The beginnings of "dog sport" were closely related to hunting. They existed in Western Europe, relict-preserved traditions from the feudal period, when hunting was a royal privilege, accessible only to kings and their highest vassals. Hunting was a chivalrous game - a kind of military training, different customs were connected with them. Big game and small game were hunted. Zaciążyło to na przyjętej przez FCI klasyfikacji psów. The royal hunting society of St.. Hubert in Belgium. The permanent seat of the federation is also located in Belgium, which additionally explains, that the old traditions are still alive in this residence. However, this division can only be explained by tradition, today big game hunting has become a game for a very small group of privileged people, and par force hunts turned into very picturesque horse runs; game has become a symbolic pretext for farming ,,running after the fox ", with overcoming various sometimes even very difficult terrain obstacles.
In the old hunts, hounds were primarily needed, which I often see, as well as the so-called. with the upper wind they recognized the game and chased it, announcing her with a beautiful "playing”; they were often selected especially in terms of voice timbre. They were hounds, excellent hounds. To this group, however (rather wrong in my opinion) At present, also the scarred ones were classified, i.e.. psy, whose role is to work out accurately on the ground (or, speaking in the language of a hunter, downwind) trail of wounded game, leaving a bloody trail (gore - hence the mountain scarlet). Tracker dogs played a similar role, which, also rather with the downwind, made a trail of game that did not even bleed. What's more - the perfect tracker remained on the trail once taken, even if it was crossed by a fresh trail of another game of the same kind. Therefore, it would be more correct to divide into a group of hounds and a group of tracking dogs - including, of course, mountain hounds..
The current division is based on tradition and definitely arbitrary, because the same hounds can be trained in the pursuit of deer, black or even fine (lis, hare), depending on the needs and local conditions. This group of hounds could rather be divided into hounds, driven by commuters, for hunting on horseback and such, that work with individual or few hunters. Such a division would be rational, as it would be based on the style and type of work different in these groups. On the other hand, the rocky hounds, a trail or a bloody trail with the downwind, they are a group of dogs that are rather unrelated to race, but a function. They can usefully play the role of mountain hound (and meet) both terriers and dachshunds, and any dog of any breed who has a good sense of smell and a passion for tracking, and therefore mainly dogs with 1 i 2 groups, that have been properly trained. (I remind you here, that dogs, which are meant to be used in earnest for investigative work on human traces, should not be used to work on game tracks). After this digression, I return to the division imposed by the FCI resolution, with which you have to come to terms with, if only to adapt our exhibitions and catalogs to the international system.