Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 1652

quote:

---

Originally posted by Allen / UKC
Jeff H., I think Darrell was referring to 5(g) rather than 4(e) or 6(g).

---

Yes, I meant 5g. Typo...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2003
Location:
Posts: 211

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is the #$%&&^%$$%^^&*&^@@#%&*)^@^RULE I EVER<EVER<EVER HEARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was going to go to a UKC hunt friday night, one of the few ive been in in a long while, but with a B-------- rule like this, I will not hunt. Its a principal thing. 1 guy says what his opinion is, and EVERYBODY else knows the real answer, and the ****eater gets deleted for quitting a track. I cannot believe this!!!!!!!!!!!! Does Todd ever hunt in a hunt? WOW!!!!!!!!!!

merlin

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 1652

I'm still pretty confident Todd misspoke. I remember the discussion, and the rule change, and that was the SOLE PURPOSE behind the rule change was to clarify this situation.

If they can only get delete is they tree on the same tree they were shut out on, then by the same token, they MUST be scored in any other situation.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Morrison TN
Posts: 4927

That's the problem that I was talking about in the rewrite Darrell.

It says the strike points are not eligible scoring UNLESS it is scored on a different tree.

Because it is worded that way then those points do not exist until the dog does tree on a different tree just the same as a registerd dog has to tree the off game to be minused.

That's why I would not have said the dog that caught a coon could be plussed either because he didn't fulfil the requirement of making a seperate tree.

Evidently Todd is saying that catching a seperate coon is equlvilent to making a seperate tree just like a hole or place of refuge is equivilant.

When you look at a rule you have to take it word for word what it says, not what it was intended to do.

I disagree with it and know the intent, but I also know that the way it is written now the points don't exist until the dog makes a separate tree and he can't be minused points that don't exist.

__________________
Let's go huntin

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

If you have to take the rule word for word then it is hard to understand how catching a coon on the ground is the same as treeing a coon, especially considereing that a coon caught on the ground is not allowed to be scored as a treed coon even if the dog was declared treed. This whole rule and it's various interpretations is so full of holes that if it was a dog, we'd shoot it.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2768

quote:

---

Originally posted by Donnie Stevens
,this one goes right up there with not being able to minus a registered dog for baying or even killing off game.

---

__________________
Friends don't let friends hunt blueticks

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Morrison TN
Posts: 4927

Jim, you know me by now well enough to know that I don't like the way this rule is written and on principal I agree with you.

You notice also that until Todd said different I wouldn't have plused the coon caught either because it wasn't a tree and even dogs struck in correctly and treed correctly still can't get tree points on it. Therefore, I wouldn't have plussed a dog shut out on strike on a coon either since it isn't a tree.

Now I did know that a place of refuge was considered a tree for scoring purposes because that is well documented throught UKC's rules etc.

However, there is no "interpretation" to this rule other than the caught coon because the language that says the dog can't get plus or minus unless he trees on a different tree is very plain, to the point, and really doesn't leave much room for interpretation. He just can't be scored any strike points unless he trees a different coon.

The interpretation comes where Todd said that a caught coon is a different coon so therefore the strike points are eligible but still no tree points. Well I see that, and it does make common sense that it was a different coon. Since Todd has interpreted the word "tree" in this rule to include a caught coon then that is how it is to be scored as that is UKC's position.

The rest of it is in plain black and white in the rules. Personally I think we need a rules change to word it that the dog only gets his strike deleted if he comes into the tree he was shut out on, as the rule supposedly was intended to be.

Until then we got no choice due to the way the rule is worded.

__________________
Let's go huntin

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

This issue is settled as far as I am concerned. Todd made his ruling and I will judge by that ruling. But don't try to tell me a coon and a tree are the same thing. Todd said himself that he had never considered the coon caught situation as it applies to this rule so when that was brought up, he just pull something out of his backside and said a coon caught is a coon treed on a separate tree. Fine, I can do that but don't try to tell me it makes sense. I know better. John D hit the nail on the head when he made the comment that he had never heard of this rule causing any problem or discussion before but now he figures it will cause all kinds of problems with the few on this board that know how it is suppose to be score and the other 99 percent that believe you are the biggest cheater alive when you tell them they can't minus my dog that just quit a track and walked up to the judge because the dog was shutout. And what do you think are the odds of getting a MOH that will know Todds interp? This will lead to alot of problems and hard feelings. It is just a really stupid way of interpteting a rule. Heck, even Allen never heard of doing it this way till Todd made the GREAT REVELATION.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 1652

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rip
That's the problem that I was talking about in the rewrite Darrell.

It says the strike points are not eligible scoring UNLESS it is scored on a different tree.

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Lockridge Iowa
Posts: 2848

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rip


The rest of it is in plain black and white in the rules.

Until then we got no choice due to the way the rule is worded.

---

__________________
Tree Jar'n Black and Tans
Home of Tree Jar'n Coonhound Kennels


319-201-8445

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: western NY
Posts: 72

the last sentence is for people who think just because their dog is shut out on a tree,they don't have to strike it in before the fourth bark.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2003
Location: Lockridge Iowa
Posts: 2848

quote:

---

Originally posted by jaydubya
the last sentence is for people who think just because their dog is shut out on a tree,they don't have to strike it in before the fourth bark.

