Throw Down Trial Judges

[cmc274]

For folks that run in and organize throw down / planted quail trials, how important is to you that the judges have wild bird hunting experience?

With a large swatch of the country east of the Mississippi being void of huntable numbers of wild quail, the number of judges with quail hunting experience is decreasing and will continue to do so, especially in the younger generation of judges. I also know that judges without extensive wild bird experience are more than qualified, capable and do consistently use the best dogs. Putting together a panel of judges, especially for an akc weekend trial with multiple stakes, would be almost impractical for every trial held if hunting experience was a requirement. Since good judges without hunting experience are more than capable doing a commendable job in the saddle, should we place hunting experience in high regard when selecting judges?

Personally, when it comes to splitting hairs and putting up the best dogs, especially in championship type settings, I am not sure if you can learn enough about application and what constitutes good bird work from only experiencing it in a trial setting. You can talk about how you think a dog should pattern or what constitutes good bird work based on what you have seen at trials, what other judges have used, etc but the fact is you haven't seen the real thing. An example that comes to mind is a dog that self relocates to pin birds, I am certain some judges would not use a dog that moves after establishing point (not talking about one that moves up as your are getting off your horse), therefore smart trainers do not allow a dog to do so in training, but if you look back at the unproductives at AKC Gun Dog Ch. at ames last year, you wonder how some dogs may have done on those coveys if they had honed a skill that can be looked down on by some judges.

Couple of snipits on the topic.

In a recent conversation with a friend regarding evaluating dogs, he told me 'you can't fool those pointer boys from the south who grew up wild bird hunting' and in an article on Strideaway, Chelsey Harris is quoted as follows "“Anybody with a few prejudices can place a dog that don’t make mistakes,” Chesley Harris once told me. “But it takes somebody that’s killed wild game, followed a relocation crawling in mud, corrected and checkcorded a lot of dogs, and inhaled a lot of dog and — to pick the BEST sumbitch…” All three of the judging articles posted are worthy of a read. http://strideaway.com/category/Judging/

I hope a productive conversation can develop on this topic.

[GrayDawg]

With a large swatch of the country east of the Mississippi being void of huntable numbers of wild quail, the number of judges with quail hunting experience is decreasing and will continue to do so, especially in the younger generation of judges.

Very true. But we have lots of Woodcock & Ruffed Grouse. Why are you holding up quail exclusively as the quarry that potential judges should have experience with?

I think it depends on the type of trial you are running and the stakes offered. For example a little weekend AKC trial held in CT can have a totally different judge looking at dogs in a Walking Gundog stake than that of an AF All-Age Horseback Championship trial held on the prairies in MT. The experience of the judge required for the latter judging assingment (in MT) would need to be vast, in addition to the judge's horsemanship needing to be excellent. Conversely, for the Walking AKC stake in CT, the judge wouldn't need as much experience.

In either case, hunting wild Quail wouldn't be a prerequisite for either judging assignment in my head. It would be nice if the AKC Walking stake judge had some bird hunting experience though.

Rob

[PntrRookie]

how important is to you that the judges have wild bird hunting experience?

On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the MOST IMPORTANT...I give it a 6.

Putting together a panel of judges, especially for an akc weekend trial with multiple stakes, would be almost impractical for every trial held if hunting experience was a requirement.

If you try to get judges that have all the boxes checked on your "want list" you will NEVER fill it. Just not practical.

Here are some of the items I look for when selecting judges...FWIW...not in ANY particular order.
1. What are MY financial resources in getting them here
2. Past judging trial experience
3. Ever broke a dog before?
4. Will they learn/work well/stand up/add to the other judge
5. Do they have their own horses/equipment (goes back to #1 above)
6. Have they trialed before
7. What trial success do they have with their OWN dogs
8. I will select a handful and review it with club/association board members
9. Any inside relationship with our members or possible trialers...not sure I like them to have that, but sometimes can't avoid it.
10. Do they hunt and trial
11. Time of year, who is available and NOT hunting or running trials.
12. If it is an Amateur, where are the pros who can judge.
13. Are they willing to come and judge for what we can afford.

Just my 2 cents worth. Getting judges is not an easy task but is prob. 80% (or more) of the trial success.

