Good feedback overall.

I think it is a really fine line to put forth a set of rules that is adaptable to the needs of so many complex situations that arise, and getting them so detailed that they end up not beng followed.. These rules are a good attempt at that. I will offer some commentary on each point of your feedback Jack.

#2. In general, I think your suggestion is certainly a best practice, but in reality many shows go down knowing that qualified, reputable people will be pitside that can serve as a mutually agreed upon referee. In fact, not knowing who it is before hand may in and of itself prevent foul play in some cases. I like leaving it open, because invariably if you do not, this will be a point that fanciers deviate on anyhow.

#3. Again, certainly a best practice, but perhaps not always feasable as a "thou shalt" type of rule.

#4. That is actually good input, with which I strongly agree. I would be in favor of amending the rule to add that.

#9. I know what the original Cajun Rules said in reference to a count, but in the scores of shows I have attended, nobody actually uses the rules that way. In general a full 10 count is given for the dog to go and mouth the dog. This is one of the many points that needed clarification in a revised set of rules.

#10/11. I know what you are saying with these two, but "Draw" simply means too many different things in today's world. Two dogs that sniffed each other's asses simultaneously at the 15 minute mark could be a "draw", just like the two who went deep and then stopped. Yes, a contest took place, but not one where gameness was the hallmark of the contest. It was my intent at the time to distinguish between dogs that quit (no contest) and game dogs that under a few possible circumstances did not win or lose, but left the show with the honor of a game dog. In reality, I do not think we can change the semantics of the fancy, so I probably should modify that. At the time I wrote those I felt strongly about a distinction between quitting draws and game draws.

12. I agree with not abusing the system ( I saw the aforementioned show), but I think for safety of the handlers fanged dogs need to be parted. "Referee's decision is final in all matters" carries a lot of weight and perhaps should be added to ths set of rules in Rule 2. In your example, a good ref should call BS, but then again if there is no protestation from the other handler, why should he?. Certainly the other handler has an obligation to his charge to safeguard him from getting pummelled needlessly. This example you presented Jack is a matter of good and poor handling, "unfanging" was merely the vehicle that was used.

13. Why? nothing means nothing unless it is permitted. I see what you mean about a third party gambler though. Perhaps getting rid of the foul piece altogether helps, but then again so does adding "referee's decision is final in all matters". Clearly judgement needs to be utlilized about what the intent of an unauthorized something coming into or leaving the pit.

Overall, I feel like these rules go a long ways to clarify things not covered in the several sets of rules that are called "Cajun", and also promote spotsmanship and fair play beyond any others I have seen.