This is a great discussion! Many have great ideas. I'd like to add a few thoughts as well. First, merely competing in an all-age stake--even if one is very successful does not really translate into being a good judge--especially if they don't train dogs and routinely set up tests. If, as a successful handler, all I do is learn to handle for field trials and show up to run my dog in training on a test that my pro has crafted, it does not bestow the ability to set up tests--real tests--not training drills--on me. One of the biggest complaints I've heard over the years is that field trial tests have become the latest control drills seen at professional training set-ups.
I like the apprentice program, but how many folks are going to put up their own nickel to be at a trial to watch, hopefully have some input into the tests and evaluations, only to have to do that at least once more before being qualified to hold the book for an all-age stake. We used to have experienced and knowledgeable judges for minor stakes. We would pair a less experienced person with them to give them more experience and insight into crafting tests. Those experienced judges must accommodate the newer judges to let them suggest tests, listen to why they want a test, and then tactfully give feedback as to where the pitfalls may be or what may or may not happen. That's how they learn, not watching the next generation of control blind drills (like the ones that have given rise to running to the bird planter's feet, then buzzing the side of his chair for the next blind in a double set-up. To me, those are not field trial tests, they are drills.
I am firmly against allowing professionals to judge. Our sport is too small and our dogs/handlers too intertwined to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. I don't care how good of a person they are or now fair they are perceived to be, they derive their livlihood from training dogs for amateurs and they should not be judging.
Money is always an issue with respect to trial expenses for the clubs. That said, if we are going to complain about the quality of judging or size of the trials, or any other aspect of putting on a good trial, we would be willing to pony up an entry fee that will enable the clubs to at least break even. For me, that would seriously limit the number of trials that I would run. It would likely make for smaller trials because I doubt I'm the only one that $100 or $150 entry fees would affect.
Unfortunately, I think many have decided it's acceptable to blame poor performance on bad judges or bad trials, etc. It may be that it just wasn't our weekend; our dog wasn't on his game, or simply isn't talented enough, etc. But it seems the judges are always at fault.
One of the reasons that people like Mac/Lynne DuBose, Mark Medford, Bruce Hall, and many others who are routinely successful is because they buy the best that is available, not what is "within budget". (I apologize if I have left anyone out of the list--I know I did and I also acknowledege there are many successful trialers who do operate within budget & with hard work)
In short, it's not a simple answer. I do not believe there is a one-size-fits-all, so let's keep talking about it.