Ken Walker and Michigan

Submitted by Dino on 4/30/05 at 11:22 PM. ( dinostaxidermy@frontiernet.net ) 170.215.65.92

Ken Walker is making a very good statement. With every action comes a reaction.

So, folks, why don't you think. How arrogant it is to expect the NTA to meet threats, and be held hostage by two people? That was the essence of the proposal -- do what we want (which has nothing to do with the job we are bidding for), or we won't come. The NTA chose option 2, and found someone else willing to actually do the job required.

Ken Walker is showing how stupid all this is. We're all adults. Much of the behavior on this forum would be more appropriate in a toddler sandbox. (Frankly, it would be inappropriate even there.)

Let last year GO. This is a new year, a new show. Move on with your life.

As far as being perfect - I'm not. I'm a human, just like the rest of you.

So Jan Van Hoesen, Gail and Tom, have a nice life.

I plan to have fun at the NTA with my family.

Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu


I'm confused

This response submitted by Paul B on 5/1/05 at 8:00 AM. ( bears@att.net ) 71.10.3.204

OK IT'S MY TURN

This response submitted by Ken R. Walker on 4/30/05 at 2:10 PM. ( hadenuff ) 154.11.98.45


I hereby withdraw my offer to judge the Michigan competition,and I will no longer attend any shows judged by Jan van Hoesen!

This is the statement that I copied off the "setting it straight..." post that took me a hour to read last night.

Ken if you were judging Michigan, Jan won would not be, as you both seem to specialize in mammals. We usually hire judges to judge what they specialize in. I don't understand why you would pass up Michigan as it would almost be certain you would not be judging with Jan.

If your talking about any show judged by Jan in the future. What happens if she judges the next WTC, what then? No mounts from you, no seminars, no judging either?

I pesonaly don't agree with Dino's claim above:

"Ken Walker is making a very good statement. With every action comes a reaction".

I find it more confusing than anything else


Paul B


Dino

This response submitted by Dawn on 5/1/05 at 8:37 AM. ( ) 216.46.213.67

How can you compare the members of Michigan to the NTA and the nonsense that is going on. We are 279 members that are in no way involved in this. One member does not make the whole association. 279 members are victims in this crap. 279 people kicked out of the sandbox because two people can't play nice. And you say that what Ken is doing to us is payback - for what. We did not do anything to him. He should take his fight to the person who stoled his sand pail and leave the rest of us alone. Yeah - Ken Walker is showing us how stupid all this is. I think we all knew how stupid this has been and we continue to see how stupid it is getting.


Dawn, those were eloquent words

This response submitted by George on 5/1/05 at 9:05 AM. ( georoof@aol.com ) 64.12.116.135

Now, after you've used them, try reading them to yourself. What "nonsense" is going on in the NTA that differs from "One member does not make the whole association." You CLAIM your skipping the NTA show had nothing to do with Jan's remark about a boycott, yet you managed to imply exactly that with your statement that you were not coming as well. Funny how opinions of others are except from reflection on oneself, isn't it?

I'd suggest the good people of Michigan call Ken and talk to him personally about this entire "nonsense" rather than saying even more stupid things on an open forum. Ken's one of the fewer and fewer great gentlemen of this industry and I'm sure you'll be able to work something out.


ever notice?

This response submitted by gill on 5/1/05 at 11:13 AM. ( ) 216.228.39.143

we can take more personal attacks, than we can against our family, or friends? Jans friend got attacked, not Jan personally at NTA. Kens friends get attacked, not Ken personally. Tom wants to protect his friend. We are so protective of our friends that our claws come out. That is good to a degree. especially in an "all about me" society. How many times to we send letters to fight the anti's for every post we put on here? Me? none.
Have a blessed and friend filled Sunday.
Mr Rogers, I mean, gill


George is right

This response submitted by terry vining on 5/1/05 at 1:23 PM. ( ) 216.120.182.87

us peoples in michigan are stupid. oh, wait, we just say stupid things. lol. so what, who cares.


