UKC Forum Member
Registered: Nov 2016
Re: Re: Babbling Rule and Stationary Rule
Originally posted by benderb4
This is copied and pasted from a quote on another answer.
' "Speculation" and "obvious" are, by definition, two very different words that have been used in debate as it relates to dogs running deer or fighting without actually seeing it. One is; rumor, gossip, assumption, guesswork, supposition, hearsay. The other is; clear, apparent, evident, recognizable, observable._
Myself, I'd never scratch a dog for running deer or fighting based on speculation._
so why would you be allowed to minus or delete a dogs strike points because you speculate ,guess,or assume, based on this quote from another thread it must be obvious ,clear, apparent, ?
I don't understand?
If we think a dog is running deer unless we see it we can't minus it.Not assumption or speculate.Because it's not fair.
If we think 2 dogs were fighting we must see it to scratch them.Not assumption or speculate.Because it's not fair.
If we think a dog is babbling we can minus it cause we think it is without any proof it actually babbled ?Isn't that assumption and speculation? But this is fair and okay?
So to agree with that theory and apply it to the strike, why should you be allowed to give a dog more strike points than the others because you speculate, guess, or assume, that it is "actually striking on coon scent"? If you're awarding up to 75 more points for it, shouldn't it be obvious, clear, or apparent? Or is it more fair to keep assuming and speculating that every time a dog opens off the snap it is smelling a coon and grant it up to a 75pt advantage for doing so? If everything else requires the burden of proof why shouldn't the strike points??
CORNERSTONE TREEING WALKERS
Greg & Marcia Harring
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged