Allen / UKC
Administrator
Registered: Nov 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 9197 |
This is a good topic that has always been and will likely always be debated. It's one UKC has covered numerous times, that has not changed in my time hunting in nite hunts and probably not much, if any, since day one.
It's been mentioned repeatedly that in order to scratch a dog for face-barking you need both aggression AND interference. That is true. The better question is; what is considered aggression and what is considered as interfering by UKC's definition?
First, fighting requires contact between two hounds. Attempting to fight does not require contact. But in order to scratch a dog for attempting to fight, again, the dog must show aggression AND be interfering with another hound while showing that aggression.
Aggressive behavior may come in various ways. Growling, hackled up, shouldering, and yes, face barking are all, by UKC's definition, forms of aggression.
The interference/interfering part is likely the most debated and comes with different opinions. That's expected. UKC's definition of interfering, when it comes to attempting to fight, is that it directly relates to the dogs' reaction that the aggressive behavior is directed towards. In other words Dog B may simply move around to the other side of the tree or back away a bit and carry on. That, by UKC's position, is not interfering and Dog A should not be scratched for attempting to fight.
An interfering scenario would be where Dog A is face-barking at B and B moves to get away but A continues after B circling the tree or chases him away from the tree. Both criteria have been met to scratch A for attempting to fight. Another scenario may be where A is treed and turns at any dog, with a form of aggression, who is wanting to come in to the tree but doesn't because of the tree guarder. This dog has also met both criteria.
That said, you'll have dogs that will be much quicker to leave a tree or not come in to a tree because of the temperament issues demonstrated by Dog A. Regardless, the action taken, one way or the other, should have nothing to do with considering the difference between a woosie vs a non-woosie (woosie or non-woosie being Dog B).
Think it's also important to note that attempting to fight is something you see and not something you hear only but "think" may be happening.
I've found that the better judges will generally error on the side of needing to see "obvious" interference before they will scratch a dog for attempting to fight. I don't think you can fault that. I'd agree that we have more dogs that get away with actual fighting than we do attempting to fight but who didn't meet the criteria.
It's certainly one of those scenarios why it's important that judge's decisions or cast member's votes are not based on personal agendas and winning at any cost. A scratch for fighting is a serious offense that goes both ways.
I've said a lot but hope it helps to understand UKC's position and interpretation of aggression and interfering.
Last edited by Allen / UKC on 01-29-2021 at 07:36 PM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|