[AZ Brittany Guy]

I think it is a plus anytime you can find a judge that hunts regardless of wild or pen raised. "hands down". Is it possible to get a whole slate of judges like that? Not likely.
If a club is going to sponsor a "classic" or a important trial I think it is critical that you get the most experienced judges available and make sure is is not a club member. I hear that hunt tests have eroded because of inexperienced people judging. In some parts of the country it is said that MH titles have lost their presteige.

[DonF]

I know a guy here in the North West that has been judging over 20 years, he has no wild bird experience at all. He's a decent judge but he only know's dog work by trial dog standards and I don't think that's always good. But i don't know of any trial here that uses wild birds, maybe over at Fossil but I doubt it there too. It won't be all that long before all trials are run on planted birds I think. I read somewhere that even the National Championship at Ames has planted birds. I don't believe that judges should necessarily have wild experience but I believe they maybe should ride as a third judge without a vote for a certain number of trials. It would not even matter to me if the guy never broke out a dog, so what? That would not prove he knows anything about bird work and maybe not even dog work. I judged an AKC trial years ago the they had trouble finding another judge for. I didn't know it till I got there and the other judge made no bones about not knowing what he was doing and told everyone that I would be placing the dog's. That is a really poor attitude for any judge. The judge's riding as third judge should be really concentrating on what is going on. The two judges with that judge should also be making notes about the third in regards to the effort being made to understand what's going on and rules. Before that third judge could judge, he/she should have to ride as a judge but under the eye of an experienced judge.

[cmc274]

Don,

For akc, there is a seminar / test / apprenticeship program in place now. Plus you have to have placed (or handled?) a dog at the level you are judging.

[AZ Brittany Guy]

I know a guy here in the North West that has been judging over 20 years, he has no wild bird experience at all. He's a decent judge but he only know's dog work by trial dog standards and I don't think that's always good. But i don't know of any trial here that uses wild birds, maybe over at Fossil but I doubt it there too. It won't be all that long before all trials are run on planted birds I think. I read somewhere that even the National Championship at Ames has planted birds. I don't believe that judges should necessarily have wild experience but I believe they maybe should ride as a third judge without a vote for a certain number of trials. It would not even matter to me if the guy never broke out a dog, so what? That would not prove he knows anything about bird work and maybe not even dog work. I judged an AKC trial years ago the they had trouble finding another judge for. I didn't know it till I got there and the other judge made no bones about not knowing what he was doing and told everyone that I would be placing the dog's. That is a really poor attitude for any judge. The judge's riding as third judge should be really concentrating on what is going on. The two judges with that judge should also be making notes about the third in regards to the effort being made to understand what's going on and rules. Before that third judge could judge, he/she should have to ride as a judge but under the eye of an experienced judge.

I think the third judge is part of the AKC certification process. I know a guy that flunked the 3rd judge because they could not articulate the differance between an AA dog and a Gun Dog.

[tyleetess]

Without a doubt I think they should have wild bird hunting under thier belt. In my mind, it is what the sport is about, hunting dogs. I think using a judge without that expieriance would be like taking your car in for an oil change and dropping it off at a collision shop. They both deal with cars in way or another but I want my oil change at a place that speacializes in it. I have put on trials before and I know how hard it is to find good judges. I have judged trials. One of the many things I look for when judging is which one of these dogs would I take hunting next weekend.

[DonF]

Without a doubt I think they should have wild bird hunting under thier belt. In my mind, it is what the sport is about, hunting dogs. I think using a judge without that expieriance would be like taking your car in for an oil change and dropping it off at a collision shop. They both deal with cars in way or another but I want my oil change at a place that speacializes in it. I have put on trials before and I know how hard it is to find good judges. I have judged trials. One of the many things I look for when judging is which one of these dogs would I take hunting next weekend.

How do you get pen raised birds to act like wild birds?

I have not taken the seminar by AKC, it didn't exist back then. Probably would have been a good idea. We had one pro here a lot that was more than willing to tell new judges all he knew. Unfortunately it was information that made his dogs look a lot better and had little to do with AKC rules and standard procedures. There were two kinds of people out here with him, those that didn't care for him and those that though he was a God. New people thought him a God because he was a huge nationally known trainer.

[ezzy333]

How do you get pen raised birds to act like wild birds?

You release them a couple of days ahead of time and let them adjust to their surroundings.

Ezzy

[AHGSP]

Don, AKC does require any new Judges must Apprentice(ride as a 3rd), before getting their license.

