ov_blues
UKC Forum Member
Registered: Feb 2007
Location: Pomeroy, Ohio
Posts: 2835 |
Re: Big country
quote:
Originally posted by BluBritches
I have not hunted with him personally
I'm sure it's not all hype he gets talked about by hound hunters everywhere so there must be plenty there to go on I hate using a specific dog as an example and mean no disrespect in any way
Not looking to start a heated debate on this one but what's your honest opinion
Is big country MORE likely to produce "big name winners" than his littermates
Males and females and if so WHY
I'm not promoting Big Country per se, but using him as an example that there are blue dogs born that have the traits to compete with the other breeds. Obviously any of them have to be handled correctly and promoted but he has proved the tools are there in a blue hide. There could be others out there that have been born but either not handled, aka trained, right or not been exposed to the hunts. I do believe that if a dog has the right tools, and are discovered by the right person, they will eventually be exposed to the hunts because there are enough people out there with enough money to get something bought.
Now as far as breeding, these are my thoughts. I've been around blue dogs and breeding blue dogs for as long as I can remember and I'm almost 55. My Dad bought his first blue dog in 1952 and I still have a dog that goes back to that female. At some points, when Dad was alive and we were both in it full swing, we had dogs that were ours thruout up to a 7 generation pedigree. Only some long term bluetick hunters knew my Dad or me but we bred our own dogs, went out and bred in what we, mostly Dad, felt we might need to improve our dogs, and yes most were PR dogs. Saying all of that to just say I've been there and done that and seen a few things over the years. Although years ago I felt I could compete with my best dogs against anything, when I took a break because of life situations when I got the chance to get back into hunting regularly I saw that things had changed and the style of dog it took to compete had changed. I realized that to catch back up would take too long internally as breeding dogs from papers only, even for a couple of generations, had not worked. I have always seen that breeding the best from the litters to the best of other litters, or to an outside stud, produced the best pups. The B side of the litter to the B side of another litter, even with the same genetics behind it, never matched up as well in the long run. Mainly, in my opinion, due to the fact that after breeding for years, knowing aunts, uncles, grandparents, littermates, etc, I could pinpoint who an individual pup reminded me of. If you get something bad bred in, it takes longer to breed it out than it did to get it in. So, can a littermate throw just as good of a pup as a better littermate, yes, but will the weaker littermate show up in offspring on down the road, yes, so sticking with the cream of the crop is the best option. Also, to think that a person in todays world can consistantly breed superior hounds without going outside ones back yard to get some genetic help somewhere else is a low percentage endeavor in my opinion. If the bluetick guys would continually strive to breed our best of the best together we would see dramatic improvements in the breed in a short amount of time. Put the winners like Piazon with the Echo/Bodacious/Bocephus/Big Country, Pounder, Boomer, maybe John Gill bred dogs as an example and we'd make some headway quick.
__________________
John Smith
Ohio Valley Bluetick Kennel
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
02-04-2020 11:49 PM
