DFred
UKC Forum Member
Registered: Feb 2015
Location: Ohio
Posts: 572 |
I dug this quote out of the online Coonhound Adviser
"Rule 6(b) does, in fact, state to scratch dogs involved when the aggressor is not known.
When there are more than two dogs at a tree and a fight breaks out, it is, however, in many cases difficult for a judge to determine which dogs are/were involved. It is UKC’s position that if the judge cannot determine which dogs were involved, then he should not scratch any one of the dogs.
I would discourage determining “involvement” where you isolate dogs that show physical signs of having been in a fight. Why? Because your “bad boy” may not always show any signs of having been in the fight! The last thing you want to do is scratch a non-aggressor(s) and your actual problem dog remains in the hunt.
You also have that other situation with three dogs at the tree where it is not difficult to eliminate one of them from being involved without seeing it. The judge recognizes an obvious dog fight and, at the same time, can competently identify a dog that is not involved because the dog continues to tree while a fight is going on between the other two. If that is the case, common sense should prevail and the two determined to have been involved should be scratched."
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
05-31-2015 06:25 PM
