Changes for L.P.

[swing]

Sounds good to me also. Could be points for being the so called rabbit hound of the pack.

[Aaron Bartlett]

Stony,
Have you ever judged a L.P. trial?

No I dont have a LP judges liscense.

Sounds good to me also. Could be points for being the so called rabbit hound of the pack.

I would think that dog would be called the winner of the cast! The time limit on checks is another problem in LP in my opinion. Which dog would you rather own........One that takes 20 seconds to get the check or one that gets it in 5 or 10?????
I had a judge tell me one time in front of the whole cast that my dog did the best but she didnt take long enough to get the check for them to score it. I just smiled and went on.[/quote]

[LaMarr Rhoades]

im all for the who controlled the pack thing.i think it lets the judge give his oppinion on the best dog,or forget that and just let the judge award 50 points to who he feels was the best dog.Im sure there could be alot of factors on why a judge would pick a certain dog.

[swing]

Stony,
Till you judge a cast in L.P. set down and shut-up. LMAO

[Hare Hunter]

Controlling the cast with less then 15 second check should be awarded, I agree with darin, I have judged casts that there was a dog with a little less foot that came into a check area created by the lead dogs and blow out of there with the rabbit, just must be a way of rewarding that hound. Now before anybody gets their shorts in a bind believe me when I say I like fast hounds and that is what I run, BUT there are times when a hound that cannot run the front comes in and cleans everything up. One of the finest hounds I have ever run with or against was a hound by the name of Muskie LakeLevi, I met his owner that day, about 10 years ago, during that cast, I told him he had the best HUNTING hound in the cast but I have to judge by the rule book and he cleaned up checks in less then the required 15 seconds, he didn't win that cast but his owner and I have become close friends and hunting buddies since then. I told the truth and judged to the best of my abilities, by the book, he appreciated it and accepted it like a gentleman that he has proven out to be.Long story told short, we need a way to reward these HUNTING dogs. Just my humble 2 cents worth. Hare

[Aaron Bartlett]

Stony,
Till you judge a cast in L.P. set down and shut-up. LMAO

Sorry MASTER I didnt know it was a requirement to have a LP judges liscense before you could have an opinion! LOL!
If it makes you feel any better I did help a buddy of mine judge a cast or two a few years back(I guess it was one of them "training" things). I hope thats legal....LOL! I dont go to enough LP hunts to mess with taking a test every year. I guess if LP was all that was around here I would do differently but thats not the case.

[ky joe]

I think at the world hunt and little world, the clubs should find young guys to judge the dogs and have non hunting judges, i also think it would be a good idea if at world and l.w. they would have 1 judge on horeseback and 1 or more judges on foot. i think it would keep your judges fresher and would have more judges wanting to hunt. maybe im just full of ideas tonight or maybe im just bored, but i got another idea, i wish there was another step up from grand champion, like dual-grand. guys and ladies make there dogs grands, and then they just lay them up and stop hunting them and only hunt them at the big 5 hunts. Im proud of my grand and want to hunt her. But there really isnt a purpous for hunting grands at small hunts anymore. All i have to shoot for is making it in the top 10 for the hound of the year. but it would be cool if there was something higher to shoot for.

[ky joe]

I think at the world hunt and little world, the clubs should find young guys to judge the dogs and have non hunting judges, i also think it would be a good idea if at world and l.w. they would have 1 judge on horeseback and 1 or more judges on foot. i think it would keep your judges fresher and would have more judges wanting to hunt. maybe im just full of ideas tonight or maybe im just bored, but i got another idea, i wish there was another step up from grand champion, like dual-grand. guys and ladies make there dogs grands, and then they just lay them up and stop hunting them and only hunt them at the big 5 hunts. Im proud of my grand and want to hunt her. But there really isnt a purpous for hunting grands at small hunts anymore. All i have to shoot for is making it in the top 10 for the hound of the year. but it would be cool if there was something higher to shoot for. What do yall think?

KY-JOE

[letumrun]

i think they should recognize around 10 judges at the end of the year
should have some way every one could vote or go by how many rounds a judge judges in a year.i judge alot myself and dont mind it. it would be nice for the good honest judges that try to do thier best and keep up with the dogs and run thier guts out at every hunt,get a little something back just my thoughts

[chad24]

Shorten the check time. Take it from 15 sec to 10 seconds. This will allow the better dog(s) to score points. Really its a check dogs game in L.P, not speed,line control, etc. It really takes a good check dog and i have seen a lot of good dogs get beat that was clearly the better dog. Just my 2 cents worth. Chad24

[Hare Hunter]

Chad, I agree with you on the 10 seconds for check times. The other way would be to score any breakdown in forward progress as a check because really that is what it is, but there is always going to be that dog that creates checks because he can't run it from where ever he is, mostly over running his ability to hold the line and that type of dog usually becomes a pretty good check dog as he has lots of practice. That being said I have judged a number of casts the last few years that there was very few checks, 15 seconds anyway. Folks really are breeding better quality hounds, that is not to take anything away from the good dogs of the past but I think folks are aware that most of the time it takes a solid running hound to place high in most trials. JMHO Hare

[kjohns]

Yeah, get rid of the timed check all together. It's kind of a rediculous rule if you think about it. A check is a check no matter how long it is. A dog that picks it up in 11 seconds should be rewarded before a dog that takes 17 seconds to find it. I heard the reason for it was to give the judges time to catch up. But that doesn't make sense. Judges are going to miss checks no matter what. It's part of the game. But you can't write a rule that punnishes a dog to compensate for human error. Most handlers understand every check isn't going to be scoreable and just ask that the judge do the best they can. The ones that don't understand, aren't going to understand anyway.

That leads me to my next rule change. The judge should be able to ask the handlers which dog got the check. Same as he already can on a strike. If all agree, score it.

Now my question. Is this all B.S. or are these suggestions everyone is making actually going to get in front of the rules committee?

[Plow]

I agree with the dominant dog award of 50 points, why not let the handlers & the judge vote on it when the cast is over & before the scores are presented for signature so that noone knows whether it helped a dog win or not. Majority rules & the judge vote would be a tie-breker if needed.

I would like the rule enforced for pulling the hounds out of the check area, I don't know how many times I have seen a dog swing deep & mouth about twice & all the dogs race to cover it, only for nothing to happen & they all come back to the original point of loss & pick it up going a complete opposite direction from where the liar opened. Keeps the race tore up at every loss. I minused a dog for that a couple times last year in a cast & when I explained the scoring the handlers said they had never heard of that before, that shows you it isn't getting done!

P.S. Swing I have been a judge since 1989, so don't scratch me for babbling. lol!

[swing]

Sounds like a good idea plow on the vote deal, and as far as babbling thats your first warning.

[voodoo]

THE RULES ARE NEVER GOING TO SATISFY EVERONE SO HERE GOES I WOULD LIKE SHORTER CHECKS BUT MOST OF THE TIME THE JUDGES DON'T CATCH UP AT THE WORLD ANYWAY .THE BABBLING IN THE CHECK NEEDS SOME WORK , THE NO HUNT RULE COULD BE SHORTER ,
BUT IN MY HUMBLE OPINION THE VERY BEST WAY TO HELP NOW IS TO USE HORSES TO JUDGE FROM. THE JUDGES COULD SEE MORE, NOT GET TIRED . NO MATTER HOW GOOD A JUDGE IS HE CAN ONLY JUDGE WHAT HE SEE'S .
KEEP'EM RUNNING
PINE MT BEAGLES