UKC Forums - Adviser vs. rule book

Pages (8): « First ... « 3 4 [5] 6 7 » ... Last »
Show all 184 posts from this thread on one page

UKC Forums (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/index.php)
- UKC Coonhounds (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=4)
-- Adviser vs. rule book (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.php?threadid=928510883)

Posted by shawnstovall on 10-24-2018 07:33 PM:

Allen are you going to answer my suggestion

__________________
shawn stovall
wyandotte, ok
shawnstovall2001@yahoo.com
918-961-2434
Home to:
Pr S&J's Shack's Backwoods Patches (walker)
'PR' Stovall's Black Knight Wild Willy
Past Home to:
dual grand stovall's black knight george (gone but not forgotten)
pr D&S' black little luke (1st and 3rd place wins) (davis black luke x paynes black june) gone but not forgotten
Dual Grand Davis' black hutch (gone but not forgotten)

Posted by TylerOSU on 10-24-2018 07:34 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Allen / UKC
Yeah, scratching for a growl alone would not meet the criteria of "attempting to fight".

Wait what?! That was a bold statement there Cotton! Once again where's that line drawn LOL Mind Blown!

__________________
It's all about preventative judging and situational handling that keeps you out of trouble.
Owner of TIER 1 CUSTOM CALLS
POWERED BY PURINA

Team Mafia
2022 UKC World Champion
2019-2022 UKC World Qualifier
2019 Ok Prohunt Semi-finalist
2019 Spring SS Top 20
20,21, and 23 OK State PKC Champion
2020 Spring SS Top 7
2019-2023 PKC National Qualifier
2020-2023 TOC Qualifier
2020 UKC Top 100
2022 UKC Top 100
2023 JOY Super Hunt Champion
2022 UKC WORLDCH PKC PCH CH GRNTCH3 "Get Gone Jenna"
DOB- 9/30/2017

Posted by TylerOSU on 10-24-2018 07:36 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by shawnstovall
Allen are you going to answer my suggestion

No Shawn you've done caused too much trouble since the state hunt and he has a headache with your name on it... You're in timeout! Try again next week

Posted by Redneck Mafia on 10-24-2018 07:56 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Allen / UKC
Jen, are you sure this is the way Chey understands the rule to be interpreted? Sounds like the way it is done in a different registry. I have hunted plenty long enough to know what an all out dog fight sounds like without having to lay eyes on the actual fight. So do 100's of others. I'm not talking about "possibly, could be's or might be's". I'm going to have to agree to disagree. If you're suggesting this is the way it should be opposed to the way UKC has always suggested, then forgive me for misunderstanding your post.

I think Chey like many other good judges would never scratch a dog unless he was sure of what was happening and would not scratch a dog from afar. Your rules allow him to head to that tree to see what is going on. The interfere comes from your own rules that clearly says in pertaining to aggressive behavior AND interfere with dog(s) not OR.
A long term Field Director actually pointed this out to me on a conversation one night when a cast was trying to scratch a dog in a box that because no interference had taken place that the dog couldn't be scratched. (this wasn't at our hunt but a call that I received asking about it)
There is one big difference that I see between the various kc's and that is that in your typical UKC hunt the scratching mentality to many are looking for an excuse to scratch the competition. In other kc's it is a handlers game with dogs doing their thing the huge majority know the rules very well and their dogs as well amateurs learn quickly there is the threat of being barred for the incorrect scoring of trees, the buddy system is off the table and yes you have to see it to scratch it. The mentality of letting dogs compete and getting rid of piddly Annie rules like the squalling scratch are things that need to come to this side of the pond.

__________________
Cheyenne & Jennifer Cummings
Seneca , MO
(417)317-4815
"TEAM MAFIA"
*NATIONAL GRNITECH GRCH GRNITECH(5) HALL OF FAME PKC PLATIUM CH REDNECK BACKWOODS SHACK
2014 OK STATE CH, 2015 MO PKC LEADER, 2016 PKC NATIONALS SEMIFINALIST, 2016 UKC TOP 20, 2O17 UKC WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP 3RD PLACE, 2018 PKC SENIOR SHOWDOWN TRUCK HUNT FINAL 4, 2018 MO PKC STATE CHAMPION, 2019 AUTUMN OAKS NATIONAL GRNITE CH, 2019 PKC WORLD CH SEMIFINALIST. 2021 PKC SENIOR SHOWDOWN TRUCK HUNT FINAL 4.
*PKC WORLD CHAMPION PLATNIUM CHAMPION GRNITECH SHACK'S HEATHER ISLAND SOUTHERN STOGIE
2021 OKLAHOMA STATE CHAMPION, 2022 PKC WORLD CHAMPION, 2022 MO PKC STATE LEADER PRO SPORT TRUCK WINNER, 2025 MO PKC STATE CHAMPION

RIP
*GRNITECH PKC SCH REDNECK MAFIA PKC HALL OF FAME REPRODUCER INDUCTED 2022
*GRNITECH CH PKC SILVER CH REDNECK SHACK ATTACK aka TAC 2018 OKLAHOMA STATE CHAMPION, 2020 MO PKC STATE LEADER

Posted by groworg1 on 10-24-2018 08:19 PM:

and if you hear a fight arrive and 2 dogs are bloody and 2 aren't i wonder which 2 were fighting ?

Posted by Allen / UKC on 10-24-2018 08:20 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by shawnstovall
Allen you know as well as I do we can work on rule changes for days on days and submit 10 or was it 11 and not even one get approved. Remember that.
So here's my thought on this everyone needs to submit there rule changes to there breeds let there breeds review those rule changes and then they submit them to UKC after they have reviewed them. UKC then reviews them and then put them on here to voted on by the public and not just two reps from each breed.

Not specifically. Are you saying that none of the proposals on the ballot passed? If so, then I would be wrong in thinking that there's never been a rules committee that hasn't passed at least a couple props. Talking about since I've been involved. Although, it's not been uncommon to see a good majority of proposals not get the nod.

Seems like, in the past, we have posted the props that were on a ballot and did a poll of sorts on this forum. Not positive though. If not, maybe should try it and compare the results with those of the Rules Committee.

Considering that we have a lot of active knowledgeable hunters that don't frequent this or any other forum, I'm not sure how well that would work. I'd be concerned that we would get a lot of buttons pushed without much in-depth thought or consideration going into it. What are your thoughts on that?

Reading some of the comments related to the current system, especially those who are critical of the credentials of those who have served on the committee when they have no idea who they are actually being critical of, is a little unfair and disturbing. In-depth discussion, consideration of pros and cons, and thought is a highly important part of the process. It has to be. That said, I highly doubt that some of the critics would have the same critical opinions if they would have ever been a fly on the wall during these proceedings.

Posted by Redneck Mafia on 10-24-2018 08:32 PM:

There was a breed that at the last committee meeting meeting that their membership had agreed on a proposal submitted it then in the rules change meeting their reps voted no on their proposal.
There is a problem with the process. I like many others have no problem with breeds forming their own breed standards but these meetings involving need more reps. Has UKC ever considered having state or area reps along with breed reps, field directors ect for a larger more diverse less secret group.

Posted by yadkintar on 10-24-2018 08:39 PM:

Allen two well placed rules would fix a lot of the other ones there is some that need a little tweeking but I been hunting by these rules a long time and can win with them as is. But in business you have to stay current the styles of dogs have changed to the point these rules hinder an honest coon treeing dog that trees the first coon up a ( fur on the barn dog ). You know the two I am talking about. If all you hunt is the patch woods up north you don't notice it as much. But in the southern states in large tracts of woods in scattered coons it's a pain in the rump.

Tar

Posted by Redneck Mafia on 10-24-2018 08:43 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yadkintar
Allen two well placed rules would fix a lot of the other ones there is some that need a little tweeking but I been hunting by these rules a long time and can win with them as is. But in business you have to stay current the styles of dogs have changed to the point these rules hinder an honest coon treeing dog that trees the first coon up a ( fur on the barn dog ). You know the two I am talking about. If all you hunt is the patch woods up north you don't notice it as much. But in the southern states in large tracts of woods in scattered coons it's a pain in the rump.

Tar

Aka leash lock???

Posted by Redneck Mafia on 10-24-2018 08:48 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Allen / UKC
Not specifically. Are you saying that none of the proposals on the ballot passed? If so, then I would be wrong in thinking that there's never been a rules committee that hasn't passed at least a couple props. Talking about since I've been involved. Although, it's not been uncommon to see a good majority of proposals not get the nod.

Seems like, in the past, we have posted the props that were on a ballot and did a poll of sorts on this forum. Not positive though. If not, maybe should try it and compare the results with those of the Rules Committee.

Considering that we have a lot of active knowledgeable hunters that don't frequent this or any other forum, I'm not sure how well that would work. I'd be concerned that we would get a lot of buttons pushed without much in-depth thought or consideration going into it. What are your thoughts on that?

Reading some of the comments related to the current system, especially those who are critical of the credentials of those who have served on the committee when they have no idea who they are actually being critical of, is a little unfair and disturbing. In-depth discussion, consideration of pros and cons, and thought is a highly important part of the process. It has to be. That said, I highly doubt that some of the critics would have the same critical opinions if they would have ever been a fly on the wall during these proceedings.

