19 replies to this topic

[Rob Kane]

I believe Ralph touch on this a bit a little bit in his letter to the association that was read at the Spring meeting.

Some sort of criteria should be considered when a club is selecting who they want to nominate to judge the nationals, the federation, and the association championship.

What I consider before I make any suggestions to the three clubs I belong to in the association:
*Has the judge been around long enough?
*Has the judge judged in all three associations in the federation?
*How many trials has the judge judged?
*Does the judge have a good reputation? Not only as a judge, but socially as well, you don't want somebody's actions in KY away from judging the trial to reflect on the IBGA. (to the best of my knowledge this hasn't happened)
*Will the judge be able to stand up for an IBGA/NEBGF style hound at the trial? I'm not saying an IBGA/NEBGF hound, but a hound that would reflect what would be able to place here in our association and federation.

While I think a judge who "gets around well" should be considered, older judges who probably couldn't be able to look at a class into the 70's and 80's, would be able to since the National Committee furnishes horses for the judges since the incident in 2004.

Thoughts?

[Dan Lang]

..ROB....got some good points to consider. Lets make sure the people we are talking about are able and commiteed to making the trip. John brings up some good issues, in sending someone new, other then guys that have gone before. I would like to go back myself, but with a horse, and only if there were no other new guys interested. John also brings up another good point, someone that has not pissed everyone off. I would add has no pre concieved ideas, or an axe to grind mentality, someone thats diplomatic, and able to represent our organizatin in a positive way.
That being said, the guys we have on the short list i think includes, Kyle, Jimmy, Dan Carr, Steve Guy, Matt S. Phil Sage, John Jarz..these are in no order, just what I remembered from the emails. I think having judged in all 3 associations is a good point, the judge has to have had been seen by alot of folks. Do all of these folks meet that requirement ?.

Refresh my memory on how this works, but do we have to "sell" our selection to the federation ?. Do we give up several names ?.

[Rob Kane]

The process is as follows:
Each IBGA club gets 3 nominations towards the national judge selection, the top three judges selected will have their name on the ballot at the NEBGF meeting. From there the top 5 judges will be given to the AKC National Committee and in a ranking order on how many votes they recieved. From there the National committee will pick any two (or how many judges we get that year) judges from the list, with a consideration of the order that they were recieved. However, this order is not the end all be all, ask Bill Petteruti, he was second on the list an was initially passed over for another judge.

Of the three association recommendation I bring up, only one, perhaps two of the gentlemen listed have judged in all three associations.

I believe this is a HUGE deal, because the New England guys get upset that they fail to get nominated into the top five to judge, but if nobody knows you because you don't drive across the Connecticut River why is anybody going to vote for you?

[Rabbit Rockin Doc]

Tried to post this previously but it did not show up, so this may be out thier twice.

I agree when voting to send someone to the AKC nationals they should be "qualified". I am not writing to debate the criteria. However, i feel you should also be considering who has the potiential to be voted on at the NEBGF level. A few of the names on "short list" have no chance at the NEBGF level. Rob, Kyle and I have been down to the NEBGF meeting for the past several years. I was an officer for a while and although all the clubs in the 3 associations have the potiential to show up and vote this is not the reality. the IBGA and New England is very poorly represented thus if you want the vote you have to prove yourself in Pennsylvania. I beleive that of the names on the short list only Kyle and Dan would stand a chance at getting enough votes. This is no disrespect to any of the other names nominated. If you want to judge the AKC nationals get yourself nominated to judge the NEBGF first and do a good job so the people voting can get a look at you.

[Rob Kane]

Kyle Pangrazio - http://www.akc.org/j...&judge_id=18304

Jim Fowles - http://www.akc.org/j...&judge_id=18729

Dan Carr - http://www.akc.org/j...&judge_id=53499

Steve Guy - http://www.akc.org/j...&judge_id=22211

Matt Slocum - http://www.akc.org/j...&judge_id=15834

Phil Sage - http://www.akc.org/j...&judge_id=38741

John Jarzynski - http://www.akc.org/j...&judge_id=ZD850

The following two judges have not been named, but I know they would be honored to be on any "short list"

Ralph Harrington - http://www.akc.org/j...&judge_id=18733

Jack Couperus - http://www.akc.org/j...&judge_id=53490

Please review this list, their past assignments, and lets continue the discussion.

