Allen / UKC
Administrator
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 9282 |
The 80% are obviously the ones who answered correctly. As often as we have covered dog fighting over the years, it bothers me a bit to see that a good number of hunters still think you have to physically see dogs fighting in order to scratch them for fighting. That is just not true.
How are nite hunts judged? By your ears and eyes, right? A great deal of judging is actually done with your ears. Recognizing a dog fight, when you're not within sight, is one of those.
Generally, experienced hunters can easily tell the difference between a little face barking or growling and an actual fight in progress, just by hearing it. Much the same as a dog that is declared treed but is not actually treed, or has went back on trail. When you have an obvious fight, then there should be action taken, if you can determine who was involved.
Rule 6 clearly states that when you have a dog fight you scratch the aggressor only. As several have already mentioned, the aggressor, otherwise defined as the one who started the fight, is not always the one "winning" the fight when you arrive at the scene. Therefore, often times you can't come to a conclusion on who the aggressor is/was when you didn't see it. So, in accordance with Rule 6, you scratch the dogs involved. Sure, one of the scratched dogs may not be the one with the temperamental issues but taking a scratch to insure the insti"gator" doesn't get away with it, is deemed as the better option.
Sometimes you'll have a situation where you have more then two dogs at the scene and you can't clearly determine who was actually involved. However, sometimes sound judgement suggests otherwise. One such example might be where an identified dog continues to hammer away (treeing) while the fight is in progress. This might easily be determined as dogs so and so as the ones involved. If so, as the judge, make that call so long as you are using sound judgement and there's no doubt. Otherwise, more times than not, you really can't determine which two were actually involved. In that case you simply shouldn't scratch any dog.
Our forefathers obviously had the foresight to put this rule in place for good reason. They believed that temperament issues are hereditary and it is not a desired trait in coonhounds to be passing on down the road. In other words, the intent was to keep it out of gene pools. Today, you hear a lot of smack talk where some tend to glorify such a trait or that you need a dog who will fight in order to stay hooked with those that are ill. Truth is; who in their right mind really likes an ill-tempered hound? Wouldn't it be a lot more pleasurable for everyone if "illness" in coonhounds didn't even exist? As an advocate for breeding good hunting stock, it's my opinion that we're only shooting ourselves in the foot with that mentality. We are doing ourselves and the coonhound breeds an injustice by not policing temperament in nite hunts. In doing so, sometimes those involved get caught up in the process but it's the better alternative.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|