Reduced shine time passed and as a result the squalling time had to be reduced or you would have only had 1 minute to squall at a tree. Then the squirrels and birds thing passed. I believe Shawn would be referencing getting rid of squalling time, leash lock, tree countdown ect all the changes that the hunters not just in the b&t breed had/are asking for.

Posted by Richard Lambert on 10-24-2018 08:52 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Redneck Mafia
.....this side of the pond.......

Isn't it more like an ocean? Sure some handlers travel back and forth to visit but most have taken up residence on one side or the other. The Pro's are on one side and the Amateurs are on the other. They require different rules. The Pros want one set and the Amateurs want another set. I don't see anything wrong with that. If you want to hunt under Pro rules, you can hunt on their side of the ocean. If you want to hunt under Amateur rules hunt on their side of the ocean. But don't try to combine the two and make them one.

Posted by Allen / UKC on 10-24-2018 08:54 PM:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Redneck Mafia
[B]
A long term Field Director actually pointed this out to me on a conversation one night when a cast was trying to scratch a dog in a box that because no interference had taken place that the dog couldn't be scratched. (this wasn't at our hunt but a call that I received asking about it)

I've always been taught, by UKC's definition, that fighting is fighting. There is no mention of interfering with another dog when it comes to fighting. This has been defined the same way for years. As far as I'm aware, since the implementation of the rule.

There's two parts within 6(b). One is fighting and the other is attempting to fight. It's the "attempting to fight*" that requires the dog be 1) showing some form of aggression and 2) interfering with another dog before it has met the criteria to be scratched for fighting. The asterisk tagged onto the verbiage "attempting to fight*" means that there is a definition of the term listed under Section 18. That's where you'll find the criteria required to scratch a dog for fighting that is found guilty of attempting to fight.

Posted by Allen / UKC on 10-24-2018 09:02 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by yadkintar
Allen two well placed rules would fix a lot of the other ones there is some that need a little tweeking but I been hunting by these rules a long time and can win with them as is. But in business you have to stay current the styles of dogs have changed to the point these rules hinder an honest coon treeing dog that trees the first coon up a ( fur on the barn dog ). You know the two I am talking about. If all you hunt is the patch woods up north you don't notice it as much. But in the southern states in large tracts of woods in scattered coons it's a pain in the rump.

Tar

You bring up a valid point and are spot on. When considering anything related to nite hunts, you MUST consider every one across the country. Texas is not like Indiana and West Virginia is not like Iowa. Agreed 100%.

Posted by Redneck Mafia on 10-24-2018 09:05 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lambert
Isn't it more like an ocean? Sure some handlers travel back and forth to visit but most have taken up residence on one side or the other. The Pro's are on one side and the Amateurs are on the other. They require different rules. The Pros want one set and the Amateurs want another set. I don't see anything wrong with that. If you want to hunt under Pro rules, you can hunt on their side of the ocean. If you want to hunt under Amateur rules hunt on their side of the ocean. But don't try to combine the two and make them one.

Richard both could learn a little from each other.
The take on this side is easier to understand and less complicated there is way to much room for interpretation and way too many taking advantage of it, ever wonder why those new comers leave? Speak of honor is coming up frequently but when rules in place go against common since and honor there is a need to repair. With a slight tweek here and there they can be. I started with the scratch mentality and none can argue that it doesn't exist. You are scratched for squalling and apparently now can be scratched for the unseen and unproven too, in to many cast there are those just waiting to eliminate who ever is winning. It is no longer about letting dogs and men compete when this happens.

Posted by Redneck Mafia on 10-24-2018 09:12 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Allen / UKC
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Redneck Mafia
[B]
A long term Field Director actually pointed this out to me on a conversation one night when a cast was trying to scratch a dog in a box that because no interference had taken place that the dog couldn't be scratched. (this wasn't at our hunt but a call that I received asking about it)

I've always been taught, by UKC's definition, that fighting is fighting. There is no mention of interfering with another dog when it comes to fighting. This has been defined the same way for years. As far as I'm aware, since the implementation of the rule.

There's two parts within 6(b). One is fighting and the other is attempting to fight. It's the "attempting to fight*" that requires the dog be 1) showing some form of aggression and 2) interfering with another dog before it has met the criteria to be scratched for fighting. The asterisk tagged onto the verbiage "attempting to fight*" means that there is a definition of the term listed under Section 18. That's where you'll find the criteria required to scratch a dog for fighting that is found guilty of attempting to fight.

