[EdA]

a) All handlers at the National Amateur MUST have earned 2 judges points during the qualifying year.
b) Give 1/2 point for a minor stake and 1 point for an all-age stake earning CHAMPIONSHIP points.
c) Also, for the argument of those who have limited weekends to qualify their dogs because of real jobs, allow the 2 points to count towards their dog who has a win, but not the 2 points.

a) what if said handler is not asked to judge, has health problems or personal conflicts that prevent them from judging, are we going to eliminate that person from competing when they have qualified their dog? That will never fly.

b) & c) I do not understand

 

[Goldenboy]

The Keith (KG) that I remember often had a little "bite" in his comments. Kinder, gentler, KG, the new-age man!

Number me amongst those who believe that some exposure to actual placements in the stakes that you are judging is invaluable, dare I say essential, to most likely being a capable judge. Judges must have ribboned within the previous five years in the stakes they can judge in the Hunt Test game. New blood is a great idea but, in my opinion, some folks I've seen have no business (no credentials) to judge all-age stakes.

 

[K G]

Tammy, Trip Smith has done most of the heavy lifting for the CRC relative to getting judges for the past few years. I get called in from time to time if needed, but mostly I just handle the administrative stuff prior to and during the events.

I think there is a way to get more people into judging, but all the ideas in the world won't help people get their hearts "right" with regard to the concept of "giving back." Unfortunately, a great number of folks are "takers" who will run every trial they can run without lifting a finger to help clubs get the events done. Granted, most "newbies," particularly those brought into the sport by pros, don't know which end is "up" relative to how a field trial works; they just show up, run their dog(s), pull out a chair/umbrella/popup, and proceed to "watch" all day, at least as long as their dog(s) is/are still in the stake(s) they entered. Their primary concerns are the running order and callbacks...and where they or their pro has to be next. In most cases, if they know that, they've helped us get the trial done mechanically...but as far as knowing what makes a field trial happen, too many of them don't. Sadly, too many of them don't seem to care very much about finding out, either. "I paid my entry fee...THAT is how I support your club." Anybody heard THAT one before?

Don't get me wrong: I don't think the sport as a whole, especially the abilities of the dogs, would be where it is/they are today without the participation and influence of professional trainers. Several folks that I consider good friends are professional trainers and to their great credit, they encourage their clients to get involved and to ask when/if they can be of help at a trial. Some pros even lend their own helpers to clubs as bird boys/shooters/helpers, and that is ALWAYS appreciated. I guess my point is that you can learn a TON by helping out at a trial, most of the time a LOT more than you can up in the gallery bs'ing with everyone else who has a dog on that pro's truck.

Mark, I hope these comments don't have you rethinking your "kinder, gentler, new age man" comments...I'm just speaking from what I've seen over the years.

Fortunately, there will always be people with a passion to learn about dogs and what makes them do what they do. I have been in that camp since the first time I ever sat in judgment of dogs at a licensed field trial in 1985. Sometimes I'm more right than others...anyone who has ever judged/ever will judge a field trial is one event away from laying an egg. The idea is to learn from your mistakes (understand WHY what happened, happened), listen to folks whose opinions your trust and value, and do better next time. Sometimes Mother Nature gives you the finger, sometimes she's your best friend...but these are ALL things that can only be learned with EXPERIENCE. People who want to "get" from the game need to "give" to make it continue in a better way.

I'm rambling now, so I'll stop...but I hope I've made my point. If we all made it a point to make a conscious effort to make our own field trial experiences more enjoyable, perhaps those that we want to become more involved would follow our lead...perhaps more consideration of "The Golden Rule" on an everyday basis might make that happen...can't hurt to try! :razz:

K G

 

[Steve Amrein]

The Keith (KG) that I remember often had a little "bite" in his comments. Kinder, gentler, KG, the new-age man!

Number me amongst those who believe that some exposure to actual placements in the stakes that you are judging is invaluable, dare I say essential, to most likely being a capable judge. Judges must have ribboned within the previous five years in the stakes they can judge in the Hunt Test game. New blood is a great idea but, in my opinion, some folks I've seen have no business (no credentials) to judge all-age stakes.

While I wholeheartedly agree with the some experience /placements in a stake to judge. I personally know a few people that have judged a national, have had a "N" dog and or have owned 100+ point dogs. They have taken a bit of time off for health or personal reasons and dont currently have a competitive AA dog. To disqualify these folks are doing a huge disservice to the game. These folks dont post here and I am not going to post the names.

I also think most folks are happy to give back to the sport by judging but if were not asked would not be overly put out. I think when people are disqualified when a rule is black & white without looking at the picture and taking away from the judges selection committee is like adding rules/laws to legislate common sense.

 

[canuckkiller]

Judges ... Untapped

I have remained silent during the bruhaha about the RFTN article. Several reasons.
However, the "A, B, C", post of T. Bell is absolutely contrary to everything, not the
least tradition, good common sense and panders to those who have agendas for
"change" when change is not the solution.

Bill Connor

 

[RookieTrainer]

Like EdA I find it a tough weekend judging with someone who knows little & does not carry their weight, I don't need that.

Since I got into this addiction a scant 3 years ago, I have had several folks really go out of their way to help me. Probably not coincidentally, they to a person have drummed home the message about giving back to the sport, that being the only way it can continue to thrive and grow. Like most of the rest of you, I have marshaled, shot flyers, etc., because folks have done that and more for me. If nothing else I owe.

The next logical step would be judging, but I have some real qualms about it because of statements like the one above. When I started with the dog I am training, my first, I knew little (probably still the case) and I could not carry my weight at a training day. I'm not even sure I knew enough to be dangerous at that point. But folks stuck with me, and I got better. There were a couple training days where I felt like I was holding everything up because they had to stop and explain EVERYTHING that was going on so I would have a prayer of knowing what to do. But I listened, worked at it by reading/watching various training materials out there, and tried to do everything I could to improve on my own without help. But, as I am sure you would expect, I needed lots of help outside of that.

What if, when I showed up at my first training day and quickly proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that I had really no idea what I was doing, the guys who took me under their wings said "Well, we'd like to help, but it is tough training with somebody who knows little and cannot carry their weight?" Note that I would assume we would all distinguish "ignorant (knows very little)" from "stupid (doesn't care to know)" and further that we would all distinguish "cannot (yet)" from "will not".

I'm not really directing this at anyone because I think it probably describes just about everyone who is involved in the dog games. You started out being a sort of "net taker" of knowledge and training day efforts simply because you didn't know anything that would allow you to add any value. As you stuck with it, likely because one or more persons took you on as a project and helped you through the hard spots, you changed that, but it took some help from someone more experienced than you. And you inconvenienced that person or persons by taking extra time at training days, spending untold amounts of time on the phone with you troubleshooting "problems", etc.

My question is why would we not want to take that same approach to judging? And how else do you expect to find judging candidates other than ignorant and eager? They need to be taught how to judge (setups, etc.) just like they needed to be taught how to train a dog at some point. Why is judging different?

 

[TBell]

I'll give a very brief response to each reply, as I have many commitments to attend to this week....one of which is a judging assignment in CA.

a) what if said handler is not asked to judge, has health problems or personal conflicts that prevent them from judging, are we going to eliminate that person from competing when they have qualified their dog? That will never fly.

b) & c) I do not understand

a) If handler is not asked to judge, there may be good reason. My suggestion would be to actually VOLUNTEER to judge. Call clubs and ASK for a judging assignment. I promise you will get one.

Too bad of health to judge 4 days a year or personal conflicts, Dr. Ed, but still able to run a dog and qualify???

b) Handlers already earn either Champion or Minor points for judging per the AKC Judges Directory but they stop at 8. (ie. Champion - 8 Minor - 8 Year Last Judged - 2013)

Give handlers 1 point for an All-age stake and 1/2 point for a minor stake. These would accumulate just as their dog points.

c) Per your argument of health, time, etc., allow your judges points earned through the year to count towards one dog with a win. Example: You have a dog with an Amateur win, but not the additional two points needed to qualify for the National Am. Now lets say you have been busier judging than running your dog this year and have judged two Opens. This gives you two Handler points which you can apply to the points your dog needs to qualify to run the NARC.....dog earned the Am Win and you earned the two additional points. You BOTH have qualified for the NARC.

I have remained silent during the bruhaha about the RFTN article. Several reasons.
However, the "A, B, C", post of T. Bell is absolutely contrary to everything, not the
least tradition, good common sense and panders to those who have agendas for
"change" when change is not the solution.

Bill Connor

Life is about changes, and sometimes they are good ones. Mine is only a suggestion for thought. Another suggestion would be to allow the more active participants of field trials decide what rules should be changed and/or added. A person who has not judged many recent trials or handled a dog in the last several years could not know the challenging situation in obtaining good, qualified judges.

 

[Glenda Brown]

I was asked to marshal at the first seven field trials I ever ran. At the first one, they put me with an experienced marshal---and having had umpteen years working at sporting events with the kids, competing with horses, I felt nothing could be harder to handle than a little league parent so had at it! As a result, I got to know the people, see the dogs running, listen to the judges, and really become involved. It was a good way to start to feel immediately part of the game.

As Lanse wrote, we would line up judges 5 years out. When I was President of the SCRC, I would call them and send them a letter once a year reminding them of when they would be judging for us. In those days, we always tried to bring in two outside 8 pt judges, each to do one of the major stakes. We always had a big tailgate Saturday night, again, which everyone attended and got to know one another. And---the trials often were smaller although no less competitive re the quality of the dogs. Bringing in outside judges not only helped educate our local members who would often be co-judges, but we saw different set-ups, got to know dog people from other areas of the country, made new friends.

Economically, it has become harder to bring in outside judges and in some cases and in some areas, the judging almost becomes incestuous as the same people are recycled on a regular basis. It was discussed here earlier about in "the old days" clubs had more training days, encouraging non-club members to attend, helping them train their young dogs and encouraging them to be a part of the group. I know times have changed, but this is something to give some thought to reviving. Also, some clubs and areas are excellent about having judging seminars---these are especially attractive if you bring in some "names" to give them a taste of the bigger field trial community. Field trial clubs could put on one hunt test a year, work at it, and get to know the hunt test people. I started in hunt tests and then went on to field trials. I often have run hunt tests with trial dogs and have had some FC-AFC-MH dogs as do some of the other field trial people in my area. Meeting and mingling allowed members of both venues to realize we have much more in common than we have separating us.

The same as Ed, I had a lot of wet saddle blankets, i.e., getting out there training by myself, competing and getting my rear kicked, before I first judged. I also had some wonderful mentors that took me under their wing and provided me with support, encouragement, and educating me along the way. If all those that judge now, start acting as a mentor (and I know many of you already do), it might embolden some others to become new judges. There are some who hear only criticism of tests and judges so are reluctant to put themselves in that position. Maybe, while sitting in the gallery, pointing out what is good in a test and how important it is to have those judges give up the days that they do in an effort to give back to the sport instead of criticizing, might encourage a few more to step up to the plate.

Glenda

 

[Marvin S]

Great overall discussion, great thread in general. The only "thought" I will add is that some clubs take the path of least resistance when it comes to finding judges. Some get REALLY lucky when it comes to getting judges (right place, right time), some have a good network or "quid-pro-quo" arrangement to get help and, in turn, give help...and some do it the old-fashioned way and send out 100+ letters out five years in advance and "stock up" (I have ALWAYS been a fan, Lanse Brown!).

Darrin Green's post back on page 5 pretty much sums up my feelings on the situation. It's a grand game, one I'm happy to be associated with...but it has some issues, and unless some new approaches are attempted to solve some of these problems (hint: relying solely on "new blood" ain't gonna cut it), the judging situation will only get worse. K G

You've been around long enough to know this is not a new issue - but it seems every solution enacted only makes things worse.

OK Marv you win I dont have time to pull the records to give you the time date and what I was wearing that day when I had placements. I sure you wont be inviting me to judge anytime soon. I think I recall that your not a member of a club. BTW you website list is either not working properly or its not been updated since 2009. So if AKC has dropped you name of the records I guess as of now you would have to take the test if you were to test again. I am sorry but using your formula your no longer qualified to judge. (Not mine, probably RAC)

I actually think one of the reasons the sport is not getting into judging are the reasons Marv gives. The condescending attitude that you have only been in the game 10 years and only have a few placements you not worthy to judge. Or you pay to have your dogs trained so you should not judge either. Or not kissed the ring of a FT legend.
...

In 2009 our Mayor fired the best member of her work force - I thought it pretty stupid & am now involved in city politics. Very time consuming!

The info is there & IMO relevant, but for now it's not being used. The new rules, rather than improving judging will lower quality -
time will tell & by then those who could have assisted in improvement will no longer be available.

I have remained silent during the bruhaha about the RFTN article. Several reasons.
However, the "A, B, C", post of T. Bell is absolutely contrary to everything, not the
least tradition, good common sense and panders to those who have agendas for
"change" when change is not the solution.

Bill Connor

Agree, though like EdA I'm not entirely sure of what she's posting!

I do believe some standards are in order but should be of the carrot variety rather than the stick -
You would be amazed at the number of people who have shown to be good with dogs & are very
good judges who judge very little. I'm inclined to think that many of the club people doing the
asking are intimidated when dealing with someone of perceived stature, so settle for someone on
their stature level.

 

[Marvin S]

Since I got into this addiction a scant 3 years ago, I have had several folks really go out of their way to help me. Probably not coincidentally, they to a person have drummed home the message about giving back to the sport, that being the only way it can continue to thrive and grow. Like most of the rest of you, I have marshaled, shot flyers, etc., because folks have done that and more for me. If nothing else I owe.

The next logical step would be judging, but I have some real qualms about it because of statements like the one above. When I started with the dog I am training, my first, I knew little (probably still the case) and I could not carry my weight at a training day. I'm not even sure I knew enough to be dangerous at that point. But folks stuck with me, and I got better. There were a couple training days where I felt like I was holding everything up because they had to stop and explain EVERYTHING that was going on so I would have a prayer of knowing what to do. But I listened, worked at it by reading/watching various training materials out there, and tried to do everything I could to improve on my own without help. But, as I am sure you would expect, I needed lots of help outside of that.

What if, when I showed up at my first training day and quickly proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that I had really no idea what I was doing, the guys who took me under their wings said "Well, we'd like to help, but it is tough training with somebody who knows little and cannot carry their weight?" Note that I would assume we would all distinguish "ignorant (knows very little)" from "stupid (doesn't care to know)" and further that we would all distinguish "cannot (yet)" from "will not".

I'm not really directing this at anyone because I think it probably describes just about everyone who is involved in the dog games. You started out being a sort of "net taker" of knowledge and training day efforts simply because you didn't know anything that would allow you to add any value. As you stuck with it, likely because one or more persons took you on as a project and helped you through the hard spots, you changed that, but it took some help from someone more experienced than you. And you inconvenienced that person or persons by taking extra time at training days, spending untold amounts of time on the phone with you troubleshooting "problems", etc.

My question is why would we not want to take that same approach to judging? And how else do you expect to find judging candidates other than ignorant and eager? They need to be taught how to judge (setups, etc.) just like they needed to be taught how to train a dog at some point. Why is judging different?

Your analogy falls flat! Someone who agrees to judge has a responsibility to be prepared to do same .

 

[DoubleHaul]

The Keith (KG) that I remember often had a little "bite" in his comments. Kinder, gentler, KG, the new-age man!

Number me amongst those who believe that some exposure to actual placements in the stakes that you are judging is invaluable, dare I say essential, to most likely being a capable judge. Judges must have ribboned within the previous five years in the stakes they can judge in the Hunt Test game. New blood is a great idea but, in my opinion, some folks I've seen have no business (no credentials) to judge all-age stakes.

I agree with you, generally. Thinking about the good and bad judges I know, some of the best are running every trial (and helping) with the dog they have and training it when they get a chance. They do have lots of exposure to the stakes, but simply are not ever going to have the 'pelts' Marvin and others seem to think are required. On the flip side, the few judges that cause me not to waste my money on entry fees are very experienced, but they aren't good judges for various reasons.

I think that Ted sort of summed it up earlier--all these factors should make better judges but don't always. All things being equal, a judge who has run a bazillion dogs in AA stakes should be a better judge than the judge with two apprenticeships under his or her belt, but I can say that it isn't a lock that is true.

 

[huntinman]

I was asked to marshal at the first seven field trials I ever ran. At the first one, they put me with an experienced marshal---and having had umpteen years working at sporting events with the kids, competing with horses, I felt nothing could be harder to handle than a little league parent so had at it! As a result, I got to know the people, see the dogs running, listen to the judges, and really become involved. It was a good way to start to feel immediately part of the game.

As Lanse wrote, we would line up judges 5 years out. When I was President of the SCRC, I would call them and send them a letter once a year reminding them of when they would be judging for us. In those days, we always tried to bring in two outside 8 pt judges, each to do one of the major stakes. We always had a big tailgate Saturday night, again, which everyone attended and got to know one another. And---the trials often were smaller although no less competitive re the quality of the dogs. Bringing in outside judges not only helped educate our local members who would often be co-judges, but we saw different set-ups, got to know dog people from other areas of the country, made new friends.

