UKC Forums - Alan, Rule Interpretation Needed.

Show all 23 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)
-- Alan, Rule Interpretation Needed. (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.php?threadid=280022)

Posted by Rip on 06-03-2009 01:53 PM:

Alan, Rule Interpretation Needed.

So here's the deal I know both sides of the issue and will present them here to try and limit all the opinions, I am just looking for an interpretation because I know this situation WILL come up in my area. I don't care either way, both points of view are valid, I just want to score it correctly.

This concerns the "dog being treed in after the 5" rule. This is a new rule that brings a new problem that used to didn't exist, and that is what to do about dogs at holes in this situation.

1. I know going by the way the rules are written a dog that is declared treed after the 5 and found to be at the hole with the rest of the dogs SHOULD be minused 125 tree points because they are not being minused for being at the hole, they are being minused for not being split, which is what you are declaring with the new rule if you tree your dog after the 5. Its strike points would still be eligible for scoring per the rules, but the minus would come from the dog not being split treed.

2. We have always had seprate rules for holes than trees with different consequences. If the stationary runs and the dog is at a hole instead of a tree the dog is not scratched. Only one dog has to show the hole for all dogs in the vacinity to get their strike scored, you don't have to tree any dog to score a hole etc. This rule says

"*(k) Any dogs declared treed after five minutes expires and tree is closed; call will be accepted as a split tree. If dog is on closed tree when judge arrives, tree points will be minused. Strike points scored in accordance with 4(d)."

You are already making one exception to this rule, since it is a hole you can't minus the strike points and indeed will plus them if the coon is seen (4d says to minus them if the dog comes into a tree late, this is also included in rule k above), the dogs strike points are eligible for scoring per the rules specific for holes.

So do you still minus the tree points even though it's a hole? If so you may be minusing the origional dog because many times you can't hear the one with it's head buryed until you get closer and then it sounds way deeper and you would think it was split until you got there and seen that he sounded that way because he was in the ground.

Personally I don't care either way. I just want to know the way UKC wants it scored because it WILL come up in areas where coon go in the ground. Before only the judge could declare a split if this situation happened the tree points would be deleted because the judge would realize he made a mistake due to the physics of a dog being in the ground. Now we have a rule saying they must be split.

I think there is room to reasonably rule either way. If you minus that is justified because the dog isn't being minused for being at the hole, it's minused for not being split as the rules require.

If you say you can delete those tree points it would be backed by precedent, that's the way it was done in the past with UKC's approval, and the specific rule in question specifically says "closed tree" not closed hole.

I don't care which way you go, would just like an official word so I know I am scoring it right when it comes up.

__________________
Let's go huntin

Posted by on 06-03-2009 03:01 PM:

I think you answered your own question. They aren't being minused for being at the hole, the hole is completely irrelevant, where they end up is completely irrelevant. They are minused for leaving their tree.

Posted by Dan Dogs on 06-03-2009 03:09 PM:

would they be minused on strike if coon was seen in the hole..i'm guessing yes..the dogs at the hole were apparently called treed if the 5 was put on them..or do they get plussed for being there even after the five is up..

__________________
Home of:
- Gr. Nite Ch. Iowa County Crybabe
- Nite Ch. Hickory Nut Dan
- Gr. CH Nite Ch. Hickory Nut Dan II
- CH. Gr. Nite Ch. Hickory Nut Dan III 2008 Performance Sire
- CH. Gr.Nite Ch. Hickory Nut Dan IV 2004 ukc world hunt finalist
- Ch. Gr.Nite Ch. Mounds Creek Sassy II
- Nite Ch. Hickory Nut Bucky HTX 3 wins towards grnite
- GrCh.GrNtCh Hickory Nut Bawlie HTX
-Nite ch. PR Iowa County CryBaby II 2013 Badger State Hunt Champion
qualified for 2013 UKC World Hunt
CH Nitech She Hate Me (scar) HTX Iowa County Kennels

Posted by Clay Lautzenhiser on 06-03-2009 03:15 PM:

I'm gonna guess it depends on where you are from. For example if you are from Indiana, particularly NE Indiana, if you handle for a wealthy owner, if you are close friends with someone at UKC, if you came from or come from a certain social/religous background...then you are free to score as necessary in order for you to win. If you do not meet the above criteria then you are correct Rip.
Heck they may even suggets that you follow a 20 year old Advisor and ignore the 2009/2010 rulebook!

