UKC Forums (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/index.php)
- UKC Coonhounds (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=4)
-- Allen/UKC (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.php?threadid=928464157)

Allen/UKC

Had an issue Saturday night not sure it was handled properly by MOH, would like your input.

Dogs A,B, and C are all struck and treed but they don't sound right and everyone is questioning it on the way to the tree. I was the hunting judge, upon arrival at tree all dogs are there and treeing. Dog A looks good, Dog B is right beside him and snaps Dog A on the side of the head. I announced that Dog B is scratched for fighting, after that happened Dog A climbed the tree. I was the only one that witnessed it, as the Judge. We continued to watch and Dog C came around the tree, Dog B grabbed Dog C on the top of the head, handler of Dog A witnessed it. Handler of dog B called ? on the card.

At the club house told the MOH what happened. (6.b For fighting or attempting to fight* during the authority of the Judge. When the aggressive dog is known, scratch the aggressor only. If not known, scratch dogs involved.
* Attempting to Fight - Showing aggressive behavior AND 2) interfering with another dog during the authority of the Judge.

This dog was not written up for fighting because it did not interfere with the other dogs treeing, can you please explain to me why this rule say and not or?!?!?!?!?

__________________
Outsider Kennels Home of-
GRNITECH GRCH ANDERSON VALLEY WARRIOR (ALH)

I'd love to know why the dog wasn't written up too. Seems like a clear case of aggression. However, I wonder if the dog climbing may have sparked something if he fell off on that one. BUT..still no excuse to grab one dog. Much less both.

The ruling of the MOH was not to scratch the dog because because the rule states (and) interfering not or.

__________________
Outsider Kennels Home of-
GRNITECH GRCH ANDERSON VALLEY WARRIOR (ALH)

Pretty sure by grabbing a dog; that WAS interfering with one treeing. I'd have scratched and written him up.

And if it leads to a fight later; you might end up scratching both dogs in a situation that should have never happened.

Rule says fighting OR attempting to fight. You only to show interference with "attempting to fight". Dog should have been wrote up.

__________________
Friends don't let friends hunt blueticks

Can I play the devils advocate on this one??? If my old memory serves me correctly the rule requires aggressive behavior AND interference, before a dog can be scratched.

I will admit it sounds as if you did have evidence of aggressive behavior, BUT did that aggressive behavior interfere with any of the dogs ability to stay treed on that tree??? You see, aggressive behavior in it's self does not warrant being scratched. It also requires that THAT aggressive behavior, had an impact on another dogs ability to stay treed on that tree. In other words, if any/all dogs are popping their competitors on the side of the head, but it doesn't seem to affect the other dogs ability to stay treed, then they cannot really be scratched until that aggressive behavior DOES begin to affect any of the other dogs ability to stay treed.

Now I don't necessarily agree with this rule, but as a judge or master of hounds, I have the responsibility to follow them no matter what my personal position is on that subject.

Now if I am wrong on my interpretation of this rule, then by all means, correct me. But this is my understanding of the intent of that rule.

__________________
Phone-740-767-2572
Dave Mayles
11210 Davis Road
Glouster, Ohio 45732
Home To:
Gr.Nt.Ch. Hooper Ridge Hang'em High Holly
Gr.Nt.Ch. Hooper Ridge Rockets Top Gun.
Gr.Nt.Ch.Hooper Ridge Rocket
Gr.Nt.Ch Hooper Ridge Dolly
Nt.Ch Hooper Ridge Queen
Nt.Ch Raw Dawg Rowdy
PR Tree Banging Buddy
HOOPER RIDGE ENGLISH-POUND FOR POUND THEY ARE ONE TOUGH HOUND!!!!

Dave this is the exact interpretation that the MOH gave us, I just want to know the set in stone answer from UKC. All dogs were treed and still treeing, they just got out of his way. What I don't understand is how can a dog trying to provoke a fight not be scratched.

__________________
Outsider Kennels Home of-
GRNITECH GRCH ANDERSON VALLEY WARRIOR (ALH)

interference with aggressive behavior is required to scratch for " attempting to fight ". I think the attempting is out the window when the dog is seen grabbing another dog by the head. Scratched for fighting.

__________________
Friends don't let friends hunt blueticks

the dumbest thing people do is walk onto a tree and shine the lights on them and just watch for a fight ,, If the SOB's aint fighting when you get there WHY NOT JUST GRAB THEM ?

__________________
BLACK & TANS BY EADS
Proud Member of the Black & Tan associations
Here Comes BP

I think the dumbest thing people can do is question a dog seen fighting and a master of hounds say it's ok

__________________
YOU CAN'T POLISH A TURD !

Rocketman55 explains it as well as I could.

Fighting is fighting. Easy.

"Attempting to Fight" is not considered a fight and requires two criteria to be met in order to scratch for fighting.

1) showing a form of aggression. That could be growling, , face barking, hackled up, stand off with another dog, etc...

2) The form of aggression must be interfering with another hound's ability to hunt, tree, etc...

You used the term "snapped". Without further explanation, I'm assuming you're suggesting that was the form of aggression. You mentioned nothing that suggests it "interfered" with any of the other dogs. If that's the case, then it's probably the reason the MOH did not uphold the SFF call.

Later, you used the term "grabbed". There's probably a couple different forms of grabbing, such as nipping which I would personally not consider as fighting. A form of aggression, yes, but not fighting. However, if it's a grab, as in establishing dominance or taking another hound down then that should be considered fighting.

We all know that we run into situations where dogs are not scratched for fighting when they should have been. In the same token, we also have guys wanting dogs scratched for the most minute form of aggression. What's important, for a judge, is to have a good understanding of the above and then it's not usually a hard call to make.

Hopefully, somewhere within the above you'll have a pretty good feel on what is the right call for your situation.

Thank you Allen!

__________________
Outsider Kennels Home of-
GRNITECH GRCH ANDERSON VALLEY WARRIOR (ALH)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darrell Eads
the dumbest thing people do is walk onto a tree and shine the lights on them and just watch for a fight ,, If the SOB's aint fighting when you get there WHY NOT JUST GRAB THEM ?

---

__________________
Outsider Kennels Home of-
GRNITECH GRCH ANDERSON VALLEY WARRIOR (ALH)

It is actually pretty simple. Were they "fighting"? If so scratch the aggressor. It is right there in the rules.
If they weren't fighting then you can't scratch the dog for aggresive behavior because you did not have interference. That is also right there in the rules. MOH did the right thing.

Now that is the rule. But in real life, yes the dog that grabbed the other dog on the head should be scratched. But that is not going by the rules.

Allen so the teeth can be flying and as long as they don't roll and nobody leaves that's fine ? I agree there's a fine line with the interpretation of a snap or a bite. I was going under the assumption the dog had grabbed two dogs by the head.

__________________
Friends don't let friends hunt blueticks

Dog snapped at first dog and actually bit second dog, neither of our dogs fought back just moved away. They way I am understanding it is the only way you can scratch a dog according to the rules is if another dog fights back?

__________________
Outsider Kennels Home of-
GRNITECH GRCH ANDERSON VALLEY WARRIOR (ALH)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Donnie Stevens
Allen so the teeth can be flying and as long as they don't roll and nobody leaves that's fine ? I agree there's a fine line with the interpretation of a snap or a bite. I was going under the assumption the dog had grabbed two dogs by the head.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Todd_Miller
Teeth flying by one dog and the rest are still treeing they get scratched but not for fighting,
to dogs teeth flying and the get wrote up. No fine lines, just need to understand the rule.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Todd_Miller
Teeth flying by one dog and the rest are still treeing they get scratched but not for fighting,
to dogs teeth flying and the get wrote up. No fine lines, just need to understand the rule.

---

__________________
Friends don't let friends hunt blueticks

quote:

---

Originally posted by strauser
Dog snapped at first dog and actually bit second dog, neither of our dogs fought back just moved away. They way I am understanding it is the only way you can scratch a dog according to the rules is if another dog fights back?

---

Autohhhh

Hang on guys, but I may not be on here for long, AGAIN. BUT, if I walk into a tree because of a commotion going on- fierce face backing or actual contact- somebody better be ready to head for the truck, if I'm judging. There is no place in MY book to let another dog "blow" in another dogs face, even if he don't grab ahold, because eventually there will be a fight & the non-aggresive dog is going to be wrote up too.

On the other hand, if 2 dogs are rolling on ground & aggressor is not known, then both dogs are going to head for the truck. A real bad break for 1 , but necessary for this night. Been there done that thru the years. I know that I've never had an issue before, so don't plan on getting wrote up again. My dog just happened to be 'involved' with another dog on this given night. JMO. Take care, Ron.

If

Dog bit them and moved them back to me that is aggression and interference with them treeing. Don't understand how he wouldn't be scratched.

__________________
Bob Turnbow 931-212-0069

running the tree ???

1) showing a form of aggression. That could be growling, , face barking, hackled up, stand off with another dog, etc...

2) The form of aggression must be interfering with another hound's ability to hunt, tree, etc...


so my question is if a dog runs up the tree and falls back on another dog treeing, the other dog doesn't like being bombed with a 50 pounds on top of him and retaliates, who gets scratched, who is the aggressor? would this be the etc part??--Ive seen it happen, just not in a hunt.
I'm saying the tree runner

let me just clarify the tree runner--I mean a dog running up a tree 8 to 10 feet and falling on a dog, not just jumping

__________________
Herschel Burt

hershtwo@yahoo.com
Life member NRA
Current dogs
GR CH NT CH RED MIGHTY 90-Bo/Sierra
NT.CH.GR CH BEYOND BILLY HTX --Billy the Kid/ Amber
GR CH 1ST & 2ND place wins 90/4 LIFE GUN-HTX==-Willy BOY/Bigtime Britt
Dogs I have owned
Nt ch Gr ch HERSHS HUNTIN RED IKE
NT CH CH HERSHS HUNTIN BUDDY
GR NT CH MILLERS DIRTY RED
NT CH CH LYNN'S CREEK JULIE
GR CH HERSHS HUNTIN RED KATE
CH NITE CH AMBRAW RIVER TIMBER ROCK
NT CH HERSHS HUNTIN RED CLEM
NT CH ROCKY TOP CHERRY

quote:

---

Originally posted by Allen / UKC
Not sure where that comes from? Hoping you don't get that from my comments?

---

__________________
YOU CAN'T POLISH A TURD !

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jeff Prince
Why don't you be clear ? Another dog bites a dog on the head scratch or not ? If the second dog retaliates he would be considered fighting back. Therefore the first dog was fighting.

---