Economically, it has become harder to bring in outside judges and in some cases and in some areas, the judging almost becomes incestuous as the same people are recycled on a regular basis. It was discussed here earlier about in "the old days" clubs had more training days, encouraging non-club members to attend, helping them train their young dogs and encouraging them to be a part of the group. I know times have changed, but this is something to give some thought to reviving. Also, some clubs and areas are excellent about having judging seminars---these are especially attractive if you bring in some "names" to give them a taste of the bigger field trial community. Field trial clubs could put on one hunt test a year, work at it, and get to know the hunt test people. I started in hunt tests and then went on to field trials. I often have run hunt tests with trial dogs and have had some FC-AFC-MH dogs as do some of the other field trial people in my area. Meeting and mingling allowed members of both venues to realize we have much more in common than we have separating us.

The same as Ed, I had a lot of wet saddle blankets, i.e., getting out there training by myself, competing and getting my rear kicked, before I first judged. I also had some wonderful mentors that took me under their wing and provided me with support, encouragement, and educating me along the way. If all those that judge now, start acting as a mentor (and I know many of you already do), it might embolden some others to become new judges. There are some who hear only criticism of tests and judges so are reluctant to put themselves in that position. Maybe, while sitting in the gallery, pointing out what is good in a test and how important it is to have those judges give up the days that they do in an effort to give back to the sport instead of criticizing, might encourage a few more to step up to the plate.

Glenda

Good post Glenda! As usual...

 

[canuckkiller]

Judges ... Untapped

In response to T. Bell's statement -
"A person who has not judged many recent trials or handled a dog in the last several years could not know the challenging situation in obtaining good qualified judges".

This statement is incongrous, wrong and BIAS!!

The insinuation is that unless one is currently handling a dog on the circuit that/
those individuals are not qualified to judge. Poppycock!!

I do not believe there is a true shortage of judges notwithstanding the explosion
of the number of clubs & trials. The phone doesn't ring for many good judges
because of a myriad of reasons. That's a whole new book/post.

W. D. Connor

 

[Charles C.]

1. Lots of judging points doesn't make someone a good judge. One of the dumbest marks I've ever seen was thrown by a "legend" of the sport.
2. The idea that most relatively inexperienced judges are dead weight and can't go on to be good judges is pompous and ridiculous. Most people running field trials are successful, intelligent people and are capable of learning given the opportunity.
3. I'm sure I'm on someone's list as a bad judge. You can't make everyone happy. I was recently accused of favoring a friend in placements even though we went through the sheets 2 or 3 extra times just to make sure we couldn't find a dog with better work. I'd drop my mother if her dog didn't do the work.
4. Some people who are takers (don't judge and/or help put on events) probably don't realize they are takers, but I'm not sure that says much for their intelligence.
5. I'd like to know who these good, qualified judges are that aren't being asked to judge.

 

[Goldenboy]

My personal experience pales in comparison to many, many more accomplished handlers and trainers. But, over the years, I have come to realize how little I knew about training and what it took to be competitive in all-age stakes until I started handling a dog in the third series of major stakes and failed and failed and failed and then, started making it through on occasion and then failing and failing fourth series and then making it through on occasion, and then, even more infrequent, winning a few ribbons along the way. Then, being asked to judge major stakes but getting paired with experienced and considerate judges like Pat Martin, Don Driggers, Loren Morehouse, Duncan Christie and others who mentored yet didn't condescend or bully and who respected my desire to do well, my achievement, knowledge and ability. And, I put in my time as a club member, marshall, thrower, gunner, re-birder, FT committee member, etc.

Someone here was once castigated, unfairly in my opinion, for referring to a judging assignment as a "vacation". If you love watching dogs work, thoroughly enjoy the environment and culture of a Field Trial, and sincerely want to give back to the sport, a weekend in a judges chair watching incredible dogs in what is usually a magnificent setting certainly beats a day at the office or mowing the lawn.

 

[Marvin S]

I agree with you, generally. Thinking about the good and bad judges I know, some of the best are running every trial (and helping) with the dog they have and training it when they get a chance. They do have lots of exposure to the stakes, but simply are not ever going to have the 'pelts' Marvin and others seem to think are required. On the flip side, the few judges that cause me not to waste my money on entry fees are very experienced, but they aren't good judges for various reasons.

I think that Ted sort of summed it up earlier--all these factors should make better judges but don't always. All things being equal, a judge who has run a bazillion dogs in AA stakes should be a better judge than the judge with two apprenticeships under his or her belt, but I can say that it isn't a lock that is true.

