# Retriever club favoritism



## oldftdog (Jan 3, 2012)

A few weeks ago it was obvious to everyone there was a bitch in heat on the grounds. The person with this dog in her possession was warned and admitted to it. But as a breeder replied its a 3 day test and I need to breed her. Later was caught on film tying the dogs on club grounds. The photographer filed a complaint with the hunt test committee I had overheard the committee expressing concern for what theses accusations would do to her career and lively hood I have since found out nothing was done because the hunt test committee refused to act. Just makes me wonder who of us in the same scenario would be still competing.


----------



## steve schreiner (Jun 15, 2009)

WOW....Steve S


----------



## Jay Dufour (Jan 19, 2003)

Yea ...Wow.would write a letter to the president.....and never go back there.


----------



## CRNAret (Oct 3, 2012)

oldftdog said:


> A few weeks ago it was obvious to everyone there was a bitch in heat on the grounds. The person with this dog in her possession was warned and admitted to it. But as a breeder replied its a 3 day test and I need to breed her. Later was caught on film tying the dogs on club grounds. The photographer filed a complaint with the hunt test committee I had overheard the committee expressing concern for what theses accusations would do to her career and lively hood I have since found out nothing was done because the hunt test committee refused to act. Just makes me wonder who of us in the same scenario would be still competing.


Good example of the "It's all about ME" mentality - and evidence of very poor sportsmanship (or sportspersonship)


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

CRNAret said:


> Good example of the "It's all about ME" mentality - and evidence of very poor sportsmanship (or sportspersonship)



There are a lot of misconseptions bantered about when one begins analize conduct using only ones memory of the rules as a basis... Would someone post a link, or cut and paste the part(s) of the AKC rules that govern , other than the part in chapter 1 section 5 that says that they may not be on the grounds ?

What I get fron chapt 1-4 is that in some cases "obvious dont do it" and a veternarians certifacation may be required in establishing if the bitch is in fact in season

john


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

john fallon said:


> There are a lot of miscomseptions bantered about when one begins analize conduct using only ones memory of the rules as a basis... Would someone post a link, or cut and paste the part(s) of the AKC rules that govern , other than the part that says that they may not be on the grounds ?
> 
> john


Given that seems to be the point of the OP ("May not be on the grounds") and person warned as such, yet continued to 'be on the grounds' to fulfill a business objective - what is it specifically you're looking for? AKC definition of sportmanship?


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> Given that seems to be the point of the OP ("May not be on the grounds") and person warned as such, yet continued to 'be on the grounds' to fulfill a business objective - what is it specifically you're looking for? *AKC definition of sportmanship*?





> • The sportsman respects the AKC bylaws, rules, regulations and policies governing the
> sport of purebred dogs


Actually I'm looking for someone to show me the verbage in the bylaws, rules, regulations and policies governing the
sport of purebred dogs that govern here

So far, in chapt 1-4 it is that a vet cert may be required...Did a vet establish that the bitch was in fact in season? 

john


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

john fallon said:


> Did they get a vet to establish that the bitch was in fact in season?
> 
> john


Did the Breeder request such when asked to leave the grounds? You could pose circumstantial evidence that the act of attempting to tie dogs on grounds would lead to the belief that the Breeder felt the dog was in season, and as a 'professional', was confirming the bitch was in season, by the resulting act of attempted impregnation. Once asked to leave the grounds, the Breeder was within rights to request a bitch check.

The breeder 'admitted to it' according to the OP.


----------



## mnadams (May 12, 2006)

CRNAret said:


> Good example of the "It's all about ME" mentality - and evidence of very poor sportsmanship (or sportspersonship)


Hit the nail on the head with this response. A whole society and generation that only cares about themselves. Who needs to have it "spelled out?' Common sense has left the building...!


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> Did the Breeder request such when asked to leave the grounds? You could pose circumstantial evidence that the act of attempting to tie dogs on grounds would lead to the belief that the Breeder felt the dog was in season, and as a 'professional', was confirming the bitch was in season, by the resulting act of attempted impregnation. Once asked to leave the grounds, the Breeder was within rights to request a bitch check.
> 
> The breeder 'admitted to it' according to the OP.



Try that the next time you are on a committee asked to conduct such a meeting.

As I said, show me where "He said, She said", circumstantial evidence, and conjecture about what the breeder felt, are written anywhere in ANY AKC bylaw, rule, regulation or policy governing the sport of purebred dogs that would govern here.

john


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

To the point of 'favoritism':

I recall a test whereby one judge in our stake had traveled by van, with dog. In that transitional travel found their bitch was in heat. 

Van was parked directly next to the 3rd holding blind back, back open - windows down.

I would doubt there was a bitch check. Didn't need to be. Males are fairly obvious in answering the question for us. Stuff happens, I overlooked it as by holding blind #1 all focus was back. Had the judge then later tried to tie the dog with another on grounds...I'd have a different opinion.

To the point above on common sense, as it applies to rules, like life, things are rarely black and white. 

And besides...who wants to slow down a 59 dog senior??


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

john fallon said:


> Try that the next time you are on a committee asked to conduct such a meeting.
> 
> As I said, show me where "He said, She said", circumstantial evidence, and conjecture about what the breeder felt, are written anywhere in ANY AKC bylaw, rule, regulation or policy governing the sport of purebred dogs that would govern here.
> 
> john


John - show me a rule or law written anywhere, for anything, that clearly accounts for all circumstance. Yet we practice these things daily.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> John - show me a rule or law written anywhere, for anything, that clearly accounts for all circumstance. Yet we practice these things daily.





AH, but there *IS* place in the current HT rules that addresses bitches in season, it is Chapter 1 Section 5. which refers to a vet check to establish that a bitch is in season or not. If there were a reason to establish this fact, such as we have here, the prudent committee member or accuser should have called for one.

john


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

john fallon said:


> Try that the next time you are on a committee asked to conduct such a meeting.
> 
> As I said, show me where "He said, She said", circumstantial evidence, and conjecture about what the breeder felt, are written anywhere in ANY AKC bylaw, rule, regulation or policy governing the sport of purebred dogs that would govern here.
> 
> john


There was a picture of the dogs tying...what more evidence needs to be provided? You know damn well a bitch in season has no business being on the grounds....by the way, any person with a white paper towel can establish if the bitch was in season...they don't need a vet on the grounds to establish this....


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Don't have books now but can't this be covered by noncompeting dog on grounds or whatever?
PS
More than once I've seen vans parked at event chasing the stud du jour traveling the circuit. Probably chose where to run based on greatest # of bitches ready to nail that weekend, who knows but the girls were standing by.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

john fallon said:


> AH, but there *IS* place in the current HT rules that addresses bitches in season, it is Chapter 1 Section 5. which refers to a vet check to establish that a bitch is in season or not. If there were a reason to establish this fact, such as we have here, the prudent committee member or accuser should have called for one.
> 
> john


This is what I have from Chapter 1, Section 5:

_Section 5. Bitches In Season. Bitches in season shall not be eligible for entry in any Hunting Test and shall not be allowed on the grounds. Entry fees paid for a bitch withdrawn because of coming in season or for a dog withdrawn because of an injury or illness, or for a dog that dies, shall be refunded in full by the test-giving club. Prior to paying such refund, the club may require an appropriate veterinary certificate. In the event a dog is withdrawn for other reasons, the test-giving club is free to formulate its own policy with reference to refunds provided that said policy shall be fixed in advance of the mailing of the premium list for any particular Test. _

This is as it relates to two things:
1. No dog on grounds that is in heat. (The Breeder stating that it was - according to the post)
2. The Vet check requirement for refund on premium.

No where do I see the statement or assumption that a Vet check is required unless otherwise for the refund of a premium. Nor does it state that a Vet check must be completed as a requirement to confirm an admitted state by the owner.

A suspected dog may be tested but when an owner confirms that state - there would be no reason for a Vet check. The dogs state has been established.


----------



## Lady Duck Hunter (Jan 9, 2003)

Send complete information in as a complaint to AKC Performance and let them investigate.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Lady Duck Hunter said:


> Send complete information in as a complaint to AKC Performance and let them investigate.


X2 Don't forget the pictures.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

john fallon said:


> AH, but there *IS* place in the current HT rules that addresses bitches in season, it is Chapter 1 Section 5. which refers to a vet check to establish that a bitch is in season or not.


The vet check has nothing to do with a bitch in season being on the grounds. The vet check in the paragraph you cite refers only to the issue of supporting a refund request for a bitch that is in season. It has nothing to do with whether she can be permitted on the grounds. Simply put, she's not allowed on the grounds ion season.

The bitch should not have been on the grounds if the owner/handler was local. I can see an exception for a person who is on the road and days from home. Under my "exception", no one would know she was there. For example, boarding the dog locally. If that's not feasible, the person ought to be very, very circumspect and not let their dog interfere with the activities of others in any fashion. To do so disrespects the very nature of the games that we play from the standpoint of "sportsmanship". Shame on the participant.

The committee ought to be taken to task over their inaction. They accepted the responsibility to act in such cases on behalf of AKC when they agreed to serve. Shame on the committee.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> This is what I have from Chapter 1, Section 5:
> 
> _Section 5. Bitches In Season. Bitches in season shall not be eligible for entry in any Hunting Test and shall not be allowed on the grounds. Entry fees paid for a bitch withdrawn because of coming in season or for a dog withdrawn because of an injury or illness, or for a dog that dies, shall be refunded in full by the test-giving club. Prior to paying such refund, the club may require an appropriate veterinary certificate. In the event a dog is withdrawn for other reasons, the test-giving club is free to formulate its own policy with reference to refunds provided that said policy shall be fixed in advance of the mailing of the premium list for any particular Test. _
> 
> ...



I don't know how they do it where you come from, but official bitch checks at events for whatever reason are usually done by a vet.

It is not a quantum leep to think that for a HT committee meeting for disconduct that hinges on the reproductive condition of a bitch, that the bitch check of that bitch would be done by a vet. 

john


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Labs said:


> ....by the way, any person with a white paper towel can establish if the bitch was in season...they don't need a vet on the grounds to establish this....



Is that the only reason that a bitch could be bleeding.

BTW at what point in the "in season" cycle is the bitch not allowed on the grounds. Is it in the Anestrus. or the Proestrus or the Estrus or Diestrus , or all of them ?

john


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Was not the "in heat" state of the bitch stipulated by all the concerned parties?

I think we are losing the point of the original question ... what was or was not, could or could not, should or should not have been done if the bitch was, in fact, in heat (as everyone WHO WAS PRESENT seems to agree)?

JS


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

oldftdog said:


> *Later was caught on film tying the dogs on club grounds. The photographer filed a complaint with the hunt test committee*.


Are you saying someone photographed her breeding dogs on the grounds and took those photos to the HT Committee? If you are, what more needs to be said? Not sure how a HTC could decline to take action with photos of said handler breeding dogs on the grounds. If they did not take action I would file a complaint with AKC and include the photographic evidence.


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

Eric Johnson said:


> The vet check has nothing to do with a bitch in season being on the grounds. The vet check in the paragraph you cite refers only to the issue of supporting a refund request for a bitch that is in season. It has nothing to do with whether she can be permitted on the grounds. Simply put, she's not allowed on the grounds ion season.
> 
> The bitch should not have been on the grounds if the owner/handler was local. I can see an exception for a person who is on the road and days from home. Under my "exception", no one would know she was there. For example, boarding the dog locally. If that's not feasible, the person ought to be very, very circumspect and not let their dog interfere with the activities of others in any fashion. To do so disrespects the very nature of the games that we play from the standpoint of "sportsmanship". Shame on the participant.
> 
> The committee ought to be taken to task over their inaction. They accepted the responsibility to act in such cases on behalf of AKC when they agreed to serve. Shame on the committee.


Two to tango here, folks. What about the unsportsmanship of the stud owner that participated with his dog. Does he get a pass?


----------



## Rnd (Jan 21, 2012)

Devils advocate: Lets assume everything the OP says is true. (No reason not to)

What are the ramifications to the parties involved????

It's history now. What are the penalties, and to whom?

Just curious.

Randy


P.S. Not condoning the act....It's poor form by ALL involved.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

What year were those rules written ?Were they written back when the amatuer with 1 or 2 dogs was the norm,, or were they written when a caravan of truck loads of dogs congregated on the same co-ordinates at the same time far away from home for long periods of time.
Should it still be illegal to eat peanuts and walk backwards on sunday in one of those southern states, I'm sure at the time there was a reason for it,.
Maby old rules need to be revamped to apply to the 21st century.
Pete


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

Pete said:


> What year were those rules written ?Were they written back when the amatuer with 1 or 2 dogs was the norm,, or were they written when a caravan of truck loads of dogs congregated on the same co-ordinates at the same time far away from home for long periods of time.
> Should it still be illegal to eat peanuts and walk backwards on sunday in one of those southern states, I'm sure at the time there was a reason for it,.
> Maby old rules need to be revamped to apply to the 21st century.
> Pete


You must have never run a male dog at a test or training with a "in season" female around....if you have given up 70 bucks and failed a test and that was the reason, you would know why it's in place....


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

A little common sense needs to apply here at some point. You can parse the rules any way you want. The intent is to not have bitches in heat on the grounds, because, as we all know some male dogs could be affected adversely. 

It's called sportsmanship.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

frontier said:


> Two to tango here, folks. What about the unsportsmanship of the stud owner that participated with his dog. Does he get a pass?


I'm not certain that the act of breeding does anything more to cause a problem than just her being on the grounds. However, certainly the stud owner should have refused the breeding at that location as a matter of sportsmanship. His dog would not have caused the issue but by agreeing to the breeding at that location, he was an enabler. His case should have been presented to the committee as well though the specifics are not in the rules other than sportsmanlike conduct. He or his dog shouldn't get a pass on the basis of "boys will be boys."


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

frontier said:


> Two to tango here, folks. What about the unsportsmanship of the stud owner that participated with his dog. Does he get a pass?


No, he does not.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Eric Johnson said:


> I'm not certain that the act of breeding does anything more to cause a problem than just her being on the grounds. However, certainly the stud owner should have refused the breeding at that location as a matter of sportsmanship. His dog would not have caused the issue but by agreeing to the breeding at that location, he was an enabler. His case should have been presented to the committee as well though the specifics are not in the rules other than sportsmanlike conduct. He or his dog shouldn't get a pass on the basis of "boys will be boys."


The act of breeding proves the bitch was in season. The stud owner, if he knew this was taking or going to take place on the grounds would seem to me to be guilty unsportsmanlike conduct. If he was unaware of the situation he would not. I would to as far as saying even if he knew she brought the bitch, but did not know of her plans to breed on grounds he is not unsportsmanlike as he is not responsible for her actions up until he becomes a willing participant


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> You must have never run a male dog at a test or training with a "in season" female around....if you have given up 70 bucks and failed a test and that was the reason, you would know why it's in place..


I train often with bitches in season and they sit on my truck ta boot. And I have run events my entire doggy career where other people have had bitches in season on their vehicle. Its there and always has been since I've been around. 

Pete


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

QUOTE]]The act of breeding proves the bitch was in season. The stud owner, if he knew this was taking or going to take place on the grounds would seem to me to be guilty unsportsmanlike conduct. If he was unaware of the situation he would not. I would to as far as saying even if he knew she brought the bitch, but did not know of her plans to breed on grounds he is not unsportsmanlike as he is not responsible for her actions up until he becomes a willing participant[ UNQUOTE ]

I have had a 9 month old puppy lock up with a 13 year old bitch when she wasn't close to being in season. So not necessarily proof;-)

Pete


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Was there ever a signed written complaint submitted to the HT committee as required ?



john


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Sure seems to be a lot of rationalizing of questionable behavior going on... Personal responsibility and accountability anyone?


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

oldftdog said:


> A few weeks ago it was obvious to everyone there was a bitch in heat on the grounds. The person with this dog in her possession was warned and admitted to it. But as a breeder replied its a 3 day test and I need to breed her. Later was caught on film tying the dogs on club grounds. The photographer filed a complaint with the hunt test committee I had overheard the committee expressing concern for what theses accusations would do to her career and lively hood I have since found out nothing was done because the hunt test committee refused to act. Just makes me wonder who of us in the same scenario would be still competing.


Personal responsibility and accountability go both ways. The only way we can enforce reasonable standards of good sportsmanship is to take personal responsibility and action as appropriate. If someone has first-hand knowledge of a reportable event and does nothing, IMO he/she is just as complicit as the alleged perpetrator. In the above instance if a complaint was in fact filed with the event committee and the committee took no action then that should be reported to the AKC. If the event committee concluded after an initial investigation that there was no basis for the complaint it cannot hold a hearing, end of discussion. However, the event report must include the facts as reported to the committee and what actions the committee did or did not take. If you have first hand knowledge of the event as related in your post you should report the same to the AKC, not just "wonder who of us in the same scenario would be still competing."
And I am now standing down from my soapbox.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

john fallon said:


> I don't know how they do it where you come from, but official bitch checks at events for whatever reason are usually done by a vet.
> 
> It is not a quantum leep to think that for a HT committee meeting for disconduct that hinges on the reproductive condition of a bitch, that the bitch check of that bitch would be done by a vet.
> 
> john


John - you keep trying to make a different point when the last meets valid resistance. Your original input was on the 'rules' Chapter 1, Section 5. Now it's on official vet 'certified' checks onsite. Even though, the rules only state the Veterinary requirement is for Scratch reimbursement. And you continually fail to acknowledge the accused stated that dog was indeed in 'heat' but failed to leave the grounds with the obvious intent (as apparently photographed) to breed on grounds. 

What's your point? Your club has vets on hand and you force a bitch check by an animal doctor even on those dogs who have already stated their dog is hot?


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

john fallon said:


> Was there ever a signed written complaint submitted to the HT committee as required ?
> 
> 
> 
> john


This is an important one. Somebody needs to step forward and put a complaint in writing. If no written complaint is received, the committee can't act.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> John - you keep trying to make a different point when the last meets valid resistance. Your original input was on the 'rules' Chapter 1, Section 5. Now it's on official vet 'certified' checks onsite. Even though, the rules only state the Veterinary requirement is for Scratch reimbursement. And you continually fail to acknowledge the accused stated that dog was indeed in 'heat' but failed to leave the grounds with the obvious intent (as apparently photographed) to breed on grounds.
> 
> What's your point? Your club has vets on hand and you force a bitch check by an animal doctor even on those dogs who have already stated their dog is hot?


Did you know that there is but one place in the rules that addresses bitches in season that is chapter 1 section 5 If the rules there allow for a vet exam for such a trivial matter as a scratch reimbursement it would stand to reason (read common sense would dictate) that a matter as important as a misconduct hearing would warrant the same due diligence.

john


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

john fallon said:


> Did you know that there is but one place in the rules that addresses bitches in season that is chapter 1 section 5 If the rules there allow for a vet exam for such a trivial matter as a scratch reimbursement it would stand to reason (read common sense would dictate) that a matter as important as a misconduct hearing would warrant the same due diligence.
> 
> john


Well - it ain't in the rules so given your usual 'rules argument' what can I say? And speaking of common sense I'd say you've favored overlooking quite a bit of it in the thread. I doubt my club or a large gaggle of others will invest in the hourly fee of a Vet onsite for 2-3 days especially checking dogs the owner has already stated was in heat. YMMV.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Good Dogs said:


> Personal responsibility and accountability go both ways. The only way we can enforce reasonable standards of good sportsmanship is to take personal responsibility and action as appropriate. If someone has first-hand knowledge of a reportable event and does nothing, IMO he/she is just as complicit as the alleged perpetrator. In the above instance if a complaint was in fact filed with the event committee and the committee took no action then that should be reported to the AKC. If the event committee concluded after an initial investigation that there was no basis for the complaint it cannot hold a hearing, end of discussion. However, the event report must include the facts as reported to the committee and what actions the committee did or did not take. If you have first hand knowledge of the event as related in your post you should report the same to the AKC, not just "wonder who of us in the same scenario would be still competing."
> And I am now standing down from my soapbox.


I'm not clear from the OP if the accused was a host club member or not. But if so - am always curious about club Bylaw language that addresses member conduct and dismissal. You feel like yours is tight?


----------



## oldftdog (Jan 3, 2012)

Just to clarify the stud was running the bitch did not run. But was parked all over and aired near tests. The owner was first kindly warned when she pulled beside a pro and let her dogs out with his and was worried about her bitch getting bred. The pro warned her and made mention to the hunt test committee Then Saturday night was captured on pic of tying the two and that person filed a complaint with one of her home clubs and nothing was done. Don't see why it was dropped she admitted her bitch was in season and because of who she was it was ok. If you or I had been in the same situation curious what would have happened.


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

oldftdog said:


> Just to clarify the stud was running the bitch did not run. But was parked all over and aired near tests. The owner was first kindly warned when she pulled beside a pro and let her dogs out with his and was worried about her bitch getting bred. The pro warned her and made mention to the hunt test committee Then Saturday night was captured on pic of tying the two and that person filed a complaint with one of her home clubs and nothing was done. Don't see why it was dropped she admitted her bitch was in season and because of who she was it was ok. If you or I had been in the same situation curious what would have happened.


If the owner of the bitch wasn't entered in the test, the committees options are limited. If the test was being held on private property, they could tell her she's tresspassing and to leave the property. If the test was being held on public property they could ask her to leave, but that is about it. The rules apply to those entered/involved with the test. They unfortunantely don't apply to John Q Public.


----------



## Eric Johnson (Dec 23, 2004)

oldftdog said:


> Then Saturday night was captured on pic of tying the two and that person filed a complaint with one of her home clubs and nothing was done.


That may be the problem. The complaint should have been filed with the committee of the club holding the test. If this was not done, no complaint was filed.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Swampcollie said:


> If the owner of the bitch wasn't entered in the test, the committees options are limited. If the test was being held on private property, they could tell her she's tresspassing and to leave the property. If the test was being held on public property they could ask her to leave, but that is about it. The rules apply to those entered/involved with the test. They unfortunantely don't apply to John Q Public.


The public property law you cite varies by state, I am sure. We've had people insist it was their right to infringe on a test as it was public property, though we had all the necessary permits. My comment - I will call the sheriff, we will let them decide that, then you can deal with the consequences, whatever they may be. We have never had anyone want to test their assumed right. 

I've also had folks allow a very agressive dog wander near our testing dogs in training, again noting it was their right. My comment - my dog is very valuable, should your dog choose to attempt to injure my dog, he is dead. That guy took off & we expected a visit from the sheriff, but it never happened. 

In general those people just want to be noticed .


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

HNTFSH said:


> I'm not clear from the OP if the accused was a host club member or not. But if so - am always curious about club Bylaw language that addresses member conduct and dismissal. You feel like yours is tight?


Club by-laws aside if it's an AKC licensed or member event the AKC rules regarding "Dealing With Misconduct" apply. And the rules state:
"It is the duty of the committee, not of the AKC, to deal 
initially with acts of alleged prejudicial conduct which 
occur during or in connection with a club’s event. The 
phrase “in connection with” means any incident where 
the parties involved are there because of the event;.."
So I don't see a limitation to folks who are "entered" in the event. Perhaps a quiet reminder to the individual that a finding of misconduct would result in immediate suspension from ALL AKC privileges - including litter/puppy registration - would have convinced him/her to load up the bitch in question and leave. And I'm not saying the individual should have been suspended. I was not there, did not see what transpired so am unqualified to make any comment other than that the people witnessing an alleged violation have a duty to report the same to the event committee and the committee has an obligation to act.


----------



## Dwayne Padgett (Apr 12, 2009)

john fallon said:


> Did you know that there is but one place in the rules that addresses bitches in season that is chapter 1 section 5 If the rules there allow for a vet exam for such a trivial matter as a scratch reimbursement it would stand to reason (read common sense would dictate) that a matter as important as a misconduct hearing would warrant the same due diligence.
> 
> john


What about some just plain old fashioned Common Courtesy and respect for others.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Good Dogs said:


> Club by-laws aside if it's an AKC licensed or member event the AKC rules regarding "Dealing With Misconduct" apply. And the rules state:
> "It is the duty of the committee, not of the AKC, to deal
> initially with acts of alleged prejudicial conduct which
> occur during or in connection with a club’s event. The
> ...


I agree. Guess knowing the "don't want to get involved" nature these days (and in some cases I can't disagree) would at least point to club policing of its own members relative to misconduct regardless of whose event that misconduct occurs. Hence why I asked about the comfort state or confidence in club by-laws relative to misconduct. 

I think it's all the same at least in spirit. The accused misconduct related to both the event (committee) as well as their own clubs by-laws on conduct regardless of who held the event. In that case, club by-laws for conduct is at least a second line of inquiry should the host club not pursue. But that leads to my question - are club by-laws written well enough to fairly pursue and potentially act on the misconduct of a member relative to an AKC related activity. Or broader yet - conduct in general which may excuse them from membership in the club. 

It really is hard to believe that the accused, based on the behavior described, is a fantastic individual highly favored by all. Probably more likely, everyone has a day job and can't afford the time and ugliness of initiating a formal process to deal with the situation.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

oldftdog said:


> Just to clarify the stud was running the bitch did not run. But was parked all over and aired near tests. The owner was first kindly warned when she pulled beside a pro and let her dogs out with his and was worried about her bitch getting bred. The pro warned her and made mention to the hunt test committee Then Saturday night was captured on pic of tying the two and that person filed a complaint with one of her home clubs and nothing was done. Don't see why it was dropped she admitted her bitch was in season and because of who she was it was ok. If you or I had been in the same situation curious what would have happened.


This is why crap like this is a useless waste of space. Nothing but second hand information and lack of details. This was a non event. Not entered, complaint to a club not even involved, no complaint to the HTC. What a waste of time.

you don't see why it was dropped? There was never anything to drop, nobody filed a complaint with the club holding the event. This is perhaps the stupidest post of all time on RTF.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

badbullgator said:


> This is why crap like this is a useless waste of space. Nothing but second hand information and lack of details. This was a non event. Not entered, complaint to a club not even involved, no complaint to the HTC. What a waste of time.
> 
> you don't see why it was dropped? There was never anything to drop, nobody filed a complaint with the club holding the event. This is perhaps the stupidest post of all time on RTF.


That is true. Someone should have reported to and filed a complaint with - the Hunt Test Chairs.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

The committee is responsible. If there was a verbal complaint made it must be in the written report filed post hunt test. If the complaint is not in the report the committee is in trouble. The person who made the complaint to the committee should call their akc field representative Monday morning and talk about the situation. The committee may have had reason to no remove the dog. You don't know what occurred at their meeting and what decision was made. Either way, it is required that the meeting be documented on the ht report.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Was it a verbal complaint or was it just mentioned? Hmmmm

/Paul


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Was it a verbal complaint or was it just mentioned? Hmmmm
> 
> /Paul


Scuttlebutt is my guess


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Was it a verbal complaint or was it just mentioned? Hmmmm
> 
> /Paul


According to the OP it was "mentioned". That does not sound like a verbal complaint to me. You know how many people "mention " something to the committee? " The junior water test marks are falling on the land", "The flyers are not all landing in the same place"...... Big difference between a formal verbal complaint and people crying, I mean "mentioning" something.


----------



## helencalif (Feb 2, 2004)

See Paul Gilmore's post #51. He is absolutely correct. Complaints must be filed with the HT or FT Committee during the event, not days or weeks later. The Committee must meet to address the complaint at the event, not days or weeks later. (caveat: I know that one club was granted by AKC to have a meeting several days later because the person against whom the complaint had been filed had left the grounds and was not there to participate in the meeting to defend himself.) 

No matter if the Committee decides the complaint is not valid and nothing was done, Paul Gilmore is right ... a full report on the complaint and the Committee's findings has to be submitted in writing to AKC Performance Events within 7 days of the event. 

Every F.T. and H.T. Committee should know how to handle complaints. When the Event Secretary receives the event packet from AKC Performance Events Dept., there are 2 light blue booklets inside which cover exactly what the Committee must do. The Event Secretary should keep one of the booklets and give the Event Chairman the other. After giving several of these events every year, eventually the club should have enough copies of the booklet to give to every Committee member. It is no mystery as to what responsibilities the F.T. or H.T. Committee have at their events. They ARE the official representatives for AKC and have the burden of being responsible to see that all AKC rules and regulations are followed.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> The committee is responsible. If there was a verbal complaint made it must be in the written report filed post hunt test. If the complaint is not in the report the committee is in trouble. The person who made the complaint to the committee should call their akc field representative Monday morning and talk about the situation. The committee may have had reason to no remove the dog. You don't know what occurred at their meeting and what decision was made. Either way, it is required that the meeting be documented on the ht report.



Is there such a thing as a "verbal complaint" ? I thought that all complaints in order to officially be one at all, had to be in writing and Signed...


http://images.akc.org/pdf/rulebooks/RDMSC4.pdf
john


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

This is why so much BS gets swept under the rug. Nobody wants the brain damage that comes from dealing with it. 

AKC lets many "offenders" off on the most inane technicalities... 

People like Fallon here arguing every letter of the book as opposed to what actually happened or common sense. 

So, the folks just say the hell with it... But in the long run it effects the quality of the event when this kind of thing is going on. 

I understand the legal points... But so do the folks tasked with enforcing rules at the events. They are not cops or lawyers for the AKC... They just want to enjoy their weekend.


----------



## Swampcollie (Jan 16, 2003)

huntinman said:


> This is why so much BS gets swept under the rug. Nobody wants the brain damage that comes from dealing with it.
> 
> AKC lets many "offenders" off on the most inane technicalities...
> 
> ...


Most event committees will step up to the plate and act when they are presented with an actual formal complaint. The main reason things get "swept under the rug" is nobody wants to go on record and formally file a written complaint, and yes it must be in writing in order for a committee to act. If nobody steps up, the committee can't do anything.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

huntinman said:


> This is why so much BS gets swept under the rug. Nobody wants the brain damage that comes from dealing with it.
> 
> AKC lets many "offenders" off on the most inane technicalities...
> 
> ...


What did happen Bill ???? Perhaps it was that someone did not follow the letter of the rules

john


----------



## Brad (Aug 4, 2009)

Ok. what if the land owners has a bitch in heat. What do you do?


----------



## ebenezer (Aug 19, 2009)

As a land owner I make sure I tell the event holders or in the case of handlers just parking on the property when I have a bitch in heat. I am going to miss the 2 trials I really was looking forward to because of my bitch in heat. It is sportsmanship to do so. Hunt tests are not like confirmation shows where bitches in seasons are allowed in the ring and it is not uncommon to see a breeding going on somewhere on the grounds. if bitches in season are not allowed to run then what are they doing on the trial grounds. Don't give me the I didn't know line I know the week before mine comes in.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

T


john fallon said:


> What did happen Bill ???? Perhaps it was that someone did not follow the letter of the rules
> 
> john


Don't know John and didt imply that I did. That wasn't the point of my post, but I have a feeling you knew that.


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

john fallon said:


> Did you know that there is but one place in the rules that addresses bitches in season that is chapter 1 section 5 If the rules there allow for a vet exam for such a trivial matter as a scratch reimbursement it would stand to reason (read common sense would dictate) that a matter as important as a misconduct hearing would warrant the same due diligence.
> 
> john


Guess you missed that part about bitches in season not being allowed on the grounds. You can look it up.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Good Dogs said:


> Guess you missed that part about bitches in season not being allowed on the grounds. You can look it up.


Ya think ? See post 5 http://www.retrievertraining.net/fo...b-favoritism&p=1130562&viewfull=1#post1130562

john


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

john fallon said:


> Ya think ? See post 5 http://www.retrievertraining.net/fo...b-favoritism&p=1130562&viewfull=1#post1130562
> 
> john


What Chapter/Section did you get this from again relative to the OP or situation?



john fallon said:


> What I get fron chapt 1-4 is that in some cases "obvious dont do it" and a veternarians certifacation may be required in establishing if the bitch is in fact in season


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

HNTFSH said:


> What Chapter/Section did you get this from again relative to the OP or situation?



The 4 in that bottom quote is an OBVIOUS typo my finger missed the 5 key. As I said earlier Chapter 1 section 5 is the only place in the HT rules that a bitch in season is mentioned. You and I have already discussed the vet thing, if you do not remember the particulars do a search.

john


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

john fallon said:


> The 4 in that bottom quote is an OBVIOUS typo my finger missed the 5 key. As I said earlier Chapter 1 section 5 is the only place in the HT rules that a bitch in season is mentioned. You and I have already discussed the vet thing, if you do not remember the particulars do a search.
> 
> john


John - just trying to understand your perspective and comments which frankly - ain't easy to do reviewing what you've already written.


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

So, sort of getting back to the point... And no offense to the original poster, since I would have a difficult time deciding what to do and I'd be pretty upset and possibly pitching a fit... But here is my not-in-the-heat of the moment opinion on anything untoward or unsafe at an event:

The world is only like high school if you let it be. Maybe start with a civil conversation with the
offender, explain why you are perturbed, and ask her to take the bitch off grounds. Request a committee. If the committee refuses to meet at your request and others are upset, enlist others to request as well. If the committee refuses to meet, write a letter. Check the rules and regs at each level to make sure you are following procedures. 

"But everybody will hate me."

Well, maybe. But the world is only like high school if you let it be. You can follow through and break up the clique, or you can play nice and hope they like you (if they care), OR you can look at your options like a grown-up and make a decision one way or the other and if someone doesn't like you for it carry on like a grown-up.

Weigh whether it's worth it to you personally, professionally, whatever, to take appropriate action. If it's worth it, do it, and don't complain about the fall-out. If it's not worth it, don't, and don't complain about it when it doesn't stop. 

After all is said and done if you decide you still have something to say, maybe there's an appropriate way to let the club know your feelings and leave future behavior in their hands. If it happens again, lather, rinse, repeat.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

I have a little experience interpreting language like this, and here's what it looks like to me:

1. No bitches in season are allowed on the grounds. Period. "Bitches in season . . . shall not be allowed on the grounds" is pretty plain. In my business that is called mandatory language. 
2. If a bitch comes into season after the entry is paid, the entry fee is refunded. 
3. To protect the club, they are able to insist on a vet check before refunding the entry fee. So no refundable scratches for "being in season" unless they actually are. 

If the situation occurred as has been represented here, there is no question that a violation of this bylaw took place as soon as the bitch in season was brought onto the grounds. The trainer might argue that she didn't know, but that seems flimsy given the apparent tie that was caught on film. Given what little I know about the planning of breedings at that level, it is very likely that it didn't just happen like that. 

As to whether these rules should still be the rules, I can't say. But they are still the rules and should be adhered to. If an official complaint needed to be filed then it should have been. The fact that folks might bring more dogs than they used to doesn't seem to be relevant in any way, as the obvious reason for this rule has not changed since it was written. 

Just MHO, I could be wrong. 




HNTFSH said:


> This is what I have from Chapter 1, Section 5:
> 
> _Section 5. Bitches In Season. Bitches in season shall not be eligible for entry in any Hunting Test and shall not be allowed on the grounds. Entry fees paid for a bitch withdrawn because of coming in season or for a dog withdrawn because of an injury or illness, or for a dog that dies, shall be refunded in full by the test-giving club. Prior to paying such refund, the club may require an appropriate veterinary certificate. In the event a dog is withdrawn for other reasons, the test-giving club is free to formulate its own policy with reference to refunds provided that said policy shall be fixed in advance of the mailing of the premium list for any particular Test. _
> 
> ...


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

Best post in this entire thread.



luvalab said:


> So, sort of getting back to the point... And no offense to the original poster, since I would have a difficult time deciding what to do and I'd be pretty upset and possibly pitching a fit... But here is my not-in-the-heat of the moment opinion on anything untoward or unsafe at an event:
> 
> The world is only like high school if you let it be. Maybe start with a civil conversation with the
> offender, explain why you are perturbed, and ask her to take the bitch off grounds. Request a committee. If the committee refuses to meet at your request and others are upset, enlist others to request as well. If the committee refuses to meet, write a letter. Check the rules and regs at each level to make sure you are following procedures.
> ...


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

RookieTrainer said:


> I have a little experience interpreting language like this, and here's what it looks like to me:
> 
> 1. No bitches in season are allowed on the grounds. Period. "Bitches in season . . . shall not be allowed on the grounds" is pretty plain. In my business that is called mandatory language.
> 2. If a bitch comes into season after the entry is paid, the entry fee is refunded.
> ...


Rules only apply to people entered in the test. How do you purpose to enforce a rule against someone not playing the game?


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

badbullgator said:


> Rules only apply to people entered in the test. How do you purpose to enforce a rule against someone not playing the game?


That's why I asked earlier about the extent of club by-laws covering member behavior - more specifically within AKC sanctioned events. 

I'm guessing most are weaker than should be leaving clubs relatively helpless against egregious club member misconduct. And this, if the accused belongs to a club, would offer another solution. I just can't really believe someone who would be a club member and participate in tests would be very well 'liked' to begin with.

Maybe she is a breeder of 'not really HT dogs'.


----------



## luvalab (Oct 10, 2003)

badbullgator said:


> Rules only apply to people entered in the test. How do you purpose to enforce a rule against someone not playing the game?


The AKC may be interested in the unsportsmanlike conduct of a breeder playing "register the litter" at an AKC event?


----------



## weathered (Mar 17, 2011)

As someone mentioned earlier, if they register their pups with AKC and are at an AKC event, one could likely go directly to AKC and file a complaint of unsportsmanlike conduct if the person is not entered in the hunt test. AKC can and will do things like revoke ability to register litters. You can look up people who have been reprimanded by AKC on their website somehow if you want to see the types of things AKC can do.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

badbullgator said:


> Rules only apply to people entered in the test. How do you purpose to enforce a rule against someone not playing the game?


As someone said earlier, it takes two to tango. The stud owner is participating in the misconduct just as much as the breeder if it is on the trial grounds. If he/she is entered in the test, file the complaint against them as well.


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

huntinman said:


> As someone said earlier, it takes two to tango. The stud owner is participating in the misconduct just as much as the breeder if it is on the trial grounds. If he/she is entered in the test, file the complaint against them as well.


maybe. Would need more details. What do you do if your the stud owner and she shows up with the bitch 
Without you knowing she was? What if you then sent your dog off with them in an effort to expedite the departure of the bitch you didn't know was coming and the person then proceeded to breed them on grounds without you knowing. 
I know that's a stretch but you never know.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

badbullgator said:


> maybe. Would need more details. What do you do if your the stud owner and she shows up with the bitch
> Without you knowing she was? What if you then sent your dog off with them in an effort to expedite the departure of the bitch you didn't know was coming and the person then proceeded to breed them on grounds without you knowing.
> I know that's a stretch but you never know.


If I'm the stud owner and someone shows up unannounced they are probably out of luck. Also, no one is taking my dog anywhere... Ever.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

badbullgator said:


> Rules only apply to people entered in the test. How do you purpose to enforce a rule against someone not playing the game?


That's not what the plain language of the rule says. As quoted earlier, it says bitches in season are ineligible to enter AND are not allowed on the grounds. So, bitches in season are not allowed on the grounds, period. 

More to the point of all this, there would not be a need for any of this discussion if common sense had been used by the person who brought the dog onto the grounds. A pro should certainly know better. I would also bet this pro would raise 9 kinds of he** if someone did this to her. 

If I were the owner of a male dog on her truck I'd be more than a little upset too.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Here are some of the questions that I would want answered. 

In as much as the AKC will not defend you in a law suit, is there a complainant and witnesses that are willing to get involved ?

Was the bitch on grounds accurately delineated by the HT committee *in the premium *in *advance* of the test as in fact being the HT grounds? Was the bitch checked by *someone qualified *to render a professional opinion? Was there actually a signed complaint ? No signature no complaint!!! Was the alleged violator a member in good standing of a member or sanctioned AKC club. Not a member you are pizzing up a rope!!! Was the alleged rule violator contacted about the matter in any manner by a member of the committee on the day of the infraction? Were they EVER contacted ? etc.,etc.

As far as common sense goes, I can cite numerous places where the rules fly in the face of common sense, but where the AKC is concerned, if you are bringing someone up on charges, it had better be about not following the rules.

john


----------



## HiRollerlabs (Jun 11, 2004)

From AKC's Dealing with Misconduct: Anyone can file a complaint alleging prejudicial conduct. Any such complaint alleging prejudicial conduct must be in writing. Anyone can write the complaint, provided it is signed by the complainant. No fee is required. When possible, written statements for the record should be obtained from all principals (complainant, accused, witnesses). Ordinarily, complaints must be filed with the Event Committee on the day the alleged prejudicial conduct occurs. Only in cases of extenuating circumstances, where conditions make it impossible or impractical to file complaints on the day of the event, will the Event Committee entertain a complaint received after the day of the occurrence of the alleged, prejudicial conduct. (Examples of such extenuating circumstances include incidents occurring after event hours, *incidents at locations away from event sites*, knowledge of the incident not being manifest until after the event, when members of the Event Committee cannot be located after or near the conclusion of an event, complainant being injured, family emergencies, or an injured dog needing immediate care.)


----------



## metalone67 (Apr 3, 2009)

I think the whole point of the original OP was missed.
Apparently the owner of the dog in heat was a high up in the club and it was his/her club that was hosting the test. Did she get special treatment from the club HTC because of who he/she is to the club and was allowed to do as they pleased.

IMO, if your dog is in heat keep your dumb ass home and these types of posts never happen. SMDH.

I'm pretty straight forward when I speak up and if I was running a male and this happened, I don't give a rats behind, they would have gotten a tongue lashing from me and then I would have created a pretty big stink about it. 

It's a big mistake to waste my money.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

What would y'all say if the bitch or the stud in question belonged to the owner of the grounds being used?


----------



## classact2731 (Apr 23, 2011)

Laws, rules and locks are for honest / honorable people to expect anything else would be naive.


----------



## mnadams (May 12, 2006)

classact2731 said:


> Laws, rules and locks are for honest / honorable people to expect anything else would be naive.


Now were making progress...! Not sure what is worse, the people who break those laws, rules, and locks or the people who attempt to justify those who do...?

A narcissistic society at its finest!!!!


----------



## metalone67 (Apr 3, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> What would y'all say if the bitch or the stud in question belonged to the owner of the grounds being used?


