for dealing with judges who do something that is contrary to good sense or the rule book. It involved a Hunt Test secretary who got reasoned complaints from reasonable people, who then spoke with an AKC rep, and then sending the powers-that-be a well informed letter. At that point, the AKC can discretely try to inform/educate that judge. 

Or people can just talk amongst themselves and gripe and reinforce the notion that judges suck.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

How about enforcing the rules on judges that don't meet the AKC requirements and are still listed as judges....I know of two instances right now on EE that lists a judge that does not meet the handling requirement....


----------



## T-bone (Jul 15, 2009)

This is an interesting read and pretty valuable as I'm judging my first Junior test in two weeks. Am I cut out to be a judge? The only way I'll know is to give it my best shot! I'm nervous that I'll goof up although I have an experienced co-judge which will help. Don't think I'll ever judge above the Senior level though. Trained my own dog (with lessons) and ran him successfully from Junior up through Master. I'm really hoping that when people look at me they don't assume I'm not competent to judge their dog. My personal goal is to be fair, engaging and encouraging because that's what I want in a judge myself. Hopefully I can meet my own standards  We'll see how people judge my judging ...


----------



## Ron in Portland (Apr 1, 2006)

T-bone said:


> This is an interesting read and pretty valuable as I'm judging my first Junior test in two weeks. Am I cut out to be a judge? The only way I'll know is to give it my best shot! I'm nervous that I'll goof up although I have an experienced co-judge which will help. Don't think I'll ever judge above the Senior level though. Trained my own dog (with lessons) and ran him successfully from Junior up through Master. I'm really hoping that when people look at me they don't assume I'm not competent to judge their dog. My personal goal is to be fair, engaging and encouraging because that's what I want in a judge myself. Hopefully I can meet my own standards  We'll see how people judge my judging ...


Relax! I think that you'll do great. You're going in with the right frame of mind, you've got the experience to know good work when you see it, and besides your co-judge, you apprenticed with some great judges as well.

But I'll keep the internet tar and feathers handy, just in case it DOES go to your head. Hahahaha...


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Only problem with judging is you don't get time to run your own dogs. . Pretty much every HRC judge in our area has to judge, almost every test. It's getting better as now more people are stepping up, but... As there's only 2 tests in our area a year, these judges are making large sacrifices; in terms of ever getting to actually run-title a dog (7 tests=2.5yrs. without judging). Seems that might be the same issue with AKC as they always have the exact same judges, and NAHRA as well. Your most experienced people -best potential judges are campaining dogs; your judges that you see every weekend usually aren't. I like HRC as at least their Apprentices judges are real judges and not someone sitting observing; which seems like an extreme waste of resources. As that same person rather than observing could be running a dog & perhaps running winger, marshaling, shooting etc at the same time. I've sent in my NAHRA test, and took the AKC seminar (might make plans to apprentice this fall); that said I have a up and comer who will need to run tests. Most likely after she's done, I will have another one. Then we can't forget hunting season (Nov.-Feb), fishing, job, etc. etc. A lot of stuff to do to put in time to judge much, I applaud those who can make the time, but feel that the AKC should take out a few of the hoops, to get qualified people to judge. As it is now it takes a bunch of time to get through them and once you do; it's just about time to go through them again (have to take a seminar (within this period), have to run a dog (within this), have to judge a test(within this) etc. etc.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

jacduck said:


> Hmmm. Hunt test, hmmm. Seems like a hunter would have a better idea of what happens while actually hunting rather than setting up artificial scenarios to trick dogs into thinking they are hunting. Personally I prefer hunting experience and Todd's preference all working together.


Yep, ideally your judge will have both attributes, but if it is one or the other I'll take to judge with good dog sense over the hunter without good dog sense to judge my hunting dogs.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Labs said:


> How about enforcing the rules on judges that don't meet the AKC requirements and are still listed as judges....I know of two instances right now on EE that lists a judge that does not meet the handling requirement....


Agree 100%. There are judges out there who don't meet the handling requirement. However judges don't disclose it to the clubs and clubs don't ask.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

Thomas D said:


> Agree 100%. There are judges out there who don't meet the handling requirement. However judges don't disclose it to the clubs and clubs don't ask.


They've been notified....I'm curious if anything will be done about it...I may have to make a call or two...

The best one to me is the people that don't meet the handling requirement, asking to run someone else's dog so they can maintain their eligibility...that's the kind of crap that needs to stop...in my opinion. People who want to maintain being a judge need to be running dogs on a regular basis...they need to step to the line and be subjected to the same scrutiny. These judges that have more judging points then handling entries are a detriment, and I hope that the 7 yr requirement is enforced.


