The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 6 of 36 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 352

Thread: Too Many Trials, Too Few Judges?

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Vancouver CANADA
    Posts
    594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BonMallari View Post
    Not only NO ...but HELL NO....once you hint at any form of compensation, the possibility of tainted results will rear its ugly head
    Why would that necessarily be the case to any extent greater than may now exist with the current levels of compensation/remuneration? Would it make a difference real or perceived if the compensation scale were set at a national level rather than left to the local clubs? Is isn't just about finding quality qualified people it's also about finding people who like to become qualified to ensure there can be competitions in the future.

    The problems of a judging pool being outstripped by demand is a serious one for all competitors engaged in retriever sports, I think the situation warrants examination from as many perspectives as possible.
    power without lumber, raciness without weediness

    A big man never looks down on others.... instead, he is someone to look up to.

  2. #52
    Senior Member BonMallari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    LV/CenTex/Idaho
    Posts
    12,549

    Default

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by lanse brown View Post
    A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Ridgeland Mississippi
    Posts
    327

    Default

    Not sure why the list of judges did not contain those with only minor stake assignments to date. Most start that way. Those are your future potential judges. Sure they need work and woking with experienced judges would help bring these people along. A couple people posted on this thread (Chad and Bill )who have had multiple minor stake assignments yet were not on the list. I happen to also be in that category. I haven't been as active the past couple years due to family obligations but time is starting to free up a little more. Still enjoy the sport just don't get to do it as much as I like. For discussion the less experienced judges should be in the mix as many of those will likely be the ones judging in the future if they are brought through the ranks.
    Lucyana's Chicago Hope MH QAA- 5/9/98-6/28/11. Thanks for the memories.

  4. #54
    Senior Member BonMallari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    LV/CenTex/Idaho
    Posts
    12,549

    Default

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

    The problems of a judging pool being outstripped by demand is a serious one for all competitors engaged in retriever sports, I think the situation warrants examination from as many perspectives as possible.
    Not all clubs have the same financial resources, could you see the slippery slope it would lead to if Club A would be able to compensate Judge XYZ with $$$ Yet Club B was not able to offer that same judge the same renumeration for his services. You could literally end up with a pool of "professional traveling judges", and then what do you do for the club member that donates his/her time and a whole lot more to judge the same stake, do they receive the same compensation ?
    All my Exes live in Texas

    Quote Originally Posted by lanse brown View Post
    A few things that I learned still ring true. "Lanse when you get a gift, say thank you and walk away. When you get a screwing walk away. You are going to get a lot more screwings than gifts"

  5. #55
    Senior Member Huff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Bridge Creek, Oklahoma
    Posts
    325

    Default

    Paying judges a appearance fee would also raise the cost of entry fees. Someone has to pay for the high dollar, national judge.
    CH Chisholm Trail's Backdraft Bay MH**
    Chisholm Trail's Crossfire Sophie JH**
    "I say goodbye to my weakness, so long to the regrets"

  6. #56
    Senior Member Mike W.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    1,353

    Default

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

  7. #57
    Senior Member John Robinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bigfork, Montana
    Posts
    3,225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike W. View Post
    The state of the judging pool today is the biggest threat to Field Trials, in my view.
    Not arguing with your point, I just have to say your avatar really creeps me out. Where is that from anyway?

    John

  8. #58
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Vancouver CANADA
    Posts
    594

    Default

    Better pray it's not from his family album!
    power without lumber, raciness without weediness

    A big man never looks down on others.... instead, he is someone to look up to.

  9. #59
    Junior Member russhardy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    North Pole, AK
    Posts
    26

    Default

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

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

  10. #60
    Senior Member John Robinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Bigfork, Montana
    Posts
    3,225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by russhardy View Post
    How about don't judge don't play - or rather you judge you get to play?

    What if it was required to have judged x number of FT's within the past y number of years to handle a dog in or own a dog entered in a National? I suspect most handlers in the National would readily meet the threshold that was deemed appropriate for both x and y. And/or if it was required to have judged x number of FT's within the past y number of years to handle or own a dog entered in a FT? Also, a grace period for newbies of z number of years.
    No offence to anybody, but what percentage of handlers do you think would make good judges?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •