UKC Forums (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/index.php)
- UKC Coonhounds (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=4)
-- advisor column, this month (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.php?threadid=114379)

advisor column, this month

So what do you folks think about the advisor, in this month's issue, where it says. If you don't see something, or don't have a opinion, and are asked for a vote, you should vote with the judge, always? Unless you saw something with your own eyes?

Didnt read it, but that sounds like BS to me. If I didnt see it, Im giving whatever dog the benifit of the doubt. Thats my vote.

Y'all know good and well you always vote against the cast leader unless its yourself!!!!!!!!!!

Interesting subject and we get the question a lot. It doesn't state that's the way you have to vote but rather some food for thought or a suggestion when you get in such a position.

Following is what I wrote in the advisor column. Let's hear your opinions. Something to think about, regardless.

Didn’t See It But Are Asked To Vote
Q: Sometimes situations come up where a cast member is required to vote, or if they don’t, they are scratched. What if the cast member did not see or have an opinion of the situation?

A: This does in fact happen sometimes when the judge is the first member at the tree and a cast member or two that may have been following behind did not actually see the infraction. Sometimes it may be where the dog was off the tree or in most situations it involves dogs fighting or attempting to fight. You can’t blame a cast member for not wanting to vote one way or another when they in fact did not see it. However, it is plainly stated in rule 18 (b) that the handlers dog will be scratched if they don’t vote when asked.

As a handler, if you are ever in a situation where you didn’t see anything or don’t have an opinion here is some food for thought or maybe a recommendation on how you might look at it. The hunting judges are assigned to each cast by the club officers. They are assigned because they have proven that they;
a) know the rules well
b) are honest and fair
c) aren’t afraid to stand up and make the difficult calls when needed

With that in mind, it should not be that difficult for the handler to make a decision on how to vote unless you have a good reason to disagree with the ruling of the judge. That reason should only be because of what you saw differently or know that the proper rule isn’t being applied. Otherwise, you probably don’t have a good reason to vote against the way the judge ruled on the situation regardless of how it may affect a nice guy in the cast, your buddy or even your own dog on the cast. Sound fair? After all, the name of the game is to score the dogs for what they do during the two hours of the hunt. It’s pretty hard to do that when a handler votes in such a way only to favor one’s own dog or their buddy’s dog. Think about it the next time you are asked for your vote. Let the judge do the job he was asked to do, unless of course, it is obviously the wrong ruling.

Or you could handle it this way. If you did not see the dog off of the tree or did not see the dog fighting, then by all means vote and say you did not see the dog off of the tree or fighting.

In your example you are telling people to vote yes that they seen the dog fighting or off the tree even though they did not.

Happens a lot in the hunt, but probably not the best practice. Judge hollers I got the coon. You just tell everyone you seen it too because obviously the judge would not tell a story.

__________________
I got him right here!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jason Miller
Late Night Kennels

Thank you for putting that in there as it appears in the issue. I just put the shortened version in.

I still don't know, some judges I have hunted with, I really don't believe much they say. Then it is hard to believe them if they are right.

I also know about the circumstance which this ruling was given recently, by ukc, after a rqe.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Philip

I also know about the circumstance which this ruling was given recently, by ukc, after a rqe. [/B]

---

1st of all i like to think all judges are honest know the rules and are fair...BUT if this were true that ALL were honest know the rules and are fair we wouldnt have so many post on this guy cheated me and that guy didnt know the rules or better yet we wouldnt even have to know the rules cause the honest fair rule knowing judge wouldnt allow someone to get cheated..so that brings me to ask why should i even consider voting with him..according to UKC his vote has no more weight than any other member of the cast when voting..so why should it now..now its not hard to find who will and wont cheat from the 1st drop..all you got to do is see which ones dont strike when 3 other people strike or.. which ones dont say start the 8 on that dog when it just opened 5 seconds ago.. or put the 2 on that dog when it just quit treeing 5 seconds ago..or minus that dog his nose was on the ground..or judge that dog has opend 3 times and its not my dog..the cheaters 90% of the time start out to minus ,,scratch the rest of the compitition acting like im just going by the rules.....lol well anyway i think there should be away to vote like pleading the 5th on grounds it might incriminate me..if i vote with the judge and he was cheating i was cheating also..if i vote with the handler and he was cheating i was cheating also..but that being said if i dont see if i will do just as UKC does and give the dog the benifit of doubt

__________________
ANTHONY R SMITH

quote:

---

Originally posted by larrypoe
Didnt read it, but that sounds like BS to me. If I didnt see it, Im giving whatever dog the benifit of the doubt. Thats my vote.