Terry, I never said that at all

This response submitted by George on 5/1/05 at 2:22 PM. ( ) 152.163.100.135

Or even implied that in any way. In fact, if you look back just a couple weeks, you'll see where I praised the great taxidermists from Michigan. I've already spoken privately with Dawn and like many other things in this industry, it might come as a shock to you that I'm willing to help.


Thanks George

This response submitted by Dawn on 5/1/05 at 5:41 PM. ( ) 216.46.213.226

We did have a nice private conversation about this issue. I can honestly say that I could see myself sitting down over a drink with George and both of us living through it. (lol)

Just kidding George. Thanks for the nice conversation. I won't tell anyone how nice you can be. That will be our little secret. :)


George

This response submitted by terry vining on 5/1/05 at 8:02 PM. ( ) 216.120.182.133

Hey, I was just making a point. I still love ya. Your last paragraph at 9:05 AM does have stupid in it and people read things into words. See, it's the same point we kept going back to every year about this time.
I miss Bill.


I spoke to Ken about this

This response submitted by Ted B on 5/1/05 at 8:17 PM. ( ) 24.72.93.227

Firstly I had to make certain that it was he that posted, it was. This whole thing was started because of one person failing to fulfill his obligation as a judge, correct. If I'm not correct in assuming this please let me know. However for Jan Van Hoesen to come here and defend that person is ridiculous. I know what happened to Ken at the world show when his alligator and nutria took a second place (to one of Jan's friends mind you). I also know that the score on his scoresheet had been changed to reflect a lower score than was originally given. Who was the judge for Ken's peice you ask, it was Jan Van Hoesen. What about Ken's panda bear being disqualified by R.J Meyer at the NTA when it should have recieved best of show. Perhaps Ken is fed up with all this garbage. The only way to know for sure is to speak to him yourselves.


I'm correcting you

This response submitted by Jan Van Hoesen on 5/1/05 at 10:04 PM. ( vanhoese@freeway,net ) 216.93.26.14

I'm not sure why I even respond to a person who isn't strong enough in his beliefs to even put his full name or e-mail address. But I say Joe was fullfilling his obligations,but got fired in the middle of it. I don't remember the situation concerning Ken's nutria, but I will say I judged it best of my knowledge and just because he got a lower score than another person you say I knew does that mean I have no integrety? Are you enough of an expert to know I was wrong? Should I have given him the higher score just because it was Ken Walker. Is no one ever better than he is? I gave my most honest opinion and if it's not to your liking you go after me. I will not believe that Ken Walker is that poor a competitor that he would say that. As for the Panda at the NTA I had nothing to do with it. But I personally think he got a raw deal there and should have gotten Best of Show.


Jan, I don't have an opinion on those other things....

This response submitted by George on 5/1/05 at 10:26 PM. ( ) 152.163.100.135

But you continue to perpetuate the myth. You state:"But I say Joe was fullfilling his obligations,but got fired in the middle of it." Joe wasn't in the "middle" of anything. He was done with his job as he saw it. He'd already completed all he'd intended to complete on those scoresheets. They were all signed and unless you and Joe judge differently than the dozens of others I've seen, you don't sign that sheet until you consider it complete, and you certainly wouldn't fill in the "Judge's Comments" and "Score" block if you weren't finished. I wish this whole issue would go away and I'd be glad to never mention it again, but I refuse to allow a prevarication to be the last comment.


Well Jan

This response submitted by Ted Befus on 5/2/05 at 11:37 AM. ( tedco123@hotmail.com ) 65.87.224.218

This should prove that I am man enough to leave my full name and email address for anyone willing to speak to me.

As far as Joe fulfilling his obligations he obviously wasn't or he would have done a propef job of filling in his scoresheets. I'm no judge nor and expert but if I were competing there and was handed a scoresheet like that I would be awful pissed.

As far as Ken's peices go, that is what I heard around the campfire (so to speak), I cannot speak as to your intentions, nor did I do so. I simply stated the fact that his score sheet was altered to reflect a lower score. Why would someone go back and rescore a peice after it was done?