Chris,
My .02 fwiw.

I've come to strongly feel that before an individual can even get a Judging License, they should be required to have held a hunting license for X(2?, 3?, 5?) years. At least those newer to the sport.
I'll explain why.
2 examples: Over the past several years, I've been seeing more and more folks getting Judging Licenses, that had a Pro train and run their dog through most of the MH, then turn around and run the dog for 1 Qualifier in MH to meet the minimum qualifications to get their license, take the seminar, Apprentice twice and VOILA!, they're a Hunt Test Judge at the Master level. Conversely, I've seen individuals that did the work themselves and 20 attempts later, got a MH, took the Seminar and once again, VOILA, they were a Hunt Test Judge. I've seen some of these same individuals let stuff fly in MH, that should never have been allowed and in 1 case that personally involved me, they were willing to allow something to fly and tried talking me out of picking my dog up for a breach of manners; I chose to pick up the dog, I don't need them to learn they can get away with something. On the other side of the coin, I've seen Judges that only know what is in Black and White be so critical, as to pick a dog up for what was actually good, quality work. I really feel that both scenario's were a case of not a wide enough margin of experience to recognize what was, or was not good, quality dog work. The couple individuals that come to mind, don't and have never hunted. They are friends and I like them quite a bit, but I would never ask them to Judge for me.

I don't feel a potential Judge should necessarily have only Quail hunting experience; a good dog will work wind, cover, lines, edges, objectives, land contour, etc... a given INTELLIGENT way, regardless of the game bird on the ground. Grouse, Woodcock, Sharptails, Prairie Chickens, Huns, Chukar, Pheasant, Quail, whatever..... wild bird experience of any kind, will teach how a good dog SHOULD work. Good dogs produce game, so-so ones.... not necessarily so much. An avid hunter will learn to recognize what is good and what is not so much.
Hunting will also teach what kind of gait and manner of going will produce longevity and this is a VERY important attribute that is often overlooked in my mind, since we are often evaluating future breeding stock. Folks used to watching dogs run for only 1/2 an hour will more often than not, not recognize a poorly put together dog that will produce more poorly put together dogs. Some of the best moving dogs will actually appear to be lazy, but you can bet they are covering ground and faster than you might realize at first glance. Hunting a dog for 3-4 hours will quickly teach the observant, what kind of gait and motion last and what won't. How often do you hear Judges talk about how dog "A" moved, covered ground, or it's manner of going? They weren't talking about the horizon buster necessarily, if you have heard it mentioned, or talked about. I often wonder if this isn't what some of the anti-Trialers get so hung up on...... They don't understand what is actually being discussed.

Now with this said, You should NEVER hesitate to have a Senior Judge that has watched literally hundreds to thousands of dogs under their saddle, even if they have ZERO hunting experience. Truth be told though, you'll not likely find many Judges with that kind of experience, that don't have the same boatload of actual hunting experience. Those are the folks that built this sport and they built it, based on a love for hunting and for watching great dogs run and find birds. So I'd venture a bet, that you won't find too many Judges with that kind of experience, that don't have that experience on both fronts.

I also would not put much concern with how many Judging assignments an individual had, other than to meet the requirements of total experience for a Stake. Some of the better dog people I know, have been in the sports and training for many, many years and are just recently, getting their Judges Licenses. I would put more value in who they were and how much time they've spent with dogs, especially time spent training and hunting. I can name a few Pro's, that have only recently gotten their Judges Licenses in the past 2 years and one of those Pro's from down South has 30+ years in dogs, both training and hunting.... Would you pass up that kind of experience? I sure as heck wouldn't.

This is kind of quickly written on my lunch break, so if I think of more, or better wording; I'll add to it later this eve. I look forward to how this topic evolves.

[vols fan]

Chris, i think we have touched on this before. It sure couldn't hurt if a judge had some experience. Most straight up finds not so much but one trial comes to mind. Had a re-locate threw woods 70-80 yards deep and watch the dog quarter to get down wind and pinned the bird. This work was a bonus in my book. Was told the re locate knocked me out. I hunt alot of pheasant and appriciate good dog work on re locates without knocking birds.Most trials i see a re-locate on results to STF on a bumped bird and thats alright alot of times. I like to see dogs go down wind of objectives and put hunting experience into a run instead of run the horse path. I wonder how many dogs would go birdless if birds were not planted within 50 yds of horsepath? Any way, i do think some wild bird exp would always help but would say that at least half does not have much if any. Just my thoughts. Tony

[Elkhunter]

I would like to see a judge with some wild bird experience.

