# RAC - Pros Judging



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Nothing against the RAC members but this idea has been floated for years. It appears to be another band aid 
approach to the various initiatives they have presented to improve judging. & when it works no better than all 
the other new rules they have instituted where will they be? Again, the ruling class takes the easy way out . 

There are excellent dog people who are also fine judges that judge minimal trials, then a National & disappear!
After they have placed numerous times. Maybe a minimum consideration regarding trials judged/awards received 
prior to the National assignment might place more willing to step forward for the weekend trials. 

As I said to Bill Totten many years ago, name one legitimate reason a pro would want to judge? 

The Canadians use people who no longer compete but maintain an interest in the sport quite effectively. 

I've asked people that were excellent dog people & fair judges why they did not judge more - standard answer - 
No one asked & they had enough on their plate without looking for other things. Possibly a judges availability list?

& lastly, we already have a lot of people making a lot of money from the sport who call themselves Amateurs that 
presently judge, haven't noticed that helping anything or anyone but themselves .


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Pros judging is not a good idea. It's bad enough having clients judging their pros all the time. 
Plus any pro worth their salt will be running trials and training, no time for judging. 
If anyone wants a pro to judge have them declare Amateur status and have at it.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Breck said:


> Pros judging is not a good idea. It's bad enough having clients judging their pros all the time.
> Plus any pro worth their salt will be running trials and training, no time for judging.
> If anyone wants a pro to judge have them declare Amateur status and have at it.


all of this ^^^^^^^

IMO one of the biggest misconceptions is that people who aren't actively campaigning a dog have somehow " lost the ability or privilege to judge or are out of touch with judging trials"....just because they are out of the game doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to contribute to the game


----------



## Migillicutty (Jan 11, 2014)

Coming from decades of competing in national level performance horse events, the idea of pros NOT judging was completely foreign to me when I got involved in tests/trials. That sport is dominated by pro judges that not only give up a couple weekends a year to judge, but also give up a weekend every other year to attend a judges seminar and test to maintain their judges card. Yep it's a different world, and I know the old school thinking is not to have pros judging, but the judging clients(by rule they shouldn't be allowed to), not having a weekend or two a year just don't seem like valid reasons. I'm not saying Ams can't judge, they should as well, but who better to give back to the sport and knows the game the best than pros who make a living off of it.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

*First*, there is a shortage of qualified judges. Anyone disputing this should review the April 2014 issue of the Retriever News and the article entitled "Too Many Trials ... Not Enough Judges"

*Second*, I believe that the addition of pros to the judging pool would be a welcome one.

*Third*, the primary concern that people bring against pros judging - that they would be biased - is something that is present in the amateur ranks, too.

I would expect that just as is true with amateurs, there would be good pro judges and bad pro judges.

*Finally,* until someone judges, I don't think that he/she understands how much work judging is. I think it is good for anyone - including pros - to judge. Then when you are inclined to complain about - tests, help, callbacks, etc - you might exercise some restraint.


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

Pro's judging client dogs would be as simple of a rule as the current rule of not being allowed to judge a dog you or your immediate family has owned in the last calendar year. Or that coupled with possibly the pro could not judge in his or her time zone. Ted is a client, would you mind if your pro took a weekend or 2 out of training to judge?


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

I would be much less worried about the pro judge being influenced by who is running a dog than I would be of the average client judge (with the client's pro in the same trial).


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Daren Galloway said:


> Pro's judging client dogs would be as simple of a rule as the current rule of not being allowed to judge a dog you or your immediate family has owned in the last calendar year. Or that coupled with possibly the pro could not judge in his or her time zone. Ted is a client, would you mind if your pro took a weekend or 2 out of training to judge?


​No, I would not mind at all.


----------



## Karen Klotthor (Jul 21, 2011)

Ted Shih said:


> *First*, there is a shortage of qualified judges. Anyone disputing this should review the April 2014 issue of the Retriever News and the article entitled "Too Many Trials ... Not Enough Judges"
> 
> *Second*, I believe that the addition of pros to the judging pool would be a welcome one.
> 
> ...


This in a nutshell. Unless you have judged, most really do not understand what goes in it. I do not think there are very many clients out there judging their on pros.. IF so they cannot legally judge their pro until that pro has not trained any of their dogs in the past 12 months.


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

Karen Klotthor said:


> IF so they cannot legally judge their pro until that pro has not trained any of their dogs in the past 12 months.


The Rulebook does not support this claim. Chapter 14 Rules For Retriever Trials, Section 3, Page 18 "_Any person asked to judge anOpen, Limited, Special or Restricted Stake in which it islikely that a professional with whom the person has had atraining relationship for compensation within the precedingyear will be handling dogs should use care before acceptingthe invitation and should, if possible, seek to judge theaccompanying amateur all-age stake." _


----------



## T-Pines (Apr 17, 2007)

Daren Galloway said:


> The Rulebook does not support this claim. Chapter 14 Rules For Retriever Trials, Section 3, Page 18 "_Any person asked to judge anOpen, Limited, Special or Restricted Stake in which it islikely that a professional with whom the person has had atraining relationship for compensation within the precedingyear will be handling dogs should use care before acceptingthe invitation and should, if possible, seek to judge theaccompanying amateur all-age stake." _


Daren, I suspect that paragraph is in there so that Judges, participants and the FTC don't have to deal with the hassle of facing this rule when the trial opens for entries:

Chapter 14, Section 2



> A	dog	is	not	eligible	to	be	entered	or	to	compete in	any licensed	or	member	trial	in	any	stake,	if	a Judge	of	that	stake	or	any	member	of	his	family	has owned,	sold,	held	under	lease,	boarded	(except	as	a veterinarian	incidental	to	veterinary	care),	or	trained the	dog,	or	handled	the	dog	at	more	than	two	trials, within	one	year	prior	to	the	starting	date	of	the	field trial,	or	if	a	Judge	or	any	member	of	his	family	holds a	direct	financial	interest	contingent	upon	the	dog’s performance.


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Ted Shih said:


> *First*, there is a shortage of qualified judges. Anyone disputing this should review the April 2014 issue of the Retriever News and the article entitled "Too Many Trials ... Not Enough Judges"
> 
> *Second*, I believe that the addition of pros to the judging pool would be a welcome one.
> 
> ...


I agree with you.
Honesty and competence have little to do with pro vs amateur.

There are many valid reasons why pros would not want to judge.
if they agree to do so, mostly it will be to give back to the sport.


----------



## Daren Galloway (Jun 28, 2012)

T-Pines said:


> Daren, I suspect that paragraph is in there so that Judges, participants and the FTC don't have to deal with the hassle of facing this rule when the trial opens for entries:
> 
> Chapter 14, Section 2


A pro client relationship does not fall under "any member of his family", which is defined as spouse, sibling, child or grandparents I believe. It has nothing to do with dogs handled by the same person that handles their dog. I know of cases in my VERY short exposure to this sport where clients have judged the pro they use or have used, just not their dog. Ethical? Probably depends on the judge, I would HOPE most would be, but it is certainly not against the rules, unless I'm missing something?


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Agree with Ted & Ms. Kaiser, they make good points.l


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

I think the pro-client judging thing and bias in general is a little overblown. If you judge at all on your circuit or, frankly any circuit where they know you well enough to invite you to judge, you are going to know the participants.

Sure, you don't take an open when your pro is going to run or likely to run, so you take the AM, where you know just about everyone on the circuit quite well and some of them will be close friends or training partners. You judge a derby where a top young dog pro, which whom you had a young a few years ago, runs 10 dogs and he sweeps the placements. However, he does that pretty frequently, because of the quality and number of his dogs. Would it have made a difference if you dropped out when you saw his entries?

I think judges do an excellent job of sticking to the number on their sheets and judging the work. I usually don't know who won until the ribbons are handed out myself. I know it happens, but I have never even had big arguments with a co-judge about placements, much less one where I thought some sort of bias was coming into the equation.

I would expect that pros would be no different than amateurs in this regard. One side benefit is that if a pro gives up a couple of weekends and doesn't run trials to judge (as opposed to having an assistant run the dogs) it would also free up the amateur clients for those weekends, further increasing the potential judging pool.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

"I think the pro-client judging thing and bias in general is a little overblown. If you judge at all on your circuit or, frankly any circuit where they know you well enough to invite you to judge, you are going to know the participants."
I agree that there would probably be little bias if pros agree to judge. Judge the number/dog not the person. I was very fortunate to have my first Retriever trial judging experience with someone who mentored me well and we came up at the end with just about the same dogs.Minor discussion at the end and made the right choices. I would support pros judging if allowed.

Jeff


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

I am certainly not a field trialer but feel pros should judge. Excluding this knowledgable, competent group from the judging pool is counterproductive.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Most of the old guard that Marvin refers to as the ruling class is vehemently opposed to professional dog trainers serving as field trial judges so for now it is an argument that is a waste of good breathable air.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

I'm all for Pros judging, if they're judging their not running, less dogs to run against (LOL) 

Still I can see the whole judging clients dilemma. Now AKC does have stipulations on judging in all it's other venues, that a people cannot run a dog under a judge has actively trained that dog in the last year. IMO the idea of not letting pros judge because they might give placements to clients; is just as likely as amateur judges giving placements to particular pros or training buddies; which doesn't seem to be that much of a concern, in the current system . 

Simple fact is, if someone (pro or amateur) wishes to be corrupt, they will be corrupt; and it's the clubs who decides on judges, if they choose to have corrupt ones, it can affect who goes to their trials, and their bottom line. I'm more of the opinion that a Pro, who has a reputation to maintain, would be more likely to be over judgmental, and harder on clients thus less likely to place them, which is equally unfair, as giving away placements. 

Another Simple fact of it is FT's are in need of judges (From trial to trial it always the same ones, no wonder they burn out). I also seriously doubt many FT pros, will be taking time off (from what they get paid to do) to Judge events (which they'd have to do for free). However the way it's setup now has a significant draw-back, as it doesn't let any dog-related pros judge _legally_. This cuts out any Pro trainer, be they hunt-test, gun-dog, obedience, conformation etc. etc. from judging FT's. There are many of these type of Pros that have lots of experience, are well qualified, usually don't run FT's, maybe run one of their personal dogs every once in awhile; but don't campaign and don't have any FT clients. Realistically not much harm could be done bringing in such types of other venue Pros to judge, and who knows just might bring in other people as well; might set the hook. For a few.

Still no dog in this fight, carry on with the current system, FT have been supposedly dieing for 30yrs. yet they still seem to run them. However we must note; that HTs are growing exponentially, pros have been able to judge there for many years, and it hasn't really affected a dang thing.


