UKC Forum Member
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Morrison TN
Originally posted by joey
I'm going to disagree with you Rip. I know the point you are making but the dogs have to be treed to the satisfaction of the judge. In some instances you can not see all the dogs from one side. By giving the order to handle the dog he is letting you know he is satisfied. I also would not have anyone handling one walking into the tree. We have already established that a handler standing off by himself shining is at the tree. So the dog is to be handled but the judge needs to give the order. Or else you could have handlers running dogs down when know one can see them. The "must" part of the rule just means the judge can not let a dog wonder around the tree without being handled, it doesn't mean a handler can handle the dog without permission from the judge.
No, according to the wording, MUST is MUST. That is a concrete word, not "may" but must. There is no exception. I think the last time it was discussed it was stated that was why the judge was to get there first was to see which dogs were there but they were all to be handled immediately.
Notice Allen said the one standing there shining the tree should have handled the dog. He didn't say because he was the judge he could handle it without asking the judge, he just should have handled the dog because he came in to the tree and the dog must be leashed.
Now I can't remember the last time it came up if they said the judge could ask you to wait to handle your dog, I remember that being discussed as well, but dogs at the tree there is no choice and no alternative they must by rule be handled.
While I agree with you that it could cause problems that's just the way the rule is worded.
But if the judge gets there first then there shouldn't be any problem it's not hard to see which dogs are there or not, by the time they get them handled you know.
Let's go huntin
Last edited by Rip on 06-17-2018 at 01:44 AM
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged