I’m sure you’ve heard of bluetick coonhounds and redbone coonhounds, but there are also redticks.
A redtick is not a cross between a redbone and bluetick.
It is a color variety of the English coonhound, which also included the bluetick and the Treeing Walker.
English coonhounds are not from England. (After all, there are no raccoons in England). The UKC, the main hunting hound registry in the US, recognized fox and coonhounds as a single breed, which it called the “English Fox and Coonhound.”
When all of these became separate breeds, the “odds and ends” dogs that didn’t meet the standards of any of the newly recognized breeds remained as English coonhounds. These dogs come in a bluetick (but are not the same as the bluetick breed), tricolor, the aforementioned redtick, and tricolor with ticking.
This is the only breed I know of that was created in this way. English coonhounds exist because of what they are not. Except for bluetick and tricolored English coonhounds, these dogs didn’t have the right colors to be registered as the newly standardizing coonhound beeds.
I’ve never heard of anything else like it.
That’s fascinating, Retrieverman. I had no idea these were considered “English” in any way, even if only by registry nomenclature, and that even the Treeing Walker would be considered as such. To me, the Walker hounds and others, including hounds, are in the “American” category because of how they developed and who developed them. Looking at the photo you’ve posted, this redtick has a shape that I would consider textbook “American hound”versus “English hound”: long, slender, and racy with long, low-set ears. Funny how we look at things according to our backgrounds. Thanks for this interesting post!
Color was not the only criterion for separating these hounds. And the Redbone was named not for its color, but for one of the originators of that strain, a Mr. Redbone. The coloring was fortuituous.
Hi, Retrieverman. I didn’t assume they were separated out by color, but thought it was interesting that hounds many mounted foxhunters would call American were termed English in the UKC registry. I wasn’t even considering the coloring.
It is a shame, I think, that this breed seperation by color began in the coonhounds, which is a fairly modern development in their history, and seems to be in unfortunate imitation based on conformation showing standards. And since the AKC is beginning to “recognize” these breeds now, you can bet that they will be further inbred and corrupted, alas. Even in my lifetime, people I’ve known who hunted them could care less about seperating them into breeds–they bred all colors together and would get pups of any variety in a litter–a red pup was called a Redbone, a Bluetick pup was called a Bluetick–just so long as “they was ALL HOUND” is all that mattered! Some hunters might be more concerned with certain strains bred by a particular breeder–that’s how Walkers and Triggs and July’s and others got established as specific types. But even then it was based more on performance than looks. And I’ve always heard these hounds referred to as “Trailhounds” or “Tree Hounds”, which I personally prefer. “Coonhounds” doesn’t begin to describe all their uses, and is a very limiting term! The AKC version of the Black-and-Tan “coon”hound was also never much used for coons, but was a fox trailer–the REAL coonhound treedog lines are the UKC Black-And-Tans! These two are totally different breeds now, in all but color.. I’ve also heard that “Peter Redbone” theory as to the origin of the Redbone hound–it is often used in dog breed books. I have come to believe it is just another of those fanciful dog breed origin stories breed writers make up for convienance. Further research into Redbone history reveals that the original “Redbones” were actually red hounds with black saddle backs most commonly, and the “redbone” referred to their red legs, which are referred to as “bone” in colloquial dog nomenclature. Having seen old photos of such red-legged, black saddled dogs labeled Redbone Hounds, long before this supposed Peter Redbone ever arrived on the scene, I am inclined to believe that theory. The solid red color of the breed now is only a fairly new development(last 100 years), and I’ve heard that occaisional black-saddled “throwbacks” still pop up now and again!
Hear, hear, Lane! I’m all for performance over color/looks!
Very interesting about the Redbone theory, too. I hope more people will chime in and keep this discussion going. I’m learning a lot!
Plotts often have that black saddle coloration, too, and Redbone X Black-And-Tan crosses I’ve seen look just like those old photos of the “old-timey” Redbones with the black saddles. Of course it could be true that BOTH of these stories on the origin of the Redbones are true to some extent–although the older origin stories(by date of publications) always refer to George Birdsong, a famous foxhunter in Georgia as being the breeder that brought reknown and developed the Redbone type, there ARE lots of people with the last name “Redbone” out there(I met a Rathbone once, but no Redbones yet, other than the hounds!), and according to the story, Peter Redbone was a well-known hound connosiuer as well–now if your name was Redbone, and you got into hound dogs, and there was a strain available called “Redbones”, you’d be hard-put not to aquire some, I’d think! So they both might be true……There have always been occaisional solid red foxhounds that crop up now and then–one of the legendary bear-and-cougar hunter Ben Lilly’s favorite hounds was what he termed a “cherry-red foxhound”–not hard to see where the early origins of modern Redbones can be traced partially to such foxhounds. But, houndblogger, being a foxhound afficiondo, can you imagine the inanity of dividing the various foxhound colors up into seperate breeds, as the coonhounds have been? Mostly whites would be one breed, tri-colors another, lemon-and-whites another, etc. etc.? Crazy, isn’t it? I like the idea(proposed by various famous hound people), of their being ONE “American Trailhound” breed, with the various colors just being color phases within the breed, NOT seperate breeds! And get rid, PLEASE, of this confusing and inaccurate name of “English Coonhound”!
I have to agree with you, Lane. It all sounds kind of goofy. The talk of red foxhounds, though, does remind me of the famed “red ring-neck” foxhounds in Virginia. You can read a little bit about them on the hound blog at http://houndwelfare.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/the-red-ring-neck-hounds/, but I can’t claim to be an expert on them. One wonders whether there was cross-pollination between these and the Redbones?
I find this discussion very interesting as well. The UKC English Coonhound was not a catch-all breed that was created for the odds and ends breeds. It was named because it was a derivative of the colonial english foxhounds that were imported as the country formed. So were the b+ts and redbones mind you but they were color consistent breeds that bred true to color and were easily accepted by UKC in 1900 and 1902 respectively. The English Fox and Coonhounds were recognized in 1905 and existed as such until 1945. In 1945 the English Coonhound (Walker Treeing) was named and in 1946 the Bluetick
Coonhound was recognized by UKC. At this time ALL three color combos could be found in the same litter of English Coonhounds. The name Treeing Walker didn’t really establish itself for another 20 yrs as Dr Furhman did not think the breed would breed true. Fred Miller finally allowed the name change and the economic boom known as the Treeing Walker is still felt today. Five of every 10 hounds registered with UKC are Treeing Walkers and AKC now has over 40,000 registered.
I agree that the name English Coonhound confuses some. I even had a judge tell that a friend of his imported some of them a long time ago. I ask where from Alabama? He wasn’t amused BUT the naming of the breed is accurate given the breeds english roots. Even the Walker family bred heavily to imported english foxhound stock. Only the Plott’s history is devoid of written english foxhound influence. No one knows what all is the plott breed anymore than what is in the others but documented proof is another mystery.
Today still breeding a litter of English pups is like Gump would say, a box of chocolates. You never know what your gonna get. One litter will still produce redtick, bluetick(tri-color) and white pups that would play the role of a TW very well. The blueticks will all breed true although sometimes a white dog with very few ticks will be born and they are very undesireable. Some English coonhound lines will boast that they only produce redticks and that is the popular color even though all colors are acceptable. I can’t wait for the akc judges to see them. This is one breed that will blow their minds.
I do have a small beef with the thought that akc ruined the black + tan. They ruined the pointer and the irish setter too all without ever breeding the first dog. AKC doesn’t breed dogs, doesn’t exhibit dogs, doesn’t judge dogs and doesn’t start breed clubs. We do. We are the ones who breed, exhibit, maybe judge and participate in breed clubs. It is up to us to maintain the integrity of our breed.
The ukc black and tans are by far better coondogs than the old timey long eared akc type b+ts. The difference in the two breed types has nothing to do with akc and everything to do with the ukc nite hunts. That is a different topic though my fingers hurt. ;-)
Glad I found this blog. Very interesteing. Thank you.
Tank Willis, thank you for the very informative and pertinent comments. Especially that it isn’t the AKC (or any registry) that is really responsible for maintaining the integrity of the breeds — it is us, the breeders, exhibitors, judges.
Well, technically, you guys are right in that the registry alone is not responsible for degeneracy or improvements of breeds, but the various registries REPRESENT the TYPES of people that they cater to, and the AKC, by and large, is all about catering to the conformation showing crowd, and registering dogs as purebreds for purebreds’ sake, rather than having specific criteria defining what SHOULD make for a quality purebred. Sorry, but AKC written “standards” are NOT enough, if not backed up by actual, real function FIRST, and so many standards, alas, are made up by people who just like a certain “look” and are politically influential enough to make it LAW. Not that other registries are not as guilty, but in the case of the UKC coonhound breeds, AT LEAST this is backed up more strongly by actual trials and function. That reflects the interests of the UKC participants, rather than just the registry, as you said, and it is a shame there is such a cultural schism between the people that support the different registries. There has been some effort on by the AKC to have more trials, and I applaud the folks that “double register” dogs to try and encourage more participation and education of the more AKC conformation-showing-oriented set, but they have their work cut out for them! I have nothing against people who enjoy trotting dogs around a ring and getting ribbons for all the human political campaigning such efforts require, but what such people need to realize(and arrogantly tend to refuse to–although I’ve met a few sensible AKC-oriented-conformation types, even they are often frustrated with the inanity of AKC conformation showing!) that this IN NO WAY decides what is REALLY a BETTER DOG for ANY real purpose, and the emphasis on inbreeding for exagerrated physical characteristics continues to do just the opposite. I will say that ever since the AKC moved their public headquarters to North Carolina, they sure aere a LOT more pleasant to deal with! The former New York City headquarters were snotty, impatient, rude, and unhelpful with any questions or inquiries I ever had. The N. C. office has been very polite and helpful to me, in contrast. I am hopeful that the tides are changing, and this foolish emphasis on conformation showing will be replaced by a more balanced and sensible approach to dog breeding for AKC registered dogs–I think it HAS to for the AKC to survive. What the AKC-conformation-show-oriented die-hards don’t realize and are resistant to, is that in the end, not only will they have a better understanding of what REALLY makes a better dog(if they involve themselves more in aspects of their breed other than conformation showing), but they’ll have a HECKUVA lot more fun doing it!!!!
Very well put Lane,
I don’t know any of your ages here or backgrounds but I can assure you that nite hunts, field trials etc have change breed type in coonhounds as much if not more that bench shows or foo foo shows.
First of all, never confuse winning nite hunts with having the best dogs. I have won many by simply keeping my mouth shut and not drawing minus points when others couldn’t. ;-) Nite hunts as well as conformation shows are much more about the owner/handlers ego than improving a breed.
When the nite hunts first began, they were much like what was portrayed in Where the Red Fern Grows. A man would take his dog and see how many coons he could kill with a judge along. The scorecards allowed for judgement of voice and tree style. Very subjective depending on your judge. Then came the pts system style hunts which were 3hrs long. A 3hr hunt including timeouts can take nearly all night which means the scent conditions will change dramatically. If you look at all 6 breeds from the beginning of the century to about the 70s were for the most part heavier and houndier. Longer ears the whole 9yds. Trailing and accuracy would win these marathon hunts. Hotter nosed hounds may lead the first hour of the hunt but as conditions worsened, a comeback was possible. Dave Dean used to make huge combacks in these 3hr hunts. Then the hunts were shortened to 2hrs. Two hrs show less scent change and have less time to mount comebacks. Then throw in circle points which allow an inaccurate dog escape minus pts for missing the raccoon. The treeing walkers became dominant in these events. Hotter noses treed raccoon quicker in the alotted time and the other breeds adapted. Notice todays bluetick compared to the bigger heavier boned dogs of 40yrs ago. Todays black+tans compared to the old fashion b+ts. Drastic changes in breed type have occurred in the last 30 yrs due to performance events not conformation events. Just like conformation events, nite hunts and field trials are won by the best handler more often than the best dog. Hunt wins are only as honest as the men behind them.
Neither ukc or akc make money off of events. Maybe a smidge here and there but the lights stay on because of registrations. Events drive breeding which in turn drives registrations. The more prize money in the nite hunts the more people breed. The more they breed, the more registration dollars are earned. KCs provide a service, the keep track of who begat whom and help administer a playground for us dog people to play on. That is all. If 10-15% of a coonhound sires get earns a UKC nite champion title he is considered a top producer. 10%? Really? Litters are 8-12 pups so only 1 has to finish out of each litter. The only true performance test is conducted by again the breeder or the hunter and it comes with as much responsibility as the guy on tv with the foo foo dag running in circles.
Oh, no doubt that trailhound breeds have become racier and more hot-nosed in recent decades! But at least that is to some PURPOSE, and the hounds couldn’t function at all if they had the “standard” hindquarters, say, of a conformation bred German Shepherd! It is this incredible breed blindness in conformation-standards-only oriented folk I’m thinking of as bad. And also no doubt trials breed as bad a-behaviour in the human participants as conformation shows, alas! I knew of one poor fellow that won with his hounds so regularly, that jealous, evil people poisoned his dogs, and he was so heartbroken he never entered another trial…. Anytime something becomes a competition, that seems to occur(stupid, selfish humans!)–but again, at least the emphasis on the dogs is healthier and more functional, so hermits like me that could care less about winning ribbons and trophies can still get a good, healthy, functional dawg! Whenever I get a dog for myself, regardless of the type(hunting, herding, sled, etc.), I steer as clear from AKC show conformation stock as possible! That, I think, is sad–it SHOULD be the other way around, if they were indeed producing “better” dogs! As for my age and experiences and cultural background, I passed the half-century mark awhile back, and grew up in the South with family members who FED their families with their dogs during the Great Depression–not only with the actual game their dogs pointed, treed, or caught, but in bartering, like trading strings of quail for flour. To them, a dog HAD to function, and there were no problems with genetic disorders and temperment, because such dogs never lived to breed, much less go on to win ribbons! Harsh methods, but it no question REALLY produces the better dogs! And really, it was no harsher(just more sensible) than conformation-oriented show breeders putting down pups(and covering it up! Don’t want anyone knowing their bitch threw THAT!) that, though perfectly normal and healthy, didn’t match a coat type or color or ear length in THE STANDARD!