----------



## John Gianladis (Jun 23, 2012)

I think pros judging would be awesome! Even if each pro judged just once every other year, it would add a lot of quality to our sport. I'm always blown away at how efficiently the good pros I've trained with can set up marks/blinds. They understand what they are trying to get from a training standpoint, and I think they would do the same in terms of getting what they want from a testing standpoint at a trial. Like most of us amateurs, pros tend to bitch a lot about how crappy certain tests are at trials (rightfully so, as we see some terrible tests on a fairly regular basis, including and maybe especially in the Open division). How cool would it be for pros to show off their test setting skills for others to see, run, and learn from? I think pros would put a lot of pride into doing things the right way in terms of test setting, call backs, and placements. I hear what Dr. Ed is saying that this isn't happening anytime soon, but someday the young guns of the sport (like me; 49 y/o next month; Ha ha!!) will get to call a few shots in this awesome sport!!

Johnny G


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

That would be awesome to see the pros showcasing their skills in setting up fair, challenging tests. Don't hold your breath. They have been able to judge hunt tests for years but most don't.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

DoubleHaul said:


> circuit where they know you well enough to invite you to judge.


When I picked up my degree in Mining Engineering the industry was in about the same shape it is now, I had 2 offers out of 
numerous resumes mailed & unanswered. 1 was with a large company & the other with a smaller company but for significantly 
more money. I mentioned this to my Mining Prof who said I would be well advised to take the job with the larger company as 
I would learn more from the professionally diverse people I would be working with. In those days all intelligent people did not 
feel a college degree that necessary as it would be today. The Prof was correct & I see the same thing today in life, those with 
limited experience, many times on a small stage, are generally not as competent as those who have played in bigger venues. 
We see that today with many club officials who are picking the judges. Often they are barely capable of running water .

As an aside, had I taken the job at the higher salary, there is a fairly good chance my name would have been on the monument 
on I-90 at the Big Creek exit in ID. Awesome sculpture of a working miner, unfortunately for a real tragedy, not uncommon in 
the mining industry. 



Ted Shih said:


> *First*, there is a shortage of qualified judges. Anyone disputing this should review the April 2014 issue of the Retriever News and the article entitled "Too Many Trials ... Not Enough Judges"
> 
> *Second*, I believe that the addition of pros to the judging pool would be a welcome one.
> 
> ...


First, there has always been a shortage of qualified judges, when a database has 2500+ names distributed over 6,000+ dogs with some handlers carrying multiple dogs 
up to 60+, there are going to be a lot of folks who are short on the knowledge thing unless they are doing their own training mostly with some solid mentoring. Beyond 
that it is your opinion, which is unsubstantiated by fact. 

Second & Third & Fourth, the question of why would they want to? You are absolutely correct in that it is a lot of work & requires a lot of time that could be 
better spent by the working pro making their dogs better. It's akin to asking AL's football coach or Duke's BB coach to referee the games in their sport. I don't worry about 
bias, the unknowledgeable Am's are pretty hard to beat in that regard. Again, they are just your opinions.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

cakaiser said:


> I agree with you.
> Honesty and competence have little to do with pro vs amateur.
> 
> There are many valid reasons why pros would not want to judge.
> if they agree to do so, mostly it will be to give back to the sport.


Charlotte, I'll ask you - On the database I show you having placed in 3 Am's & 3 Derby's & 
judging 2 Open's & 6 Derby's while your husband over his years of campaigning shows having 
placed in 17 Opens, 49 Amateurs & 12 Derby's while judging 5 Opens, 10 Amateurs & 6 Derby's. 
Obviously, as a family you took more out of the sport than you returned, judging wise. This is 
common among the active campaigners. 

I guess a legitimate question at this point would be: 
Why is it OK to expect a Pro, whose livelihood comes from campaigning & & training dogs to 
do what your family & many of the other grand poobahs of the sport are 
unwilling to do. Ted has many times on this forum emphatically stated he believes a 
couple of judging assignments & club secretary are sufficient return for what he has taken
from the sport. Most Pro's mentor a large number of people including being willing to share 
their knowledge with people who are not their clients.  



BonMallari said:


> all of this ^^^^^^^
> 
> IMO one of the biggest misconceptions is that people who aren't actively campaigning a dog have somehow " lost the ability or privilege to judge or are out of touch with judging trials"....just because they are out of the game doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to contribute to the game


I've been retired 23 years from where I worked - I could go to work tomorrow if necessary & still perform 
a function where a mistake could get you terminated immediately. If the folks here don't feel that way they 
need to quit flying because the people I mentored are still building those kites . 

You know judging is a lot like a high school clique, you're either one of those who make sure the right people 
place & qualify for the National or you're someone who places the best dog. Sometimes, those don't match up
& that can make you an unpopular judge quickly. 

You know & I know, regardless of how the ruling class feels about pros, that allowing them to judge is just another 
band aid by an RAC that has a recent history of doing just that . 

But if they think it's such a great idea, why not have all PRTA events judged exclusively by the Pro's & see how 
that works!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Charles C. (Nov 5, 2004)

Marvin S said:


> Charlotte, I'll ask you - On the database I show you having placed in 3 Am's & 3 Derby's &
> judging 2 Open's & 6 Derby's while your husband over his years of campaigning shows having
> placed in 17 Opens, 49 Amateurs & 12 Derby's while judging 5 Opens, 10 Amateurs & 6 Derby's.
> Obviously, as a family you took more out of the sport than you returned, judging wise. This is
> common among the active campaigners.


