New judges in Mid-West

[beaglestotrack]

I forgot to add great post mr wells

[fulcount]

beaglestock
you hit the nail on the head best post yet on the subject
too many are judging what they like and not by the booktoo many
have forgotten that WE judged instead of I judged or I put this pack together
or I gave this dog a win instead of the dog won the trial when WE were judging
I would hope no judge GAVE a dog a win I would hope the dog won the trial
on merit
When I talk to a judge about judging a trial I almos t see red when all I hear
is I did this and I did that and I gave this and I gave that
remember THERE ARE 2 JUDGES
John O

[Ron Conroe]

That's right there are two judges. I like the guy that accuses one judge of cheating. It takes two to cheat.

[tom summers]

Rule book reads "accomplishment over style" as it should be because we are suppose to have hunting dogs that can bring meat to the table.

[WELLS WOODS]

Tom, it does say that , but it doesn't mean that any actions that lead to accomplishment are good. A dog that swings or skirts ahead of the pack & picks up the line way ahead of the dogs (or any faulty actions) is not what the rulebook is promoting by the statement of accomplishment over style. What the statement, accomplishmant over style in the AKC rule book means is that it doesn't want hounds to be stuck running in such a certain style that it hinders accomplishment. Say the rabbit crosses a creek or runs down a road where there is no scent; The AKC rulebook, although it promotes a style of working a check (close first, then progressively outward), does not want hounds hindered by that style to the point where they don't feel "allowed" or don't have the brains to reach across the creek or down the road to try to pick up scent and save the race.

The UBGF has made a certain "style" of checkwork that could cause this to happen. It is a serious fault in their eyes to reach wide even when necessary to keep the run alive. Also, although scenting may be good enough for them to run the rabbit faster, their "style" or speed bred into their hounds hinders them from this accomplishment of gaining on their rabbit & is another example of style over accomplishment.

It could be said about the wild & rough "stlye" hounds also. When scenting is tough , it may require the hounds to slow down to make smooth progress; their rough "style" hinders them from gearing down & controlling the line & is an example of style over accomplishment also.

A good hound in my opinion is a dog with good hunt & search & that can run nearly fault free & can adjust their speed with the conditions, trying their best to control the line while running with the intent to catch the rabbit & have the brains to know how & when to reach or gamble more than usual to save the race when necessary. .

[Chimney Rock Kennel]

"Accomplishment over style" Leaves a lot of room for interpretation and opinions. IMO! Maybe it's time for AKC to go to a point system more set that way after each round people know where they stand and don't have to sit around all day waiting to see if they get included in the next round or not.

[beaglestotrack]

thanks john o
I am just believer that the rules are there for a reason and there is a standard set for our hunting beagles! the standard is there to better the breed as a whole not hinder the breed.
I here all the time that such an such is going to a trial cause such an such is judging and he likes my style of dog..
I find that cause people are judging there favorite style that it is hindering the turn out of the trials. if a judge judges according to the standard and rules set by akc people would not be picking the judges they ran under as much. I asked several clubs to judge when I first got my license and only one club was willing to let me do an apprenticeship under 2 other license judges and that was a date I could not attend.. I kept on it asking and calling several time with no luck finally I just quit asking... just my 2 cents

although I am willing to pick up any judging assignments that are no half way across the country..

[tom summers]

You are right Greg there are alot of factors that are good & bad that lead to accomplishment that is why judges are need that have spent countless hours, running , gunning , and observing . My opinion in regards to the point system is that it as well leads to interpritation of rules i have only ran a couple arha trials and witness quetionable awarding of point. I know of hounds that have won trials without out ever barking on a rabbit. All formats are not perfect they all can be improved. There are rules that i do like in other formats that akc does not have and vice versa but we all choose to run our favorite format for our own reasons. With that being said i do not judge others for thier choices and hope the same from them as we all are in the same sport.

[John Way]

Always Accomplishment over style, always , provided that an unfair advantage is not being taken by the more accomplished hound. Its nice to marvel at a smooth stylist hound , but only in determining final disposition of hounds with equal accomplishment , should it be a determining factor.

[WELLS WOODS]

I think if we all sit down & read the AKC rulebook carefully once & a while with the mindset of how the author intended, it would open our eyes about a lot of things. It was intended to describe how our " hunting hounds" were to perform in pack competition.

