misunderstandings over defining your ideal beagle?

Bob Graves · Post by **Bob Graves** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 10:20 am

I'm just wondering if rabbits have changed the way they run in the last 5 or 6 years, that would require a change in the style of the hounds that are running them. If Bev's Redd Man was well suited for a certain format 5 or 6 years ago, and now he is only suitable on certain days, something has changed, and I don't think it's the way the rabbits run. Now if the rabbits haven't changed, the format must have changed for some other reason. Could it be a "FAD"?

Tommy: I think your looking for "The American Bassett" bulletin board.

I would really like to see some good Bassett work though, I don't know of anybody in my area that runs them.

Ted: Lets say you were hunting deer, and you shot and wounded one but it was still up and running. Now you track it for a while with good sign, but it's getting sparse and you come to a loss.

Would you:

A) start looking in the immediate area working in an ever increasing outward pattern? or
B) SWING out and hope to find the trail further ahead, and running the risk of losing the trail altogether, and maybe even the point of loss?

I know it's not hound work, and they may be differant styles, but my guess is the guy that works from the loss out is going to be more succesful more often. It just makes more sense.

You Go Joe!

warddog · Post by **warddog** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 11:22 am

Every time a hound makes a loss aren't they all gambling on where to find the line again? If the line is no longer known (LOSS) then what hound action do they use to reclaim the line? They search for it by looking into or over carefully and thoroughly in an effort to find it. The searching may be done by various styles such as staying close to the line (tight line work), inside out (reaching) or outside in (swinging) but the truth of the matter and the only "FACT" is that the line was lost. With that being said a loss has been made and the dogs don't have a clue as to where the line goes ( if they did there wouldn't be a loss) so they ALL gamble on where it went and start their search by their various methods or styles. That's the same way I track a wounded deer. If I have a blood trail that I can see then I have a line but when I no longer can see the blood trail I don't have a clue as to which way the deer went. At that point I mentally mark the loss area and make wide circles to regain the blood trail (line) as I know that a wounded deer may stop bleeding for quite some distance. This brings another factor into the equation and that is that the searcher must have the brains to use their style. If a tight check work hound never leaves the original loss area and just stands boo-hooing and vaccuming at that point where it can only smell the line then that dog hinders the run. The same thing is true of a dog that spends a lot of time around the loss area before it starts to reach out and for the dog that swings out crazily or haphazardly. But you take any of these styles with brains to know how to use it you will have a dog more consistant in completing the run.

Bob Graves · Post by **Bob Graves** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 12:21 pm

Warddog, I'm curious to know if you immediately make large circles to pick up the trail again, or do you start close and work your way out? And the fact that you "mentally mark the point of loss" is interesting to me, Why would you do that?

The tight check dog that stands "boo hooing and vacuuming" at the point of loss definately hinders the run, hence, FAULTY. The dog that spends a lot of time at point of loss before it starts to reach out is also faulty, just not as faulty as the hound that locks up. And the swingers will more than likely pick up the line before the late reacher, because that action is less faulty still in many cases. A hound that "immediately" returns to the point of loss, and "immediately" starts searching in a productive manner will more consistently pick up the line quicker than a swinging hound because it is again, less faulty.

Joe has said this numerous times throughout this thread, there are different degrees of FAULTY. Just because a dog has faults, does not make it useless, it just means there is more room for improvement.

Bob

tom/ desertdog · Post by **tom/ desertdog** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 1:00 pm

run to catch or trail to hole.? i want mine to run the rabbit not to run the trail. if you want to see where it's been great good for you. i want to see where it's going. i don't want mine going back trying to work covered scent, swing, drift, swag, or what ever you want to call it.hit it and get it and run it to catch it thats for this old boy.

warddog · Post by **warddog** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 1:12 pm

I make a mental marker so as to have a reference point when I start my circling. I do however search while I'm moving out as the direction I chose to start my search in was nothing more than a guess. Remember that I made a loss and have no idea at this point which way the game has progressed. I do however know that it is not sitting on that blood trail because I can't see it. To venture away from the point of loss without making a mental marker would be haphazard to me and for me to stand there looking for the deer when I can no longer see any sign of it would be a waste of time. Even when I am walking the line I am looking out in front and to the sides of me because I know that the deer may turn or change directions at any time. Once I search out away from the loss several yards I then make my circle from one side of the mental marker to the other. You know what happens most generally, I hit the line and procede on and never return to that marker and when I do have to return most of the time the game is lost as I haven't refound the line. Why do I do this and consistantly look ahead and away from the line? To save time so as to find the game quicker without having to sight each and every drop of blood.
I understand exactly what Joe is saying but I don't happen to agree with it, as the majority of people on here. If I remember correctly he even critized some for liking and or breeding "FAULTY" dogs in a previous post and stated that trialing had nothing to do with it but has backed off of that. A perfect hound would be one that consistantly ran a track from jump to gun without a loss, as the reason for the lack of progression of the run is the loss in the first place. I also know that it is impossible to have a dog that never makes a loss thusfore there are no perfect hounds and I think we ALL can agree on that. If Mr. Graves and Mr. West have them, then please post some of them on here for sale as I am sure we would all love to have one. In the mean time for us to debate what is or isn't a "FAULT" would be nothing more than personal opinion in which no one is going to convert the other and is therefore a moot point.

Ted Peercy · Post by **Ted Peercy** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 2:31 pm

Bob,
Always B. I've hunted deer for 44 years and have blood triled plenty. If there had been any blood close to the loss, I would have seen it , just like a dog would have smelled scent if it had been close to the loss. I do other things, like checking trails, looking downhill, which have nothing to do with your point. As Warddog said, the point of loss is very important. If I don't find it on my swing, I'll go back and try again. Blood, when sparse, is not left as often as scent, so it should be easier for the dog to find the scent. But when I do find the blood, I'm 30 yards in front of where I would have been if I had started inside out. Warddog stated all of this extremely well.
The fact that Joe has stated this numerous times, that swinging is a fault, is exactly my point. He's made his point.. He hasn't changed my mind. So, let's quit beating a dead horse and move on. Let Joe answer Swing's question about what word to use to keep your dogs from running deer.
And yes, Mother Nature has helped the rabbit to change in the past several years. Most of the people I hunt with have noticed this. They are more nocturnal, set tighter before being jumped, and even sit down more when being chased, the latter of which helps Joe's inside out theory, but not a big enough factor yet for me to sell the dogs. Ted

lee ga · Post by **lee ga** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 2:31 pm

i can't speak for joe , but i can almost guarantee that he is not talking about methodically grubbing around in the check looking for scent and getting hung there. he's talking about an ever widening pattern that is done impressively quick. more quickly than some could imagine. looks like once again we are all confused about the definition of swinging. warddog , unless i missed something looks like to me you described the perfect inside out approach to checkwork. make a mental note where the loss occured and search outward in an ever widening pattern in every direction until the line is found again. my definition of a swinger is a hound that casts off out of a check in a very wide pattern without ever making that mental note of where the loss has actually occured. i have seen hounds cast off in one direction and one direction only. even if a hound makes that mental note where the point of loss occured, what if the hound casts out 15 or 20 yards from point of loss before he starts his circle all the way around the point of loss and then works out from there? well he may find the trail again if the rabbit kept going, but the inside out check hound will too. what if a rabbit makes a 90 degree turn and then squats a few feet later ? if a hound makes a wide cast from the 90 degree turn(point of loss)and works out from there then he will loose the rabbit that has squatted. the inside out hound would not.if a hound makes a wide cast and then has to work back in to find the rabbit, he is still no better than a hound that searches inside out, because it takes just as long to search outside in as it does to search inside out. dang i have almost confused myself(lol).

Joe West · Post by **Joe West** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:25 pm

Ted: my theory isn't that faster hounds will have higher scores, my theory is that when the only way to get points is to have a check those involved and who want to win will learn that the best way to get score is to have a hound who checks alot. Now you could have slow hounds who check alot but they would be easily beaten by fast hounds who check alot so the trend will be to get fster and checkyer.

