Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 9282

The confusion in our situation was the fact that dog A had also kept the strike open for over an hour. Dog A was originally wrote down on the scorecard for 50 but it was questioned by the handler. I voted in support of handler A because of my understanding of Rule 7 at the time was, as several of you mentioned, the requirement had been met to open all strike positions for Dog A. (1 hour) Nonetheless, it was a 2-2 vote so handler A opted to take it further by placing a ? on the card for the MOH to decide.

The MOH was also a little stumped with the question because of the fact that A had also held her strike position for over an hour. His decision was to leave it as ruled in the woods with A being credited with 50 on strike. Handler A was not satisfied due to his understanding of Rule 7 so requested a FC.

The panel was just as stumped as most everyone else involved. Their final decision was to support the MOH because they were'nt quite clear either whether it made a difference or not that A had held its strike position for over an hour just like B and C.

UKC then supported hander A's complaint and understanding of Rule 7 in that the cryteria had been met to open all strike positions.

This was my one and only involvement ever with a FC, although it didn't affect myself, (Dog C) I thought it was a pretty good one as I was also a little confused after a lengthy debate on 'A holding strike position for an hour also' and the opinions that came from that discussion. It was one of those questions, however, that I felt was handled like it should have been without animosity towards anyone involved. The best part of the procedure was in the end Rule 7 was clearly clarified forever in my mind. And, 2) the FC procedure does work and the dog got the points it deserved in accordance with the rules.


Miserable night though weather wise. wow. Yes, we probably would have been within reason to call time but we opted to stick with the dog we could hear at the time. I know I could have cared less about a big score or cast win. All I really cared about was to get my dog in hand and get somewhere dry! In remember the guide telling us that he had drove around the 'bush' and my dog had been treed for 45 minutes before we got in position to hear him.

I've been on plenty enough hunts where weather conditions were a factor but I'll never forget this particular hunt for several reasons. We had a good cast of dogs where I thought we had the dog power to tree a bunch of coon, especially in Canada. The one dog in the cast went on to win the Purina Race and the blue gyp was a tough, tough competitor that I had drawn several times before.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2003
Location: CANADA
Posts: 1903

This is a perfect example of what a lot of people say is black and white. How many times have people come on here and said. "The rules are black and White" if you know the rules you wont get screwed.R eguardless of what people say everything is interpreted diff by diff people. Just like music. The more rules you make the more loop holes there are. Leaving the outcome of hunts in the hands of handlers not hounds. Should be strike points and tree points. If there is a coon plus it if not minus. No leaves no holes no dens. It is there or not. If they run 900 mph out of the country they are running junk. Scratch 'em, coon dont run that fast. If they trail 500 yards right handed and something gets treed left handed and the dog that went right handed is on the same tree they quit their track minus them. I just think that there are too many rules and we seem to be judging handlers more then dogs. Keep it simple and put the hunt back in the dogs control.

__________________
Dave Rude
Tru-Blu English
Home of Gr.Nt.Ch. Tru-Blu-Spike
Nt.Ch.ChKizmo's Tru-Blu Grit (MIA)
rudedogs99@hotmail.com
www.angelfire.com/oh5/trublu/trublu.html
http://www.acorn-creek.com/signatures/Grit.jpg

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged