RetrieverTraining.Net - the RTF banner
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Read with interest some of the threads regarding increasing trial/hunt test costs.

Wondering whether the AKC and clubs might want to adopt the conformation requirements regarding judging in trials/hunt tests. To be licensed as a judge in conformation, one of the requirements is serving as a steward for 6 times. A steward is sort of a marshal of the conformation ring. A person cannot become a judge until he/she has stewarded at an AKC licensed conformation show at least 6 times.

This type of requirement could be easily translated into similar requirements for those who might wish to obtain judging approval for field trials or hunt tests. Require someone who wants to apply to judge to have served at least 40 hours as a bird boy/gunner. Sounds like a lot but that is 10 four hour shifts or about an average work week total. If a person doesn't want to commit 40 hours total to assisting at tests, should he/she be even considered for a judge's license?

Requiring folks who want AKC approval as judges to put in at least 40 hours as bird boys/gunners will certainly help some clubs gain volunteers for thier tests. AND assisting as a bird boy and/or gunner for at least 40 hours is going to give even better perspective to aspiring judges.

J. Marti
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
I'm sure the new judging requirements will shrink the pool enough. I see no reason to make it anymore difficult to find good folks willing to give there time. I would be willing to bet that most of the folks that judge are the first ones to lend a helping hand. Just my .02 cents
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
781 Posts
Correct me if my information is wrong, but aren't conformation judges paid (fairly well) for their judging assignments?

Hunt test and field trial judges donate time that they could be spending running their dogs. I would bet most have thrown their fare share of birds in the past and many continue to do so when they are needed. Judges already give back to the sport. Perhaps we should focus on the other 95% of participants that sit in the gallery that always seem to have opinions, but don't lift a finger to help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
719 Posts
Perhaps we should focus on the other 95% of participants that sit in the gallery that always seem to have opinions, but don't lift a finger to help.
Here ... Here ... once you are done running your dog, get out there and lend a hand!

Also, the tatoo is awesome ... I would never get one but one of my dog .. perhaps ..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,209 Posts
I agree with Dan. Finding diferent judges and not using the same judge over and over again for each event will be harder in the future. Yes you can fly them in but this gets very expensive. Bring in 2 far away judges-ok. But, that still leave the clubs looking for local (within 400 miles) judges to fill the rest of the judging panel.

I don't see how having a 40 hour working requirement would help bring new judges in.

If someone knows how to keep club members from hiding in their truck to avoid helping out please let me know.:rolleyes:

Chairman for the Spring 2012 OVRC HT/Qual regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,209 Posts
Not to change the subject but one thing OVRC did this past fall was to hire and 4H shooting group to work as bird boys/girls. The older ones were able to shoot the popper guns and if they were under 16 we had them plant blinds or take birds from the judges. Plus all of these kids had parents with them that worked also. This allowed the club members to organize equipment, marshall and keep things moving in the field.

I think all weekend we did not have 1 club member in the field throwing birds. Plus the 4H club made a nice little chunck on money- Way more than 2 days of selling pizzas or subs like they have done in the past to raise money.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,411 Posts
To the op, do you judge?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,685 Posts
Correct me if my information is wrong, but aren't conformation judges paid (fairly well) for their judging assignments?

Hunt test and field trial judges donate time that they could be spending running their dogs. I would bet most have thrown their fare share of birds in the past and many continue to do so when they are needed. Judges already give back to the sport. Perhaps we should focus on the other 95% of participants that sit in the gallery that always seem to have opinions, but don't lift a finger to help.

Winner, Winner!! Chicken Dinner!!

:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,352 Posts
Read with interest some of the threads regarding increasing trial/hunt test costs.

Wondering whether the AKC and clubs might want to adopt the conformation requirements regarding judging in trials/hunt tests. To be licensed as a judge in conformation, one of the requirements is serving as a steward for 6 times. A steward is sort of a marshal of the conformation ring. A person cannot become a judge until he/she has stewarded at an AKC licensed conformation show at least 6 times.

This type of requirement could be easily translated into similar requirements for those who might wish to obtain judging approval for field trials or hunt tests. Require someone who wants to apply to judge to have served at least 40 hours as a bird boy/gunner. Sounds like a lot but that is 10 four hour shifts or about an average work week total. If a person doesn't want to commit 40 hours total to assisting at tests, should he/she be even considered for a judge's license?

Requiring folks who want AKC approval as judges to put in at least 40 hours as bird boys/gunners will certainly help some clubs gain volunteers for thier tests. AND assisting as a bird boy and/or gunner for at least 40 hours is going to give even better perspective to aspiring judges.

J. Marti
J.Marti,

What benefit would such a requirement provide to the retriever games?

I'm trying to understand how this would help the field retriever sports.

Thanks, Chris
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,375 Posts
Correct me if my information is wrong, but aren't conformation judges paid (fairly well) for their judging assignments?

Hunt test and field trial judges donate time that they could be spending running their dogs. I would bet most have thrown their fare share of birds in the past and many continue to do so when they are needed. Judges already give back to the sport. Perhaps we should focus on the other 95% of participants that sit in the gallery that always seem to have opinions, but don't lift a finger to help.
I do recall some saying conformation judges get paid. Maybe HT/FT judges should as well. It wouldn't reduce costs but it might improve judging and expand the pool. Dunno.
Not many judge and fewer are good at it. Imposing conditions to donate your time will not help reduce costs. Though it would certainly reduce the judge's pool. The system is flawed for sure but it does plod forward. It is a case of handlers running multiple dogs. Clubs having too few members, some with as little as two (just because a name is on the premium as a committee member doesn't mean they do anything). Pros with numerous dogs, bringing no help and absentee owners have changed the sport for better or worse. So clubs rely on entry fees to pay for help. A HOF field trialer told me few years ago said," this is a dying sport". Maybe, maybe not, but it sure won't be the same in the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,268 Posts
Imposing work requirements on the participants running their dogs or paying a pro to run their dogs makes way more sense to me.

Judges and workers are the "givers" in the sport. Why increase their burden?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
I'm sure the new judging requirements will shrink the pool enough. I see no reason to make it anymore difficult to find good folks willing to give there time. I would be willing to bet that most of the folks that judge are the first ones to lend a helping hand. Just my .02 cents
True and false 1 big B
The new requirements are good and bad. They hold back young guys from getting there feet wet in the judges chair.
They will shrink the judging pool and make getting judges harder.
If I had anything to say about it I would put more responsibly on the club for placing young "low or no point judges" with quality judges.and modify or eliminate these requirements.
Out of all the trials I've ran I've only been disappointed in the judges maybe four times and two of them trials is were a young judge was place out of hast with a judge that wasn't in my mind quality. The last thing we need as a ft community is giving our young judges a bad judging experience. Pairing judges isnt the easiest job personality and experience are two things that very important too having a successful trial.
Sure judging could be better but the last thing we need is more requirements.
With all this said I'm one of them low point ft judges that needs to be placed with a quality co/judge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,375 Posts
On face value pairing low point judges with high point judges makes sense. But don't assume a low point judge isn't a quality judge and a high point judge is a quality judge.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,012 Posts
Where are the "new" AKC field trial judges?

In the past 2 or maybe it has been 3 years, I know of only two persons who served as apprentice judges at trials here in No. Calif. -- and one of them apparently moved away and no longer lives in California.

Two new judges in 3 years and now only one? With that growth rate in new judges, there isn't much chance of pairing up a new judge with a seasoned experienced judge.

Also, it has been our club's experience in obtaining judges that many of the seasoned, experienced judges who are known to be quality judges are downright picky about who their co-judge is. Whether they will say yes to judging your trial depends on who has been lined up as their co-judge. One of the first things asked when my husband calls them to judge is, "Who is my co-judge."

I can understand that. Nobody wants to spend a judging assignment being miserable co-judging with someone who is a jerk, who has a reputation for being political, a reputation for being a lousy judge, or a reputation for being lazy and not holding up their end of the work.

There are some seasoned, experienced, quality judges who do not want to mentor a newbie. These judges don't look upon it as mentoring, they think of it as babysitting and are soured on the prospect of judging with a newbie.