Marvin, Marvin ... _Marvin. _You don't honestly expect people to judge as many trials as they run do you? 2 times a year is plenty and a lot to ask of most working amateurs. You keep asking why pros would want to judge. This game is carried on the backs of amateurs who put on trials (which is a difficult, thankless job) and judge on the weekends. There would be no living for field trial professionals to make if the amateurs didn't give up their time, energy and talents to make this sport go. Maybe the pros have a _responsibility_ to give back. Before you stalk the Kaisers and determine they "took more out of the sport than [they] returned," perhaps you should take into account that Dick and Charlotte put on a couple of trials a year in addition to judging. I ask the following: 1) when was the last time YOU judged? and 2) when was the last time you chaired or played a significant role in putting on a field trial? It seems you have an awful lot of opinions about a game in which you have no skin.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Charles C. said:


> Marvin, Marvin ... _Marvin. _You don't honestly expect people to judge as many trials as they run do you? 2 times a year is plenty and a lot to ask of most working amateurs. You keep asking why pros would want to judge. This game is carried on the backs of amateurs who put on trials (which is a difficult, thankless job) and judge on the weekends. There would be no living for field trial professionals to make if the amateurs didn't give up their time, energy and talents to make this sport go. Maybe the pros have a _responsibility_ to give back. Before you stalk the Kaisers and determine they "took more out of the sport than [they] returned," perhaps you should take into account that Dick and Charlotte put on a couple of trials a year in addition to judging. I ask the following: 1) when was the last time YOU judged? and 2) when was the last time you chaired or played a significant role in putting on a field trial? It seems you have an awful lot of opinions about a game in which you have no skin.


Very well put Charles


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

How the worm turns...once the "upstairs folk" hired dog trainers as their "downstairs employees" never the two to meet except @ dog hand-off time. With the rise of the 1960s "middle class" with those folks removed from the rural environment experiences they purchased the services of "pros" who came to "direct" their employers. The best pros now determine who can be their clients and stand on high. Just like guides took out the "swells" in the 19th/20th centuries for the outdoor experience. A sign of the times.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Gary Wayne Abbott I said:


> Let Pro's judge.
> 
> I always hear the same two weak reasons against Pro's judging;
> 
> ...


When an amateur judges, their personal dog(s) don't get to trial/test or train for the 3 or so days. When a pro judges, their 15-20 clients' dogs don't get to test/trial or train for 3 or so days.

Other than that, and the prohibition against judging a dog that you've handled more than 2x in a year necessitating the pro judge outside his/her circuit (or clients can't run the trial), the integrity thing don't play.


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

Nobody wants Marvin to judge.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> Charlotte, I'll ask you - On the database I show you having placed in 3 Am's & 3 Derby's &
> judging 2 Open's & 6 Derby's while your husband over his years of campaigning shows having
> placed in 17 Opens, 49 Amateurs & 12 Derby's while judging 5 Opens, 10 Amateurs & 6 Derby's.
> Obviously, as a family you took more out of the sport than you returned, judging wise. This is
> ...


Marvin,

Since you seem to feel a bit educationally superior and also a bit mean spirited, I will ask. 

Is is the apostrophe "s" thing a function of your phone? Surely they taught at mining school that plural does not have the apostrophe. 

If if you want to look smart when writing, you should try to do so. 

Being nice would be good too. Don't you think?

The Kaiser family should be thanked and commended. 

Chris


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> The Kaiser family should be thanked and commended.


No good deed goes unpunished....


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Marvin,
> 
> Since you seem to feel a bit educationally superior and also a bit mean spirited, I will ask.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Chris. But...no problem. GRAND POOBAH has made me laugh, all day.


----------



## Becky Mills (Jun 6, 2004)

Marvin S said:


> Charlotte, I'll ask you - On the database I show you having placed in 3 Am's & 3 Derby's &
> judging 2 Open's & 6 Derby's while your husband over his years of campaigning shows having
> placed in 17 Opens, 49 Amateurs & 12 Derby's while judging 5 Opens, 10 Amateurs & 6 Derby's.
> Obviously, as a family you took more out of the sport than you returned, judging wise. This is
> ...


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

Becky Mills said:


> Marvin S said:
> 
> 
> > Charlotte, I'll ask you - On the database I show you having placed in 3 Am's & 3 Derby's &
> ...


----------



## DEDEYE (Oct 27, 2005)

Charles C. said:


> Marvin, Marvin ... _Marvin. _You don't honestly expect people to judge as many trials as they run do you? 2 times a year is plenty and a lot to ask of most working amateurs. You keep asking why pros would want to judge. This game is carried on the backs of amateurs who put on trials (which is a difficult, thankless job) and judge on the weekends. There would be no living for field trial professionals to make if the amateurs didn't give up their time, energy and talents to make this sport go. Maybe the pros have a _responsibility_ to give back. Before you stalk the Kaisers and determine they "took more out of the sport than [they] returned," perhaps you should take into account that Dick and Charlotte put on a couple of trials a year in addition to judging. I ask the following: 1) when was the last time YOU judged? and 2) when was the last time you chaired or played a significant role in putting on a field trial? It seems you have an awful lot of opinions about a game in which you have no skin.


That's great!


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

I know I see Richard Kaiser helping at EVERY North Alabama trial. I also see his name on the judging roster and he has helped out with many Master tests. The Kaisers are an invaluable asset at the cattle ranch! Just want them to know their efforts are noticed & very much appreciated!!!


----------



## Mitch Patterson (Feb 20, 2003)

Several years ago I told Chris that I don't post on RTF because any subject go sideways within a few posts. It always amazes me how quickly it becomes personal. I will just remain a lurker - but no to Pro's judging FT's.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Mitch Patterson said:


> Several years ago I told Chris that I don't post on RTF because any subject go sideways within a few posts. It always amazes me how quickly it becomes personal. I will just remain a lurker - but no to Pro's judging FT's.


From one of the better judges out there.!


----------



## junbe (Apr 12, 2003)

Mitch Patterson said:


> Several years ago I told Chris that I don't post on RTF because any subject go sideways within a few posts. It always amazes me how quickly it becomes personal. I will just remain a lurker - but no to Pro's judging FT's.


Pros were eligible and did judge AKC field trials. The RAC recommended and AKC agreed it would be in the best interest of our sport to have only amateurs judge AKC field trials. The reasons given then are still valid today. No to Pro's judging FT's.


----------



## canuckkiller (Apr 16, 2009)

*Pros judging Retriever Field Trials*

I am in the 'No' camp. Lots of change in the game ... some of which is good, some not so good. There are
proper and acceptable paths a professional can follow if in fact Pro judging is considered. It is clearly stated
in the Standard, etc. It would be an egregious option/decision should the RAC/SOR 'reverse' their original
and proper ruling. 

Historically, there has always been a need for "more judges". Clubs that are well managed and follow the
Standard, good protocol, i.e., adequate lead time with written confirmation, excellent hospitality and respect
given to judges usually are OK and enjoy 'repeats'.

Yes, age and attrition impacts the 'pool' but there remains many experienced, knowledgeable judges whose phones
do not ring.

W. D. Connor


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Marvin,
> 
> Since you seem to feel a bit educationally superior and also a bit mean spirited, I will ask.
> 
> ...


The subject matter of the OP was allowing Pro's to judge. 

Before I 1st posted on your forum I was the subject of a fair amount of discussion, mostly negative. It says something 
about the audience here . Some of the discussion got out of hand but was never stopped, in fact, I believe you put me 
on a timeout because of a reply I made, but that's in the past. 

The reason Ted & Charlotte were replied to was: they are good examples of why there is a shortage of judges . Ted because 
of his limitation on judging assignments/year & the Kaisers because they are representative of a fairly large group that are very 
competent dog people who just don't judge a lot. No malice was intended. But in both cases they continue to step up to the plate 
& run their dogs. 

Because of that post there were posts by someone who had a fairly nice dog, trained by someone else, over 25 years ago. 
No pelts since, but considers themselves a part of any discussion. There has also been a post by someone related to an individual
listed as one of 5 or 6 co-owners on a dog entered in the O/H Amateur stake in ID when the O/H Amateur was 1st instituted. That 
is probably a little more significant than my poor English skills . At least it is in my mind. 

Back to the subject of the OP: 

1) I believe it presumptuous for someone to advocate others doing what they should be doing & do not want to do more than they are presently doing. 
2) Were I still competing & this were allowed, I would not want to be judged by someone that had less than a 16 hole dog truck full of competitive dogs. 
There is a way to do that, pay for a day training session, & watch every dog fail a high quality test put together by a competent pro. Just no pelts. 
3) As I stated previously, if everyone thinks this is a good idea, allow it at the PRTA trials. Watch them scramble for judges when they have to use 
someone besides their clients. 
4) You would be asking someone to give up a full week of training, handlers fees & the potential for one of their dogs to win that trial. Is that asking a 
lot?
5) There seems to be no problem for well run clubs in this regard (getting judges), does that say those that are having issues may not be well run?

I spent 45 years active in this sport, if I had a dime for every hour I spent in the field, & a nickel for every bird I threw for others, the boss & I could take 
a really nice vacation. I enjoyed every minute of the dog work & readily volunteered for duties others did not want to do, the day others thought it OK to 
volunteer me because I was so willing is the day I retired from those duties. Everyone is necessary at a well run trial, competent judging can make the days 
much shorter for everyone. That is the responsibility of the trail giving club to ensure that happens. 

In the old days clubs were much larger because there was a certain camaraderie. You see little of that today


----------



## Greg Anderson (Aug 14, 2012)

I believe the quarter horse show world solved this one by simply writing checks...

pro or am can carry a judging card, it just costs the club $500/day + travel expenses

Can the FT sport support those kind of additional judging costs, don't think so

more skilled volunteers is the only way, believe pros will have to do their share

can't for the life of me figure out why a pro would want to, unless fewer trials is the outcome...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

mally said:


> can't for the life of me figure out why a pro would want to, unless fewer trials is the outcome...



Greg 

Yes, a pro would be sacrificing income. But, a self employed amateur does the same

I think a pro would judge for the same reason that most amateurs judge - because the sport requires the sacrifice of everyone involved.

Ted


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> The reason Ted & Charlotte were replied to was: they are good examples of why there is a shortage of judges . Ted because
> of his limitation on judging assignments/year & the Kaisers because they are representative of a fairly large group that are very
> competent dog people who just don't judge a lot. No malice was intended. But in both cases they continue to step up to the plate
> & run their dogs.



Marvin

It is unfortunate that your posts are characterized by bitterness, rancor, and inaccuracy.

