How is it a Bell used as a cheatin' locater device? UKC rule

[Todd Eddington]

We already know what the rule says, can you come up with a reason besides what is writtin' it the rule book? I'm sure everyone already knew that bells wasn't allowed by the post but thanks for the knowledge on were to find it at. OK, lets look at your point on nonhandlein' dogs and trackin' collars. If the dog doesn't handle then you'd better be able to get within' 30-35 yards of it to use the bell to catch the dog. And the dog isn't gonna come to the handler no faster or handle better just cause of the bell.BUT I cauld search for my dog for 15min till the judge calls timeout so I can use the tracker collar to recover my dog? (If my dog is down in points when someones dog mishandles, I WILL BE HELPIN' TO CATCH 'RANGER' MYSELF ASAP.)I love good,tough compition not a easy win as to eliminate dogs by scratchin' em-thats not a honest win to be proud of. I've personally remember only once that a dog wasn't recovered in time in 16 years and a bell wouldn't have helped the guy then. AND if Sen.Chainy(?) would have had a bell on his buddy the lawer he probably wouldn't have been shot.LOL. So its still unclear how its a cheatin' locator devise. And if anyone can see the huge disadvantage over all the advantages please share them..

[MDH68]

Heres a scenario

You draw out with 4dogs. The dogs are cut loose and a rabbit gets up in front of everyone. The cast can visually see there dogs open on the track and they strike there dogs accordingly. All dogs are struck and running the rabbit.The dogs break downout of site but dont go into a check. A dog opens and picks it back up. One of the cast members says "that was ole ruby right there" you say "are you sure,I thought that was my dog" he says "I am pretty sure that was Ruby". You both agree both hounds sound very similar.(You still think that was your hound) That track ends and the dogs are caught and recast. They are hunting out of site. About 50yds away you see a rabbit come out of the brush. You here your dogs bell heading into that area were the rabbit came out but cant see her. When she opens your going to jump on it. If she didnt have the bell on you wouldnt be as confident that its your dog cause theres another dog that is similar in voice.You may have waited an extra bark or two to make sure. Giving another dog a chance to open and be struck ahead of you.

Mike

[Tim H]

Todd, in your original post you layout the reasons for adding bells to dogs. Most of your reasoning would be moot if all the dogs were wearing bells. As far as the issues of dog safety that you mentioned, the same type of arguements could be used to say handlers should be allowed to use training and tracking collars during the hunt. With a tracking collar you could tell if the dog was getting close to the road. With a training collar you could stop your dog from crossing the road.

I guess the way I see it is, since it is already a rule, you need to come up with some convincing reasoning for changing it, rather than the rule needing to prove it's necessity. I don't disagree with what you're saying, I just don't think any of your points are strong enough, by themselves or combined, to convince me that bells should be allowed.

[Todd Eddington]

MDH68- Your senario sounds like you dont know your dogs voice cause I'm gonna strike my dog on a wimper ALL DAY LONG even if she has or dont have a bell on. So if a handler calls my dog or thinks my dog sounds like theirs they had better be sure before I could have'em scratched easier for callin' my dog. Anthow it would be your choice to put a bell on your hound just as a tracker is used now. I can see were you'd get nervise when you see a rabbit come out of some cover but the dog has to open first before the stike right. Just because it has a bell on would put a doubt in the other handler on callin the wrong dog again to gain a false strike position over the right dog. What if the dog that struck in couldn't move the track and he said that it was your dog that struck and not his? And wants to withdraw his stike and take a warning while you get stuck with the strike and eat the points? SEEN THIS HAPPEN. A bell would help the situation at hand.

[Todd Eddington]

Tim H.- Any of the reasons I listed are very good reasons for the use of bells. Saftey for the dogs, Better judgein' the dogs trailin the bunny, Helps control the cheatin' situations in the field for the ones that have ruff runnin' dogs and slick handlers and would promote better hounds to the winners packs. You are entitled to your own opionion even if your not for sure what your sayin'. Do you know that you can run a tracking collar on your dog now in the hunts? A bell would also let the handlers know if the dogs get too close to a road which would be a plus for the SAFTEY FOR THE DOGS.. And about the shockin' collar, you had better have your dog already trained BEFORE you enter a hunt cause luck isnt gonna help you much if you draw a good broke true rabbit dog. ANY OF THE REASON ARE GOOD ONES. The only bad point is that the bell might make it harder for your dog to hear it being called in.