[By The Way]

Rob, While reviewing your list of suggestions to consider,it seems more like an agenda to suit some. Your fourth and fifth points are of the upmost importance, but as far as the others go?? With that type of thinking we would have to retract several previous national judges who did an outstanding job representing their federation. There have been several judges at the national events that have judged less than twenty lic trials even a couple that had less than ten. Several of these individuals had never traveled out of their home state. Come on?
Lets face it, a good honest judge is a good honest judge...................... As far as judges that would be honored to be on any short list , I can think of many deserving. Lets keep everybody happy and paste the entire IBGA list to this thread. Not trying to be difficult. Appreciate all you do for us beaglers. Just want things to be done fairly. No politics or favoritism.
Also, moving this discussion to this site further limits the potential imput of others.Carl did us a great justice in creating this site, but many are not members here and perhaps have diffuclty even viewing their e-mail.
John Way

[trial153]

This is pretty close. Pittstown trials I counted as IBGA trials, Towanda trials PBGa as they just started in the association. I dont think all of Jarzy trials are listed as the AKC site only goes back to 98. Keep in mind possible miss counts as the AKC is hell to scroll though for numbers like this, but the count is pretty close. Also classes are counted as a trail...so if you did two classes at say Broome it was counted twice.
One thing is for sure GREAT JOB EVERYONE!! Lots of time and effort put into judging. For my part many thanks to you all!!

[trial153]

Ok, here it is...I think.

Attached Files

•  Break Down AKC.pdf   9.65K   39 downloads

[Rob Kane]

John,
I'm sorry I may have disappointed you in what I look at when I suggest nominations to my club to judge the nationals. You may or may not know it but the IBGA is the most well rounded association in the country, there is no if, and, or buts about it. Two years ago judges from the IBGA judged the large pack nationals (4), the spo nationals (2), and the gundog brace nationals (1). Many also judged the first fall classic. There are guys who have judged all over the country and Canada that belong to this association, hundreds of trials, blood, sweat, and tears and they deserve some kind of priority over the next "Johnny Come Lately" that didn't know that beagles ran rabbits before some of these judges had judged their 50th trial. Just because there is no standard for choosing national judges, doesn't mean there should be some consideration. And yes, judges that have judged from our federation might not fit into that criteria, and they may have done a good job...but weren't you the same guy that said nominate so and so before it is too late? With a rubric like this he would have been right at the top for years.

I also think that there should be some kind of preference for judges that have judged in two or three or all three of the associations over some guy that stay in Western PA or Western NY and doesn't know what its like to drive over the Bourne Bridge on a Sunday, or down the Jersey Turnpike, or climb that mountain at Lycoming. Also, a name that is more recognizable is more likely to be voted in to judge the nationals, which is what I believe Arin was trying to say before. When you go to the NEBGF meeting in Southeastern PA, and there are 25 clubs from the PBGA there, eight clubs from the IBGA there, and five from New England there, is John Smith who never leaves the Java, Pioneer, Enchanted Mountain area going to judge the trial? No because the guys from PA and NE, don't know him or his reputation and could care less what he did in his little corner of the beagling world.

This "short list" that has been derived was from a chain of emails that people put out who they would think would make a good candidate to judge the SPO nationals, I didn't just pull it out of the air...I believe you, yourself put a name in there as well. The two names I added in at the bottom are of two gentlemen that judge week in and week out, all over the federation, and not only that have made the "top 5" multiple times at the NEBGF meeting. I wanted to throw their names into the discussion, it wasn't about me being political or trying to put my personal agenda out there (believe me, call the two of them up, ask what I've said about their judging when I've ran under them in the past two years). If you want me to go through the association judges list and pull everybody's judging record and post it, I will, but it will have to be Monday, Fridays are busy and I have a trial this weekend. I don't want to end my tenure known as the politically one sided president.

PS...thanks for the e-mail suggesting who to nominate, he WILL be on two of my club's list.

[maxs beagles]

i agree with robbie not even close to being personal agenda or political on the other short list judges u got my vote on ralph harrington and jack couperus. hands down excellent and honest. and yes they have served well and willing to go to any lengths to talk to you about your dog after the trial with no sugar coating.u most of not ran under these two of you did no agrument. thats just my 2 cents. and this is not attack on any other good judges either plenty more. keep um runnin!!!!

[trial153]

Update or better yet "flash" flash like the old stud dog adds: Jarzy took the judging class in 94 and judged licensed trials shortly thereafter in 95. So although the AKC site only goes from 98 you can safely add a few more to his list I am sure.

[By The Way]

