Mr.pacojack wrote:You know what really amazes me with you guys is that you are so hung up on looks. You are basing everything on looks and building a breed on looks. .
I think you may be missing a key point in all of this.. Its an opportunity to look at the history of what we do.. where our dogs come from..
A man finds a dog that surpasses expectations and works game unlike anything he's seen.. Many people would leave well-enough alone. Say,"hot damn I'm a lucky man" and breed her to a good male hoping to get some more like her.. Instead we find a guy who sees the potential and asks questions like.. "Why" "How" & "Where did it all start??" was it some lucky guy 2 generations earlier who said "hot damn!" or was it deliberate? If deliberate, then how did they do it? And if they could do it.. why can't we? Ultimately: If so many Sugar Creek dogs were so highly respected, then
how can one revive this line to produce more like it? Who cares what they look like as long as they are catching big game and doing it time and time again?
-Again... Do we just leave well-enough alone and say "good 'nough, they can do it!" Or do we ask more questions.. Here's where the "Looks" question comes into play because when the questions were being asked and the backtrack ended.. it ended at Bill Green and the Lee Brothers.. and it ended with a little bit of vauge documentation and a whole lot of pictures.. if Harry O. Smith contributed great success of his dogs to Bill Green, then I'd say it is a huge step in the direction of backtracking.
I think you're right on.. who cares about looks.. but I think it is the respect of hounds and hopes to get back something that is all but lost in the SC line that brought it to this point.. Anyone can correct me if I'm wrong.. But when I see the Sugar Creek blood in my blue dog's pedigree.. I love getting on here and seeing what more I can find out about his roots... I love the answeres to the "why" "who" and "how".