---

__________________
Tree Jar'n Black and Tans
Home of Tree Jar'n Coonhound Kennels


319-201-8445

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: western NY
Posts: 72

I've e mailed TK more that once about how a word or short sentence added to some rules can clear up alot of grey areas and save alot of trips back to the MOH. Lets make English the official language of UKC.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: kansas
Posts: 1771

Another question i have in light of this decision is why even stike a dog in if another is treed already?

they can't recieve any points + or - so why restrike them. after scoring a tree where a dog is shut out why not just call time out and give the rest of the handlers 1 hour to catch there dogs?

I hope i understand UKC answer correctly on their ruling here while making these comments, but as a master of hounds this would never be the way i would have scored this situation in the past.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2003
Location:
Posts: 211

It takes a real man to admit his mistakes. I hope Todd realizes he goofed, and corrects this now. These problems could get really wild. Everyone knows how the rule was meant to be( except 1, i guess) If your gonna go by the EXACT wording, how about the babbling rule. It says dogs will be minused where NO track is evident. I say the only way you know FOR SURE is if there is snow on the ground. Cant see tracks on hard dirt. This is NO different then the ruling todd has on this other rule. Im still in shock, and also mad. Unbelievable is not even the right word.

Merlin


May the best dog win.

Last edited by Allen / UKC on 10-20-2006 at 06:58 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Oct 2003
Location:
Posts: 211

We cant let this slide under the rug. Todd: Are you still staying with your answer. I went to a UKC hunt friday night, and we asked this question at the hunt, and guess what, ALL hunters that heard it AND the MOH all said MINUS. When told what Todds reply was, the MOH, who has been one for probably 20 plus years, well we wont repeat it. I think Todds more interested in getting big buck pictures on here than giving the right answer. I finally agree with berger on this one. His rule interpratation is EXACTLY correct, as the rules read. Until Todd or "poor old Allen" comes back with an explanation, this post will not go away, unless they delete it. Then the true colors will show.

merlin

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Dog House
Posts: 4112

quote:

---

Originally posted by hershberger
We cant let this slide under the rug. Todd: Are you still staying with your answer. I went to a UKC hunt friday night, and we asked this question at the hunt, and guess what, ALL hunters that heard it AND the MOH all said MINUS. When told what Todds reply was, the MOH, who has been one for probably 20 plus years, well we wont repeat it. I think Todds more interested in getting big buck pictures on here than giving the right answer. I finally agree with berger on this one. His rule interpratation is EXACTLY correct, as the rules read. Until Todd or "poor old Allen" comes back with an explanation, this post will not go away, unless they delete it. Then the true colors will show.

merlin

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Sep 2006
Location: Gadsden AL.
Posts: 24

if dog had been struck in and the eight got him he is minus any way you look at it

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Morrison TN
Posts: 4927

He does not have any points to score unless he trees on a separate tree if he didn't get struck in till after another dog treed.

They don't exist because the rule says a dog can NOT be scored plus OR minus unless he trees on a separate tree. That's the only way those points count either way.

It's the same when they go to a previously scored tree, they can't be scored. They are still called, but they can't be scored on a previously scored tree.

In this case, until they make a separate tree (which Todd says includes catching a coon on the ground) then they don't have any points available to minus.

__________________
Let's go huntin

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2005
Location: West Tenn.
Posts: 484

Well Allen have you discussed this with Todd yet? Seems like most people were in agreement on this rule until Todd gave his interpretation.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Central Arkansas
Posts: 1652

Then Rip, or someone, please explain the purpose and application of 5g if it doesn't apply in this situation...

Mine is, you cannot delete these points UNLESS he trees on a tree he was shutout on. It's pretty straightforward if you ask me. Without this rule, I'm with ya'. I had this very discussion with Todd BEFORE the rule change...

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Kalamazoo, Mich.
Posts: 6113

O.K., O.K., Allen is going back through the old Advisors to see if it's in print. I'm pretty sure it is. That's the way I was taught and you all know who I learned the rules from.

If it's not in print, Allen can address this issue in his next Advisor however he wants and then you'll have it in black and white. Either way is fine with me. When it's interpreted in the Advisor, that's what we will go by.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. I'm not too big to make a mistake.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jul 2004
Location: Nova Scotia
Posts: 2768

I think Allen should read Bergers first post.

__________________
Friends don't let friends hunt blueticks

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Morrison TN
Posts: 4927

quote:

---

Originally posted by Darrell
Then Rip, or someone, please explain the purpose and application of 5g if it doesn't apply in this situation...

Mine is, you cannot delete these points UNLESS he trees on a tree he was shutout on. It's pretty straightforward if you ask me. Without this rule, I'm with ya'. I had this very discussion with Todd BEFORE the rule change...

---

__________________
Let's go huntin

Last edited by Rip on 10-25-2006 at 11:25 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

I've looked through all my Advisors back to August of '55 and can't find where this has ever been addressed. Lets just go with the commonly used version and leave it at that.

Last edited by on 10-26-2006 at 12:30 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged