honalieh
UKC Forum Member
Registered: Jul 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 2160 |
Old Blood vs New Blood
Every type of dog you have now, you also had back then. Where do you think todays dogs come from? In the not too distant future, todays dogs will be considered old blood.
If you could compare (you can't) the "most exceptional" dogs of the past to the "most exceptional" dogs of today, I think they would be approximately equal.
The biggest difference (old blood v. so-called new blood---or should it be called linebred old blood) is in everything else. Your chances of getting a "good" dog today is much higher than your chances of getting a "good" dog was back then. As a rule, dogs are just much better bred today. The average talent level has improved significantly.
Most of the better dogs of today (new blood) are actually linebred on some of the better dogs of the past. Many of the better dogs of the past were of unknown (single registry) or inaccurate (false papers) ancestry. I think that issue is much better today than it was back then.
So, if it's an old vs. new, I would say that the new "average" is better than the old "average". For me, old vs. new isn't as relevant as type and style. There's more to this than I can explain on here, but the three things I most dislike are: (1) roughness/disposition problems, (2) trashiness, and (3) slick treeing---though sometimes I would prefer this to struggling through the cut-over timber and green briars that I will also have to struggle through to get to them. Slick treeing is track quitting. I don't like track quitting. But, sometimes I'm ready to quit and go home, and ready to accept a track quit (slick tree). Somehow, that doesn't seem to work out.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|