----------



## dorkweed (Apr 14, 2009)

1tulip said:


> So, yes. Hunters know a great deal more about hunting scenarios. But as a species, they have almost no idea what phenomenal animals they have beside them in the boat or blind. Either that, or they find learning to train them too tedious.
> 
> Just sayin'




Pretty broad brush there, hey???


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

I am not into JH, SH & MH but run HRC & some FT. To me it seems Very easy to judge from the sidelines.  Also very easy to judge if you are the owner of the dog-a bit biased may be some comments. And easy to be critical. Be thankful judges; judge & chalk what occurs up to experience & move on. Learn from the day! Also other have mentioned seminars etc to learn take advantage if you are inclined. Oh yes help out if you can at the test or trial. You can learn an awful lot.JMHO


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Judging can make an individual a better trainer & hander. A fair assessment of a dogs performance motivates a trainer to work on problem areas. Judging handlers repeatedly making the same mistake is motivation to critique ones own handling skills.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

fishduck said:


> Judging can make an individual a better trainer & hander. A fair assessment of a dogs performance motivates a trainer to work on problem areas. Judging handlers repeatedly making the same mistake is motivation to critique ones own handling skills.


 Good point there!


----------



## djansma (Aug 26, 2004)

How to improve judging ?
read the rule book often 
train and. Compete your own dogs
Be Fair to the dogs and handlers
stand in the field from sunrise to sunset
get wind burned and sun burned
and get beat to a pulp
but most of all have fun
with good people

david Jansma


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

As far as hunters and dogs go it is still amusing when I hunted the public grounds for Waterfowl and always found a small pile of rocks in the blind numerous times in different blinds. Hunted the grouse woods and the uplands , watched many folks try to handle dogs that obviously didn't handle. I think I would prefer to run under a judge that was very skilled in both training dogs and hunting as my first choice. My second choice would be someone who has good dog sense and a well trained retriever hunter or not. My last choice would be the rock thrower in the water to get the dog to retrieve while making wild gestures to get the dog to retriever a single duck or game bird. Most of the waterfowl hunting I have done over the years consisted on the birds falling in or around the decoys and distance of less then 40 yards , no more then a few yards apart. The Hunt Test game is a sport and a contrived sport, with hopefully well trained dogs to test their talent and training level. Kind of hard to do with the hunting scenario described.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

I would add one more thought here. If you are against a particular judge for other than interpersonal interaction put that judge on a NO list and don't attempt to run under that individual. Maybe you won't get in to other tests or qualify for MN or get that title as soon 

but at least you are TRUE to yourself.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Criquetpas said:


> As far as hunters and dogs go it is still amusing when I hunted the public grounds for Waterfowl and always found a small pile of rocks in the blind numerous times in different blinds. Hunted the grouse woods and the uplands , watched many folks try to handle dogs that obviously didn't handle. I think I would prefer to run under a judge that was very skilled in both training dogs and hunting as my first choice. My second choice would be someone who has good dog sense and a well trained retriever hunter or not. My last choice would be the rock thrower in the water to get the dog to retrieve while making wild gestures to get the dog to retriever a single duck or game bird. Most of the waterfowl hunting I have done over the years consisted on the birds falling in or around the decoys and distance of less then 40 yards , no more then a few yards apart. The Hunt Test game is a sport and a contrived sport, with hopefully well trained dogs to test their talent and training level. Kind of hard to do with the hunting scenario described.


Well said. Most of the true hunting scenarios are not good for testing. Sure, we can twist anything around to make it a hunting scenario but we have to get the needed elements into the test. One of the worst things you can hear as a handler is "this happened to us duck hunting last fall and we're going to try to re create it today"


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Thomas D said:


> Well said. Most of the true hunting scenarios are not good for testing. Sure, we can twist anything around to make it a hunting scenario but we have to get the needed elements into the test. *One of the worst things you can hear as a handler is "this happened to us duck hunting last fall and we're going to try to re create it today*"


How about " we are going to try something different today, but we will judge it accordingly".

What I appreciate is an attempt to look at a field or pond and try to set a good test in a way I might hunt the pond or field, anticipating where my ducks might be coming from and how I might shoot at them, trying to place birds where a dog won't want to go, but realistic enough that it could occur naturally. That is the best I can hope to do.