[tyleetess]

Without a doubt I think they should have wild bird hunting under thier belt. In my mind, it is what the sport is about, hunting dogs. I think using a judge without that expieriance would be like taking your car in for an oil change and dropping it off at a collision shop. They both deal with cars in way or another but I want my oil change at a place that speacializes in it. I have put on trials before and I know how hard it is to find good judges. I have judged trials. One of the many things I look for when judging is which one of these dogs would I take hunting next weekend.

How do you get pen raised birds to act like wild birds?

I don't think you do. I think there is a lot more to it than birds. It may be different in other parts of the country, out west we have ample oppourtunity to hunt wild birds. All I am getting at is I think it gives the judge a more broad spectrum. I have seen some off the wall stuff in regards to judging.

[Ruffshooter]

Don,

For akc, there is a seminar / test / apprenticeship program in place now. Plus you have to have placed (or handled?) a dog at the level you are judging.

This does not constitute a judge that actually understands how dogs work, apply them selves to conditions and how a dog is or should be handled in different situations.

That seminar is only a base for the test or trial and nothing else.

If you want to see for your self go to a AKC MH test with the show folks.

[kensfishing]

I would like to see a judge with some wild bird experience.

I was first and still a wild bird hunter, always will be. Judged many trials and dogs. All over the country. 52 years of hunting first and last.

[Chukar12]

A judge that hunts may use his or her experience to be of more advanced skill set than one with less...if they understand dogs. Just being a hunter and raising a dozen dogs over a lifetime does not make a person an expert at measuring a dogs ability. I guide, hunt, trial and train and I don't mind saying that my experience has been that those who train and observe and assess many dogs of multiple breeds in a number of different terrains tend to be the most objective judges of talent.

In my opinion the best judges are obsessive about dogs, not hunting per se'.

[Elkhunter]

A judge that hunts may use his or her experience to be of more advanced skill set than one with less...if they understand dogs. Just being a hunter and raising a dozen dogs over a lifetime does not make a person an expert at measuring a dogs ability. I guide, hunt, trial and train and I don't mind saying that my experience has been that those who train and observe and assess many dogs of multiple breeds in a number of different terrains tend to be the most objective judges of talent.

In my opinion the best judges are obsessive about dogs, not hunting per se'.

Agreed, not saying that hunting is the only requirement but that they understand hunting and dogs. Cause if I was a judge and never saw a dog leave the horsepath and ignore good wild bird objectives I would take that into account. Someone who never hunted or very rarely hunted wild birds would not have that insight. IMO

[dan v]

In my perfect world, the judge will have trained a few dogs, handled a few dogs to placements, and hunted some wild birds and have bred a few litters.

[ezzy333]

A judge that hunts may use his or her experience to be of more advanced skill set than one with less...if they understand dogs. Just being a hunter and raising a dozen dogs over a lifetime does not make a person an expert at measuring a dogs ability. I guide, hunt, trial and train and I don't mind saying that my experience has been that those who train and observe and assess many dogs of multiple breeds in a number of different terrains tend to be the most objective judges of talent.

In my opinion the best judges are obsessive about dogs, not hunting per se'.

Exactly right!!!!!

Ezzy

[Tom L.]

I think it should be mandatory that the bird planter have extensive wild bird hunting experience!

When you have wild bird experience you see the objectives the dog should flow to, it is like visual music! I think judges with this understanding have a better appreciation for a great dog.

[brad27]

I think it should be mandatory that the bird planter have extensive wild bird hunting experience!

When you have wild bird experience you see the objectives the dog should flow to, it is like visual music! I think judges with this understanding have a better appreciation for a great dog.

+1

[RayGubernat]

I think that chuckar12 has hit on the heart of the matter.

A top quality judge has to understand dogs and how they interact with game.

Hunting can help that understanding develop, training dogs to a certain level can help that understanding, trialing and placing dogs can help with that understanding, but it is the understanding that is the key.

However, that is not the only thing.

If we are to place the dogs that performed the best...we need to have benchmarks in our minds as to what is an acceptable performance in the critical tasks and abilities, what is excellent and what is "the best there is" in each of those critical areas that "define' a class bird dog. Things like run, pattern, gait, desire to find game, intensity, manners around game, desire to work with the handler, etc.