There is no reason those people cannot acquire "pelts" as many who are posting on this thread have done. To say any less is to say you don't have the confidence
that you can measure up to those of the past, when most here know some will take that challenge. If FT'ing was easy, it would lose it's allure .

Placings are the only way of telling from afar who is involved with their dog - over time in the AA stakes one can see those whose only placings are in the AM,
& possibly minimal in the Open, while their dog has FC in their title & is normally run in that stake by their trainer. The training of a dog & the failures inherent
in that endeavor will teach you more than any paper exercise. In sports it's about reps, there are not many reps in writing a monthly check or observing the
goings on at a trial. Reps are accomplished by doing something that may have a consequence. I've been to a number of judging clinics, if you walk away from
any of them with a couple of useful ideas your ahead of the game & that's only you know enough to recognize what's happening.

Many years ago during my time in the service I was chosen to put on the Base Golf tournament. The last two people to show up were a colonel who was a
regular at the national Am & an individual who set a course record at a local course. We're playing Indian Hills in Omaha & they invite me along - to say I'm
a duffer would be a real compliment, but I go. On the 3rd hole I'm 75 feet from the pin & uphill with a very unlevel green, I step up, address the ball & proceed
to make the putt. Both gentlemen congratulate me, I'm too stupid to know what happened because I have no inkling of what is involved. For the Newby's that
take offense at my comments, it's not personal. But you need to get a thicker skin .

Your last sentence is, at the least, about as weasel worded as a statement can get. Most of us have the understanding that when dealing with people on an
unlevel playing field, there are no absolutes.

 

[DoubleHaul]

Your last sentence is, at the least, about as weasel worded as a statement can get. Most of us have the understanding that when dealing with people on an
unlevel playing field, there are no absolutes.

About as weasel worded as constantly referring to a magic database that has not been updated or even available on your web site for years?

Put it this way. I do not think you can, a priori, come up with a level of accomplishment or lack thereof that correlates with judging ability or quality. To paraphrase an old saw: Good judges are good judges. For every prerequisite you come up with to judge, I am sure i can find a good one that doesn't meet that term and bad ones that do.

 

[Wade Thurman]

Person A runs 35 AA trials a year in various parts of the country.

Person B sits and watches 35 AA stakes a year in various parts of the country. Person B does have an AA dog


Would one be any better than the other in the judging selection process?

 

[Doug Main]

I do not believe there is a true shortage of judges notwithstanding the explosion
of the number of clubs & trials. The phone doesn't ring for many good judges
because of a myriad of reasons. That's a whole new book/post.

W. D. Connor

I would like to know who these people are and why the phone doesn't ring? Maybe that's the problem?

Do they really exist? The only ones I know don't want to judge.

 

[John Robinson]

1. Lots of judging points doesn't make someone a good judge. One of the dumbest marks I've ever seen was thrown by a "legend" of the sport.
2. The idea that most relatively inexperienced judges are dead weight and can't go on to be good judges is pompous and ridiculous. Most people running field trials are successful, intelligent people and are capable of learning given the opportunity.
3. I'm sure I'm on someone's list as a bad judge. You can't make everyone happy. I was recently accused of favoring a friend in placements even though we went through the sheets 2 or 3 extra times just to make sure we couldn't find a dog with better work. I'd drop my mother if her dog didn't do the work.
4. Some people who are takers (don't judge and/or help put on events) probably don't realize they are takers, but I'm not sure that says much for their intelligence.
5. I'd like to know who these good, qualified judges are that aren't being asked to judge.

So many good points on this page, but I'll quote yours as I agree totally. Of course you would expect the more time spent on line running and training a dog, the better judge you would be, but I think that's way too simplistic. I have personally seen some people relatively new to the sport just get it, for whatever reason. Maybe they are inherently more intelligent, have born in dog sense, try harder to be a student of the game, whatever, they just get it. On the other hand I have seen people with decades of experience, even having titled dogs, that don't get it. They either don't pay attention or somehow don't have the aptitude to understand dogs. Then there are philosophical issues, some judges lean on tight technical test as a crutch while others utilize bird placement to get answers. Finally, I don't believe great success in titling dogs is necessarily a better indicator of being a good judge than those who have had less success. Some people have just been blessed with better dogs to start with while others stuck with one ore two dogs for the lifetime of those dogs regardless of how competitive those dogs were.

I think the best way forward is for the people choosing judges keep they eyes out for those who seem to have a natural talent for judging dog work and try to place them with some good mentors.