Doesn't always work out.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

My vote is for the well rounded individual that trains & hunts. Still a few out there.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Golddogs said:


> How about " we are going to try something different today, but we will judge it accordingly".
> 
> What I appreciate is an attempt to look at a field or pond and try to set a good test in a way I might hunt the pond or field, anticipating where my ducks might be coming from and how I might shoot at them, trying to place birds where a dog won't want to go, but realistic enough that it could occur naturally. That is the best I can hope to do.
> 
> Doesn't always work out.


I like that approach. The reality is 90% of the birds our dogs retrieve in actual hunting are super simple 20 yards out in the decoy retrieves. What we need to train and test on is the other 10% that falls in hard to get to locations and or need to be handled to.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

3 birds dumped in the decoys at 40 yds and a blind right thru them at 150 yds.
That's hunting but not necessarily a good test.
Oh I forgot, sluce all three in the decoys.


----------



## T-bone (Jul 15, 2009)

"_Relax! I think that you'll do great. You're going in with the right frame of mind, you've got the experience to know good work when you see it, and besides your co-judge, you apprenticed with some great judges as well.

But I'll keep the internet tar and feathers handy, just in case it DOES go to your head. Hahahaha..."
_
Hopefully there'll be no tar and feathering but I guess if I deserve it bring it on! I do think I've been taught well from my beginnings to now AND I hunt!

You'll have to give me honest feedback when it's all said and done.


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> 3 birds dumped in the decoys at 40 yds and a blind right thru them at 150 yds.
> That's hunting but not necessarily a good test.
> Oh I forgot, sluce all three in the decoys.


ee's your test

Actually, sounds rather exciting. Why don't you think it wouldn't be a good test...marks too short? No problemo...NO Fido off the marks and run the blind first. There's your test.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Getting ideas for next week........

The honor would be fun.


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> Getting ideas for next week........
> 
> The honor would be fun.


Oh oh...forgot about that test. Glad I'm in C

Could do an extended honor...maybe I won't go there....


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

> ee's your test
> 
> Actually, sounds rather exciting. Why don't you think it wouldn't be a good test...marks too short? No problemo...NO Fido off the marks and run the blind first. There's your test.


Because those aren't "marks" there distractions to see if the dog will sit there BIG difference..


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Mike Berube said:


> ee's your test
> 
> Actually, sounds rather exciting. Why don't you think it wouldn't be a good test...marks too short? No problemo...NO Fido off the marks and run the blind first. There's your test.



Oh, it would be exciting.....

Crappy test.

Handler takes 30 seconds to 'no' dog off the birds in the decoys. then the dog has to swim 300 yards in order to complete the blind. That takes around 4 minutes, IF the dog were to line the blind, so add another minute. WE ARE NOW APROACHING 6 MINUTES AND THE MARKS ARE NO LONGER WHERE THEY LANDED DUE TO THE WIND AND OR THE DOG PADDLING AROUND RESPONDING TO THE WHISTLE AND CORRECTING IT'S LINE AS DIRECTED! So, More handling. figure 10 minutes per dog with re-birds. And we squandered a chance to TRULY judge the dog's marking and memory. We will likely have so much graphite on the paper that judging the field's work in a consistent and fair manner is fair to poor. That is, except for the abject failures.....

Now, I know Tom wouldn't want to preside over a cluster like this. He has too much judging experience to set this up. But someone like Mike, who is not a judge, just might. And then wonder what the hell is going on.......-Paul


----------



## Mike Perry (Jun 26, 2003)

Leave the creativity and the real hunting scenarios at home. Put out 2 or 3 good marks to test marking and a good blind (or 2) to test control. 
Waste your own time during the week, not mine and everyone else's on the weekend. You are there to test to the standard, not to impress the gallery and handlers. 
A decent test ought to be able to be done in 3-4 minutes max.
MP


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Mike Perry said:


> Leave the creativity and the real hunting scenarios at home. Put out 2 or 3 good marks to test marking and a good blind (or 2) to test control.
> Waste your own time during the week, not mine and everyone else's on the weekend. You are there to test to the standard, not to impress the gallery and handlers.
> A decent test ought to be able to be done in 3-4 minutes max.
> MP



Our tests in the Northeast are seldom that short, Mike. lunging water is a rarity up here. More like 6 minutes for a water test. But I agree with the rest of your post.-Paul


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

dorkweed said:


> Pretty broad brush there, hey???


Mea culpa. Very broad. 

