Waylon, I know what you're getting at and I've always thought the same thing about lacy dogs. The breeders and fanciers seem to have this romanticized idea of their mysterious origins and use the different strains to explain their modern traits but they are by and large bred by either "fanciers" or hunters.
I'll forget about the fanciers for the time being and focus on the hunters
I don't mean to be rude to my fellow hunter or sound like a know it all because I assure you I ain't nothing of the sort. I see that the most successful dogs in the hog working world have their roots in the hands of stockmen. I have seen lots of "hunting" dogs and there aren't very many that can put up the numbers or the ease of success that stock bred curs can. The expiation to the rule is a few dogmen out there who REALLY know they're stuff but even most of their dogs have stock working cur lineage.
It's hard to truly explain myself but what I'm getting to is the old stories of wow factor lacy dogs were dogs who hunted stock, got em bayed then LEAD the stock out of the woods (lead from the front working like a gate----- what family of dogs does that sound like??
) and instead of continuing to better the breed by ensuring they maintain their stock sence, the (hunters) who breed them today are looking for range nose and bottom. Those are the first traits a houndsman should be after, not necessarily a cur man.
Does that make sence Bigo or Waylon? I may not be able to writ out what's in my head but I guess it's best sums up by saying lots of folks breeding dogs have a pure pleasure hunting mindset and want more range, nose, and maybe bottom and even if a dog don't produce hogs like a smarter dog could they will put the dog on a pedestal because they haven't seen the style of
Cur your talking bout. Hell I know for a fact I was after the wrong traits for a good while.