WOW WOW Rob slow down. First let me state how fortunate we have been to have you as our IBGA president. Your passion and knowledge for this sport runs deep. Any group of beaglers would be lucky to have you. Believe me when I say we are on the same page.
Think your reading to deep into my post. For you and every one else,I never accused anyone of being political or showing favortism with regards to judging nominations. Simply stated I didn't want things to go down that path. I never did or intended to disrespect anyone on any short list. Ralph and Jack are two of the best we have to offer. Have judged with and run under both and harbor no ill feelings. This also rings true with the rest of the short list!!! These guys are all friends and excellent judges. Anyone that has ever been around me much knows I don't play any games and treat all with respect and diginity.
My comment about posting the entire judging list was a bit sarcastic I'll admit. Really just intended to show support and thank you to all IBGA judges for donating their time and making this whole process a success. All deserve recognition!! As far as my other points about previous nationl judges, not one disputes the facts.
For me this whole thing boils down to just making sure the most deserving individual is appointed. Its such a shame that Stan was overlooked for so long before being nominated. I'm sure he would have been ready and able many years ago had someone noticed the quiet guy that deserves so much.
I know my posts have created a bit of a stir judging by the phone calls , texts and private e-mails I've received in the past couple days. Most of these people have chosen not to share their opinions in the public forum but were thankful for my expressions and quite agreeable. I typically sit back and am unresponsive on most topics, but felt compelled to voice my opinion so that at least members will consider what is right and proper and have no regrets.
Also , for the record. Any one counting trials judged. I have several of the old publications AKC distributed through the 80's & 90's listing judges and accomplishments. The last issue I have "1996" edition. ( published june 1996) lists Jarzy as having 14 or 16 lic assignments completed. Would have to dig up to confirm. That being said I'm sure his actual number of lic trials judged is closer to , than what the web site says, plus a few. No offense. Just setting the record straight. I would agree that the AKC site is not all that reliable.I never received credit for several lic trials I substiuted for in the 90's, understandable, and many substitute assignments since taking my first seminar. I sure others have similar experiences.

regards ,
John Way

[Rob Kane]

John,
Not sure why I have to slow down? Wouldn't you jump to defend your opinions? I stand by what I have said and also think that the number of championship trials that the judge has done also should be taken in account as well.

Also the AKC judges book that was in publication until the advent of their website and the trial system only showed how many trials the judge had done until the number of 10. So guys like Stan, Don Cavaretta, Bruce McNeilly, Jack Frank, Bill Petteruti, Al Slocum, yourself, that were judging in the 80's and 90's would not have an estimate count of how many trials they did unless they kept track of them theirselves.

I will be away for the weekend but if you feel compelled to finish this discussion, please call me on my cell, if not I will respond Sunday.

[Dan Lang]

Looking at the file Jim has here, it looks to me that JOHN J and JIM are leading the way in PBGA trials, if I am readng it correctly. One other point to remember, it may be nice that someone has 35 trials in each association, but, what has he done lately ? Having done 35 trials in pa or new england 5 years ago may be nice, but if its not fresh on someone's mind, it does no good. The folks doing the voting may have not been around 5 years ago ! I do agree we need someone PA friendly. We should remember that the person we pick, represents the NEBGF, not just the IBGA.

.Can we look at it this way?.. Who are the PBGA going to put up. Maybe we should see who they are submitting and we could concentrate on someone that surpasses their guys ??..

This is going to be tuff, I like them all, I see 4 or 5 that could fit in well........

[KyleP]

This is a great discussion...unless we are all speaking about it walking into the northeast meeting night. That is as far as it will go. Even if we all pile in and head down...the pa vote will still out number ny. But there are a few pbga clubs that would appreciate the chance to run under an ibga style judge in Kentucky. Even the thought to be slower pa clubs in the hopes that thier quick honest hound may be a compromise in the open Kentucky terrain. As an association all we can do is vote for someone that has a chance to make it to Kentucky and put a win on a dog that could run and win in the ibga. As a federation we are not in the discussion if we aren't there.

[Goodwill]

I would add hunting to the list of positives. I believe judges of the Nationals should routinely hunt their dogs in the wild. Procedure 5-A (6) requires "Judges should approach their work with the attitude that the future welfare of the breed is in their hands, and should make their findings and selections on a basis calculated toward keeping the Beagle use-full for both field trials and hunting purposes."

I disagree with any concept around regionalism. The judge(s) should pick dogs based on ability to run the rabbit for long periods of time without a loss.

Having spent a lot of time hunting in different locations, cover types, and seasons. I realize that some styles of dog are specialized for the location the dog runs. Therefore, I believe the Nationals should rotate to different locations throughout the country.

[Shawn D Snow]

I agree with that royalty goodwill very well put

[KyleP]

Fact of matter the trial is not moving anywh hiere. Until the northeast loads up and brings three hundred dogs for a few yeare we don't have a leg to stand on for moving the trial. The Kentucky cover allows for a larger percentage of the run to be seen... temperatures and the fact that some federations are nearing the end of their trial season are almost enough to hold a logical discussion on the date of the trial. But it has all been tried before let's stay focused on what we can do...goodwill... what do you mean you disagree with the concept of regionalism then the very next thing you write is how you understalocation and terrain effect the most productive style of hound? Regionalism will be alive and well until the akc resales interpretation out of the rule book... too much money to lose... same with the and

[John Jarzynski]

Kyle,
What are you doing up at 5:05am anyway?

[KyleP]

Driving/ riding to towanda