I'll be open minded about hunters as a species. Hope hunters in the dog game will cut non-hunters a little slack. Cuz, I'm not fooling anyone when I fumble with the dern Quaker gun.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

If the Hunt Test Judging requirements were not so restrictive there may be more people in the judging pool.
Example Pro's can judge HT's. More than 1 Pro has stated they think it would be fun to judge a HT.
Now these are not some muckity mucks who just hung a shingle. These are the boys still playing on a Saturday in November.
But they are not "eligible"
Some sort waiver should be made for knowledge, experience, and tenure.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

When did pro's become ineligible? Huh? I'm confused.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

AKC needs to take the selection of candidates and the education out of the hands of the clubs and centralize it, while making the time investment and number of hoops to be jumped through much lower. 

It was a pain in the ass enough when I qualified to be a MH judge under the old rule. I had to let that lapse for professional and personal reasons and there's absolutely NO WAY I'm going through the current process in the near future. 

Get a small group of seasoned people together and pay them to put on seminars, mentor judges and approve them for action.

Much less who knows who and who judge's a certain way... centralize the education and make it more consistent.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

It is always a good idea to check rule book. Pros can judge HT.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

1tulip said:


> When did pro's become ineligible? Huh? I'm confused.


They are not "eligible" because they won't or don't want to jump through the hoops of becoming a judge. 

Here is my issue with folks that think it's too much of a pain to judge at the lower levels...don't the lower levels deserve to have good, knowledgeable dog people judging them? Why does everyone think they should automatically be able to judge Master, or only want to judge Master? Could there be a waiver for the apprenticeship?...possibly, but who is going to police that? I support the handling requirement and I support having to judge twice at the lower levels before moving to the next, because the sentiment that I get from some posting on here, is that clubs will never see you judging at the lower levels once you've moved up to Master...


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

DarrinGreene said:


> AKC needs to take the selection of candidates and the education out of the hands of the clubs and centralize it, while making the time investment and number of hoops to be jumped through much lower.
> 
> It was a pain in the ass enough when I qualified to be a MH judge under the old rule. I had to let that lapse for professional and personal reasons and there's absolutely NO WAY I'm going through the current process in the near future.
> 
> ...


Ditto x 2 !!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Thomas D said:


> It is always a good idea to check rule book. Pros can judge HT.


Reread my post. Well aware that pros can judge. What I meant was as Darren stated the hoops required to become eligible to judge keep the most knowledgeable people from judging. Solely based on the time required to attend seminar, apprentice, blah blah.


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

I would be interested in having Darren spell out specifics of his ideas.

Pros can and do judge. Check out Wisconsin Amateur Field Trial Club 2015 Spring Hunt Test & Owner/Handler Qualifying for just two (husband and wife) that come to mind right now. I have run across quite a few more.

Those that do judge or jump through the hoops do it not for fame, money or respect but mostly to give back to the sport. I can think of no other axe to grind if you are getting into judging. 

Some of the "expert opinions" owners should jump through hoops. 

A smart man told me years ago "if you don't like the system join in and make changes". That was about politics but applies here as well. Of course I was bitching about local politics at the time but the point was well taken.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Thomas D said:


> It is always a good idea to check rule book. Pros can judge HT.


Sorry I misread your post. However, we shouldn't treat pros any different. Change rules for all or none. I think pros usually set up good tests.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Although some might call it jumping thru hoops I think the current system is good. From what I've seen and heard we need some pro judging of the JH/SH. They shouldn't feel they are above it. As a matter of fact it would be a good idea for every MH judge to have to judge a JH/SH once in awhile.


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Thomas D said:


> Although some might call it jumping thru hoops I think the current system is good. From what I've seen and heard we need some pro judging of the JH/SH. They shouldn't feel they are above it. As a matter of fact it would be a good idea for every MH judge to have to judge a JH/SH once in awhile.


I agree but we are in an era of the " entitlement mindset ' and many folks do not think they should come up in the ranks. Learning the basics in Jr and Sr is , IMO, only good for the judge, handler and sport. It won't make everyone a better judge, but it helps.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Sometimes I think we have it backwards. Higher level dogs should be able to overcome the rookie mistakes most often made by new judges. But instead we place these new judges with the dogs most likely to be tricked, misled and influenced by these mistakes.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Should members of the RHOF be made to attend a seminar and apprentice ? How about people that have judged the Natl. Open or Natl. Amat. ?

How about they take the test and that suffices based on 50 years of experiences in hunting, training, trialing, and judging ? 

Fine if they have to judge, Jr. then Sr. then Master.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

Not sure I understand are we mixing HT and FT?


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Golddogs said:


> I agree but we are in an era of the " entitlement mindset ' and many folks do not think they should come up in the ranks. Learning the basics in Jr and Sr is , IMO, only good for the judge, handler and sport. It won't make everyone a better judge, but it helps.