Watching top quality dogs do what they do, and watching them closely and critically, will cause those benchmarks to take shape in our minds. When you have seen a dog that showed you the "most" in any of those critical areas, that becomes your ultimate measuring stick for that ability. If you have seen enough superior quality dogs you should have a fairly complete set of benchmarks to compare performances against.

Experience, however it is gotten, is the thing, I think.

RayG

I also am a firm believer that the bird planter can make or break a trial. All too often this critically important task is left to someone whose only credentials were that they were dumb enough to volunteer.

[MillerClemsonHD]

I think having a judge that has wild bird hunted enables them to better appreciate the work the dog does to find birds. It also helps them recognize what are good and bad decisions by the dog in its search for game. It makes it easy to identify the horse path runner that if that dog was hunted on wild birds it would only find one if it stumbled into it . Obviously there are many other important factors in picking a judge and what makes a good judge but knowledge of bird hunting should be very high on the list.

As beneficial as hunting wild birds is I think training dogs on wild birds is even better. You take away the trying to kill birds part of the equation and it is all about dog work at that point. A judge that has trained or hunted wild birds will have a better understanding of why a dog does certain things during the course of a trial, especially when they do it on their own without the help of their handler. Anyone can turn their dog and send them to an objective, the dog that does it on his own looks even better.

I agree the bird planter is one of the most important people at a trial. No matter who the planter is their ability would be greatly improved if a marshal or another person on the committee would spend time with them and be sure they understand where and how birds should be planted.

I also find it somewhat sad for the state of this sport that in a list of top qualities for a judge 2 of the top 5 have to deal with cost. Can they bring a horse and how much is their travel going to cost me. Obviously when putting on a trial this is one of the biggest issues to the club, but doesn't do much in regards for the on field performance. To me this is something we should really be addressing.

[JKP]

A top quality judge has to understand dogs and how they interact with game.

I am assuming you are talking about Gun Dogs. How often is this interaction seen in Shooting Dog or AA trials??

[Chukar12]

A top quality judge has to understand dogs and how they interact with game.

I am assuming you are talking about Gun Dogs. How often is this interaction seen in Shooting Dog or AA trials??

At all of them. in some form or another. I am assuming your question is how often does a judge watch the dog make scent and and establish point in Shooting Dog or AA trials, and I am reticent to put a number on that but I would say that it happens between 10% and 40% of the time depending on the stake and or the grounds. In the broader definition, I don't believe that the above described scenario is the only way to judge the dog's interaction with game; either before, after or during the flush.

There are signals of desire, training, and biddability in every second of observation during the contact and a judge who is committed and educated will see those signals and respond accordingly. When you are judging and not scoring you split hairs; is the dog standing the birds at a reasonable distance or right on top of them. Where has the predominant wind been? Is the dog focused on the handler, the gallery, horses or the bird?

Judges have a difficult job, none of this is done in a laboratory and the benchmarks are a moving target. Ray has talked about the importance of bird planters, add to that the thousands of other factors that change through the day. All of the requires experience, and there is no Utopia in this sport or any other for that matter...the NFL just showed us that...eh? So back to the original question, wild bird experience is great it gets better if the wild bird person measures their dogs by similar finishing standards to the format they judge...but given all the factors in the trial game I want trial handlers and trainers in the judges saddle, I know I speak in generalities here, but they generally possess a more comprehensive set of skill sets from their myopic focus on dog work that produces the best result.

[Grange]

A top quality judge has to understand dogs and how they interact with game.

I am assuming you are talking about Gun Dogs. How often is this interaction seen in Shooting Dog or AA trials??

In walking shooting dogs it can be common to see a dog go on point depending on the course. In cover dog trials I'd say it is not common to see a dog go on point, but then it's not common to see a dog go on point when hunting either. Whether you see the dog go on point or not it had better hold point and have good bird manners once you see it on point.

[Sharon]

Wild bird expereince doesn't matter to me as much as I want a judge that has integrity. You might think that is a given but my experience shows otherwise.

I can count on one hand the judges that I like to trial under.

[Chukar12]

only a handful Sharon that's tough ...I may not always agree for any number of reasons but out and out dishonesty is not real common when I watch...and almost non existent in championships