Field trials definitely need more judges. What the clubs have to do (and I know some are doing) is finding judges from other regions who have reputations of being good judges and worth the additional expense to have them judge. The club has to budget more money for airfare and sometimes rental cars. It's worth it if the judge turns out to be a good one. He/she will be asked again.

My 2-cents,
Helen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,012 Posts
On face value pairing low point judges with high point judges makes sense. But don't assume a low point judge isn't a quality judge and a high point judge is a quality judge.
You are so right.
Helen
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,156 Posts
Read with interest some of the threads regarding increasing trial/hunt test costs.

Wondering whether the AKC and clubs might want to adopt the conformation requirements regarding judging in trials/hunt tests. To be licensed as a judge in conformation, one of the requirements is serving as a steward for 6 times. A steward is sort of a marshal of the conformation ring. A person cannot become a judge until he/she has stewarded at an AKC licensed conformation show at least 6 times.

This type of requirement could be easily translated into similar requirements for those who might wish to obtain judging approval for field trials or hunt tests. Require someone who wants to apply to judge to have served at least 40 hours as a bird boy/gunner. Sounds like a lot but that is 10 four hour shifts or about an average work week total. If a person doesn't want to commit 40 hours total to assisting at tests, should he/she be even considered for a judge's license?

Requiring folks who want AKC approval as judges to put in at least 40 hours as bird boys/gunners will certainly help some clubs gain volunteers for thier tests. AND assisting as a bird boy and/or gunner for at least 40 hours is going to give even better perspective to aspiring judges.

J. Marti
I'm reasonably sure that even the most modestly active hunt test judges put in more than 40 hours as a bird boy or gunner at their clubs' tests prior to becoming judges.

If you're talking about doing it within a timeframe of some sort... well, let's run some numbers, and base it on one year either before or after the first seminar:

My club is now running a two-day test in the fall and a three-day test in the spring. Figure an 8-hour workday. Figure that this makes it impossible to run one's own dog or dogs. That's a minimum of 150 dollars in test fees forfeited. In my case that might be as much as 375 dollars, and I only have 2 dogs.

Not every club has 5 days of tests (and one of our days is a weekday--I take a personal day to run). What about areas where there may be two days of tests or trials to volunteer at within a few hundred miles?

And don't even begin to suggest someone travel on their own dime to work for free to have the honor of donating their time later.

And extending the timeframe more than a year really limits the productiveness of having a seminar and an apprenticeship prior to judging, and would make a whole lot of people say the hell with it.

The numbers--neither time, nor money--don't add up as a benefit to the club or the judge/potential judge, even if, as the OP posits, this would somehow create better judges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,657 Posts
In the past 2 or maybe it has been 3 years, I know of only two persons who served as apprentice judges at trials here in No. Calif. -- and one of them apparently moved away and no longer lives in California.
In Alaska we have had one who has jumped through the AKC hoops to become a judge. I feel the AKC has shot themselves in the foot with the judge qualification rule. Makes the running of a trial harder.

Who voted for this anyway?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
On face value pairing low point judges with high point judges makes sense. But don't assume a low point judge isn't a quality judge and a high point judge is a quality judge.
My point exactly. Some of the older folks that have judged 100s of trials are still being asked to judged. How do we get a bigger judging pool but by getting the low or no points guys and gals in the hot seat.
I wanted a guy to judge a major w/a solid co/judge at our spring trial that has a great reputation. And is a solid dog guy but w/only two minor and a apprenticeship hes not allowed by retriever board.
This is stupid BUT I UNDERSTAND.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
Helen
Your absolutely correct about the seasoned judge asking who is my co/judge. I get that a lot in most part I hope there talking about someone they will click with. If they tell me that there not interested in judging w/someone new to judging I call BS on that. That is one of the main reasons we as a ft COMMUNITY see the same judges time and time again. Not saying bad judges.
We have some great minds in this game and great judges but if the seasoned judges are telling me they won't judge w/a new guy well then plan on judging all the way to your grave.
My god I hope we could get this simple task right someday
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top