WEBBER
UKC Forum Member
Registered: Sep 2005
Location: Orangeburg, SC
Posts: 196 |
Originally posted by Allen / UKC
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.
__________________
"Believe Nothing You Hear and Only Half of What You See."
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
02-12-2010 05:21 AM
