I think all parkershill is trying to say is that they may not have hidden the fact that he was crossbred, but they sure didnt readily point it out. Thats all... nothing to argue about.

_________________
Myspace.com/dixiediesel712

Join the forum today and remove this ad!

Dixiebellediesel for taking up for me. It just weren't right is all I'm saying. and they knew it weren't right.

_________________
it's not the destination but the journey

Well really there just aint no use in fighting a battle here thats already been fought elsewhere. No use in getting kicked out or hurting anyones feelins over stuff that we cant change.

I personally think hes a beautiful dog, the fact that hes mixed doesnt change the fact that hes a hound. Thats what we all should focus on.

yeah, I have no debate that he is a good looking hound. I have no debate that he trees the fire outa coons. It is correct as you say that any debate over the way it was handled is settled. I hate the fact that folks are breeding to him and registering those dogs as purebreed dogs, That's just as wrong as him getting registered as purebred.

Are you sure about any of that?

The picture sent to UKC, as part of the process, showed a dog with no white on its chest. His feet were hidden in the grass. Almost any other pictures of the dog show a palm sized white patch. Somebody said it was the lighting. Light doesn't change white to brown and its odd there would be faulty lighting on the ONE picture where the dog was being judged on his color, now isn't it?

UKC does not set the single registration requirements. Their chartered, B&T Assoc. does that. UKC does not generally assign the inspector, either. That makes it handy for them to avoid responsibility and liability.

To know if anything was done wrong, you have to know what the single reg. requirements are. The white patch on the chest is clearly larger than allowed in the rules. The white toenail and white stripe under the chin, that seldom show up in pictures, are additional proof.

UKC didn't change any single reg. policies. But the B&T Assoc. tightened up their rules, considerably. Now why would they do that, if they felt nothing wrong was done and it didn't need to be prevented in the future? I was in the meeting where those rules were tightened up. I know there was no doubt in anybody's mind what the reason was behind these new rules.

We can hope for the best and assume that perhaps it was an honest mistake? Maybe a man that had dealt with B&T's for decades is like alot of folks and just did not know the single reg. rules were? Or, maybe he felt the dog was borderline enough to deserve a try?

Regardless, what do honest people do when they make a mistake? Every honest person I know will admit when they made a mistake and try their best to correct it and make things right. Thats not happened and not likely to.

But it is all water under the bridge. As someone said, its not the first time something like this happened and it probably won't be the last time. But I do believe honest people deserve to know and want to know the truth and thats my only reason for speaking up.

My only question is if the big scandel is out, cant they just withdraw the dog from the UKC or something? Or am I trying to make this way more simple than it can be?

John D is jealous, John D is jealous, John D is jealous. And most of the rest of ya'll don't know what you are talking about. Please tell me how you think the Youngs were trying to hide anything. They sent the reg. in showing the sire was a walker.

Omg this is so immature and petty... Im out... this thread would be better to be deleted. At least John D and even others on your side are presenting their arguments in a civilized and well researched manner...Trying to put other people down is only making you look bad.

JIm Wigley telling people they don't know what they are talking about is the pot calling the kettle black. Does ANYBODY think he saw the reg. that was sent in? No, the B&T Assoc. does not run their single registration by Jim Wigley. Everyone, grab a UKC pedigree of your dog. Does it list the breed of the sire of your dog? No, it does not. Wigley does not know the rules.

The dog being half walker is beside the point, anyway. It was never against the rules to single register a crossbreed or mixed breed as a B&T. It has ALWAYS been against the rules to single register a B&T with that much white.






No, thats a good question. The B&T Assoc. president asked for the papers to be given up, but they were not and any further action appearred like it was going to take legal action.

Ok how long ago did this happen. I mean is this legal battle still going on? I mean I assume so seeing as some people are still wanting to breed to him... which makes no sense but I was just wondering when this happened... its very intriguing to me.

I also appreciate you being civil in these manners, it is a breath of fresh air.

John D. you seem like you know a lot about this issue. I appreciate an individual who can debate an issue intelligently.

Thanks, I appreciate it. My skin has gotten thicker, since all this happened, thats for sure. I'm more than willing to let it all go, but as long as there are people that will speak up with misinformation, then I have every right to speak up with the correct information.

I believe Hardrock was single registered in about Sept. of 2002 or 2003, I'm not sure which. A few mos. later his picture was published on PKC's website, showing a huge patch of white on his chest and thats when I first recall that people started questioning the circumstances of his single registration.

There is and was no legal battle going on that I am aware of. I apologize if I made it sound that way. The B&T Association requested that Tam young voluntarily give up Hardrock's UKC papers. He refused, and threatened to sue them if they tried to revoke the papers. The B&T Association sought legal advice over the situation and did not pursue the issue any further, as far as I know.