Frankly, I strongly disagree! 
I've run and passed 1 junior test in my entire life and over 100 Master tests. I don't have a good feel for what the "standard" is or ought to be for a junior test. 

Setting up a junior is nothing like a Master. 

Scoring a junior is Nothing like scoring a master. In fact, I think most that learn to score each mark like a junior have trouble understanding scoring of a multiple marking situation. You can't just average the 3 marks.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Doug Main said:


> Frankly, I strongly disagree!
> I've run and passed 1 junior test in my entire life and over 100 Master tests. I don't have a good feel for what the "standard" is or ought to be for a junior test.
> 
> Setting up a junior is nothing like a Master.
> ...


Doug 

Do you like the current system of qualification to judge a HT?
If not, how would you improve it?

I took a HT Judging Seminar out of curiosity. I liked the concept of requiring people to attend a seminar and demonstrate a working knowledge of the Rule Book, and wish that we had something similar in FT. As for apprenticeship, it seemed a bit onerous, although I also like the concept of having to apprentice.

Anyway, would be interested in your thoughts

Ted


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

The only change I would make with the new rule, is the apprentice should be an actual judge. Pair them up with an 6pt judge. HRC has always had their apprentice as the second judge. Much easier to get people to judge if they know their voice counts. I like that the judges need to get back on the line with a dog. IF you have not run a dog in 10-15 yrs, things change and you need to feel what the handlers are feeling. And as someone else stated, it really should be there own dog not someone else's. They need to be out training some also. I know that by handling my dog thru master it has made me look at things a little different and I do believe it has made me a better judge. Some might not agree but they also do not have to run under me.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Ted Shih said:


> Doug
> 
> Do you like the current system of qualification to judge a HT?
> If not, how would you improve it?


Not the one addressed but
1) I'd require a potential judge to have Ran and Titled a dog in the particular stake they wish to judge (ran as in every test not ran one test and a pro ran the others) 
2) I'd get rid of the apprenticeship as being just observing, instead make an apprentice a judge (save club $ and manpower, if a person has ran and titled in a stake they know enough about the requirements of the stake to begin judging that stake(with-guidance). The other judge is required to have a certain # of judging points in the stake to be able to carry-instruct an apprentice judge. Experienced Judge must sign off on an apprentice judge, after completion of the judging assignment; if not the apprentice judge doesn't receive a point and another apprenticeship is required with another full point judge.
3)Keep the Seminar requirement, but make seminar available online, power point with mini quizzes in each section to ensure an applicant has actually digested the material (as many continuing education requirements in the modern age). Even rule-book discussions could be done this way, by people across the country with an online course format. Would require way more interaction than just sitting in class and falling asleep to instructor droning on and on ; would also allow people to do the seminar in their own home on their own time table.
4) Keep the needs to run a dog in the stake every 7yrs. requirement; which keeps judges active in the sport.
5) Keep re-take/updating judging status by either retaking online seminar or online test; every few years. Required updates for new rule changes, to maintain judging status.
6) Require judge to post a picture of his-her dog and themselves while "hunting" in AKC judges profile, for everyone to see. Updates appreciated, wouldn't want to be one of those judges who went hunting once in 19 dickty three, back when we had hair & could still fit into that tiger striped Camo .


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> Doug
> 
> Do you like the current system of qualification to judge a HT?
> If not, how would you improve it?
> ...


I think the current requirements are onerous in the amount of commitment needed (seminars, apprenticeships and judging at each level before the next higher level, etc.) and lacking on the requirements of having actual hunting, handling experience and dog knowledge.

I liked the old system from when I first started where you had to judge with an 8 pt judge at that level to be judged, and previously attended a seminar or apprenticed. That was an apprentice program. Now they've watered it down to 6 pts., but added the apprentice requirement.

I also like the HRC requirement that you had to have trained, handled and passed a dog at the level to be judged. (I actually think the minimum experience should be trained, handled and titled a dog at the level to be judged.)


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Revisions:

- Seminar: Required once prior to taking the written test and first assignment
- Apprenticeship: Only if the person has not qualified a dog at that level of higher.
- Renewal: Mandatory online written test every 5 years. 

Imho this would help with the retention of the most experienced judges as well encourage more people get involved in judging. Keeping experienced people is essential. Mandating seminars for veteran judges discourages them from donating their time. It then becomes easier for them to become ineligible rather than saying No. 
Make it easier for them to stay eligible.