__________________
352-400-2374 Cell
PKC#50739

Posted by lockednks on 06-03-2009 03:23 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Clay Lautzenhiser
I'm gonna guess it depends on where you are from. For example if you are from Indiana, particularly NE Indiana, if you handle for a wealthy owner, if you are close friends with someone at UKC, if you came from or come from a certain social/religous background...then you are free to score as necessary in order for you to win. If you do not meet the above criteria then you are correct Rip.
Heck they may even suggets that you follow a 20 year old Advisor and ignore the 2009/2010 rulebook!

I smell a time out coming your direction!!!!

Posted by jculler8 on 06-03-2009 03:24 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Clay Lautzenhiser
I'm gonna guess it depends on where you are from. For example if you are from Indiana, particularly NE Indiana, if you handle for a wealthy owner, if you are close friends with someone at UKC, if you came from or come from a certain social/religous background...then you are free to score as necessary in order for you to win. If you do not meet the above criteria then you are correct Rip.
Heck they may even suggets that you follow a 20 year old Advisor and ignore the 2009/2010 rulebook!

Ding Ding Ding! We've got a WINNER! haha

__________________
OAKS POINT KENNELS

HOME OF

PKC CH GRNITECH GRCH 'PR' OAKS POINT COON BUSTIN' BELLE HTX 2013 UKC Top 100 (May 2006-January 2017)

'PR' OAKS POINT STRIKE-EM OUT BEAU (May 2006-June 2016)

PKC CH NITECH GRCH 'PR' COON BUSTIN' WHITE STUFF

CH 'PR' GOLD RUSH EXPO

'PR' BLACK KNIGHT'S BALU JETTA (May 2013-October 2015)

CH 'PR' CHERRY CREEK XBOX 2016 Treeing Walker Days King of Show

Posted by on 06-03-2009 03:24 PM:

Did Sheepster move to Fla?

But I agree, them dam Amish get all the breaks.

Posted by Dan Reuter on 06-03-2009 04:01 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by JiM
Did Sheepster move to Fla?

But I agree, them dam Amish get all the breaks.

WOW!

Posted by Larry Atherton on 06-03-2009 05:13 PM:

Man, someone has some pent-up anger issues!

__________________
Larry Atherton

Aim small miss small

Posted by Dan Dogs on 06-03-2009 05:27 PM:

clues,,,,amish guy handling for a wealthy guy in indiana!!!HHMMMM.. would that wealthy guy be you JiM!!! i thought the Mennos hunted your dogs..

Posted by Clay Lautzenhiser on 06-03-2009 07:01 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Larry Atherton
Man, someone has some pent-up anger issues!

Larry if you were referring to me its quite the contrary. I am AMUSED by the whole thing. I spoke with TK on Monday, ask him if I was angry. I spoke to HOBO (Dennis) lastnight, ask him if I was angry. I was bored and had nothing better to do for a couple of days. Besides I take meds to control my anger. Jail is not afun place to be

PS I didn't mention any particular society, Jim did!

__________________
352-400-2374 Cell
PKC#50739

Posted by AnA blue kennel on 06-03-2009 07:43 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Clay Lautzenhiser
I'm gonna guess it depends on where you are from. For example if you are from Indiana, particularly NE Indiana, if you handle for a wealthy owner, if you are close friends with someone at UKC, if you came from or come from a certain social/religous background...then you are free to score as necessary in order for you to win. If you do not meet the above criteria then you are correct Rip.
Heck they may even suggets that you follow a 20 year old Advisor and ignore the 2009/2010 rulebook!

LOL i believe your telling the truth how is it going down there clay?

__________________
CH NITECH'PR' ANDERSONS TROUBLE PUNCH 12-31-2001- 9-16-08

CH 'PR'Andersons Wild-N-Blue Pounder
2nd place win and placed 10th at setwds 09 friday night

PR'Andersons Blue Pepper

Posted by Allen / UKC on 06-03-2009 07:53 PM:

RIP,

We would need to stick with the intent of the new rule relative to dogs that are declared treed after time is up regardless of it being a tree or a hole. Anytime dogs are declared treed, even in holes, they must stay there. The same will go for dogs treed in holes after the five is up. No other dogs may be declared treed there. Any dogs declared treed after the five is up will go on the card as split. If they happen to be at the closed tree, or in your scenario....closed hole, they would recieve minus tree points all the same for the reason of not being split.

This new rule does contradict our theory of the past in that we didn't use to accept a tree call in these situations, unless the dog declared treed after the five was up, was obviously split. The theory behind it was; why would you minus a dog for something they never did? (left split tree) I guess now we have to with the new rule. And it's probably important to note this applies to all handlers regardless of whatever. Sorry. Couldn't resist.

Posted by Rip on 06-03-2009 08:31 PM:

Thanks Alan, just another reason to break your dog from treeing in the hole, if you don't then you are gonna eventually end up with it broke off that's for sure cause there are gonna be lots of people that will tree their dog when they sound like they are a quarter mile deeper than the tree you are going to only to find out that they are buried in the hole.

But the dog still is eligible for it's strike points to be scored according to what is in the hole correct? I mean the hole rules were clear on that in the past, that only one dog needed to show the end of the track in order for all strike points to be eligible. Back before this rule you might have 1 dog declared treed but all dogs there got their strike points scored according to what was in the hole or not, while those that actually were declared treed were eligible for strike and tree points. Nothing has changed in regards to this so the strike points are eligible for scoring just like always at a hole right?

__________________
Let's go huntin

Posted by Allen / UKC on 06-03-2009 09:01 PM:

RIP, that's a question that we'll need a little more time to discuss and think about before offering an answer. I had a hunch that was gonna be the follow-up question. lol. It's a good one and hadn't actually even thought about that scenario until I read your post. Nonetheless, if you can hold off a few days I'd appreciate it so as not to make a hasty decision without giving it enough thought. Thanks. Great question BTW.

Posted by blueticker on 06-03-2009 09:18 PM:

Best case senerio, you pick up 125- for the handler error and 100+ on the strike. Why anyone would split tree their dog before 100% sure there split is beyond me. It's automatic 125- and possibly more if the three dogs pull to yours if the cast can't be sure there split.

The more you learn about a set of rules, the more you learn about how to use the gray areas to your benifit. Now you can plus a dog and minus a dog on the same hole with a coon in it.

Posted by Oak Ridge on 06-03-2009 09:45 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Allen / UKC
RIP, that's a question that we'll need a little more time to discuss and think about before offering an answer. I had a hunch that was gonna be the follow-up question. lol. It's a good one and hadn't actually even thought about that scenario until I read your post. Nonetheless, if you can hold off a few days I'd appreciate it so as not to make a hasty decision without giving it enough thought. Thanks. Great question BTW.

This is an actual scenario....

We got down to a two dog cast...Handler A is holding the scorecard.

Cast is "neck and neck"....gonna come down to the last strike and tree call. Dogs get struck pretty deep, and we take off walking. Dog B is struck for 100 Dog A for 75. In the final moments of the hunt, Dog A is treed for 125, while Dog B is not heard from shortly after the strike.

The hunt winds down and the two handlers close in on the dog declared treed, but are surprised to find BOTH dogs in the same location. It's obvious why dog B had not been heard from for a while, he's hip deep in a hole...Dog A is outside the whole, goin every breath.

