Non-Hunting Judge Calling Time Out for Dog Not Struck Based on Telemetry

February 2016 Coonhound Advisor

February 15, 2016

Source: Allen Gingerich

Q: This question pertains to a three-dog cast with a non-hunting judge. Dogs A and B are declared struck and opening on trail to our left. Dog C is moving to the right, according the handler’s telemetry. Dog C still has not barked and is not struck in when the handler says his Garmin® shows the dog is getting close to a road. The non-hunting judge makes the call to call time out, citing Dog C is getting close to danger. Shouldn’t the handler of Dog C have had to withdraw since Garmin was the only reason we knew where he was at?

A: This really is a tough question, and the response will undoubtedly be subject for further debate. All things considered, however, I can only respond to UKC’s position on how it should be handled. At least until and/or unless further notice. Before we get to UKC’s position, let’s first cover a few related items as follows.

It’s not been made clear, but let’s assume that the non-hunting judge verified (checked the handler’s Garmin®) that Dog C was in fact getting close to potential danger before making the decision to call time out. By rule, it would be hard to argue that he did not have the authority to do so, especially knowing that the dog is in possible danger. Of course, it’s also important to consider that there’s a difference between a road that is a concern and one that isn’t.

Rule 7 specifically states that a non-hunting judge may call time out, based on their own judgement, for any one of those reasons as outlined under (a) through (e). Otherwise, when hunting judges are used, it takes a majority of the cast to call a time out. It should be known that a simple majority vote for reasons not specifically outlined under Rule 7 is not an acceptable reason to call time out. Rather, it must mean that a majority of the cast agrees that the situation they are in meets one of the outlined requirements.

Let’s change the scenario slightly and have Dog C as being struck in. Does that change anything? Maybe slightly, because now none of them have as much to gain or lose, which at this point is solely based on the strike positions they are holding. Now the non-hunting judge calling time out isn’t as big of a deal, right? Let’s now also change the scenario and make the non-hunting judge a hunting judge and require a cast vote for this situation. Would at least two of them vote to call time out? We don’t know that, but we still can’t assume one way or the other. Whether they should or not is another topic. If they did not reach a majority, then the handler of Dog C would have to make a decision on whether to withdraw or not as the only options.

Keep in mind that Rule 7 was written long before telemetry use was allowed during the course of a hunt. And nothing was changed in the rule after telemetry was allowed during the hunt, so previous to that even a non-hunting judge would not have known that Dog C was in any potential danger because the dog hadn’t been heard opening. We certainly can’t have a handler have the authority to put the stop to a hunt when it might be their advantage to do so. That’s why we implemented Rule 2 for telemetry use which states: {If by way of telemetry a handler deems dog to be in danger per an item outlined in Rule 7 they may ask for a cast vote to call time out. If a majority is not reached the handler may withdraw the dog and retrieve it for safety’s sake.} This telemetry rule does not currently come with provisions for when a non-hunting judge is used. Maybe it should have and it might be something that UKC should look into to eliminate questions like the one here.

Regardless, and having said all that, it is UKC’s position that when the dog in question is not declared struck, a non-hunting judge should not call time out based on what telemetry shows. If the handler is having any concerns, then there’s the option to withdraw and retrieve the dog for safety purposes. After all, it’s the number one reason why the use of telemetry was implemented.

Late and Missing Reports

Q: Every week a coonhound owner will call in to the office saying their dog has earned a degree, but they have yet to receive the degree. Usually, it’s been a month or longer since the dog actually earned it.

The first step is for UKC to check the dog’s event records. Nine times out of ten, we’ll find there’s a missing report that has not yet been processed in order for the dog to be awarded the degree. It’s not uncommon for the missing report to be three or four months late. This is not just frustrating for the owner, but for UKC as well. It seems reasonable that someone is responsible and should be held accountable for such unacceptable problems. By a customer’s standard, UKC is held accountable for it, and rightfully so. The question is, has UKC become too lenient with clubs that fail to mail their Event Reports to the office in a timely manner?

A: I’m beginning to think so. There’s a $20 late charge associated with any report that is 30 days late. That’s $20 for each month that the report is late. Each month UKC generates a query that picks up any missing reports. Letters are then sent out to those clubs to remind them of it. Why would UKC not just call the club and get it done quicker? We do that as well, but letters need to be sent for documentation purposes.

After three letters have been mailed without any resolution, the club is blocked from confirming any more events. Unfortunately, too many of these letters result in no response, which is likely a good sign of why there’s a problem to begin with. Usually by the time of the third and final letter is sent out, the affected owner has been dealing with this issue for four months or better. That’s unacceptable.

History shows that many missing report problems are a chronic problem with certain clubs only. For whatever reason, some are just not good about sending their reports in right away. They get laid off to the side and before they know it, they’ve forgotten about them. Worse yet, three months later they no longer have any idea where they put them! One of the few suggestions I might have is to check their glove compartment in their vehicle.

In any event, UKC being stricter with assessing late fees is one thing but in an effort to get a better handle on missing reports is to take stronger actions against clubs who are found to have an ongoing problem with sending them in right away. One such option is to schedule fewer events for them and/or no longer approve the club for UKC Licensed Events.

For the sake of all the good UKC supporters who deserve to get their degrees in a timely manner, we have no choice but to crack down harder on late and missing report problems. Please mention this topic at your next club meeting. It’s a super easy fix. Put your reports in the mailbox on Monday! Your event participants will appreciate it.

Multiple Entries

Q: The other night we had an owner who entered four Grand Nite dogs in the Grand Category at our annual Tri-County Club Classic. With only eight total entries in this category, we obviously did not have enough dogs to split all of his dogs. The best we could do is draw two of his dogs to each of the two casts. The owner insisted that he could determine which two would draw out in each of the two casts. Our question is; may the owner decide which two to draw out together?

A: No, the owner does not make that decision. A blind draw shall determine which two draw out together in the same cast. Even with this scenario the draw, should not be complicated at all.

It’s only as difficult as you make it. First, we always frown on the need for any markings made on the back of the entry sticky for this purpose, even when you have four dogs owned by the same owner. One easy way would be to take only those four entries and draw two to one card, and the other two to the second card. Then next draw your judge and guide entries to each one accordingly, followed by drawing the remaining entries to the two cards. Of course this was assuming that none of the handlers on the four entries in question are not guiding or judging. If they are, simply adjust your drawing procedure accordingly. The bottom line is that the owner does not determine which two will be drawn together. The draw determines that.