The American Beagler Forum

When ARHA Little Pack started most of the dogs entered were from rabbit hunters just bringing their hunting dogs to trials. In the last 10 years it seems like the dogs have gotten a lot faster and much rougher. When it takes a 15 second breakdown to score, this rewards the rougher dogs that swing out on checks. I wonder if it is time to change to 10 second checks, which would reward the dogs running the most rabbit?

I am not bashing Little Pack. That is what I run and I like the people and a lot of the dogs that compete. I was just thinking that rewarding a dog that keeps the track going would help Little Pack and help better the breed.

Thoughts?

I like it! Great idea!

Haven't ran Little Pack in years,but that sounds like a good idea,even better would be 5 second checks in my opinion.

I think that's a great idea Jim I judged a lot of cast at the world hunt that the shorter check would have changed the outcome of the cast. I believe the shorter check would promote a better dog as well

Good ideal ... Need to b more rule changes to go with it .

Just wondering I have only ran arha a couple times as I run akc Midwest dogs. Does the judge in arha have the discretion to decide if a particular hound is reaching, swinging etc. or is it just what ever hound gets the check first? AKC does not have a time limit at which point a check starts but judges do have the ability to award or penalize for staying in checks or reaching. So I guess my question would be would it be better if judges are allowed to make those calls or is a shorter time limit better. I am not trying to stir pot just trying to gain some knowledge.
Tom

I was just explaining the same need for a shorter check on another post

Would be a change for the better. Even more important (in my opinion): fix the Hunting & Handling "tiebreaker" call! If two or more dogs are tied with positive scoring, especially if the in-place progressionary sequence leaves them tied, they deserve to advance.

barnold1 wrote:Would be a change for the better. Even more important (in my opinion): fix the Hunting & Handling "tiebreaker" call! If two or more dogs are tied with positive scoring, especially if the in-place progressionary sequence leaves them tied, they deserve to advance.

Good idea!!

This suggestion, coming from Logan Elm, certainly deserves consideration. I like the idea. I do not favor giving the judge the discretion he has In AKC. ARHA method keeps in the hands of the dogs performance.

JCM wrote:When ARHA Little Pack started most of the dogs entered were from rabbit hunters just bringing their hunting dogs to trials. In the last 10 years it seems like the dogs have gotten a lot faster and much rougher. When it takes a 15 second breakdown to score, this rewards the rougher dogs that swing out on checks. I wonder if it is time to change to 10 second checks, which would reward the dogs running the most rabbit?

I am not bashing Little Pack. That is what I run and I like the people and a lot of the dogs that compete. I was just thinking that rewarding a dog that keeps the track going would help Little Pack and help better the breed.

Thoughts?

Absolutely!

barnold1 wrote:Would be a change for the better. Even more important (in my opinion): fix the Hunting & Handling "tiebreaker" call! If two or more dogs are tied with positive scoring, especially if the in-place progressionary sequence leaves them tied, they deserve to advance.

In ARHA Progressive Pack this is th rule.

Casey Harner wrote:

barnold1 wrote:Would be a change for the better. Even more important (in my opinion): fix the Hunting & Handling "tiebreaker" call! If two or more dogs are tied with positive scoring, especially if the in-place progressionary sequence leaves them tied, they deserve to advance.

In ARHA Progressive Pack this is th rule.

Been awhile since I've been to a PP trial, but from what I remember a tie is a tie in PP and they don't go through fewest minuses, most jumps/checks/strikes to slim down the number of hounds advancing and I don't recall seeing a cast in PP with a lot of zero scoring dogs tied for first place to know what they do there. The biggest opposition to making any change to the H&H tiebreaker could be that more dogs advancing may extend completion of the trial, so trying to look at what we have now and throw something out there that would minimize the likelihood of that happening.

Just my two cents, which is worth just what you pay for it. I thought the 15 seconds was to give the judge time to catch up because LP dogs are generally faster. I'd be fine with a 10 second check. Lots of dogs pick it up at between 10 and 15 seconds. It would improve scores. If I am judging--something rare--I don't care if the dog handles for me or the handler. I'd be interested in hunt--period. As far as ties for first in a cast, I'm not sure. If you just look at hunt and leave the minor faults out that a particular judge doesn't like, it would be okay. In the north, we deal with rabbits in brush piles that refuse to come out and the dog draws a minus. Another rule that modification would improve scores. The dog working/hunting the hardest should get more that a -10 for his effort. A dog just standing around scores higher. I also think there should be either a time out at a "dead track" or a specified time for the handlers to get their dogs before the judge resumes the hunt. It's not fair to the cast to wait 7 or 8 minutes or longer for someone to catch their dog and the clock is still running. Good discussion.

Are changes initiated by clubs or by ARHA Rules Committee?

Larry

With 5 to 10 second checks you would see a change in the dogs running style, which would lead to better races.