Rhodesian Ridgebacks
-
Cole H Willams
- Silent Mouth
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:37 pm
- Location: Montana
- Location: livingston Montana
Rhodesian Ridgebacks
dont know if this is the right spot to ask this question but does anybody know how coldnosed Rhodesian Ridgebacks are?
-
doghunter
- Tight Mouth
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:37 am
- Location: Florida
- Location: Florida
Re: Rhodesian Ridgebacks
full blooded they are site dogs. I tried to use a number on hogs and none had a nose. but we crossed them with a lepoard Catahola and got a dog that looked like a lepaord but the hair down his back went the wrong way. these dogs did good on cow and hog hunting but none were track dogs.
if i am not mistaken they were breed to hunt lion;s in africa by site.
if i am not mistaken they were breed to hunt lion;s in africa by site.
Re: Rhodesian Ridgebacks
Back in the day, when I hunted coons, I had a redbone / ridgeback cross. He wasn't very cold nosed, but he cept up with all my buddys' dogs trailing coon. Where he stood out was his ability to dispatch game, or another dog when provoked. He never got a scratch when fighting either! He was extemly efficient when it came time to fight. I have wondered how some of these dogs might fare against a couple of wolves.
"What I really need is a system that when I push a button it will shock that dog there, when I push this other button I can shock the other dog over there, and a button that I can push to shock all twenty dogs at the same time!" - Clell Lee
Benny
When in doubt, ask someone that knows, not just claims to know.
Benny
When in doubt, ask someone that knows, not just claims to know.
-
arizonabeagle
- Bawl Mouth
- Posts: 373
- Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:35 am
- Facebook ID: 0
- Location: queen creek
Re: Rhodesian Ridgebacks
benny i think its all about gettin the right ones, might take a few generations to get ones that could actually got it done, granted the dogs all lived, but i dont think you could find a pure ridgeback in the us worth his weight in anything besides the show arenaBenny G wrote:Back in the day, when I hunted coons, I had a redbone / ridgeback cross. He wasn't very cold nosed, but he cept up with all my buddys' dogs trailing coon. Where he stood out was his ability to dispatch game, or another dog when provoked. He never got a scratch when fighting either! He was extemly efficient when it came time to fight. I have wondered how some of these dogs might fare against a couple of wolves.
but i guess if you threw some grit into em, you never know, give it a shot and let us know how it turns out! LOL
hank taught me just how to stay alive, you'll never catch out the house without my 9 or .45. i got a big orange tractor and a diesel truck and my idea of heavens chasin whitetail bucks...
-
Roy Sparks
- Bawl Mouth
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 5:00 pm
- Location: Eastern Cape - Republic of South Africa
- Facebook ID: 100007420332603
Re: Rhodesian Ridgebacks
Yes Rhodesian Ridgebacks have been used to hunt Lion here in Africa. However I will dispute the fact that they were ever developed as a breed solely for that purpose.This is merely a myth bestowed upon the breed to gain it popularity. The Rhodesian Lion Dog.
This breed from my observations and research should rather be classified as a utility breed. To me it is more of a gaurd and protection dog while some have been applied to hunting mostly in the capacity of a backup dog on wounded game when the early hunters were shooting for meat.
When the early frontiers were settled and ranches were being developed marrauding lion preyed heavily on cattle and were persecuted. Normally a formal reprisal pursuit was organised where a bunch of armed men and trackers would pursue the lions with all manner of dogs including the native bred curs. The ensuing engagement was nothing short of a fiasco. The trackers would normally jump the lions from their beds and any dogs brave enough would take off after the lions running mostly on sight and hot scent.
The other dogs would be competing with the trackers bolting hell for leather in the opposite direction and normally collect a few previously very eager farmers to join their retreat.
If a lion bayed up and was dispatched note was taken of the dogs that were in on the fight. Thats how those dogs were selected for breeding and thus the breed came into origin. However its origin is strongly connected to South Africa and its later 1800's trekker settlers who entered Matabeleland later Southern Rhodesia.
It is in fact, as the history of dog breeds goes a fairly recent breed with a weak genetic pool.
I would not recommend this breed to any serious houndman. There are far better chase and catch dogs out there with more hunt desire than this dog.I would sooner have Airedales than Ridgebacks for that kind of work.
I would not trust Ridgebacks as a family dog either , they are connected to some bad incedents.To a much larger extent they have been used as protection dogs and selected for traits desired for that purpose. This came into being in the later formative stages of the breeds development to be recognised by kennel clubs. The protection desire was to be more cemented into the breed with the advent of the Rhodesian bush war.
In my opinion the breed should not be recognised as a hunting breed but as a utility breed.
I dont want a Ridgeback near my operation.
Roy Sparks.
This breed from my observations and research should rather be classified as a utility breed. To me it is more of a gaurd and protection dog while some have been applied to hunting mostly in the capacity of a backup dog on wounded game when the early hunters were shooting for meat.
When the early frontiers were settled and ranches were being developed marrauding lion preyed heavily on cattle and were persecuted. Normally a formal reprisal pursuit was organised where a bunch of armed men and trackers would pursue the lions with all manner of dogs including the native bred curs. The ensuing engagement was nothing short of a fiasco. The trackers would normally jump the lions from their beds and any dogs brave enough would take off after the lions running mostly on sight and hot scent.
The other dogs would be competing with the trackers bolting hell for leather in the opposite direction and normally collect a few previously very eager farmers to join their retreat.
If a lion bayed up and was dispatched note was taken of the dogs that were in on the fight. Thats how those dogs were selected for breeding and thus the breed came into origin. However its origin is strongly connected to South Africa and its later 1800's trekker settlers who entered Matabeleland later Southern Rhodesia.
It is in fact, as the history of dog breeds goes a fairly recent breed with a weak genetic pool.
I would not recommend this breed to any serious houndman. There are far better chase and catch dogs out there with more hunt desire than this dog.I would sooner have Airedales than Ridgebacks for that kind of work.
I would not trust Ridgebacks as a family dog either , they are connected to some bad incedents.To a much larger extent they have been used as protection dogs and selected for traits desired for that purpose. This came into being in the later formative stages of the breeds development to be recognised by kennel clubs. The protection desire was to be more cemented into the breed with the advent of the Rhodesian bush war.
In my opinion the breed should not be recognised as a hunting breed but as a utility breed.
I dont want a Ridgeback near my operation.
Roy Sparks.
Re: Rhodesian Ridgebacks
It all depends.
Here's some of my pups:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGXhn9wO6aw
This is a complex story. The short version is that the majority of Rhodesian Ridgebacks, from a working-dog perspective, aren't worth their weight in kibble. And I'm not saying that to imply that my dogs are anything spectacular - they're not, I'm trying to produce a functional hunting dog, and hopefully I'll produce the dog I want eventually, but it's an ongoing (likely life-long) journey.
That said, there are some decent ones out there, you just have to find the right sort - and that depends largely on what sort you are looking for.
On the whole I would agree with Roy's observations, except to note that he paints with perhaps too broad a brush. Some Ridgebacks have a lot of hunt, some have great nose, some are wonderful family dogs, etc. Again, you just have to find the right sort.
I would whole-heartedly agree with Roy's "utility" classification... with a lot of caveats. The AKC parent-club's sighthound classification is just silly. The FCI's classification, placing it with the Dalmatian, gets a lot closer to both the historical and functional reality - the Rhodesian Ridgeback is a versatile/utilitarian Cur-Dog (Cur-Dog in the American (UKC) sense of the term).
The earliest incarnations of these dogs were mostly employed as general farm-dogs, traveling/trekking companions (moved stock, protected wagons and helped secure venison/bush-meat in the evenings) and as aides to the early Dutch Transport Riders who used them for guards and finder/bailers on lion and bush-pig.
One dynamic often ignored in the evolution/ruination of this bred is human conflict. War time pressures and strains have done a lot to change the breed, and in my opinion not for the better. I won't get into the pedantic details, but the Second Boer War, the Second World War, and the Bush Wars chief among them.
It was Van Rooyen who's version of this dog became famous for being straight-lion-bred. And in fairness, most of the modern registered rhodesian ridgeback stock out there traces back solidly to Van Rooyen's line. But that brings us to the second dynamic... in Africa, then and now, there are lots of farm-bred ridgebacks. In fact, they significantly outnumber registered/pedigreed dogs.
There is also a third, the cultural dynamic, to consider. The Rhodesian Ridgeback as it is known in most of the world is the product of turn of the century efforts (both in the hunting sphere and in dog-showing) of the Victorian ambition. By contrast, the ridgeback as it began pre-1890ish, and as it continues in many corners of Africa, was/is the product of the Afrikaner ethos. I don't want to get into an English vs. Boer debate... that is a can of worms i don't want to go anywhere near. But as it relates to the dogs, these cultural differences can clearly be seen in many of the dogs, both in terms of their construction, temperament and use/non-use.
The key thing to take away from this is that the Victorians saved Van Rooyen's line of lion-dogs from extinction and then simultaneously destroyed them in the effort. The dogs kept by the English in Mashonaland and Matebeleland were, for the most part, real-deal working dogs, and yes, most were used to hunt, and many of those were indeed used to hunt lion. But by the 1910's/1920's lion hunting had dropped off dramatically in the region, and there wasn't much call/need for Rhodesian Lion Dogs. They were on the skids, lion dogs with few lions left to hunt. Barnes (who himself kept and hunted ridgebacks) and several others formed the parent club in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and petitioned the kennel union in South Africa to open a stud book. These out-of-work Van Rooyen dogs would be saved, but eventually at the expense of becoming show-dogs.
Now as a consequence, in southern Africa the majority of the papered dogs are kept as guards or pets or show dogs and the majority of non papered dogs are kept for as farm/estate dogs - guards, varmint control, pets, etc. Very few hunted any more.
To give you some perspective, there are hundreds of registered Ridgebacks in southern African, but some estimate that there are thousands (or better) of non-papered dogs. And yet, while there are numerous PH's who hire (or keep) dogs for their hunts, I am only aware of four african PH's that use Ridgebacks on their hunts.
The big obstacle to their use here in the U.S. is two fold. 1) The lack of hunt-bred/hunt proven-stock, and 2) Cost, for the price of one ridgeback you can buy two or three black mouths, their closest North American cousin.
Here's some of my pups:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGXhn9wO6aw
This is a complex story. The short version is that the majority of Rhodesian Ridgebacks, from a working-dog perspective, aren't worth their weight in kibble. And I'm not saying that to imply that my dogs are anything spectacular - they're not, I'm trying to produce a functional hunting dog, and hopefully I'll produce the dog I want eventually, but it's an ongoing (likely life-long) journey.
That said, there are some decent ones out there, you just have to find the right sort - and that depends largely on what sort you are looking for.
On the whole I would agree with Roy's observations, except to note that he paints with perhaps too broad a brush. Some Ridgebacks have a lot of hunt, some have great nose, some are wonderful family dogs, etc. Again, you just have to find the right sort.
I would whole-heartedly agree with Roy's "utility" classification... with a lot of caveats. The AKC parent-club's sighthound classification is just silly. The FCI's classification, placing it with the Dalmatian, gets a lot closer to both the historical and functional reality - the Rhodesian Ridgeback is a versatile/utilitarian Cur-Dog (Cur-Dog in the American (UKC) sense of the term).
The earliest incarnations of these dogs were mostly employed as general farm-dogs, traveling/trekking companions (moved stock, protected wagons and helped secure venison/bush-meat in the evenings) and as aides to the early Dutch Transport Riders who used them for guards and finder/bailers on lion and bush-pig.
One dynamic often ignored in the evolution/ruination of this bred is human conflict. War time pressures and strains have done a lot to change the breed, and in my opinion not for the better. I won't get into the pedantic details, but the Second Boer War, the Second World War, and the Bush Wars chief among them.
It was Van Rooyen who's version of this dog became famous for being straight-lion-bred. And in fairness, most of the modern registered rhodesian ridgeback stock out there traces back solidly to Van Rooyen's line. But that brings us to the second dynamic... in Africa, then and now, there are lots of farm-bred ridgebacks. In fact, they significantly outnumber registered/pedigreed dogs.
There is also a third, the cultural dynamic, to consider. The Rhodesian Ridgeback as it is known in most of the world is the product of turn of the century efforts (both in the hunting sphere and in dog-showing) of the Victorian ambition. By contrast, the ridgeback as it began pre-1890ish, and as it continues in many corners of Africa, was/is the product of the Afrikaner ethos. I don't want to get into an English vs. Boer debate... that is a can of worms i don't want to go anywhere near. But as it relates to the dogs, these cultural differences can clearly be seen in many of the dogs, both in terms of their construction, temperament and use/non-use.
The key thing to take away from this is that the Victorians saved Van Rooyen's line of lion-dogs from extinction and then simultaneously destroyed them in the effort. The dogs kept by the English in Mashonaland and Matebeleland were, for the most part, real-deal working dogs, and yes, most were used to hunt, and many of those were indeed used to hunt lion. But by the 1910's/1920's lion hunting had dropped off dramatically in the region, and there wasn't much call/need for Rhodesian Lion Dogs. They were on the skids, lion dogs with few lions left to hunt. Barnes (who himself kept and hunted ridgebacks) and several others formed the parent club in Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and petitioned the kennel union in South Africa to open a stud book. These out-of-work Van Rooyen dogs would be saved, but eventually at the expense of becoming show-dogs.
Now as a consequence, in southern Africa the majority of the papered dogs are kept as guards or pets or show dogs and the majority of non papered dogs are kept for as farm/estate dogs - guards, varmint control, pets, etc. Very few hunted any more.
To give you some perspective, there are hundreds of registered Ridgebacks in southern African, but some estimate that there are thousands (or better) of non-papered dogs. And yet, while there are numerous PH's who hire (or keep) dogs for their hunts, I am only aware of four african PH's that use Ridgebacks on their hunts.
The big obstacle to their use here in the U.S. is two fold. 1) The lack of hunt-bred/hunt proven-stock, and 2) Cost, for the price of one ridgeback you can buy two or three black mouths, their closest North American cousin.
Re: Rhodesian Ridgebacks
i dont think they would fare very well. i used to have one and had a male great dane at the time, they both got in a fight one day, the great dane about killed it, cost me a lot of money to have that ridgeback stiched back up in the emergency room at the vets office. i dont think a wolf would have any problem taking one, wolves dont fight one on one.Benny G wrote:Back in the day, when I hunted coons, I had a redbone / ridgeback cross. He wasn't very cold nosed, but he cept up with all my buddys' dogs trailing coon. Where he stood out was his ability to dispatch game, or another dog when provoked. He never got a scratch when fighting either! He was extemly efficient when it came time to fight. I have wondered how some of these dogs might fare against a couple of wolves.
Re: Rhodesian Ridgebacks
Gee! Reading some of the posts about these dogs on here would probably have scared me away from getting one! Good thing I got mine before reading this! I got my ridgeback at 2yrs old after being raised (by others) as mostly a housepet.Her previous owners didn't teach her one useful thing. Maybe I just got lucky, but I've had her for 6months and during that time she has become a great racoon tracker/hunter, an awesome cattle dog, always been exellent at protection, and i am currently trying to see if she has it in her to course yote's! I am no hound expert, but to my knowledge there isn't another hound breed out there with that kind of versitillity! (Black mouth cur, and catahoula being closest, if they r considered hounds?) Obviously i'm biased, but they seem bigger, stronger, faster, more loyal, and smarter than any other hound breed i've ever seen or heard of? I'm sure there are good and bad versions of the breed out there. The main drawbacks I can see for most traditional houndsmen are that they are rare & really expensive, and that they require alot more human interaction. From what i've heard, not a dog that could be chained up by itself alot.
I've heard they have some real good hunting strains in Australia.
Just my 2Cents
I've heard they have some real good hunting strains in Australia.
Just my 2Cents