[WELLS WOODS]

This reminds of a trial I was judging in Western Ky. We were judging the 13" male class & it was a really good group; we were down to FC Sunset Scooter, BJ's Fudd & FC Blazing Trails Blue Baron. They had scorched rabbit after rabbit all evening. Well they finally came to a tough check. They all three could work a check textbook. They started close, round & round. Then spread a little farther, circling round & round. None of them making a peep, but working frantically. They got out so wide & then went back to the point of loss again & worked the check all over again, It went on about ten minutes or longer. Then Scooter ventured out about 40 yards or so across some dirt & found it & the race was back on again,. This was a good score in my mind because all the dogs had worked the check properly for a long time & then it's time to gamble a little or they would have never found it. After the results were read off & Scooter had won, I was pointed out by many that Scooter got way too wide on that check. In my opinion , it was a perfect example of accomplishment over style. The dogs had worked their style that usually produces the finding of the check, but this time after all the time working, it was time to use his brains & reach out farther to check new ground that they hadn't checked yet.

[tom summers]

Hounds should always go back to point of loss " Always" .when rabbit is not found it should work it outwardly until restarted.
Here is where style & accomplishment can meet. Some hounds work a check very methodical and others do it in a progessive sweeping pattern at a faster rate, both accomplish the same goal does one score higher? Do you score purely on accomplishment? Do you give points for extra search on faster hound because it is more aggressive on working check? These can be all factors when looking at the hounds. Every pack, hound , check , drive , good and bad merit must be judged on an individual bases when they occur. This is where rules are used as guidelines to make decisions.

[WELLS WOODS]

Hounds should work a check closely first at the point of loss. They should be aggressive with their nose down. I think they should reach a few feet ahead first, then circle close to the point of loss looking for the turn , completely circling the area . Then spread their search progressively out farther, nose down so not to miss any scent. They should do this in an aggressive manner, competing with the other hounds to find the check first, but absolutely not barking at all until the true check is found. Some hounds may check down the way the rabbit came in case the rabbit tried to backtrack down the same line a piece. After several minutes hounds should venture farther out looking for the fresh line. All hound should work in a competitive manner unless this leads to faults such as claiming to have the line & it turn out not to be or babbling through the check distracting the other hounds. The hound that finally comes with the true check should be given a good score for without him the race could have been completely lost. This is a sign of a hound with amazing desire & intelligence.

[mybeagles]

After judging in both Mid-West and UBGF I make the argument that IF the rule book was followed you could take the winners pack from both formats on a given day and put them together and they should be compatible. However, thats not the case. There is a specific speed/style thats expected in a given format and any deviation from that gets you labeled as a "Conservative" or "Rough" judge. I get the "Conservative" label when judging MidWest but have had handlers approach me after the trial and say "I thought you were a conservative judge but you allowed 5 hard hitting dogs to win/place"....

I think much of this comes from "expectations". When a handler gets a pair of judges that seem favorable to their style dog and things don't turn out well they are left wondering what went wrong. If can never be they just simply got beat that day, it must mean the judges got confused, didn't see their dog do all the great things its was doing running 6th in the pack etc.

In the Midwest you have dogs leaving a pack of dogs running the line to gain an unfair advantage and then being scored favorably because they didn't cause a breakdown....as if that determines fault. Then in UBGF you have dogs picked up for leaving the pack with the track between their legs because they are not packing. I doubt either of these scenarios will cease to exist because its the preferred style of the majority. Judges will be selected on their reputation of style and thats the bottom line. New judges don't get used for various reasons but mainly because of the fear of the unknown as pertaining to they style preference.

Judges need to be experienced houndsman that can navigate through the woods. All the experience in the world won't help if you can't do anything but walk at casual pace.

[tom summers]

According to AKC rule book it states the following
"At a check , hounds should work industriously, first close to where the loss occurred, then gradually and thoroughly extending the search further afield to regain the line."
Greg , rules state nothing about in a circular manner, just thoroughly and outward. we cannot fault a hound that covers the area in a different manner and get the check. it does have to work it completely until it gets the loss but the manner in how it does it other than stated is according to the hounds "style".
I am not looking to argue with anyone just good conversation. What I am getting at is that all formats leave room form "judgment" calls which all judges make at every trial. I think this is why we need well seasoned houndsmen to judge. The term well seasoned does not mean age but someone that has spent countless hours evaluating hounds. I know the Northern Hare Assoc. does mentoring trials for new judges to ensure the are confident in what their duties are. Maybe this would be a good thing for more SPO clubs to adopt? We currently rely on knowing someone, recommendations from other clubs and beaglers or seeing a judge perform well at a trial. With that being said I see it can be hard for someone that maybe ready to judge but not having initial contacts to obtain a judging assignment. So I guess my next question would be how do we start the program?