If swinging is a positive hound action why do they have to come back to the point of loss when the swing doesn't work instead of continueing to swing?

pj · Post by pj » Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:25 pm

ted do you remember a dog you got off of john grant named topper....if you do what would you call his style of check work....josh

Joe West · Post by **Joe West** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 4:57 pm

warddog: There is no gamble in looking for the line at the point of loss. It's true that anytime the hound looses contact with the line of scent they run the risk of loosing their game and for that reason the hound who never looses contact with the line of scent will never be at a risk for looseing his game. A hound must have intelligence there is no doubt. A hound who anchors is worse then a swinger but a swinger isn't as good as the hound who first searches at the point of loss and that hound isn't as good as the hound who doesn't check.

Tom : the hound who is not oursueing his game is pottering.

Warddog: Don't recall backing off on this thread not being about trials. As long as a beagler is able to observe hound actions he can determine those that interfear with the run. Certainly a hound who swings a little can beat a faultyer hound who does not swing but that does not mean that swinging is not a faulty action.

Ted: this thing about a hound wasteing his time at the point of loss because he would have already smelled it doesn't hold water. How many times have I seen a hound come to a check and slam on the brakes and put their nose in the point of loss for a closer examination and determine direction and take off with it. A hound running full tilt will miss somethings at times that on closer examination he will find. There is a phrase to use for training hounds to not run deer but that is for another post. Swing already knows of that training method. The changes you see in the rabbits running habits has to do with conditions and pressure and not with any changes in the rabbits themselves.

Ted Peercy · Post by **Ted Peercy** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 5:17 pm

Joe,
I'll take that as a concession, that faster hounds will get the check quicker. A swinging dog comes back to the point of loss when they can't find it for the same reason that yours do.

PJ,
Sure, I remember Topper. He could sure run with the fastest. He would still be here, but he could not stand the warm weather and we work dogs year round.

I hope everyone has a great week, even you line control freeks. LOL

Alabama John · Post by **Alabama John** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 5:36 pm

PJ, hello, I did not know that was you Josh! Topper would be a good example of the type speed and swinger I prefer. Go run him with Joes dogs to make the point much better than our words.

As a child we played a game called Fox and the Hare that was a real life handed down by our elders taught practice of mantracking. There are certain ways a person will go that is running and after a while you learn what the percentages are faced with obstacles. Hard to track someone familiar with tracking. Rabbits do certain turns in same directions most of the time also and older dogs will learn which ways to swing that are more productive based on experiences.

Remember, I have been using examples of a very productive pack swinging action, not an individual dog.

When a pack overruns, none of them know where the point of loss is, not like the last blood seen by a man trailing a deer. A dog that goes back hunting and looking for the lost point of loss is swinging backward ever how far the overrun was just as the pack swingers are swinging forward. That's how it gets left behind in nearly every race. it is gambling that it has a rabbit squatted and that is not so by far most of the time.

Going backward will get it culled out of my pack real quick.

Joe West · Post by **Joe West** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 5:59 pm

Ted: You took it the wrong way. A hounds foot speed on the line has nothing to do with his ability to find checks.

John: The entire pack not knowing where they last smelled rabbit points to problems other then swinging.

Bob Graves · Post by **Bob Graves** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 8:00 pm

Warddog, your answer to my question sure sounds like solid inside out check work to me. You start at point of loss, advance a bit and circle making larger loops as you go. Sorry, I don't have any perfect hounds for sale, I'm looking for some myself.

Ted, you go at it different than most I guess. At least you go back to the point of loss when all else fails and try again. Your right, it's not worth selling your dogs.

Is there a distance where a swing becomes a problem for the guys that like the swinging hound? What do you call a hound that swings too far?

Dead horse or not, this is pretty interesting stuff

pj [josh] · Post by **pj [josh]** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 8:14 pm

im sorry there joe but i got to disagree a hounds foot speed has alot to do with check work as it depends on how fast he can grab a check...you figure this a rabbit has to go north, south, east, or west..right...so how couldnt a hound doing a real fast circle around that point of loss not find it quickly and how exactly you would you call that a gamble...i dont understand your points.. a hound that has to take his time and reach and work that check inside and out how would be faster. when you have a dog that went around that area already when that rabbit either had to hold up or hole...if that swinger dotn find it...cause it went north, south, east or west...we otta go run sometime well see just for shits and gigles if your tight check dogs can beat one of my swingers...just to see