[oldftdog]

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]

WOW....Steve S

 

[Jay Dufour]

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

 

[CRNAret]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Howard N]

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

X2 Don't forget the pictures.

 

[Eric Johnson]

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]

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.

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