---

yep

if i didn't see it happen i'm not going to vote it did happen!!!

__________________
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

its kinda

like backing up a preist that said he didn't sexually molest someone!!!!

__________________
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

Allen, in a perfect world all judges would be as you described.

Fact is in practice, most are picked because they can guide. 99.999999999% of the time, guide = judge.

Most MOH's will tell you that the majority of the cast is the judge anyway, so it doesnt matter who carrys the card. That doesnt hold up to well with your suggestion.

This ranks right up there with scratching a dog for being silent, when there is no way in heck you can PROVE it.

if you didnt see the dog off the tree or see the dog fight,then how the heck can you vote that you did?

"uhh,i didnt see the dog off the tree judge,but if you say he was,thats good enough for me"

no way no how do i agree with voteing against a dog if i truly dont know he was at fault.
i will vote in favor of the dog every time.

If we could all trust the judge about what he sees , then why do we need to have a vote in the first place?
Isn't that the reason for voting in the first place?

I don't believe a handler should be required to vote on something he didn't see. If it can't be worked out by those who did see it , it should go back to the MOH.

__________________
Bob Brooks /
Jordan Tyler (grandson)

BackWoods River Walkers/Beagles
Just all 'round , meat gettin' hounds.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Allen / UKC
I The hunting judges are assigned to each cast by the club officers. They are assigned because they have proven that they;
a) know the rules well
b) are honest and fair
c) aren’t afraid to stand up and make the difficult calls when needed

---

If a handler who is with the cast shouldn't have to vote ,why would an MOH sitting in a clubhouse be called upon to make a judgement call.

This is a prime example of an instance where the Advisor column in the magazine doesn't agree with what is written in the Advisor book. Which one do we go by? This months magazine column suggests we should just go with the judge. Page 40 in the Advisor book says "make a decision on how to score the situation based on what he knows about the situation and his fellow cast member's statements." So this months column says go with the judge, the Advisor book says consider all the cast members statements. Now I'M REALLY CONFUSED!!!!!!
Kinda like the silent dog rule....May 2004 column says one thing, Kellem says something completely different.

Hunting judges are competing for the cast win just like everyone else. I feel they're more like scorekeepers than judges under the UKC format. ( I'm not criticising, just being real.)

It would be nice to see a "no-vote" clause in the hunt rules for situations like this. Short of that, I'd think you would have to give the benefit of the doubt to the dog in a scratch situation, or vote to circle in a scoring situation.

I have to agree with Jim. I trust the Advisor (the column and book) to help me to make tough interpretations of the rules as they apply to the hunts.

This last one doesn't do that. If any thing it clouds the interpretation of the existing rules.

__________________
Larry Atherton

Aim small miss small

Bill, hunting judges are just scorekeepers in PKC...they run the cast in UKC. The difference is that in PKC a tie vote is an automatic free question. In UKC, it takes a majority to overrule the judge. Big difference!

I was in hunt recently where there was a dispute over what dog was what dog on strike, tree, ect. this was in a three dog cast the 2 dogs sounded similair how do you address this during the hunt?

__________________
Dale Griffiths and proud to say it.
littleosageenglish@Gmail.com

btt

Isn't a hunting judge a "fellow cast member"?

It amazes me sometimes how nitpicky these discussions get. Vote based on what you know, what you saw and use your best judgment. If you don't know anything and didn't see anything, and have poor judgment, then go with the judge, go against the judge, go with the dog or flip a coin, draw a straw, or whatever. Just vote already.

If I'm the MOH and you come in and tell me you think someone voted a certain way for the wrong reason, I'm going to laugh at you.

As time goes on and these interpretations get written down, and recorded, there WILL BE inconsistencies. Does anyone think there are no inconsistencies in our laws, or in the Bible, or in how rules are applied in a football game? Sure, there is. We just don't get bogged down in them....too much.

__________________

Click here to visit The B&T Coonhunters Message Forum for news, views, open discussion, ads, and event winners in the B&T Breed (Registration, with your full name, required)

Click here to see my Dog List

what about people going blind not seening things when you know they seen the dog off the tree, or fighting. my thoughts are go with the judge, thats what he is out there for. (i know people abuse the rules also) needs to be a judgement call.

__________________
PKC.PRIDE #84822
1-270-699-1037
CH GrNitech Triple Creek Lock S.S and performance sire R.I.P 12-31-12
Ch Nitech Tar Scream'n ThunderStorm

Come on people drop you're ego and admitt you just got beat, made a bad call, dog made a mistake, what ever.You can't get cheated that much