When Dog B is pulled from the hole, he has coon in his mouth. Handler A, who is the judge announces that he is going to plus Dog A both strike and tree, and MINUS dog B....on the grounds that he believed the dog got to the hole "late". Now mind you, dog A was treed in the final moments of the hunt....

The call was questioned, and upheld by a MOH.....

__________________
Joe Newlin
UKC Cur Advocate
Home of Oak Ridge Kennels

Posted by blueticker on 06-03-2009 10:29 PM:

Dog B took it in the shorts. I would think both hounds would get plus points on strike only. Since they were in the hole and dog A held position but coon was caught and no plus tree points for caught game. I feel the hole situation allows one to plus the strike points on both hounds.

There are so many situations that can cause a question.

Posted by M.TARLTON on 06-03-2009 11:12 PM:

Why was the original rule changed any way?

__________________
Marshall Tarlton
Cell:704-695-2351
Home:704-694-5659

HUNTER'S PRIDE KENNELS

Posted by Rip on 06-04-2009 12:28 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by blueticker
Best case senerio, you pick up 125- for the handler error and 100+ on the strike. Why anyone would split tree their dog before 100% sure there split is beyond me. It's automatic 125- and possibly more if the three dogs pull to yours if the cast can't be sure there split.

The more you learn about a set of rules, the more you learn about how to use the gray areas to your benifit. Now you can plus a dog and minus a dog on the same hole with a coon in it.

The thing is in a hole you can be EASILY fooled into believing the dog is split, especially when you get within good hearing distance and you hear three dogs chopping away and hear the one undeclared 1/4 mile deeper and left handed. Come to find out he is right there with them but in the hole and the rocks made it sound like he was 1/4 deeper and left handed but he never was.

Course I have always broke my dogs from treeing in a hole, IMO nothing good can come of it, especially if you hunt an area where coon are bad to go in the ground. You will do alot of walking to look at a hole in the ground and will likely lose a few good dogs if you don't break them.

This just gives you another reason.

Alan, it would have been easier on you to say the new rule didn't apply to holes, that way you wouldn't have to think so hard about the follow up question, it would have taken care of itself as you have never been able to minus a dog at a hole unless off game was seen or it was declared treed and left no matter how late they came in LOL.

I don't mind waiting, back home coon in the ground is a common thing so I want to know that I am scoring it the way UKC wants it.

__________________
Let's go huntin

Posted by jay brademeyer on 06-04-2009 03:30 PM:

i for 1 believe there shouldn't be tree points awarded at a hole. yes it is refuge , but a dog that won't tree will bark at a coon in a hole. if coon is run in the ground ,and it is seen then, i feel it should be scored like they cought it on the ground. strike only. that would eliminate alot of garbage . would be the path of least resistance.
why are rules like this put into place ,were there is big room for error , and for some dogs to get wrongly pentalized?? yet ukc still hasn't implimented a progressive tree?? lets keep alowing the babbeling me too dogs to keep winning ....j.m.o

__________________
JAMES RIVER HOUND KENNEL
JAY BRADEMEYER 701 308 0490
Home of the late Ntch Lipper's Lip Lock Lizzy, Ntch Moonshiners Sassy, and 88 Walker Days Winner Grntch Ceder Hill Sass

"Building on a solid foundation starts on the bottom side"

Posted by on 06-04-2009 03:36 PM:

That makes sense to me!

Posted by Clay Lautzenhiser on 06-04-2009 07:24 PM:

I look at it like this: If the dogs was treed and is at he hole we are gonna minus his tree points. I think that is agreeable to everyone. Then we should treat the hole as if it is a different tree. If the dog is there when we arrive we score it accordingly. If the dog comes in after we arrive then we score it accordingly. Not that my opinion maters anyway!

PS Rip please note the correct spelling of ALLEN!

__________________
352-400-2374 Cell
PKC#50739

All times are GMT. The time now is 02:44 PM.

Show all 23 posts from this thread on one page