I judged 

3x in 2012
4x in 2013
3x in 2014
3x in 2015

I have 3 assignments for this year, 2017, and 2018. 

And how many times did you judge in years 2012-2015?
And how many assignments do you have for 2016?

Ted


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> Marvin
> 
> It is unfortunate that your posts are characterized by bitterness, rancor, and inaccuracy.
> 
> ...


Shame on you Ted. Marvin may or may not have any skin in the game. However..............
Your points are irrelevant, for two overriding reasons; He went to Engineering school, AND HE IS A LEGEND IN HIS OWN MIND!!!


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

Marvin's argument that the Kaisers and Ted are the problem with the lack of FT judges is so flawed as to be ludicrous. Sounds more like sour grapes and jealousy to me. I think Marvin owes them a public apology, but, it would be as meaningless as his opinions.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Rainmaker said:


> Marvin's argument that the Kaisers and Ted are the problem with the lack of FT judges is so flawed as to be ludicrous. Sounds more like sour grapes and jealousy to me. I think Marvin owes them a public apology, but, it would be as meaningless as his opinions.


I don't know how or why Marvin would single out the Kaisers and Ted as he has not been involved in Field Trials for a long time, and he has no idea how much work the Kaisers do in the background of every trial in their location. Not only is it mean spirited and hurtful, it should be removed. It definitely violates board policy!


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

BonMallari said:


> all of this ^^^^^^^
> 
> IMO one of the biggest misconceptions is that people who aren't actively campaigning a dog have somehow " lost the ability or privilege to judge or are out of touch with judging trials"....just because they are out of the game doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to contribute to the game


Totally agree.


----------



## Eric Fryer (May 23, 2006)

Ted Shih said:


> ​No, I would not mind at all.


And he has in Canada.


----------



## jrrichar (Dec 17, 2013)

mally said:


> I believe the quarter horse show world solved this one by simply writing checks...
> 
> pro or am can carry a judging card, it just costs the club $500/day + travel expenses
> 
> ...


I asked a well respected and accomplished FT pro this very question this past weekend. They said the same thing that has already been stated: why people think they have zero integrity or zero interest in helping out the sport is beyond them. The pro said they would gladly judge a trial if allowed to and asked. They also said those they have talked to at the annual PRTA meeting also seem to be willing to judge but they can certainly only speak for themselves. 

People can make assumptions all day long but if no one actually asks or allows them to, they certainly can't/won't. 

The pro also said giving a weekend to judge a trial is hardly any trouble. If it is, then maybe they are in the wrong sport.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

BonMallari said:


> IMO one of the biggest misconceptions is that people who aren't actively campaigning a dog have somehow " lost the ability or privilege to judge or are out of touch with judging trials"....just because they are out of the game doesn't necessarily mean they don't want to contribute to the game



I would agree that people who are not actively campaigning a dog may still have an interest in contributing to the sport. 

I would disagree as to any blanket statement that inactive individuals continue to have the ability to judge well. It is my observation that people who are not active in the sport can be surprised at the abilities of the modern well trained dog and set up tests that do not create sufficient separation of the field.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> I would agree that people who are not actively campaigning a dog may still have an interest in contributing to the sport.
> 
> I would disagree as to any blanket statement that inactive individuals continue to have the ability to judge well. It is my observation that people who are not active in the sport can be surprised at the abilities of the modern well trained dog and set up tests that do not create sufficient separation of the field.


I will concede the "blanket " statement...

Here is my take from the cheap seats...a good judge is and will always be a good judge,as long as they have their mental and physical capabilities to fulfill the assignment...Just because they haven't judged in a couple of years (less than 5) I don't think the game has passed them by, at ten years either...beyond that the names and players are different, but the speed at which the game is played hasn't changed all that much...The VENUES have changed dramatically

The one asset that an old timer has is a "fresh set of eyes" so to speak, even those of you on the circuit probably grow weary of the same trendy tests set up week after week or the fact that some judges are almost predictable in the types of set ups they throw. The "old timer" just may throw you a test that you haven't seen in some time from his repertoire. The other advantage an old timer has is that they have no emotional ties to the current crop of "players"

I would hope that the tests get separation, not the judges pencil...

I would like to see FTC's do a little thinking outside of their comfort zone...pick someone from out of their region, not on their circuit. I think they would be surprised that some of our judges from trials past would answer the phone and might even be flattered if they were asked to judge a trial..

I think FTC's are a lot like society and their views on senior citizens, they forget that many seniors still have a lot to offer, heck there are even some former "young guns" who have left the scene to raise their families or pursue other career's that might be a nice fit when looking for a judge to fill their trial, especially if that judge is an "8 point AA"


I have NEVER thought that pro's would be dishonest as someone suggested earlier...Hell there are many more amateur judges that could qualify under that "blanket", but what persists in the FT world is the "blacklist", I compare that to the current "No Fly" list currently put out by our govt. No one knows how you got on it and No one seems to know how to get off that list..But if a judge is in good standing with the AKC and is ambulatory and willing to serve, then lets start using them, BEFORE we give up the last bastion and backbone of the game in the Amateur judge


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

BonMallari said:


> I will concede the "blanket " statement...
> 
> Here is my take from the cheap seats...a good judge is and will always be a good judge,as long as they have their mental and physical capabilities to fulfill the assignment...Just because they haven't judged in a couple of years (less than 5) I don't think the game has passed them by, at ten years either...beyond that the names and players are different, but the speed at which the game is played hasn't changed all that much...The VENUES have changed dramatically


