UKC Forums (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/index.php)
- UKC Coonhounds (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=4)
-- TWBFA Board of Directors-Standard Changes? (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.php?threadid=94900)

TWBFA Board of Directors-Standard Changes?

Concerned as I'm sure some others will be!!! Rumor has it that this Kathy Lorentzen with UKC is processing updates to the breed standards and that they will be presented to Phil Newland for his input. I read her article as being the 6 breeds standards will be reviewed and written in sequence. Not that changes will be made!

What is stated in the association’s by-laws on matters of this nature? Will the changes be made public to the membership? Is there a panel formed to review? Will the membership get to vote?

Turning the standard changes over to a single individual is recommendation for them to benefit a single bloodline. What about the 1000's of TW that are out there today let alone the vas number of breeders that view the standards in a different opinion? Why are standard changes needed?

Will there be a fair review to associate both "show dogs" and the hunters? Shouldn't a panel be made of "show dog" breeders and "hunters"? Even if we make changes - reality is - breeders are going to breed for personal preference.

I understand that all of us have an opinion of the standard, but to allow a single mind to make the final recommendations is a very scary thought!

Thanks for the information on what can be a very nasty topic!

Tricia,
This is the 1st I have heard of this. Why would the standards need changing and why would it be put in the hands of 1 or 2 people? Are they experts and rule over what a hound should look like?
Is there something we can do about this?

__________________
Stacey & David Criswell - Bolt Action Kennels
UKC/ABKC AMERICAN BULLIES

Home of:

• "UKC CA GRCH FS / ABKC CH Bolt Action Iceman"
  
• "Dual CH FS Bolt Action Pandora"
  
• "ABKC CH CBB's Blaze Of Glory"
  
  In Memory of:
• "NGRCH GRCH Bolt Action Mundar Rick DNA-VIP"2005 National Grand Show Champion

How each Association handles the review process of their standard is totally up to them. So that's a fair question.

But before this turns into a panic that we are contemplating major changes to the standards, please read the article on page 74 of the May issue of CB. That will clarify this for you. It's more of an effort to reorganize the current standards so that they are consistent in form from breed to breed which will assist bench show judges. That's all. That and some clarification on "grey" areas.

This is NOT about making major changes to any breed. Just want to say that cause I can see where this thread would be headed if I didn't. Please read the article on page 74 of the May issue before jumping to any conclusions.

Good!

Todd,

I read the article and my interpertation was that each standard was going to be "formatted" to be consistant. To me -- that they would all be writtin in a more consistant matter.

But others read and have heard differently. LIKE A SAID... Hope its a rumor!

Thanks Todd for clarification! Hopefully the association will consider the right individual(s) for the job that can speak for the membership as a whole!

Recommendation to educate

Why aren't we producing materials that give "pictures" of what is right and what is wrong. Sometimes when individuals can look at a map they realize the best route to take.

Kathy has a livestock background correct? I'm sure she remembers judging and giving reasons on "photos". This might assure more understandings of the "right" - "wrong".

Todd,
I haven't had a chance to read my May Bloodlines yet. I will check it out.
Thanks for replying.
Stacey

__________________
Stacey & David Criswell - Bolt Action Kennels
UKC/ABKC AMERICAN BULLIES

Home of:

• "UKC CA GRCH FS / ABKC CH Bolt Action Iceman"
  
• "Dual CH FS Bolt Action Pandora"
  
• "ABKC CH CBB's Blaze Of Glory"
  
  In Memory of:
• "NGRCH GRCH Bolt Action Mundar Rick DNA-VIP"2005 National Grand Show Champion

The standard the B&T association received did have changes to the standard in them. For example, the length of ear was changed from medium to long??? I know that is minor but it is the B&T associations call. Not anyone else. The new standard also names lighter eyes as a major fault where the current standard says anything darker than hazel.

My question is this:

If reorganization was the motive of the proposal, why didn't UKC just hand out a copy of say the Golden retriever standard to the associations and say, "Hey how about making your standard look like this one?"

Change of format, maybe I am for it but only if the association is for it.

Re: Recommendation to educate

quote:

---

Originally posted by StackemUp
Why aren't we producing materials that give "pictures" of what is right and what is wrong. Sometimes when individuals can look at a map they realize the best route to take.

Kathy has a livestock background correct? I'm sure she remembers judging and giving reasons on "photos". This might assure more understandings of the "right" - "wrong".

---

__________________
Steele Farm Aussies and Hounds

CH Hayseed's Sweet Talkin Sadie
Steele Farm Marly
Steele Farm Tucker

PR Mitchell's Whiskey In a Jar
May 14,2006 - Feb 13,2010

Kathy does not have a livestock background. She is 100% dog person.

Some standards lacked clarification. For instance, if they allowed a white spot on the chest they didn't provide for how much white or what to do if the dog had more white than that. Same with eyes, etc. That's just an example of a clarification. There were others.

At any rate, Allen and I sat down with her to answer her questions to the best of our ability. It's a starting point. None of that is concrete. That is why all proposed standards are being given to the breed associations for their help with clarifications. I'm positive the associations will request changes. That's fine.

I would like to see the Assn's or the committee approved by them to meet individually at Autumn Oaks with Kathy for a final draft meeting so to speak.

i got a question , these changes that are being looked at , when and how can we get a chance to look at the changes and give our input into what we think ?

mike

__________________
Mike ORourke
HOME OF :
GRNTCH CH 'PR' Soggy Bottom Bee Bee
NTCH 'PR' Yadkin River Rose(4 wins toward grand)

i don't see how this can be considered reorganization.

Excerpt from current UKC American Black & Tan Association breed standard-

HEAD: Carried well up, very slightly domed and broad between the ears, never narrow. Neck not too thick, nor too long, but graceful and strong; minimum of dewlap.

EYES: Prominent, hound-like, pleading expression. Dark brown or black, not lighter than hazel. Eyelids firm and close (no drooping).

EARS: Set medium low, well attached to head and devoid of erectile power, should reach approximately to end of nose when drawn out. Should hang gracefully, inside part tipping toward muzzle, should not be too pointed at tip, slightly oval, soft and velvety, hanging in a roll when head is raised.


Kathy, Kellam & Allen's proposal-

Head

The head blends with the body in size and substance. The skull and muzzle are fairly long and approximately equal in length. The skull is broad, clean and slightly domed on top, falling away slightly toward the occiput. Stop is well-defined but moderate, never abrupt. Muzzle is fairly deep with enough flew to give a square appearance. The nasal bone is straight and the top lines of the muzzle and skulllie in approximately parrallel planes.

Eyes- Full and prominently set, nearly round in shape and dark brown or black in color with close fitting runs. Expression is soft and pleading. Light eyes that detract from typical hound expression should be faulted.

Ears-Long, set low and well back along a line from the corner of the eye, and devoid of erectile power. Should hang gracefully, close to the head, and roll when head is raised. Soft and velvety to the touch, ears should reach the end of the nose when pulled forward and should be oval at the tip, not pointed.

I think perhaps we should reserve judgement and give Kathy Lorentzen and UKC the benefit of the doubt. I do agree that there are aspects written in the OLD B&T standard that are not the same as the NEW version. But, I do honestly believe that she is only attempting to insert more specific language to make the standard more complete. The B&T association can address those and make changes later. I think the reading of the document as I see it sounds pretty good, it's more specific and uses correct vocabulary.

Todd Kellam has stated that their intent is to give breed associations a document with which to start and they can revise and make changes to it.

I honestly don't know how you would go about making these kinds of adjustments to the standards any other way. I've served on committees where you have compile a document that seems overwhelming and if Kathy Lorentzen can provide something for the associations to use to see how the standard might be re-written and the type of language that might best serve them, then believe me - "tweaking" that document to best serve the association and the breeds will be all that much easier.

Undertaking a task like this seems monumental to me and I think Kathy's got a hard task ahead of her. You know she's got to know that everyone's going to be going over her words with a fine tooth comb.

In regards to the Walker standard, the way I understand it, the Walker association - or a committee that they approve - would have the final approval over any re-writes of the standard. I don't know what Phil Newland's connection is to any of this. If he is providing input into the Walker standard, then the only thing I can think is, "Well, he has been in Walkers a long time and I do respect his knowledge of a hound." That's my opinion of his knowledge. But, I also think any one individual - whether it be Phil Newland or anyone else - should NOT be given that kind of authority. That's the association's responsibility and I'm betting they'll do a good job of reading and approving a new re-written standard we can accept.


"...and that's all I've got to say about that"

Everyone have a wonderful day,
I'm eagerly awaiting the new breed standard re-writes.

Thanks,
Penny

__________________
KENTUCKY MTN. ENGLISH KENNEL
Rural Hall, NC

Penny and Jody Jessup
Lydia and Christopher
Cell PH #859-339-7992

www.kentuckymtnenglish.com

Home of.....
WSHOWCH NITECH CCH GRCH 'PR' Kentucky Mtn Diamond Cutter
*2014 Overall UKC World Show Champion
*2014 Overall Purina Show Dog of the Year leader
*2014 AKC Westminster Invitee
*2014 AKC Best In Show Owner/Handled
*2013 UKC Best In Show
*2013 UKC #1 Coonhound Overall in Top 10 points

WSHOWCH CCH GRCH 'PR' Kentucky Mtn Cinderella Girl
*2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 UKC World Champin English Female
*AKC Conformation Champion
*2013 Overall UKC World Show Champion

GRCH GRNITECH 'PR' Haile's Red River DNA-P -
*2012 UKC TRIPLE COWN WINNER *2012 AKC World Reserve Hunt Champion
*2011 PURINA OUTSTANDING NITE HUNT COONHOUND OF THE YEAR - At Stud

I tend to agree with Penny but I have several concerns.

1) I think coonhound breeders have more flexibility because our standards are less specific. I also think our breeds are better off for that reason.

2) Coonhunters cover everything from Doctors to illiterate hillbillies like me as well as every other educational level in between. Does the new vocabulary serve everyone?

3) I am not sure the TWBFA has set up a committee to look over this stuff. If they have, I have to assume that Penny should be on it. If not, then who would be on this committee?

Finally I would like to know what exactly is wrong with the way our standards read today. I understand the reorganization so that they flow in a similar manner to the other breeds but why the other added changes? It reads and is formatted similar to the AKC B&T standard.

That's my concern as well as Todd

Within the post from Todd Kellum to Penny to Curt we went from just formatting the standards to changing!

I leave this with one question..... Who will play the "standard" police.

TODAY we have more dogs that don't meet the standard then do! So when and who will advise UKC to stop registration on dogs that don't fit the standard!

It won't be an easy job for anyone! I just hope that the board is considerate enough to conform a panel that will cover the interest of show hounds, competitive hunters, and pleasure hunters. Because today that's what we have in one written standard.

My concerns isn't that the standard might be the priority for change, but a higher level of education to what is in the standards. Example being... the TW breed standard reads on eye color "EYES: Moderately prominent; set well apart. Open, soft and expressive. Dark in color; brown or black." Where does it allow the color BLUE? Well I know of several that are shown, hold degrees, and are used for breeding programs. Don't you think we need to stop this. The dog doesn't meet the standard so why is it registered?

Another issue it notes under Hips, Thighs, Hind legs the following fault "DEFECTS: Cowhocks, or straight hocks. Lack of muscle and propelling power. Open feet". We have judges selecting at local and national levels -poorly angulated hounds that are visibly cowhocked!

WE NEED FURTHER EDUCATION ON WHAT THE STANDARD IS ABOUT before making changes! If we add "a stronger vocabulary" will a dictionary be sent to all hound folks?

My opinion may not be totally correct but my thoughts are...it took 30 to 40 years for our hounds to get to the point of being considered too straight, cow hocked, lacking muscle, etc....and I assume when you are talking breed standards that goes for both our show dogs and hunting dogs, if you feel that all dogs need to meet breed standards to be registered I think we are in trouble, I don't know of any individual that has a dog that meets the standard 100%. I believe that Wayne C. said to judge a dog on their virtues, not their short comings. No matter what is done with the breed standards it is still left up to the judge doing the judging as to how the dogs they are judging measure up to the breed standard. And no matter what the education, peoples opinions will always differ! That is what keeps showing dogs interesting, not the same person winning all the time! As for changing the standards I believe that each breed organization should approve any changes being made to that breed, but like Curt said why do we need to add changes, it has worked so far. I also think as for the talk that Phil Newland is the only one contacted to help in this decision is not totally correct, as Penny stated there should be a committee making such decisions and if Phil was contacted I am sure it was just to get his input, in which Phil would be knowledgable, he has been in the walker breed for a very long time!!

Todd...
Is there anyway that you could post the proposed revisions to each of the six breed standards. I would like to read the proposed revisions for the breeds. I have got plenty of time off this summer and it would make for some good reading, lol!

__________________
Amber Bradford-Carroll
Dry Creek Kennel
Home of:
UKC WSHOWCH NGRCH CCH GR CH AKC CSG 'PR' Dry Creek Misdemeanor's Lil Felony DNA-VIP
OFA Hips-Good & Elbows-Normal
***2006 Purina Outstanding Bench Show Coonhound***
***2007 National Grand Show Champion***
***2009 World Show Champion***

AKC CSG UKC CCH GR CH 'PR' Dry Creek's Bred To Be Immortal DNA-P

GR CH 'PR' Voigt's Smooth Tex

UKC CCH GR CH 'PR' Voigt's Smooth Lookout Lee

AKC CCH CH UKC BIMBS & Multi RBIMBS GR CH CCH 'PR' Dry Creek's Blackhawk nThe Shadows DNA-VIP
***2009 Purina Outstanding Bench Show Black & Tan***

GR CH 'PR' Dry Creek's Supernatural Being DNA-P

CH 'PR' Dry Creek's Seven Deadly Sins

'PR' Thompson's Hillbilly 1 nThe Chamber

'PR' Dry Creek's Queen of the ****ed

'PR' Bred 2B Immortal's Resurrection

My question is

to the TWBFA Board. As "rumored" a single individual has been asked to review "formats"!!!!

Why just one individual? Does the by-laws state an individual or a committee! Does it ask for a BOD member or an active member?

For those of you that believe I'm passing judgment on Phil, you are incorrect. He was the name given to me. I don't recall him being a BOD member. But I could be corrected. I simply want to know what are the club procedures.

Another question I have, if this is just "formatting" changes, then why do we need outside individuals reviewing at all? Shouldn't it be just the UKC Staff, and the TWBFA President/BOD. Why should it concern any of us about "change" - it's just formatting!

Sammy has a very good point! Yes Phil is very knowledgeable with the breed, but we also have others that are too!! Why aren't we forming a committe. Like Jess Dickerson/Russ Meyer with hunting prospects..... Val Nelson has more BS world titles to his name then the rest of us- as well as Natalie Drake (who would be a great - she not activly involved showing/hunting..... Eugene Hull has sired more BS world champions then most of us..... Kenny Abbott has excelled with breeding lot's of national and world titled hunters and has been a strong supporter of the breed... what about Bobby Cody, he has national awards in his breeding program...... Penny Caudill is very experienced with handling at national and world level, so she has a keen eye for the correct dog to the standard.... Bolt Action seems to be rocking the world with dual-purpose hound.... Frank Giddings has produced the ultimate sire of all time with Sackett Jr.... his grand pups are dominating in all organizations for hunting prospects and for the most part conformed correctly!!!..... we could go on and on and on..... Lee Currens ... breeder/show person/ hunter for more then 50 years....... My point being... why just one individual!!!

Bottom line... no matter what we change or don't change, no matter what words we use or don't use.... hound breeders are going to breed for what they want - show or hunt! And for the most part... we all have dogs that shouldn't hold papers because they don't meet the standards. But we do!

So fire away! We'll do what we all please!

what about

1. Jeff and Christina Farthing they show and hunt
2. Alan Kalah he had a really good hunt and show dog destiny
3. Delton Hall has had a lot of Tar Rattler winners
4. Timothy Ball
5. Amanda Alexandar has just won twbfa and won pkc with her male dog in the show
6. Alan or Beth snedegar, both of these are judges, they hunt and show they both have world titles in hunt and show
7. Val nelson handled the hawk dog that was titled as hunt and show
8. What ever happened to Charlie Botins? or Sheldon Swenson they had hunting and show dogs
9. Sid underwood or Lonnie Mears. Lonnies been winning latly
10. rick emmerson
i don't see hunting and show dogs from phil. just show

Re: That's my concern as well as Todd

quote:

---

Originally posted by StackemUp

My concerns isn't that the standard might be the priority for change, but a higher level of education to what is in the standards. Example being... the TW breed standard reads on eye color "EYES: Moderately prominent; set well apart. Open, soft and expressive. Dark in color; brown or black." Where does it allow the color BLUE? Well I know of several that are shown, hold degrees, and are used for breeding programs. Don't you think we need to stop this. The dog doesn't meet the standard so why is it registered?

