Looks over Ability

[bearcat]

I definitly say ability, but looks and conformation are such a personal preference, that we could argue over what a good looking dog or good conformation is all day. I know what I like to see in a dog, and none of the dogs that majestic posted pictures of have anything like what I would call good conformation, but obviously he would. I'll be the first to admit that I am a speed freak and want the fastest dogs out there, so I like my dogs to be built like a good foxhound, and in the 40-50 lb range because that size gets around the best in the rougher ground that I hunt. Yea I've seen some bigger dogs that could really get around but a lot of it was heart and drive, they just took a lot more punishment to try and stay up with the 45 lb hound. I have never heard that long eared dogs did better in the heat before, that might be true, but long eared hounds tend to be bigger, heavierbuilt dogs, and big heavybuilt dogs don't handle the heat as well, so maybe if you had the same built dog with long ears it would handle the heat better, but I'll take the tighterbuilt smaller dog if ability is equal.
All that being said I'll say to me looks is just like mouth, as one of the walker brothers said when asked what kind of mouth he liked on a dog; "The one that's in the lead six hours into the race usually sounds pretty good to me."

[Hunter]

It's like the old saying... Some people would rather look good and loose as to look bad and win.

[Badlandcat]

They have to have both, and yes they are out there.

[BlueJohn]

Looks and ability go hand in hand. I dog that's off in its geometry will not be able to run a track for 3 days. A hound with short ears won't be able to cold trail as well. Other traits, like a sway back will produce a shorter life span or health problems that affect performance down the road a few years.

The general rule in breeding should be keep what you have that's good and discard or modify what you have that's not good. The way to keep what you have is line breeding. If you breed an offspring to a parent you'll get as close to the same genes as possible. Sibling to sibling (brother to sister) gives substantially less of the same genes. Offspring carry 50% of a parent's genes. Siblings share only about 25% of the same genes with each other, so the breeding is less stable. Outcrosses (unrelated animals) should be done sparingly and judiciously. It should only be used when your breeding program lacks a particular trait completely, or when it consistently throws a fault you don't want. Because of genetic dominance, the offspring of an outcross will be fairly consistent. If you breed those offspring together you will get some very unpredictable results.

We started with a great bench and comp hunting line, but we didn't like the fact that our dogs didn't look very traditionally "bluetick". We wanted a houndier looking dog with the same performance. So we outcrossed one time to a pure big game line that had as much old-time houndiness as we could find. We got lucky. What we got was exactly what we were after. Now our job is to line breed and cull. The offspring are tearing up the bench world, and those that have gone to hunters are said to be very good hunters, and have no fear and no off switch.

The main problem with breeding for looks only is the bench show. Breeders will breed to whatever standard the judges will reward. If the judges are going on looks alone, and not performance then you tend to get animals that can't properly function. Human nature is to prefer the most extreme levels of a "good" trait. That's how we get bulldogs that can't give birth without help, cats that can't breathe because their faces are too short, and Irish setters that can't hunt. That's why I like UKC. It keeps the breeders honest by requiring performance to go along with looks. Yes, my blueticks are registered and shown in AKC too, but I'll never breed specifically for the AKC standard.