There would be an "All due respect" then a tongue lashing.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

metalone67 said:


> There would be an "All due respect" then a tongue lashing.


There are properties that I know of being used, where portions are used as "the grounds" and others have residences and/or buisnesses on them where the owner has justifyably reserved certain rights of access and use......

john


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

metalone67 said:


> There would be an "All due respect" then a tongue lashing.


There would be an all due respect get the F off my property, especially if I lived there.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

badbullgator said:


> There would be an all due respect get the F off my property, especially if I lived there.


If the test or trial in question was being held at Doublehaul's Retriever Farm and people started ranting about unsportsmanlike conduct charges on me for allowing a bitch to drop by and breed to my stud dog during the trial or test, that would be my response. Best of luck finding new trial and training grounds.


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> If the test or trial in question was being held at Doublehaul's Retriever Farm and people started ranting about unsportsmanlike conduct charges on me for allowing a bitch to drop by and breed to my stud dog during the trial or test, that would be my response. Best of luck finding new trial and training grounds.


You would have enough sense to do the breeding at a site away from the actual test and/or parking lot. Evidently the folks being discussed did not. 

Again, I know some folks have a problem with common sense, but it comes in handy every now and then.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

huntinman said:


> Again, I know some folks have a problem with common sense, but it comes in handy every now and then.


But think how boring RTF would be without our ranting and raving over what are generally very isolated incidents of folks not using common sense


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Might be worth mentioning and possibly discuss adding this on premiums; I've seen numerous AKC dog show premiums which clearly state the dogs not entered in the show shall not be permitted on the show grounds / facility. This keeps general joe public from bringing in dogs. They do this at the Quest Field venue for the big Seattle Kennel Club show all the way to shows at the local fairgrounds. 

It seems this policy and even just the wording on a premium would nip numerous potential issues in the bud.


----------



## metalone67 (Apr 3, 2009)

badbullgator said:


> There would be an all due respect get the F off my property, especially if I lived there.


Then that would show exactly the true nature of you and your thoughts on the rules and regs of a test.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> But think how boring RTF would be without our ranting and raving over what are generally very isolated incidents of folks not using common sense


Think about how much dicier it would be if we had all the facts!! ;-)


----------



## Dan Storts (Apr 19, 2011)

metalone67 said:


> Then that would show exactly the true nature of you and your thoughts on the rules and regs of a test.


Actually you should think your quote again unless you have the grounds to put on a trial. These grounds are very hard to get and those with the gold, as in banking, really make the rules.


----------



## MikeBoley (Dec 26, 2003)

Labs said:


> You must have never run a male dog at a test or training with a "in season" female around....if you have given up 70 bucks and failed a test and that was the reason, you would know why it's in place....


Did your male tell you that was the reason he failed the test?


----------



## jacduck (Aug 17, 2011)

mnadams said:


> Hit the nail on the head with this response. A whole society and generation that only cares about themselves. Who needs to have it "spelled out?' Common sense has left the building...!


And they VOTE!


----------



## badbullgator (Dec 20, 2004)

metalone67 said:


> Then that would show exactly the true nature of you and your thoughts on the rules and regs of a test.


So let me get this straight. I let a club use my land that I live on and I am supposed to take my bitch off my property because of it? I am going to guess you don't deal with land owners willing to let clubs use their land.


----------



## Backwater (Jul 10, 2013)

Be reasonable here, come on! If they are going to use my land and I have a bitch in heat, common curtesy I would make arragements to move my bitch to a friends for those days, Come on. This all started from someone breeding at a hunt test, how they heck did this get to this? Common sense, courtesy, respect, sportsmanship is all that should be needed. Pretty simple


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> Be reasonable here, come on! If they are going to use my land and I have a bitch in heat, common curtesy I would make arragements to move my bitch to a friends for those days, Come on. This all started from someone breeding at a hunt test, how they heck did this get to this? Common sense, courtesy, respect, sportsmanship is all that should be needed. Pretty simple


When a rancher drives through your test because he is out moving cows and the contestant gets an unfortunate interruption. is it wise to chastise the rancher? For those that say a land owner should remove his dog in season from the property If a trial is going on is ummmm errrr lacking in common sense IN my LCSNSHO. I think you should cancel the trial instead. This way you don't risk pissing off the land owner. Ask him when he thinks the dog will be out of season and reschedule the trial.


----------



## Labs (Jun 18, 2008)

MikeBoley said:


> Did your male tell you that was the reason he failed the test?


I don't run males...but have seen first hand at what a female in heat does to the mind of a male dog....


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

Labs said:


> I don't run males...but have seen first hand at what a female in heat does to the mind of a male dog....


It makes things fun. Seriously, though. Raise your hand if you have never run a test or trial that had a bitch in season on the grounds? I can pretty much guarantee that it happens to me a couple of times a season and my little perverts *always* running right behind. Of course, I don't condone running bitches in season but bringing a dog to the line doing that teeth chattering thing is something you have to deal with.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Well, we're at 100 posts now and still don't even know WHAT the he!! happened, if anything. It's all just gossip until you produce some facts.

I, for one, would like to know at least WHERE and WHEN this alleged incident occurred. I get a feeling from the location of some of the posters that this may have been in my neighborhood. I would like to go to the horses' mouth(s) and get the real story ... all sides ... so I could form a fair opinion rather than listen to a bunch of Denny Crane wannabes engage in a bunch of internet legality what-ifs.

JS


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Backwater said:


> Be reasonable here, come on! If they are going to use my land and I have a bitch in heat, common curtesy I would make arragements to move my bitch to a friends for those days, Come on. This all started from someone breeding at a hunt test, how they heck did this get to this? Common sense, courtesy, respect, sportsmanship is all that should be needed. Pretty simple


Traditionally, I'd guess many grounds are tied to a business. Often a training kennel and a boarding kennel. Do you expect those two entities to remove all dogs which are in season as determined by a vet? Don't think that will ever happen. My bitch has been in season during multiple tests. (I live on grounds which support about 6-8 HT/s and 2 FT's a year)She's locked up enough as it is during that time. I try to make a point to air the dog in an unused area although, there is no way I'm removing the dog from my home when a trial/test shows up.


----------

