ibrobiinhood
UKC Forum Member
Registered: Apr 2014
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 235 |
Does color really define the breed or did our roots define the breed? Could it be that the title Redbone has nothing to do with the color but rather the last name of a breeder. Say something like Peter Redbone and the orginal color of the breed was with a black saddleback. With alittle more study one can see that our roots were built around hunting stock and not show stock. Back to our roots....In the late 18th century, many European-type hunting dogs were imported to America, most of them of Scottish, French, English, and Irish ancestry: the English Foxhound, the Harrier, the Grand Bleu de Gascogne, the Welsh Hound, the Beagle, and the Bloodhound were among these. Most often, these dogs were imported so that wealthy planters of the Tidewater could engage in foxhunting. Over time, Southern hunters selectively bred dogs that would not back down, had great stamina, and would "hound" their prey until they treed or cornered their exhausted quarry, leading to modern coonhounds. I wonder if the English Foxhound, the Harrier, the Grand Bleu de Gascogne, the Welsh Hound, the Beagle and Bloodhound are a particular color to meet a breed standard.
Again, breeding for a particular color is great for the breed. Something to strive for. But again, the study of our roots seems to me that color wasn't what we were striving for. UKC didn't take on the role of registering our dogs in 1902 based on color. They took it on to see what crosses were being made amongst HOUNDSMEN and not showmen.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
01-30-2017 07:17 PM
