UKC Forums (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/index.php)
- UKC Coonhounds (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=4)
-- Rules Question - Split Trees & Dog Running (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.php?threadid=192139)

Cheyenne,

The same as our opinion doesn't matter now that Alan has changed the rule goes for the past when TK interpreted the rule.

Nobody said Elvis, Jim, myself and everybody else that read the advisor agreed or disagreed with the interpretation. It's what it was.

Until yesterday the correct way to score it is that no dog gets moved up past a dog that left, period, end of story. That was the official ruling because you didn't know if dog B had origionally treed with dog A or dog C and he was gone.

Now you DO move the dogs up if they are alone on a tree. That's Alans new ruling and that's the way it is whether we agree with it or not. It's the same thing, there is no questioning it, no arguing with it, Alan is the official interpreter and for us to score things correctly then we abide by his rulings.

1. Last week dog C stayed the same.

2. This week dog C gets moved up.

BOTH were correct because 1 was the official interpretation last week and 2 is the official interpretation now.

Get it?

Nobody was arguing if this then that. We were just saying that no matter what, until yesterday 1 was the correct way to score it because UKC SAID SO.

It's the same for 2 now and #1 interpretation doesn't exist now.

To score it right we score it Alans way.

That's also why me, alan, and Elvis didn't care either way. As long as we are doing what UKC has as their current ruling then we are scoring it correctly.

__________________
Let's go huntin

I think a lot of people will score this wrong in the future. This only happens one you see a split after arriving. If Dog C would have been on Dog A's when you arrived at the tree, then NO dog would move up in tree positions. Allen is not contradicting himself. He is trying to explain 2 different possible scenarios.

__________________
Josh Howard

quote:

---

Originally posted by Allen / UKC
Jim, dog C is split; you have to move it up. I was referring to an example like this:

A, B and C are treed. When you get to the tree dog B is gone. You don't now move C up to second position. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

---

gfults, get over it already and if the situation arises score it as it has been said!!! Enough already quit kicking a dead horse!!!!

__________________
no doubt!!
Nt.Ch. 2010 World Hunt Finalist Tug River Stylish PJ, Pkc Ch. Nt.Ch. Stylish Polly, Pkc Ch. Nt.Ch. Stylish Cheyenne, Gr.Nt.Ch. Frieds Thunder Crank, Gr.Nt.Ch. Major Dan , Nt.Ch. Lil Red Rat, Stylish Tanks Style

We should all burn our rulebooks and advisors. UKC obviously has no rules written in stone. Moh cannot make rulings that are consistent as long as we allow the rulings to change just because the UKC employee who is in charge of the Advisor has a different opinion of the interpretation of the rules than the previous employee that held that position.
I dont understand the need for the Advisor anyway. If UKC would get a set of rules that are set in stone that are not so contradictory where folks can understand them, the Advisor wouldnt be needed. PKC has no Advisor, and they rarely have these kind of problems. Look at their website. Ive NEVER seen discussions on there like this over rules and the way they should be used. I have spoken with some of the PKC breed and state officials about the discussions of the past few days. Just gave them hypothetical scenarios so they wouldnt be bias. Didnt even mention UKC. They ALL told me these interpretations we are being given are ludicrous. What does all that tell u?

Cheyenne,
I will score it as it SHOULD be scored!! Dog C 50! So u get over it.

Your an IDIOT!!!!

__________________
no doubt!!
Nt.Ch. 2010 World Hunt Finalist Tug River Stylish PJ, Pkc Ch. Nt.Ch. Stylish Polly, Pkc Ch. Nt.Ch. Stylish Cheyenne, Gr.Nt.Ch. Frieds Thunder Crank, Gr.Nt.Ch. Major Dan , Nt.Ch. Lil Red Rat, Stylish Tanks Style

Rip and JiM, where besides on page 99 as JiM referenced did I state previously that you can't move the split dog up over a dog that has been minused? Page 99 is not in reference to split trees and does not apply to this situation. I'll be honest, the way AG interpreted this question above is how I would have answered it also. If I wrote in the Advisor something different, or answered it on this board differently, I'd like to see it. Not saying I didn't... just don't remember it. Rip, I know you are sharp on this stuff that's why I'm not saying you're wrong. I just want to read it in the context that I wrote it. We'll get it cleared up officially then we'll be done.

Case in point. Turn to pages 119-120 of the Advisor. In that scenario, I listed three options as to how to score that split tree. Option 2 is the one that JiM and Rip are suggesting and it has some merit. But Option 3 is the one that stated back in 2001 that UKC would use as the official interpretation and that was to move both dogs up. The truth is, one dog is getting a gift. But that's better than a dog NOT getting the credit it deserves. Giving the dogs the benefit of the doubt.

__________________
If we're not suppose to eat animals, then why are they made out of meat?

At least I have enough backbone to stand up to stupidity!! People like you that just go along, too scared to rock the boat and make things right, are why nothing ever gets changed for the better. WOW, and they say people in the south are suppose to be the dumb ones.

Todd, you should be able to see Allen wrote in his original post that no dog can be moved up when one leaves and the other 2 are split.

Allen wrote this on his original post.

Dogs A, B, and C are struck and treed in that order. Upon arriving it is found dog B is gone, and A and C are split. How are they scored?

Advisor: An important factor to keep in mind is that dogs are never declared "split" unless it is obvious or not until at the point when it does become obvious. ALSO, WE NEVER MOVE DOGS UP ON TREE POSITIONS IF ONE OF THE DOGS HAVE LEFT WHEN WE GET TO THE TREE. THAT THEORY IS ESSENTIALWHEN IT COMES TO SCENARIOS SUCH AS THE ONE DESCRIBED ABOVE.


HMMM!

[quote]Larry Poe,
Why would dog B be assumed to be treed with dogA? Or with any dog? Or even really treed at all? It was assumed by the cast members obviously that all dogs were treed together. If the cast thought dog B was treed with dog A, then they would have put dog C in at 125 when dog C was treed.[quote]


JesusHChrist, unless a split tree can be determined at the time the dogs are treed in THERE ALWAYS assumed to be on the same tree as the dog that was treed for 1st. Just like all dogs are struck in as if they were running the same coon, even though they might be a half mile apart when there struck. The only difference is were allowed to have more than one set of tree points.


The moving up in position Allen was refering to comes into play when a dog leaves a tree and there are dogs treed in under it.

Lets say all dogs are treed in order and when you get there dog b is gone. You cant move dog c up to 2nd tree and dog d up to 3rd. Dog b simply takes -75 and the rest stay where they are.

When split trees come into play that couldnt be determined untill you get there, and a dog has left, it can become impossable to know where each dog was accualy treed at. Therefor there assumed to be on the same tree as the dog treed for 1st untill you know otherwise.

__________________
GRNTCH GRCH ROBINSONS ENGLISH LOOSER

RIP Loose

Gfults, give it up!! Yeah I read his original post, and comprehended exactly what he was saying...Again 2 different scenarios is what he is trying to say. You read the text and didn't get the response you was hoping for to go along with what you were saying. GNeal and Tim Macha had the best responses on this thread. Read what they wrote. We can call it common sense or the only way really that I could or would interpret the rules that we have on that type of scoring situation.

__________________
Josh Howard

Gfults,I would like you to score this situation!Not just one dog but all of them.You need to read it all just not one line.

__________________
*****Kerry Huss*****1-815-414-8592 or1-815-496-2220

Larry Poe, You hit the nail on the head!!! He's not gettin his way,I agree the post by Allen is simple to read . Just let him keep cryin he's diggin his own hole!!

__________________
A small vein of treeinblues

quote:

---

Originally posted by gfults
Allen wrote this on his original post.

Dogs A, B, and C are struck and treed in that order. Upon arriving it is found dog B is gone, and A and C are split. How are they scored?

Advisor: An important factor to keep in mind is that dogs are never declared "split" unless it is obvious or not until at the point when it does become obvious. ALSO, WE NEVER MOVE DOGS UP ON TREE POSITIONS IF ONE OF THE DOGS HAVE LEFT WHEN WE GET TO THE TREE. THAT THEORY IS ESSENTIALWHEN IT COMES TO SCENARIOS SUCH AS THE ONE DESCRIBED ABOVE.


HMMM!

---

Seems like I may have some of you very confused. Possibly because of my terminolgy or lack thereof. Please allow me to make this very clear. First, I am well aware of page 99 in the Advisor. What Todd Kellam wrote there has not changed. Not one bit.

My question is this; how is the situation on page 99 of the Advisor and the scenario posted by Mr. Hagood even related? Please read both of them again. The difference in the two is that in Darrell’s scenario dog C is “obviously” split from A.

Again, I guess I wasn't clear enough. We're talking about situations where you have dogs declared treed, then, when you get to the tree you find one or more has left and the rest are on separate trees. (split wasn’t "obvious" until you got there and "saw" it.) You don't really know which tree the running dog(s) actually left, therefore, making it a confusing or difficult situation to score.

What I am "trying" to get across is that in situations where it was never "obvious" that any of the dogs were split (until you got to the tree and "saw" it), and to have a consistent way of scoring these difficult situations, use dog A's tree as the "root". Why? Because according to Rule 11 a judge never declares a dog split unless it is obvious or until at a point when it does become obvious. In some instances it doesn’t become obvious until you get there and see it; as in Darrell’s scenario and in the examples shown below.

If we stick with that theory or rule of thumb that we score dogs as being on the same tree “unless or until” it becomes obvious then we have a consistent way of scoring these difficult situations. May not always be exactly what happened but neither are any other ways you might use to score them. At least we have a method to use that’s consistent and probably as fair as any other options if you really think about it. And, if you haven’t learned that the breaks don’t always go your way then you haven’t been huntin’ long enough.

Example 1 -
Dogs A, B, C and D are declared treed in that order. Upon arriving dog C is gone and dog D is on a separate tree.

Tree Points:
Dog A = 125
Dog B = 75
Dog C = 50-
Dog D = 125

Example 2 -
Dogs A, B, C and D are declared treed in that order. Upon arriving dogs A and D are treed together. Dog B is on a separate tree and Dog C is gone.

