BigGameHoundsmen.com

i know this subject has been talked about a million times so im not going to bring it up. i have a different question. I read that the bigger dogs might not last as long due to joints and stuff wearing out because of the weight of the dogs. But then again i was thinking that if the dogs legs are longer, body is bigger than probably his joints are bigger too. I always loved the big hounds and wanted a couple of BIG dogs just because i hunt coons and probably dont need all the speed and stuff like you guys need.

and my bluetick x walker female i weighed today was 60 lbs no fat at all and has allot of muscle but she is small theres nothing to her. so im confused the way everyone talks on here a 60 lb female would be a giant but really she,s skinny as a rail and doesnt look anything big.

DO the bigger dogs really were out faster? Thats really my question. im not talking like 100lb fatass dogs i mean like 80 lbs long legged with allot of muscle?

I think that it all depends on how they are cared for. a bigger dog is going to have to have a little more conditioning so it doesn't get weaker in the joints. I always look at my dogs as athletes and compare how they are doing compared to humans in they way they are fed and trained. I don't "road" my dogs, when they need to be exercised I go to the hills. Almost anyone can out run me in 100 yards but I can out walk alot of people when it comes to canyons and rocks. that is how my dogs are getting too.
JMO

Proportion Means Everything when Building Large Hounds !!

Everything in their Conformation Height/Body weight/Leg Build and Feet Size ..

If their build in the Correct Proportion to a 45# Hound, A Issue of Longevity is'nt relitive .

What is Gained is Stride, Jumping Distance and a Whole Different Demand of Respect By the Game being chased .. Bear act totaly different to a 29"- 100# Hound then they do to a 23"-25"-60# Hound .. I've seen it in Wild chases and at Live Bear Bays ..

Several Times at Eddies Bear Bay in Cowpens SC .. 3 smaller hounds Baying the Bear and even had alittle contact and the Bear stayed in the Creek and acted prit much Undisturbed ..

When 3 Large Hounds were Baying him and even with no Contact the Bear left the Creek and Headed for the Tree and the hounds were cought off ..

If the hound is built right it won't really matter what size they are. The advantage to smaller hounds is based more on economic than anything you can feed two smaller hounds to one large hound. There still are some big hounds out there getting the job done that live good long lives. other than feed costs the other factor that you might consider is that their size means it will take them a bit longer to mature physically as well as mentally if none of that bothers you then go for it.

sourdough

I haven't had bad luck with bigger hounds. I have had a couple that were built very well but weighed in at almost 70 lbs. Most of my dogs have been between 40 and 55 lbs. Although the bigger dogs were great dogs to own and surely earned their feed they did drop out of the harder races a little earlier than the smaller dogs. I didn't get the hunting years out of them either. One was done at 7 years old (he got cancer-which is unrelated) and the other was pretty well done by 8 1/2. They both stayed in pretty good shape all their hunting years. The other smaller built dogs were hunted into their early teens. I did enjoyed those dogs and they had their advantages but they had to work a lot harder from time to time. When they got into an area where they could stretch out, they could really close ground.

Depends on the dog and the game you hunt.

i've had several large hounds i have a 70 lb black and tan female thats 11 and in her younger days she was awesome but as age has caught up with her she gets down in her back end easier and knots keep popping up on her and in cold weather you can't run her at all. my opinion of it is this even with proper conditioning as age and weight takes a toll on a larger dog down the road they will degenerate at a faster rate than a smaller dog. i like a smaller dog in general though seem to be faster and gets through the tough places much easier. seem to make it from point a to point b much easier and less winded and get hurt alot less. they eat less to lol.

OO BUCK wrote:i know this subject has been talked about a million times so im not going to bring it up. i have a different question. I read that the bigger dogs might not last as long due to joints and stuff wearing out because of the weight of the dogs. But then again i was thinking that if the dogs legs are longer, body is bigger than probably his joints are bigger too. I always loved the big hounds and wanted a couple of BIG dogs just because i hunt coons and probably dont need all the speed and stuff like you guys need.

and my bluetick x walker female i weighed today was 60 lbs no fat at all and has allot of muscle but she is small theres nothing to her. so im confused the way everyone talks on here a 60 lb female would be a giant but really she,s skinny as a rail and doesnt look anything big.

DO the bigger dogs really were out faster? Thats really my question. im not talking like 100lb fatass dogs i mean like 80 lbs long legged with allot of muscle?

With all things being equal the bigger dogs will last longer in most hunts. Their size allows them to cover more ground and use less energy in a chase. It is just that usually all things with dogs aren't equal. Some have better confirmation or are in better shape or conditioned better.

ok i respect your opinion but i will choose to disagree. ok compare it this way i'm 6' 2" 190 and you put me beside a man 6' 6" 250. both of us in excellent health and built to move and in shape. i'm gonna smoke him anyday of the week. longer he carries that weight the more tired he's gonna get. same with a dog in my opinion. perfect example again. littermate female and male turned loose and hunted side by side he has 3" and 10lbs on her and she will smoke him the majority of the time. in open country maybe a big dog can cruise but in steep and thick terrain i'm going to preffer a smaller dog.

I have seen little dogs out eat big dogs. I have seen big dogs get out run by little dogs. I have seen little dogs get out lasted by big dogs. I have seen big dogs unafected by harsh winter temps. I have seen little dogs shrivel up and die when left out in the cold winter nights. I have seen little dogs get swallowed up by deep winter snow. There is definitely advantages to both types big and small. I prefer the one that makes the most trees...

Its kinda of Strange watching the World Coon Hunt that some of the Really Large Walkers have Won the Hunt often ..

Bellers Big "D" was 92# and the Hound that really out hunted them all that year was Shelton's Hammer at 28" tall and 94# at the time of the Hunt ..

I have tried to breed to Shelton's Hammer but he lost a Testical when I went to breed to him and his Sperm count was in the Ditch ..

I have BooHoo ed the Coon Hounds but The World Hunt is a True Test of lots of hunting time and Consistent winning to get in the Final Cast !!

Majestic Tree Hound wrote:I have BooHoo ed the Coon Hounds but The World Hunt is a True Test of lots of hunting time and Consistent winning to get in the Final Cast !!

You are kidding, right Steve? A 2 hour hunt sure would not a "True Test" of a hounds ablitly to me.

Devin Your Right but its alot more than a just a 2 hour hunt ..
Getting too that 2 hour hunt is the tough part ..

But most of all you would think the Smaller Hound get gone to the track and tree would dominate over a larger Hound .. But theirs Been alot of Big hounds that got it done

I have played that game before and have seen alot of junk dogs that should have been culls, win a damn night hunt, just because they had a slick handler, and move on and sire alot of pups.
In the biggame world those dogs would have been worm food before they ever got to those 2 hour hunts.
I think you picked a very poor example.

plottpappaw wrote:ok i respect your opinion but i will choose to disagree. ok compare it this way i'm 6' 2" 190 and you put me beside a man 6' 6" 250. both of us in excellent health and built to move and in shape. i'm gonna smoke him anyday of the week. longer he carries that weight the more tired he's gonna get. same with a dog in my opinion. perfect example again. littermate female and male turned loose and hunted side by side he has 3" and 10lbs on her and she will smoke him the majority of the time. in open country maybe a big dog can cruise but in steep and thick terrain i'm going to preffer a smaller dog.

proportionally you would have to be 237 to be compared to a 250lb man at 250 6-6"

or the 6-6 man would have to be approx 200lbs?? (I think this is right)

its all about proportions. a big dog can move faster and further all things being equal last longer .

A small dogs will be quicker in tight places and easier to handle not to mention faster to mature.

compare salukis or greyhounds to whippets . look at horses or triathalets its all the same.

its horses for courses .

There are alot of good points made in this dicussion but I have to generally agree with pappaw. I have owned dogs of all sizes from 30-80lbs and I prefer a medium size dog that is well built but the size of a dogs heart will always will be a big factor, after all what good is a perfect size, perfect build without the heart. I realize that is not really the topic at hand here but I just thought I would throw it in since no one else had. Now to my real reason for posting this is that I am disturbed by antiBCmans chosen name and his statement "bow down fools ect........." what kind of childish BS is that. I barely know Steve Herd, don't own any dogs from him and don't have any reason to think that there aren't great dogs from the Nabek line but blatent disrespect for one another is less than counterproductive. To act as if a line of dogs that has been used successfully on all types of game for decades is worthless and some other line is superior in every way shows a degree of childish ignorance I have rarely encountered. Whoever wrote this may find that a Bluff Creek dog may just have a dominant trait that could help balance the genetics in thier current line of dogs but that will never be a factor as long as the closed minded "my daddy can beat up your daddy" mindset continues. I am not a cronie to anyone I have owned plotts from all kinds of different lines as well as a little bluetick bitch that is almost 2 and giving all of my young plotts a serious run for thier money for a permanent place in my pack. Way I see it every decent strain of dogs I have hunted with could offer something to someone it's just a matter of whether you need those traits in your pack at the time or not. Lets just say that hunter X has a dog that can trail a 3 year old track but can't run a jumped track very fast, hunter Y has dogs that can run a bear from Idaho to Wisconsin in an afternoon without slipping a pad, that is to say as long as it's a sight race all the way cause they can't trail a five minute old track the day after a rain in 55 degree weather. Seems to me they would be best off to cross these two lines as opposed to continue to breed within thier own lines, but this will never happen if X is still mad at Y for throwing sand in his eyes back in kindergarden. If Gunner was drooling on anything in his time it was dead bears in all the pics I ever saw, or maybe you weren't around when a working man's annual salary was paid for him. He may not have been any better than alot of other dogs but the fact that he impressed someone is quite clear, that is if you know the facts. My point is that despite innumerable attempts nobody has ever elevated themselves by putting somebody else down period. Let's have a little respect for one another, here's to Bouncer and Bouncer or maybe you weren't around then.You can take this like a man or if you would like I can stop by with my six year old son next summer and you two can settle it, that is if you have a good sand box in the back yard.