Rip
UKC Forum Member
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Morrison TN
Posts: 4927 |
quote: Originally posted by joey
No Rip UKC always interprets the intent. Always have.
I don't agree.
I do not for one minute think all those years their intent was to allow a dog to do whatever he wanted if he was shut out on strike and get clean away with it, even off game. The way the rule used to be worded he didn't have any strike points to minus unless he got treed on a different tree. He could run 5 deer by you and you couldn't minus him, he could quit three tracks. They never went back and said "that's not the intent". They said that's how its worded and we have to go by the rule until it is changed.
The rule was changed and now the dog is accountable for its strike even if it is shut out.
That is just one instance. There have been more.
However, I agree that in one case they did go by the intent, the "competing for strike" thing on the recast rule. They had an official update that went against the way it was written based on the intent of the rule, but that is the only time I can ever remember them going by intent as opposed to what was in black and white. Doesn't mean it is the only time they have it's just the only one I remember.
Intent in the grey areas, sure I have seen them put that in there on those but if it was written down IMO they have pretty much went by the way it was written and punctuated. Shall meant shall, may meant may etc.
That's why I am saying that yes, you may be right in that they have enough wiggle room in the trap rule wording to say they get minused, but depending on the wording just like the "no tree to be scored twice" where they hold to it even if you scored it slick the first time and then they ran a coon into it and you saw the coon they may stick to deleting everything at a trap. I don't know because I haven't seen that wording, but I think it all depends on that.
__________________
Let's go huntin
Last edited by Rip on 03-05-2018 at 04:59 AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|