JMO

Tim


----------



## Doug Main (Mar 26, 2003)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Not the one addressed but
> 1) I'd require a potential judge to have Ran and Titled a dog in the particular stake they wish to judge (ran as in every test not ran one test and a pro ran the others)
> 2) I'd get rid of the apprenticeship as being just observing, instead make an apprentice a judge (save club $ and manpower, if a person has ran and titled in a stake they know enough about the requirements of the stake to begin judging that stake(with-guidance). The other judge is required to have a certain # of judging points in the stake to be able to carry-instruct an apprentice judge. Judges must sign off on an apprentice judge, after completion of the judging assignment; if not the apprentice judge doesn't receive a point and another apprenticeship is required with high point judge.
> 3)Keep the Seminar requirement, but make seminar available online, power point with mini quizzes in each section to ensure an applicant has actually digested the material (as many continuing education requirements in the modern age). Even rule-book discussions could be done this way, by people across the country with an online course format. Would require way more interaction than just sitting in class and falling asleep to instructor droning on and on .
> ...


Yep pretty similar. ;-)

I despise the requirement of judging the lower levels before judging Master. You aren't required to do it to title a dog why make a judge? I know several extremely knowledgeable dog people, and very good judges (on the FT side) that have run master tests and would judge master tests but won't jump through all the hoops. I don't blame them. I don't know that I would if I had it to do all over again.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Karen Klotthor said:


> The only change I would make with the new rule, is the apprentice should be an actual judge. Pair them up with an 6pt judge. HRC has always had their apprentice as the second judge. Much easier to get people to judge if they know their voice counts.


Agreed at least in concept. I judged a Q back in October with a very knowledgeable co-judge for my first judging assignment. It may sound silly, but it gave me a real boost when I called out my first 5 dogs in order and they matched his.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Doug Main said:


> I think the current requirements are onerous in the amount of commitment needed (seminars, apprenticeships and judging at each level before the next higher level, etc.) and lacking on the requirements of having actual hunting, handling experience and dog knowledge.
> 
> I liked the old system from when I first started where you had to judge with an 8 pt judge at that level to be judged, and previously attended a seminar or apprenticed. That was an apprentice program. Now they've watered it down to 6 pts., but added the apprentice requirement.
> 
> I also like the HRC requirement that you had to have trained, handled and passed a dog at the level to be judged. (I actually think the minimum experience should be trained, handled and titled a dog at the level to be judged.)


I agree with this approach. I have handled two dogs through Junior, Senior and Master titles, I have judged a ton of field trials at all levels, and I have taken two AKC HT judging seminars, yet when my home club was desperate for master hunt test judges, I couldn't help because I hadn't apprenticed or judged HT at a lower level. I just wanted to help the club and feel I know enough to have put on a fine test, but I couldn't. I am so busy running FTs every weekend I can, plus judging at least twice a year and still working, that it is not feasible for me to jump through the additional hoops required by AKC.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Doug Main said:


> Yep pretty similar. ;-)
> 
> I despise the requirement of judging the lower levels before judging Master. You aren't required to do it to title a dog why make a judge? .


I don't understand that either, if you've titled in a stake you've had at least 4 or 5 apprenticeships (with a 100% pass rate); which most don't do with every dog, particularly their first. I believe my number was significantly higher, particularly in masters, but I sure do have a working knowledge of the rules . I wouldn't want the only ever ran MH people judging JH or SH unless they have put the time to title a dog in the stake. If you haven't put in the sweat and tears to get your dog through; I really don't feel you have right to judge others people dogs who are putting in the effort. Judging the lower stakes, shouldn't be something that you simply push though so you can judge; finished-masters. The stakes should have their own worth and have judges who have lived and thus appreciate the requirements. I've titled in all of them, but still I will admit that it required a change in mentality to go back and judge lower stakes. Very fun to do, but you do have to have an experienced in the lower stakes co-judge to throw reins on your crazy setups; after you've been used to only running the upper stakes for several years .


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

So, even though I have a 7 year old MH who (once) qualified to run the MN... it was all bought and paid for because a pro did all the work and all the handling. I was a spectator when I wasn't helping the training group. So in a way, I'm brand new at this (with a new turbo-charged, high roller pup... dear God!) but have also studied about and witnessed a whole lot of the game. 

A friend of mine is in the same boat, but she has had a chance to attend a seminar and apprentice in junior (I have not, yet.) _She said that watching junior dogs and junior handlers gave her a shocking amount of perspective. I recently just observed a Senior stake after so many years hanging out around the Master. It was a true eye-opener for me._ Therefore, I would humbly submit that anyone who has been inhabiting the Master stake for any period of time should absolutely cycle through the junior and senior stakes before they rise in the ranks to Master stake judges. 