---

__________________
Joe Newlin
UKC Cur Advocate
Home of Oak Ridge Kennels

quote:

---

Super abundance of sense, endurance, trailing, hunting and treeing instinct and ability

---

Buckshot, why should dogs have to have a 'hunt title'??? I agree that hunting is what these dogs are bred for and should continue to be bred for. But, not every dog that can run and tree a coon is a competition-class dog. Some are just your everyday good solid pleasure hunting dogs, can and will tree a coon, just don't have the top notch ability to win. Does that mean if it happens to be a good looking hound it shouldn't be shown? After all, showing helps support UKC and all the local clubs just like hunting.
And, not everyone has the physical capability to competition hunt. Does that mean they shouldn't have coonhounds and support coonhunting the best way they are able?

JMO - I think way too much emphasis is placed on winning (and, yes, I like to win too) and not enough on just enjoying coonhounds and the sound of that beautiful music on a clear night.

__________________
Jerry and Peggi Benson
Benson's Oakwood Kennels

I used to be very active in the beagle field trials, and they had a separate title for hunting show dogs.

The CHB (Certified Hunting Beagle) where a dog had to be entered in both the show and the trial. A dog that won on the bench, then won in the trial got the title of CHB.

I don't know why this has not caught on in the coonhound world. We have dual champions....

My biggest concern is that any changes in the breed standards need to align with "hunting conformation" not "pretty"....and I am afraid that is where we are going.

The color standards for Walkers mentions only black "spots"...it does not say how big the spots have to be...there is no mention of ticking as being a bad characteristic....but put a well conformed white dog with ticks on the bench next to a tan headed blanket back, cow hocked dog...and see which one wins more often....

__________________
Joe Newlin
UKC Cur Advocate
Home of Oak Ridge Kennels

A pretty good response from UKC's Mark Threlfall on this subject.

..."As I understand it, the new formatting is not meant to change the meaning of the current standard, but only to organize it and clarify it. The wording in some of the old standards leaves judges and breeders with little direction in some cases and virtually no direction in others. This is like trying to build a house with only half a blueprint. Kathy is doing a first draft of the standards and they will be sent to the Breed Associations for their input. I think it is incumbent on the Breed Associations to have the proposed standards reviewed by a group of thoughtful breeders. The whole purpose of this is to help develop a clearer word picture of each of the breeds. The better a standard is written, the better and clearer the path breeders and judges have to follow. UKC wants to do what is best for the coonhound breeds. That is, always has been and always will be our goal."

No matter who is chosen to be on a committee, if it comes to that, there is always going to be someone mad about whom was chosen to be on that committee, so I think we should leave it up to UKC and the TWBFA board and not bash people about them being called upon!! As for all of the names mentioned on the previous post, I agree that they are all qualified and some of them I consider friends and if they are chosen that is great...but maybe we shouldn't pick on Phil N. because he is a quote a "show person", if you knew anything about Phil you would know he is not illiterate when it comes to hunting dogs, hunting dogs are in his family he has two brothers that competition hunt UKC and PKC, Phil just does not prefer to go to the woods and hunt anymore!! I for another one love a good hunting dog, and we have some, I just don't hunt them I get the show dogs ready and my son takes care of the hunting end of it, and when it comes to breed standards I feel it should apply to both our hunting dogs and the show dogs. Just my opinion and I am not trying to bash anyone, I just wish things didn't get so out of hand, I like to go to the shows and have a good time and make friends not enemies!

Am I wrong in the belief that the standards are meant to be a guideline?

I would hate to see language get so specific that it would drive segments of our breed apart. Afterall, the beginning of the walker standard already states," The Treeing Walker breed was founded and has become dominant because of its ability to run and tree game, therefore, this recognizes the need for variety and individuality within the breed as terrain and/or purpose shall demand."

__________________
Larry Atherton

Aim small miss small