Glad to see that you are man enough

This response submitted by Jan Van Hoesen on 5/2/05 at 1:06 PM. ( vanhoese@freeway.net ) 216.93.88.204

Well Ted I'm sorry I don't remember changing the score or even who I scored higher. I do remember the piece as it was a mammal you don't often see at a show. What category was that in? Was it in masters I assume? There are always more than one judge in that category so I certainly didn't have complete control over what it scored in the end. You mean to tell me I'm the only judge that ever changed a score on a piece? If I changed it does this automatically mean I did it so another piece would score better? You sure did assume a lot. Do you always assum all these things when a piece isn't scored like you and your friends think it should be scored? Why don't you just score your own pieces and get the score you want?


Ted

This response submitted by Dan Gill on 5/2/05 at 4:48 PM. ( ) 64.89.212.67

I have to change scores occasionally. I do an initial walk through, then look closer, then get the light. so I say piece "a and b" gets a 90. but find out later, they are masters which requires 92 for a blue. I want them to have a blue. oh but wait "b" is better, so it needs a 93. And look at this one here,"c" its much better than I thought.94. no...the ears are drumming.89. lets see there are 40 heads here. which one was "b" again? It does get confusing. I bought poker chips red, white, and blue. I can put them by the pieces first, then go back to verify what I did. hope this confusion helps.
Dan Gill


One more thing

This response submitted by Jan Van Hoesen on 5/2/05 at 7:35 PM. ( vanhoese@freeway.net ) 216.93.120.104

Thanks Dan for the explanation. I was reminded by a friend just what the case was there at the World. Now that I remember there were six judges judging those pieces two for mmmals, two for the aligator, and two for the game head. So it seems to me the judges placed it where they saw fit.
Jan


Well

This response submitted by Ted Befus on 5/2/05 at 9:11 PM. ( ) 24.72.93.227

This is just my personal opinion, but I know I wouldn't appreciate seeing my score changed on any piece. If by the score I don't deserve a blue then so be it. Dan, if you score a peice at 90 and then realize that it needs a 92 to get blue you and you really felt he deserved it does that mean you would change the score to reflect that (maybe I'm interpreting that one wrong). I know that judges do not have the easiest job to do but that reasoning just doesn't sit well with me. If i put a piece in and it scores a 90 instead of a 92 oh well, I'll fix what's wrong and get them next time. As far as Kens situation goes I found the chain of events strange considering he lost out of 1st place by very little.

Jan, I'm not saying that you are the only judge to change a score at an event. What I am saying is that I don't see a reason for going over pieces a second time, unless you have a unique sitation that warrants it.


Ted

This response submitted by Dan Gill on 5/2/05 at 10:01 PM. ( ) 216.228.35.181

Thanks for the response. I want to give a piece all it deserves. sometimes what I will do is put down what I think it will get lightly in the corner, so it doesnt go through the carbon. the mounts have to be ranked so there arent ties. I can erase or rank accordingly without it being noticed. If you have the opportunity to be a writer, or assistant in competition do it. volunteer to do it. thats about the only way to see it in action. I dont know where you live but if you are ever at a show I judge, you can write for me. I have given blue ribbons to "not so strong pieces" according to the score sheet, but very artistic. I didnt give a blue to a piece that should have had one do to a "brain cramp". see my post earlier.
as far as politics in judging, I never want the judge to know my piece. they are harder on me if they do. Ive had them tell me that.
I got a 67 at nationals one year on a deer head. the winner that year said I didnt use the judges form. "are you kidding me?" I entered the same head at 3 state shows got an 89, 91, and 96 best of category. I guess it happens, I dont want to be the one doing it.
I reread your last response, and I guess to answer you, yes I would change a score to give it the benefit of the doubt. to me the number has nothing to do with the amount of critique. a very nice piece deserves a blue, a nice commercial piece deserves a red. an ok piece with some good stuff gets a third. now I suppose I have really confused things, sorry. I have a way of doing that.
thanks again for the response,
Dan


More imporatant things

This response submitted by DaveT on 5/2/05 at 11:24 PM. ( ) 205.201.66.143

There really is more to life then taxidermy competitions. I hate to see friendships unravel because of some egos... so far that is exactly what I have been reading. To criticize is easy, to forgive takes courage.... make your choice.

Dave Toms


Return to The Taxidermy Industry Category Menu