Loopholes, Theories, Doing the Right Thing; Other Beagle News

Full Circle

March 16, 2018

Source: Allen Gingerich

Loopholes, Theories, Doing the Right Thing

Q: During the hunt, all dogs are struck in and running a rabbit. They circle the rabbit back towards the hunters. The dogs trail into this wide briar thicket directly in front of the cast. A rabbit pops out of the left side of this briar thicket, and we called a line on it. Meanwhile, the dogs trail on into this thicket, but instead they all trail out of the thicket on the right side, the opposite side of where we saw the rabbit that we called a line on. No one saw the rabbit in the direction the dogs were trailing, but one obviously snuck out on the opposite side that we simply didnt see. Thats neither here nor there at this point.

The dogs continue trailing away from the cast for several hundred yards and, eventually, circled back towards us again. Ironically, they trailed right back into the very same thicket in front of us. This time they break down in the middle of this thicket. One dog comes out in front of us, swings to the left around the thicket, and picks up the track of the rabbit we had marked a line on the previous circle. The dog actually trailed right through the line and the rest of the pack harked in and off they went. And thats the question; may that line be scored? The majority voted to not score the dog on that line, but it was mentioned that nowhere in the rules does it state you cant.

A: Instead of a simple yes or no answer, lets use this example as one of many that might come up during the course of a hunt. For starters, we could come up with numerous permissions and prohibitions that are not noted in the rules. Otherwise, the rulebook might be thicker than the Guinness Book of World Records. We can get too caught up with looking for loopholes and improbable theories if were not careful. The point is, providing we can put all personal agendas aside and stop and think for a moment, well come to the correct conclusion for many situations like this and do the right thing. Well use a couple common scenarios.
Its not uncommon to have a situation where the dogs circle their track, and two rabbits pop out in front of us, but we really dont know yet which rabbit the dogs are actually trailing, right? So, we mark both lines and come to that conclusion when the dogs show us. Thats the right thing to do.

Sometimes, we have two marked lines where those two rabbits were seen fairly close to each other, and we have dogs splitting up and coming through on both marked lines. Often times in situations like this, we really dont know which dog(s) switched tracks, so we pay them all (score both lines). Again, its the right thing to do. Rule 4 (b) states, {When it is visually evident by the majority of the cast or a non-hunting judge that dog(s) quits a trail that is being worked, he will be minused.}

Yes, we may have obviously had a dog(s) quit one track and get on another but it is not visually evident, who, what, when, or where so we cant rightfully minus any dog. Again, its the right thing to do to score them all on both lines.

Sometimes well see a rabbit off in the distance that we know isnt the one the dogs are running. Should we mark it just in case the dogs lose the track theyre running and possibly wander off in that direction to score on a rabbit they obviously hadnt circled? Not the right thing to do.

Back to the scenario in the question. Read Rule 4(b) again and key in on the words quits a trail that is being worked. So ask yourself, was the marked line after that first circle the same track/rabbit the dogs were trailing when they came around the second time? If we say anything other than obviously not, were only fooling ourselves. No dog may be scored on that line. Thats the right thing to do. Can you imagine if this scenario happened in the final cast of the World Hunt and a non-hunting judge scored a dog on that line? The better question is, should that dog be minused?

The point of this topic is not to criticize anyone for asking any scoring question, but rather using it as an example on the importance of not getting caught up in the moment and ultimately score dogs incorrectly. What if all four dogs had trailed through that line in question? Would it have made a difference in the cast vote? Lets assume not, but you get the point. Sometimes we just need to stop and think about the situation at hand for a minute.

In his morning address to the hunters, theres a Master of Hounds who often says, Judging dogs is not rocket science, boys. Theres a lot of truth in that statement. Especially for those with years of experience with dogs in the field. When the merit of a handlers vote is nothing more than to benefit themselves for undeserved gain were doing all aspects of the sport a huge injustice. Its important we take a stand against far-left theories and win-at-all cost mentalities. Otherwise, the decisions we make, including those in the heat of the moment, is what makes up our personal character and integrity. Take the good with the bad and the sport will be better served for it. This topic serves as a friendly reminder of our obligations as true sportsmen and women.

Scoring Recoveries

Q: I have been on a lot of casts and have seen Judges score recoveries a lot of different ways. What is the proper way to score a recovery?

A: Scoring recoveries takes a little bit more than a just good knowledge of the rules. It also takes having some common sense about how a Beagle should work in the field. Rule 10 (f) states, {The first dog to open honestly resulting in forward progress will earn 20+ points for recovering the loss.}

For any dog to receive a recovery, they must make reasonable forward progress from the point of loss. Reasonable forward progress is defined in Rule 4 (a) as, A track that is runnable by the majority of the pack or when it is obvious to the majority of the cast members that a dog or dogs have recovered the track to a runnable state. Within this rule you have the most basic technical terms youll need to interpret this rule.
A check occurs after all of the dogs who are declared struck go silent for one minute. After that minute is up, the dogs have two additional (total of three) minutes to recover the check or they will be minused strike points. Words and terms to key in on in the definitions above are reasonable forward progress, runnable, majority of the pack, and/or majority of the cast members.

The word reasonable is where the Judges interpretation comes into play when rewarding a recovery. What I may think is reasonable forward progress, you may not. I feel that it is reasonable to get the track back to the same progressive manner it was before the check occurred. Is it not reasonable to assume that after they lose a rabbit temporarily and then find it again, that they should be able to run it just as well as they did before the check? I think so and that is my opinion on reasonable.

Defining forward progress should be easy if you define reasonable as I do. If, by my definition, they are running the track again in the same reasonable manner as before, they must also be making forward progress, right?

The next thing in rewarding a recovery is where I agree that there are variations between judges or casts. When is a track in a runnable state? Again, I would suggest its when the dogs are running the track in the similar manner it was before the loss occurred. The problem is when some try to reward a recovery too quickly. This rule does not say when the majority opens, when the majority can smell the track, or when the majority barks. It says, when a track is runnable by the majority of the pack or obvious to the majority of the cast that it is. Therefore, you cannot reward a recovery just because the majority has opened and are barely chugging along with the track.

The definition of majority is easy except when all dogs are not struck in. The rule says, When reasonable forward progress is made by the majority of the pack. It does not say by the majority of the cast. The definition of the pack in this rule is considered to include only those dogs that are struck in on that particular track. So, when four dogs are struck in on the same track, then three of the dogs are required to be making forward progress before a recovery may be awarded. If three are struck in, two of them are required to have made forward progress. If one or two are struck in; they both have to make forward progress.
The important thing to remember when rewarding recoveries is to consider how the dogs were running the track before the loss occurred. If they cannot get the track back to that same intensity as before, maybe a recovery should not be rewarded at all.