Interesting that you chose to make another blanket statement. And as someone who competes regularly, I disagree with your statement that the "speed at which the game is played hasn't changed all that much" . It is my experience that the game that I played in 2000 is light years different than the game I am now playing with my dogs.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

I tend to agree with Bon. Judged my first all age stake in 1989 or 1990. Good dogs were hard to separate then and they still are. But, I disagree that the game has changed so much.... That someone with good dog sense who could be a good judge 5 years ago can't still do it. It's not rocket science, it's dogs picking up birds... Or not.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Ted Shih said:


> Interesting that you chose to make another blanket statement. And as someone who competes regularly, I disagree with your statement that the "speed at which the game is played hasn't changed all that much" . It is my experience that the game that I played in 2000 is light years different than the game I am now playing with my dogs.


Ted : has the game changed or have you changed ? Could it be possible that you are a better competitor in 2016 vs 2000, and that in your analytical mind the speed has changed also, with many good athletes the game almost slows down and becomes surreal,because they have seen the scenario before and are almost able to predict the outcome before it actually happens

We can agree to disagree about the game changing, because you and I see it from two very different perspectives


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Bon 

The dogs are better trained.
The handlers are better.
What were once Open tests are now Amateur tests.
What were once Amateur tests are now Qualifying test.

If the dogs are not getting better, how do you explain the many discussions on this forum about having triples or retired guns in the derby?
When I started, you rarely saw a poison bird on a blind. Now it is rare if you run an Open not to see a poison bird on the land blind, the water blind, or both. At one point in time, an under the arc poison bird bird was unknown. Not so any more. The keyholes are getting tighter and tighter on blinds.

Why?
The dogs are better.
The handlers are better.

Ted


----------



## swliszka (Apr 17, 2011)

I agree with huntinman and Bon . There are some seasoned judges who have forgotten more than the latest pro "trained" amateur with a pro created "hot" dog...I frankly prefer running under amateur judges who have trained their own dogs.


----------



## Bill McKnight (Sep 11, 2014)

Can't help myself. The game has in fact changed since I ran my first derby in the late 90s. I breed and run derby dogs about every 2 or 3 years. Each time I come to the line with a new dog I am astounded at how much has changed. Same for the qualifing and AA stakes. When I started the dominate thinking was to not teach/run blinds untill after the dog was out of the derby. Qual blinds were run by points not over them. Distances are longer in all stakes. Expectations are higher, dogs are on the whole better trained and bred. So, I believe the game has indeed changed. What hasn't changed is the need for separation at the end of the 4th series.

I prefer judges who train their own dogs. Find though that I value honesty and those that judge the dog.....not their feelings for the handler....more.

As to pros judging I say YES! Don Remien could drive up to a new field and see more quality set ups in five minutes than most spending an entire day.

The North West Montana Retriever Club has been using pros for their super singles events with great success. What has made me chuckle is seeing how serious they are at finding the placements.

I agree with Bon on the fresh set of eyes. Always good for the sport.

Ronan Bill


----------



## jwdavis (Nov 26, 2004)

Springer trials allow pros to judge. It has worked out just fine. I will actually go out of my way to run a trial if a good pro is judging it. I know this isn't exactly comparing apples to apples, but it does work at other breed events.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Why automatically exclude the most knowledgeable group?


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

FTs have changed. But, there are 2 judges. Whether you pair that currently active 6-8+ point judge with a 0-2 point judge in the game for 3 years or a 6-8+ point who has not run or judged for 7-8 years, does it really matter?
There is a judge shortage for a variety of reasons but I doubt if adding pro's will have much impact. The few that would judge will probably not want to judge on their own circuit and many clubs are getting more reluctant to fly in judges for financial reason, especially when initially these pro's will have no points.

Good topic for internet/ tailgate discussions.

Tim


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Tim Carrion said:


> Good topic for internet/ tailgate discussions.
> Tim


Perhaps unless you have participated in the discussion too many times to remember and the same people have the same opinion and nothing has or is likely to change.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Tim Carrion said:


> There is a judge shortage for a variety of reasons but I doubt if adding pro's will have much impact.
> Tim


Thank You!!!!!  



Ted Shih said:


> Marvin
> 
> It is unfortunate that your posts are characterized by bitterness, rancor, and inaccuracy.
> 
> ...


I know your desire is to make this a personality thing but I already know I can be abrasive, especially when I 
believe in the subject. Which is, BTW, Pro's judging . I do not believe it will be any more than the band aid 
routinely applied through the rules. Just how well has that worked, apparently not as the issue is a regular on 
the talk show circuit. 

As for yourself, I do not follow your exploits, I only remember past statements made in posts back when I thought 
you might have something substantive to offer. The statements were - you only judged 2 trials a year & served as 
FTS for your club & felt that was enough. & then the statement that you did not co-own dogs, that is, 
until you did .

You state you forgo income while judging, true, but your dogs still are being trained during the week off taken 
for a typical away trial. The pro does not have that luxury & everyone on this forum knows the shelf life of a 
competitive dog in peak form can be fairly short! People don't put their dogs with pro's to have that individual 
go traipsing around the country & neglecting their dog. What you do can wait or you can work longer days .
As long as you believe it's OK to tell others how to use their time. 






Marvin S said:


> The reason Ted & Charlotte were replied to was: they are good examples of why there is a shortage of judges . Ted because
> of his limitation on judging assignments/year & the Kaisers because they are representative of a fairly large group that are very
> competent dog people who just don't judge a lot. No malice was intended. But in both cases they continue to step up
> to the plate & run their dogs.


For those of you who have posted in indignation, please read the above statement made earlier. If you still have issues??????????


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> Bon
> 
> The dogs are better trained.
> The handlers are better.
> ...


Ted, none of this stuff is new just because it's new to you. Some have been doing it for years... Just saying.


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

I dislike being sucked into this topic again but would like to make a few salient points.

1. There are many competent judges who may not have had a competitive dog for years but who judge regularly because of their competence and keep up with the changes that Ted has outlined.

2. There are some really awful judges who train therir own dogs and some of them have competitive dogs regularly.

3. You cannot judge unless you are invited, the longer you are involved the more lkely to have incurred the wrath of the rumor mill which generally misclassifies people.

4. The fact that someone judges a lot does not infer judging competency.

5. Some of us (me included) judge infrequently because we are not asked, we have a competitive dog and recognize the narrow window in which we compete, we have the need to work to support our hobby, and/or we have a real life away from field trials.

There was a time when I was an activist and started the discussion about professional trainers judging, about twenty years ago. I questioned a number of top trainers about their willingness to judge and all embraced the prospect. Unlike most of the people in my age group I welcome change for the betterment of anything including field trials but change comes slow and grudingly and I am certain that I will not be around long enough to see the day when I share a judging assignment with Danny Farmer.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

Dr A, can't disagree with any of your points, but would also like to ad another statement to #3

the same people(s) do the inviting sometimes for a decade....one team who happens to be a long time friend of the family has judges picked some 3-4 years in advance for their trials..YIKES...

Has anyone ever looked into the feasibility of a judges pool ....assignments could be doled out like drawing tags for hunting spots. preference points given to senior judges, past National winners/judges...maybe thats pie in the sky thinking, but it beats bitching about the same tired subject every spring


----------



## cakaiser (Jul 12, 2007)

EdA said:


> I dislike being sucked into this topic again but would like to make a few salient points.
> 
> 1. There are many competent judges who may not have had a competitive dog for years but who judge regularly because of their competence and keep up with the changes that Ted has outlined.
> 
> ...


Home run, Dr. Ed..


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

marvin, i like you.......but dick and charlotte are my friends! i am upset with you. there may be a need for field trial judges, but...........

btw, i like catching and crating flyers for four stakes trials a couple of times a year with "grand poobahs"!


----------



## David Colwell (Oct 1, 2012)

Has PRTA taken a position on this subject? What are their thoughts and concerns? If they haven't taken a formal position have they published an informal position on judging. I believe the quality of judging is foremost on their minds and agenda.


----------



## Gawthorpe (Oct 4, 2007)

Marvin it is too bad you started this very good threat and then proceeded to destroy it. Many readers on this board will attest to the effort, time, and encouragement the Kaisers & Ted have given to the community. Charlotte Kaiser has been our Field Trial Secretary for at least 15 years. Can you find the statistics on that? Dick Kaiser has been one of the strongest proponents of Amateurs in the Southeast. Dick Kaiser has been the Field Trial Chairman for numerous field trials and there probably would not be a North Alabama or Nashville Field Trial Club if not for the Kaisers. Ted Shih has worked the clubs on the West Coast and has encouraged intellectual discussions by many amateurs. His enthusiasm is contagious and he continues to judge more than his fair share. Each of these people contribute far more than they have received from our sport. 

None of them need the "Marvin Seal of Approval." After 5 years I am still waiting for you to evaluate my judging qualifications. 

Please continue to let your dog pee in your own boots.


----------



## Kelly Greenwood (Dec 18, 2008)

Picked a random ft in my area and counted 50+ handlers running in the Am. Only counted 7 Pro's in the trial. Maybe another 30 amateurs in the lower stakes and the armatures out number the pros 10 to 1. 
Just a thought but maybe only letting Pro's judge in the Open might be a good compromise. That kind of keeps with having the people that run in the Am not being judged by Pro's who have not run an Am in recent history. 
Just a thought


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Kelly Greenwood said:


> Picked a random ft in my area and counted 50+ handlers running in the Am. Only counted 7 Pro's in the trial. Maybe another 30 amateurs in the lower stakes and the armatures out number the pros 10 to 1.
> Just a thought but maybe only letting Pro's judge in the Open might be a good compromise. That kind of keeps with having the people that run in the Am not being judged by Pro's who have not run an Am in recent history.
> Just a thought


How many of the amateurs entered have judged at least 2 events in the preceding year?


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

roseberry said:


> marvin, i like you.......but dick and charlotte are my friends! i am upset with you. there may be a need for field trial judges, but...........
> 
> btw, i like catching and crating flyers for four stakes trials a couple of times a year with "grand poobahs"!


John, I'm disappointed in your lack of comprehension. 

Now I'm going to try to compose a tribute worthy of my dog friend, Lanse Brown. I doubt that I can do him the justice he deserves . 
Because of his passing I'm not in a particularly good mood today & probably won't be for some time. 

Grand Poobah regards, Marvin.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

captainjack said:


> How many of the amateurs entered have judged at least 2 events in the preceding year?


How many of the Amateurs entered have trained a dog in the last year? 

(I know you train your own).


----------