And I have a question for some of the other folks posting here. If you say that a person who would judge a Master stake should have "trained and titled their own dog"... what metric would you use for "trained." In our little training circle, dogs sometimes go to the pro to get over a hump or dry-patch, or the owners for some reason have to do other things and put the dog with the pro for a period of time. They might even be unable to go to a particular HT due to obligations at home and may let the pro run their dog that weekend. But the dogs are not strictly speaking "truck dogs." So what constitutes "Training and titling their own dog"?

I think this sort of requirement could be tough to enforce fairly.


----------



## stonybrook (Nov 18, 2005)

Here's the system I'd suggest for HT judging eligibility:

1. Handled a dog to a title - a dog you actually own - earning all required qualifications to earn title(s)

2. Attend seminar (an improved version from what the AKC puts on now - that being said, the advanced seminars are far superior - highly recommend attending one)

3. Take test (on-line version would be great) - getting results of which questions you got wrong would be useful

4. Apprentice at Master level (since generally the most experienced folks are judging Master, seems appropriate that is where you'd apprentice). Not necessary to apprentice additional times at other levels. Must apprentice under at least one fully pointed judge and judges may not have a new judge and an apprentice with them at the same judging assignment.

5. Now are qualified to judge any level you've successfully titled a dog at or lower.

6. First judging assignment at any/all levels would require judging with a fully pointed judge (currently 8 points)

7. Judging team required to have 6 total points (since both will have titled a dog at that level, and gone through all of the above, 6 points seems more than adequate). 

8. Handle a dog you own (not conveniently co-own, wink, wink) to at least one qualification every 5 years at level to be judged or higher. Somebody (AKC) should have to track this for clubs. Shouldn't be left to clubs to play detective on when a judge last earned a ribbon.

9. Attend seminar or re-take test every 5 years from date of last attended or re-taken test. If judges want to go to seminar every year, the time period would always be 5 years from date of last seminar attended (or test re-taken)


All seems pretty simple to me.


----------



## Sundown49 aka Otey B (Jan 3, 2003)

fishduck said:


> Sometimes I think we have it backwards. Higher level dogs should be able to overcome the rookie mistakes most often made by new judges. But instead we place these new judges with the dogs most likely to be tricked, misled and influenced by these mistakes.


my thoughts exactly. That is the reason I have stayed with Juniors and Seniors.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

There are folks who judge only Junior and/or senior tests. Without jumping over to field trial judging,although both venues suffer from the same judging issues. Over the years have ran many Master Hunt Tests with probably 6 or 7 dogs all amateur trained and handled. I have never put a Junior title on a dog, but, have run a few as a getting ready for the derby maybe a couple of legs and used it as training. Have judged one Junior and I think 3 seniors, about 20 Masters give or take a few. There are folks in my opinion that should run and be proficient in the stake they are judging. As Doug indicated setting up a Junior stake is nothing even close to a Master. The problem with judging the Master is folks come with a "creative agenda" and/or a rulebook and either proceed to set up tests that they will be remembered by, good or bad, or beat folks over the head with the rulebook as technocrats. As others have indicated there are many hoops that have to be jumped to even judge the AKC Hunt Test stakes. Therefore you are getting the same folks called upon to judge and there are folks that would be very capable if they could judge. Bottom line unless folks step up and jump through the hoops, get certified, it will be the same old same old, up to and including the Master National level, in my opinion. It's easy to be complainer, but, if you don't step up, then you have lost your voice to complain.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

Criquetpas said:


> It's easy to be complainer, but, if you don't step up, then you have lost your voice to complain.


Thanks for that. Worth repeating and applies to the whole list of whines and complaints.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

Sundown49 aka Otey B said:


> my thoughts exactly. That is the reason I have stayed with Juniors and Seniors.


Thank you Otey!


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Wish lists for judges requirements take too long and are left up to the clubs to oversee.

We are in a crisis situation for judges now. I feel there should be a fast track for Master judges who the clubs know of their members who train and run their dogs successfully at the level and would be good stepping into the role of judge for a weekend. 

Perhaps after a seminar, the judge with the recommendation of their club sent into AKC can apprentice and then become judges, just like it was just a few years ago.


----------



## djansma (Aug 26, 2004)

How about just send me a rule book whenever there are
changes in stead of the test every 4 years with questions 
on the test that a judge is not required to know to judge
David Jansma


----------



## Rip Shively (Sep 5, 2007)

Couldn't agree more with you Dave having recently taken the test for I believe the fourth time. Still doesn't make any sense to me why the HT program requires periodic re-testing and the FT program does not.