[Richard G]

I was wondering how a bell is used to cheat at a beagle trial and I cant seem to figure out how this would interfear with the huntin'. I can think of several plus marks for but no good ones for the not list..1)Would help keep track of dogs to determine the point of the loss so the cast can find the correct hole vacinity. That would help right.2)when a dog gets trapped under brush piles or buildin'. Will and can your dog bark back to ya if trapped or its collar caught up?3)Can easier find the dog in the brush that keeps openin' and none of the handlers seem to want to call their false jumpdog.4)Helps a nonhunting judge keep better eyes on the dogs in the casts behavior in the field that he's never run with.5)Would help single out the ruff runnin' dogs that desturb the rest faster.6)Help identify the dogs positions and help stop slick handlers from calling the wrong dog for their advantage. Still cant see how it would be used to cheat? If it would draw a blister away from my feet to go to a sound of a bell from a searchin' dog then so be it. That be cheatin myself, by myself? If I use a bell then I wouldn't mind the disadvantage, right? Then take it, you'll need it. I feel that we cauld produce better trial dogs and take the sour out of the mouths of people that say that UKC format is unfair or they get slick handled.

Todd if you read your original post you state that you can only see how this would HELP, you with know where your hound was!! You have answered you own question. If I understand you correctly. You are suppose to have dogs that handle, and you are suppose to know thier voices. The guy who doesn't claim his hound is a cheat in my opionion. That is the way I read your post. I have only been once, so I am no expert, just going by your post. If you are afraid of them getting caught in the brush, do you think the bell hang down will help? Maybe they should ALL wear the SAME bells. Just my thoughts

Richard Gould
Snowy Mtn Beagles

[billi]

I started a dog wearing a bell just this year. The reason had to do with calling her to come in and when she wouldnt i would hit her lightly with tri tronics. I found that sometime she would be minding me on her way in. With the bell i can listen eliminating hitting her when she is actually minding. I dont like to shock unless necessary. Works for me.

[Todd Eddington]

If the other dogs would wear a three dollar bell too then it wouldnt be such a disadvantage to other handlers. It would be up to the handler I suppose to use one or not. I do have dogs that handle great but I do get sick of others not knowin' their dogs and callin' mine. Trying to make it harder for mistakes in the field and to make it harder for the slick handler that usually has a pup entered in the cast and is always the blind judge. Makes it harder for the slick stuff to go on when everyone can see more easier to what is acually happenin' as it happens so I'd say that your missin' my point of view totally Mr.Gould. I had that senerial happen to me this year by a judge that everyone knows in UKC. And he wins by cheatin' and now he's more famous cause he 'GOT-R-DONE' the slickster way. and a bell would have prevented such a rediculus move as to withdraw his own strike in which he called my dog as his to over strike her cause it was his only way to GET-R-DONE. GAVE HIMSELF A WARNIN FOR THE CALL, AND WON THE CAST. OUCH..

[Richard G]

It's just Richard, if you don't mind. I understand what you are saying now. Seems to me that this guy needs to be confronted in a more serious way. I have no use for these kinda people. If this is a problem, and it happens often, and the UKC gets enough complaints, the bells should go on HIS hounds.

Richard Gould
Snowy Mtn Beagles

[Tim H]

Todd, you missed or ignored my point. If ALL of the dogs are wearing bells then all of your points about identifying hounds by the bell goes out the window. Bells won't stop cheaters from cheating.

Honestly, I don't understand why you're so hostile to everyone who has a differant opinion than you do. You may have gotten cheated but I wasn't there so I don't know if you did, but I didn't cheat you, I simply have a differant opinion than you do on the issue of bells.

I hope you enjoy your trials in the future and if your dogs are as good as you're saying, then I'm sure they'll do fine, with or without bells.

[Todd Eddington]

Tim H.- I'm sorry if I presented hostal to you and maybe I am overlookin' your point of view. I do feel strongly of the move forward in the UKC rulebook for the favor to use bells. I hear alot of discustion about them on cast but noone will voice a opionion because it might pea of the off by doing so. Complaint depending on who you are and what you can do for the man is the way things are handled. Not with a open mind or right or wrong so I hope that you have no resentment to this post. or me.

