Plus or Circle Strike Points, Other Beagle News

Full Circle

February 15, 2016

Source: Allen Gingerich

Majority Saw the Rabbit. Time Out Called for Danger. Plus or Circle Strike Points?

Q: All dogs are struck in on a track. The rabbit is jumped up ahead of the cast and is seen by all members of the cast. The dogs continue to trail ahead of the cast and heading towards a road where traffic was a concern, so the cast voted to call time out and run in to handle the dogs before the road comes into play and they have any issues. No lines have been scored. How do you score the strike points?

A: UKC recently received a call from a hunter who suggested we cover this specific scenario in this column because too many judges are scoring it incorrectly. More importantly, he was concerned with the significant impact it can have on winning and or placing in an event when it is scored incorrectly.

My first reaction was that the caller was probably exaggerating a little and found myself doubting it was the big problem like he suggested. I decided to have a little fun with the scenario and post it on the Beagle Forums to poll the hunters who frequent the UKC website to get a feel for how they would score it. To say the least, I was surprised at the result; 53 forum users participated in the first poll.

The poll showed 9.43% (5) voting to delete the strike points. We have no deleted section in the rulebook so I’m not sure where that comes from. Regardless, deleting the points is not an option. A total of 3.77% (2) voted to minus the strike points. I assume they are using the last sentence in Rule 10 (c) where it states, {No dogs to be called off a trail without awarding those points minus.} That rule would not apply either because the cast did not technically call the dogs off trail. They called time out because of the dogs getting near a busy road and then went to handle them.

That leaves plus or circle. 32.08% (17) voted to plus the strike points. That is a concern because there is no rule to justify plussing the strike points. Yes, per Rule 3 (d), you may plus strike points on a rabbit that was seen by a majority of the cast “if” the rabbit went to a hole or place of refuge. The rabbit did not go to a hole or a place of refuge. The fact that a majority saw this rabbit may be where this group is getting hung up on and overlooking the latter part of “goes to a hole or place of refuge”.

Someone mentioned that a road should be considered a place of refuge, but UKC would not support that logic. Matter of fact, most roads surrounding an area where you would typically drop dogs are not considered a danger to dogs, unless it happens to be one where traffic is a concern. In other words, the fact that you have a road come into play should not be an “out” for calling time out for the sake of taking dogs off a bad track, etc. Another rule, where some of this group gets hung up on, may be 3(e), where it states, {if dogs are trailing a rabbit that has been seen by a majority of the cast when time runs out.} Time running out in this rule pertains to hunt time. Not a time out called during the hunt.

The correct scoring is to circle the strike points, in accordance with Rule 7(a), under the Time Outs section. Judge, or majority of cast if hunting judge is used, may call time out and circle any un-scored strike points in accordance with the following: (a) {When dogs are getting on road, trail onto posted land or trail into a place where there is danger to dogs or hunters.}

In the scenario given, the strike points were not yet scored when time out was called; 54.72% (29) got it right. It should be noted that Rule 5 (c) also covers situations where points are circled, when dogs get near livestock, buildings, highway, etc. That’s a rule that should have probably been moved over to Section 7 two years ago when we changed the rule to make it mandatory that time out be called whenever dogs are handled. If you recall back in that time we may have handled dogs without calling time out when they got close to livestock, houses or buildings and, therefore, it needed to be in that section as well. In any case, I can’t think of any situation, under today’s rules, where 5(c) could not simply be lumped in altogether with 7(a).

Lastly, because of the split in the polls between circling and plussing strike points, I decided to post a new poll on the message forum with the exact same scenario. Only this time I include a link to the rules and asked them to read and find a rule that they think justifies their vote before voting again. Out of the 30 that voted on this second poll, 10% (3) voted to plus, 10% (3) voted to minus, 0% voted to delete, and 80% (24) got it right by voting to circle the strike points. Does this suggest we could eliminate a lot of wrong scoring if we took a little more time to read the rules? I bet it would certainly help. In any case, we had a little fun with it on the UKC Beagle Forums and I hope this article helps to shed further light on the topic.

Late and Missing Reports Problems

Q: It’s not uncommon to have a hound owner, almost every week, 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 that 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 anymore 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 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 only with certain clubs. 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 the Monday after the event! Your event participants and UKC will appreciate it.