Tree Points:
Dog A = 125
Dog B = 125
Dog C = 75- (moved up one tree position because B is on separate tree)
Dog D = 50 (moved up one tree position because dog B is on separate tree)

Example 3 -
Dogs A, B, C and D are declared treed in that order. Upon arriving dog A is gone. B, C and D are treed together.

Tree points:
Dog A = 125-
Dog B = 75
Dog C = 50
Dog D = 25
( this example is similar to TK’s scenario on page 99 of the Advisor – difference is three dogs stayed instead of just the one.)

Example 4 -
Dogs A, B, C and D are declared treed in that order. Upon arriving dog A is gone. B and C are treeing together and D is on a separate tree.

Tree points:
Dog A = 125-
Dog B = 75
Dog C = 50
Dog D = 125

Example 5 -
Dogs A, B, C and D are declared treed in that order. Upon arriving A is on one tree. B and C are both gone. D is on separate tree.

Tree points:
Dog A = 125
Dog B = 75-
Dog C = 50-
Dog D = 125

Example 6 -
Dogs A, B, C and D are declared treed in that order. Upon arriving A is gone. B and D are treed together and C is on a separate tree.

Tree Points:
Dog A = 125-
Dog B = 75
Dog C = 125
Dog D = 50 (moved up one position because C is on separate tree.)

Example 7 –
Dogs A, B, C and D are declared treed in that order. Upon arriving dogs A and B are gone. C is on one tree and D is on a separate tree.

Tree points:
Dog A = 125-
Dog B = 75-
Dog C = 50
Dog D = 125
(this one will likely bring on the biggest argument, but again, it is staying consistent with the theory of using the root tree. Why? Because it was never obvious that the dogs were split until the cast arrived and “saw” D on a separate tree. We don’t assume A and B were anywhere else other than with C because it wasn’t obvious.)

Hopefully, these examples will help a little to get the idea and eliminate any confusion. Especially, in regards to page 99 of the Advisor as the two situations are not really related.


gfults, I would gladly discuss this topic with you if you care to call or give me a phone number where you can be reached at. Might be able to eliminate any confusion. Thanks.

Type the scores down what each dog would get as if you were the judge!Larrypoe explained to you as good as anybody could and he is right.

__________________
*****Kerry Huss*****1-815-414-8592 or1-815-496-2220

I agree. Larry gets the whole idea.

Allen,
You proved my point with the scoring of dog C in ur last scenario. Still not consistent. I would LOVE for u to contact me about this. 931-619-9684

No I was proved wrong on my post above!! Because Allen just took you back to preschool by breaking it all down for you,gfults!!!

__________________
*****Kerry Huss*****1-815-414-8592 or1-815-496-2220

Todd, I really don't care one way or another to be honest as long as it is scored the same by everybody.

I could be wrong, doesn't matter to me cause Alan is the official word and from now on I will score it as he said. That's good enough for me just like your rulings were good enough for me when you were doing it. It's UKC's game and I agree to abide by your rulings when I sign up for a hunt. I want you to know that I am NOT arguing with you, just givin you the Advisor column that I seem to remember.

The Advisor I am talking about was a very long time ago, maybe even sometime in the 90's I think when you set the situation up talking about a dog that left when the rest of the four stayed. In that situation it was obvious that the other dogs below dog B (for some reason it's always him that leaves LOL) didn't move up.

Then you had AD on one tree C on the other with B long gone, split not realized until you walked up. In that situation you used the same logic, don't know where B was so D nor C can move up. Movign C up without moving D up was unfair, moving D up without moving C up was unfair so everybody stayed the same since you didn't know which group B (dang I don't want to own dog B) treed with.

Sorry to post this, don't want to add to the controversey but that's the way I remember it. Could be wrong, I have been before and will be again.

You know me by now and know that I didn't agree with all of your rulings. We had plenty of discussions about it too, but I still went by them whether I liked them or not.

Personally I have always wanted to move dog C up and assume dog B left the origional tree, so this is going in the direction that I personally liked, and I didn't score it that way for a reason. Thats because I honestly thought the advisor had told me different. I ain't bashful about sayin I disagree, never have been but I do try and abide by UKC's rulings regardless of my personal feelings.

This is no different. From now on C gets moved up by me.

__________________
Let's go huntin

I have always scored hounds on what I know happended and not what may have happened or could of happened.

Ya'll keep telling me dog C should have been moved up cause it was treed on seperate tree from other dog. Look at Allens last scenario. If ya'll are so right, then C should be moved up like D was. But Allen said he stayed at 50

Why do you make this so hard? I've had this situation come up a few times in casts and I always scored it as Allen said and never had any objections. It doesn't seem that complicated to me.

__________________
Mike Gibson

I have been on cast where everyone in the cast knew the hounds were together when treed. They were 1/2 mile away but while walking one, two or three hounds moved and there was no way to prove who moved. It was scored wrong as called but right as anyone could prove it. Bad luck good luck