You may want to clarify that language and inform your Field Directors of it then. The language clearly says and in definitions listed under 18 not or.
Sane with the babbling it says that a dog that has barked more than 3 times. We all know that because a dog barks three times should not be considered babbling this definition needs a change in wording.

Posted by Allen / UKC on 10-24-2018 09:31 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Redneck Mafia
You may want to clarify that language and inform your Field Directors of it then. The language clearly says and in definitions listed under 18 not or.
Sane with the babbling it says that a dog that has barked more than 3 times. We all know that because a dog barks three times should not be considered babbling this definition needs a change in wording.

Sorry Jen, but I must be missing your point. The words used make perfect sense to me.

Posted by Allen / UKC on 10-24-2018 09:31 PM:

"and" what?

Posted by TylerOSU on 10-24-2018 09:56 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Allen / UKC
"and" what?

I think she is saying the way it reads the dog has to be doing both things to be scratched (showing aggression AND interfering with another dog) Rather than saying Or, And/Or. It's just a wording issue and it wont be a big deal until someone wants it to be.

Posted by Redneck Mafia on 10-24-2018 09:56 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Allen / UKC
"and" what?

The definition says And as in both not OR as in one or the other. Your rules not mine idk who wrote them but the word AND was used I presumed until today that it was for good reason and that our forefathers in this sport meant for it to be this way.
You get done with the dog fight def read the babbling for what it says. It has the OR but needed the AND.
"And" dogs in middle of a fight would meet both criteria or showing aggressive behavior AND interfering whether in the warm south or the frozen tundra slower moving north lol.

Posted by Toad Hill on 10-24-2018 09:58 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Redneck Mafia
Richard both could learn a little from each other.
The take on this side is easier to understand and less complicated there is way to much room for interpretation and way too many taking advantage of it, ever wonder why those new comers leave? Speak of honor is coming up frequently but when rules in place go against common since and honor there is a need to repair. With a slight tweek here and there they can be. I started with the scratch mentality and none can argue that it doesn't exist. You are scratched for squalling and apparently now can be scratched for the unseen and unproven too, in to many cast there are those just waiting to eliminate who ever is winning. It is no longer about letting dogs and men compete when this happens.

Spot On !!!

Posted by Toad Hill on 10-24-2018 10:27 PM:

Originally posted by Toad Hill
Alan I have another one for you ,
4 dog cast all dogs are struck in my dog comes back you minus him strike points but he has the strong smell of skunk on him are you scratching me?

quote:
Originally posted by Allen / UKC
Never.

baaaahhahahahahaha !!!! Thats what i figured . I wouldnt either, But you would scratch me on total speculation that my dog was smoking fast game ???!!! This is DOUBLE TALK if i ever seen it ! These hunts are turning into " who the best lawyer is " not who has the best hound.

I talked with 3 other comp hunters last night ( one which has made the top 20 twice ) on the phone and told them all about this . I said fellas i got some trivia for ya ! I asked the same questions weve discussed here and got the same answers.
ALL 3 said if a judge tried to scratch them on total speculation they would fight it tooth and nail and prob be forced with a letter resignation.
1 of them asked me if you was smoking left handed cigs. I said yes although I couldnt see one in your hand but by the way you was acting i "thought" you probably were ! LOL !!

Posted by Dave Richards on 10-24-2018 11:37 PM:

Toad Hill

Lol. I definitely have to agree with you on that one! A dog with skunk all over it was doing something wrong for sure [ prima facie ] the act speaks for itself. While scratching or minus on speculation alone doesn't hold water. No wonder there are so many different answers to the same RULE question on this board. Logic just doesn't exist with many RULES. Dave

__________________
Dave Richards Treeing Walkers Reg American Saddlebred and Registered Rocky Mt. Show Horses

Posted by yadkintar on 10-25-2018 12:05 AM:

Dog was just defending himself against an over aggressive skunk !!!

Should have scratched the skunk !!

Tar

Posted by Richard Lambert on 10-25-2018 12:08 AM:

My dog scratched a skunk Sat night.

Posted by Donnie Stevens on 10-25-2018 12:09 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by TylerOSU
I think she is saying the way it reads the dog has to be doing both things to be scratched (showing aggression AND interfering with another dog) Rather than saying Or, And/Or. It's just a wording issue and it wont be a big deal until someone wants it to be.

Fighting OR attempting to fight. To scratch for attempting to fight requires aggressive behavior AND interference.

Interference is not required to scratch a dog for fighting.

__________________
Friends don't let friends hunt blueticks

All times are GMT. The time now is 11:46 AM.

Pages (8): « First ... « 3 4 [5] 6 7 » ... Last »
Show all 184 posts from this thread on one page