----------



## T-bone (Jul 15, 2009)

fishduck said:


> Sometimes I think we have it backwards. Higher level dogs should be able to overcome the rookie mistakes most often made by new judges. But instead we place these new judges with the dogs most likely to be tricked, misled and influenced by these mistakes.


I think that's why it is the responsibility of a new judge to do their best to co-judge with a judge that is not only experienced, but one that has the ability to teach for the betterment of the sport rather than a personal agenda.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Is it necessary to draw a distinction btw training and titling a dog at the level verses just titling at the level? I have nothing against people using pros, but I feel to judge they need to have put the title on themselves. If you can get enough passes on a dog to earn a title, particularly in SH & MH you are a handler. Not sure why you have to have trained the dog yourself to that level. Very few if any handlers can just pull any dog out of a truck, run and pass a dog multiple times (enough to title), without having training experience with dogs, and intensive training with the particular dog they title. Heck not many Pro that would attempt to do that without training the dog for significant time before they ran them. You might luck through one test, but unless you have a working relationship with the dog your not going to be able to be consistent enough to title it, unless you train it.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

I think a beginner judge should begin with the basics... judge the junior and senior. WITH a salty judge to actually guide the process. JMOFWIW.

But again... my question is, how are you going to determine which person has, in fact, "trained" their own dog. Suppose a tight knit training group enjoys a relationship with a pro. Also suppose that a lot of the dogs have gone through FF and the basics with that pro or another somewhere else. Additionally, imagine that over the course of time, some of the members have needed to take time for other things (like family crises, or jobs that take them oot) OR, have asked the pro to take the dog for a few months to solve a wrinkle here or there. 

BUT, by the time the dog reaches the Master stake, most of the group members are training and handling their own dogs. 

Would you say that these people should not be judges?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

1tulip said:


> I think a beginner judge should begin with the basics... judge the junior and senior. WITH a salty judge to actually guide the process. JMOFWIW.
> 
> But again... my question is, how are you going to determine which person has, in fact, "trained" their own dog. Suppose a tight knit training group enjoys a relationship with a pro. Also suppose that a lot of the dogs have gone through FF and the basics with that pro or another somewhere else. Additionally, imagine that over the course of time, some of the members have needed to take time for other things (like family crises, or jobs that take them oot) OR, have asked the pro to take the dog for a few months to solve a wrinkle here or there.
> 
> ...


I think the problem isn't solved by creating more rules on who can judge or what they need to do in order to judge, it is solved by clubs recognizing good potential judges and giving them a chance. Some people possess good judgment by nature. Some people are more level headed and have common sense. Some have great dog sense. If you are in a position to recognize those qualities in a training partner or other club member, it is up to you to encourage that person and get him on the road to judging. 

Regarding judging experience, at least in field trials, I'm in the camp that believes it is better to put more experienced judges in the derby and qualifying stakes. Those stakes are very hard to set up just right test, not too easy and not too hard. I think placing a talented but inexperienced judge with a good mentor type in the all age works well.


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

djansma said:


> How about just send me a rule book whenever there are
> changes in stead of the test every 4 years with questions
> on the test that a judge is not required to know to judge
> David Jansma


Amen to that. I just took mine again and at least 1/3 of the questions has nothing to do with judging. Not our problem to know what the hunt test sec. needs to do. At least once you have been to 2 seminars and have taken the test you do not need to give up another day for the seminar again.


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

Is there a standardized basic judging seminar? Or does it vary based upon who teaches it?

Who teaches the basic seminars? Or, put another way, if a club decides to put on a judging seminar... from what pool do they select a speaker? Is it any judge with a certain number of points? Or does AKC have a list of "accredited judging seminar faculty"?

I ask because... I'm wondering if these faculty have any say so in the items on the test. Based upon what some people have said, seems like there are a lot of nit-picky questions.

I can imagine that the advanced seminars are much more variable because the attendees do set ups and see dogs run them.


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

AKC Field Reps put on the seminars. You should know who yours is out there.


----------



## Mike Berube (Feb 8, 2003)

paul young said:


> Oh, it would be exciting.....
> 
> Crappy test.
> 
> ...


First:
Your math is all wrong. What about the occaisonal no bird/s, and certainly some breaks, which will require p/u dog/s and or a boat. Let's not forget the lunch break because we'll be here for a long, long, time.
Second:
Anyone with half a brain could easily see my attempt at humor, as evidenced by that yellow smiley thing at the end of my response to Tom's post, but you had to take a cheap shot...Bravo Paul. In considering the source, I am not surprised.
Third:
Go have yourself a nice day.


----------

