BigGameHoundsmen.com

http://forums.ukcdogs.com/newreply.php? ... id=1260213

Originally posted by todd kellam
I really like this idea and I don't see why we shouldn't be able to get it done. Obviously the inspection process will be more time consuming but if the western houndsmen are willing to take the time to inspect dogs, and we can come up with basic criteria, I can't see why the Chartered Breed Associations wouldn't go for it?

If there ends up being a shortage of inspectors, here's what we do. UKC sends me out there for a week during bear season and a week during lion season. Oh, and I'll need a week in the Northeast to hunt with Pete and that group. I probably should make a trip to the southwest also. Yes, that's only an extra month that I would have to be out of the office. Should work. lol

Seriously, I'll take this topic to the Breed Association's Presidents Meeting at Autumn Oaks and present it. If it passes, we'll start working on outlining the basic requirements necessary to pass inspection.

Can we get a whoohooo Got to thank Todd on that one!

Interesting..

I was told that I could tree a bobcat, cougar or Bear and it would be good for single registration.. but the dog had to do it alone.

I think if I had to use only that one dog, I never did single register(basically because it didn't really matter to me) but I was thinking it would be easier for me to catch a coon, than to try and catch a Bear, bobcat with only one hound Remember you'll have a Judge with you looking over your shoulder.. I don't know about you guys, but I can't catch anything as soon as there is someone to witness or verify my story!! ,

Buddy

I had my two walker single registered this past year. It had to be a coon. And for my dogs who see maybe 6 coons a year.. it would have been much easier them to be single registered off of a bobcat. We got it done, but it was a long night.... Yep for my dogs a cat would have been easier.. I had to take mine out of state to do it (the dogs should have been registered but never were) They hunted in something they weren't used to from coons that liked to run My poor dogs were tore up by the time they were done...

I like it so I can keep track of any breeding I do. I like to know what is behind my dogs so I can see if I can kinda duplicate what I like.. So the dingle registration can come in handy...

Buddyw wrote:Interesting..

I was told that I could tree a bobcat, cougar or Bear and it would be good for single registration.. but the dog had to do it alone.

,

That may not be the case.Todd is taking suggestions on how to handle this(I and a few others have been talking to him for a while now) No need to jump the gun.I feel certain if the breed assos can be talked into it something fesible can be worked out for the inspection process.It may take awhile but at least UKC is taking notice of big game hounds

that's right, I'm all for it, I know several people that trash break off of Coons and have better dogs than I do.

I just remember I was given that option. to tree cats or bears for single registration.. Of course I never did anything with it... I think it's a great option.

Maybe I was told something wrong? or people or were starting to take note of Big Game hunters.. I don't want to get anyone in trouble that's why I'm not throwing any names out there..

I'll be the first to admit, I know little to nothing about UKC stuff.

what are u guys talking about ?? u lost me at UKC ???

Todd Kellam has took the bull by the horns to see what type of program he can put together to recognize big game bred hounds. He has been working with several fellas going back and fourth brain storming to try and find an inspection process that would work for those hounds that are not of registered parents. This would not be a pack inspection or pack registration.

It would be a totally different category then UKC coonhounds. Similar to the cur program in some respect with theiir own program. Not that is would be a seperate registry just would not be considered coonhounds.

This is just ground breaking stuff there is soo much work that has to be done yet that it will not happen over night. Frankly I am surprised that any of this was even mentioned soo soon, the group was asked to keep it under raps.

Spanky wrote: Frankly I am surprised that any of this was even mentioned soo soon, the group was asked to keep it under raps.

Me to Scott guess things just got rollinfaster than expected

"Not that is would be a seperate registry just would not be considered coonhounds."

Spanky, I think they will still be considered coonhounds, and registered as such, they will just be evaluated based on their target game , not coons.

your correct bowhunter I stand corrected, my apologies.

I mis-understood the e-mail conversations with Todd and others as looking to better recognize the big gamers with a form of registration. Never thought they would mix the two registries. I never thought they would single register a big game hound of unknown origin into the ukc database and breed bloodlines.

Having an individual produce a piece of paper with 14 hand written ancestors on an honor code will only hurt the breed standards. Yes the hound will be inspected for breed standards and yes the hound willl be tested but if you have been around the block more then once you know many big gamers breed best to the best with no regard to breed. How many mixed breed hounds have you seen that look like a bluetick or english when in reality it could be a walker crossed on a black and tan? How many redbone black and tans come out looking like Black and tans? What breed does it get put into?

Who determines that the actual pedigree is true and not a bunch of mixed breed crosses? What will that do to the purity of a breed once crossed back and fourth several times? Is UKC trying to rejuvinate the breeds bloodlines because they are loosing there abilities?

My opinion is we need a big game registry not a combonation of the two.....not an impossible task the cur breeders have been doing it for years.

spanky- i guess that i agree with you --sorta , slightly-

-for example -i dont want to see a half blutick half walker -- registered as a walker-or as a blutick either
i dont want somebody to pick up a pound hound and make up a pedigree for it--

if people want to cheat lot simpler for them to swap papers -
that isnt a new thing -

i have no problem with anybody registering a 7/8 walker as a walker -- as long as the other 1/8 is hound- i dont think thats much different than what we have now -- like todd said ---labs are 80% lab-- lol

they should have to show that this dog is a product of a few generations of good dogs -that met breed standards--
-lets see some pictures of his parents-- grandparents - make it tough-- let the best in -- if one grandparent is of another breed , state that on pedigree- --this could be done without much risk of contaminating anything-- hard to tell the difference between english , walker s or blues---papered or not-- whats a light bluetick , a ticked up walker- or a tan and white dog --- how bout a calico or white eared bozo dog-- my point is -- we aint so pure now-- and this isnt going to change that one way or the other -


the HOW to do it--to make sure only good dogs are let in is the hard part -- cattle breeds had a program--- certified grade??-- after several generations they get full registration - never hurt a thing because grade cattle were selected and culled harder-
dogs no different -

we already have something llike that now with single registration , then pr dogs - then all grand- lol

i can remember when pr wasnt so common-

todd said breeds werent pure till some point in time and i asked him when that time was--

im not so sure we have reached that time--

breeds have changed -- because the majority have been bred for nitehunts -- dogs bred for big game-- probably havent changed as much-

have seen some great big game dogs --come from competition lines--
they are not all just hot nose , pop up , slick treeing etc-- some of them have some real fire and thats why they win- and also why they can make big game dogs
i think it would be a mistake to seperate breeds any farther -- let the breeders and hunters seperate them - not the registry -

ok


heres my big card

The main stay of any successful kennel is a solid foundation and pedigree. Groom Creek Kennels has tried to stay within the old bloodlines of the late great hounds like Hardwood Bozo, River Bend Flag, Finley River Chief, House's Chief, Waltz's Fancy, and Sis. These hounds have helped shape the walker breed 25+ years ago and will show in most of the great walkers of today.....

chief was out of johnsons banjo that was outa 2 single registered mutts- lol - THE FOUNDATION OF OUR BREED IS SINGLE REGISTERED DOGS -or dogs with them very close

whats changed - all we got now--- is what was let in then-- breed only changes thru selection and culling -- right now , nite hunts are it-- as far as the majority -- but big game guys selecting for something just a little different - we may have to let some in--in self defence lol

this is walker country round here - - a big reason is a dog john proud bought that was out of houses chief- (sophie)-- i know thats dinosaur days but it really isnt a long time -walkers blues english really are a brand new breed as far as breeds go

purebred is kind of a relative term - i can still tell my dogs apart-- so i dont think they are purebred-- lol

like bearhunter said-- i disagree with ya-- dont mean i disrespect ya-- i just think this is fairly important issue- i know you do too- -

when u asked people to vote on coonhound board-- the gloves are off-

your turn lol

spanky- i guess that i agree with you --sorta , slightly

for example -i dont want to see a half blutick half walker -- registered as a walker-or as a blutick either
i dont want somebody to pick up a pound hound and make up a pedigree for it --

i have no problem with anybody registering a 7/8 walker as a walker -- as long as the other 1/8 is hound

I could not agree more with that entire statement Pete but my problem comes with the system in place right now that does not prevent your statement of i dont want to see a half blutick half walker -- registered as a walker-or as a blutick either

I know the coonhunters do not want to see that either that is why I will use whatever resources available including the UKC coonhound forum to poll against the sytem the way it is

Fix the system first and then you will get my outspoken support

Spanky wrote:

spanky- i guess that i agree with you --sorta , slightly

for example -i dont want to see a half blutick half walker -- registered as a walker-or as a blutick either
i dont want somebody to pick up a pound hound and make up a pedigree for it --

i have no problem with anybody registering a 7/8 walker as a walker -- as long as the other 1/8 is hound

I could not agree more with that entire statement Pete but my problem comes with the system in place right now that does not prevent your statement of i dont want to see a half blutick half walker -- registered as a walker-or as a blutick either

I know the coonhunters do not want to see that either that is why I will use whatever resources available including the UKC coonhound forum to poll against the sytem the way it is

Fix the system first and then you will get my outspoken support

Spanky, that is the reason the B&T Association changed their Single Registration requirements --------- TN Hardrock ....... Half Walker/Half B&T..after that incident, changes were made to prevent this from happening again. Witht the proof of a 3 generation pedigree needed, it has really tightened down on the single registration holes.

In the Feb Issue of Bloodlines there was a Stud Dog ad that had alot of people asking questions.

The Stud was an English but his sire was a Walker.............The English stud was a product of single registering.

Fix the system first and then you will get my outspoken support


ill try --- lol let me at em--