[Tim H]

Todd, no hard feelings here, just a reminder of the fly thing with the vinegar and honey .

As I posted before, I'm not against the bells. I just don't see a compelling arguement for changing the rules to allow them.

It is not a big issue to me either way but I think if the rules are going to be changed then the reasoning needs to be compelling and well thought out from both positions.

What benefits will the bells add?
1) Safety.
2) Location of hound.
3) Possible Identification of the hound.

What would be the negatives?
1) The dog with the bell could jump more rabbits due to the bell.
2) The handler would always know where his hound was even when out of sight.
3) A poor handling dog would unfairly be located by the handler.
4) The handlers/judge would tend to follow the hound with the bell.
5) If all of the dogs in a cast wear a bell it negates #3 in benefits.

Another important point to remember is no amount of bells will keep cheaters from cheating and good dogs even if cheated periodically will still rise to the top. You may disagree with some of my points and you may want to add some that's what this discussion and post are about. Nothing wrong with that.

[Todd Eddington]

If all dogs wore bells then it would eliminate all of your neg. pts. and would make them plus pts. if your really thinkin' bout it. I've never really had to worry about or dealt with a bad handlin' dog. I've never been in a cast that has ever been in a time-out due to a bad handlin'dog. So I don't believe it is such a problem as to be used so strngly as you mention. OK. what if the guy's dog that wont handle is winnin' and it always seems to take him 13 minutes to catch his dog? you got me there, it would help me find and catch his dog for him so i can catch up on the score++. Again it would make a slick handler sweat. Tim I still think that a bell would produce better dogs in the winnin' circle.

[Jarocal]

Another negative point could be that a non handling dog does not return quickly when the judge calls for the hounds to be be leashed. The bell would give the handler an advantage to finding the dog without having to spend the effort to train the dog to handle better. All the plus marks for allowing a bell could be used to justify non tone tracking collars.

I think part of the reasoning for the prohibitions is not only for eliminating edges, but to keep handlers from becoming lazy and as dependant on the devices to smooth over problems and deficiencies that they have not worked out in their or their hounds abilities.

One point given is that it would help someone catch their hounds quicker. While all hounds can be a bit obsitinate about coming back sometimes, the bell allowing the hound to be located and grabbed quicker when it doesn't want to come in gives an unfair advantage to a dog that is not as well trained. Say three come back right away when the Judge says "leash the dogs" and the third guy takes 25 minutes to get his dog in with a bell on. If the dog didn't have a bell chances are the guy would go over 30 minutes and get scratched (I do remember a guy complaining one time about gettting scracted for taking the 30 minutes he said it wasn't quite 30).

Someone mentioned that the bell could help identify possible false strike calls. If bells were allowed, then you would most likely get a lot of dogs in the casts wearing them so if both have bells on that is no help, or even if only one is wearing the bell and both the dog with the bell and the dog of the handler with the possible false strike come blowing out of the brush within a couple feet of each other then who can say which dog it actually was that indeed struck first?

[Todd Eddington]

The rule for a mishandlein' dog is the handler has 15 minutes to catch his do ,which a time out will be called then after the 15 minutes for the handler to have a aditional 30minutes before his dog is scratched. I know that there are guys out there that never spend time with their dogs but to feed 'em and going out to unclip them from the chain for a few hours to disrupt a cast at the local beagle clubs, and that is too bad for the hound. But the rule for a misshandlein' dog has to go threw that channel of elimination. I'm not lookin' to help out that guy or a way to handle his problem with his dog. Beleive me that gets me smoked when it takes that same guy 13 to 15 minutes to catch his dog and in the end he wins when we acually only hunt for a total of 40 minutes in the whole 2 hours,'when I drive 2-3 hours to let the clock run down every time this guy has to catch his dog. I'm lookin' at saftey, better attention to what the pack is doing, which dogs lead the cast off, cornerin slick handlers and producein' better dogs to the winnin' circle, not the same handlers over and over-year after year. Maybe someone should come up with something to tighten the reins on this problem of mishandlin' dogs if it is a problem in the hunts. I just dont see it such a problem as you make it.