What Has X Taught You?

[ezzy333]

Guess I might as well put my 2 cents in but I have trouble with a birddog being labeled such as Grouse dog, or wild bird dog, or any other speice dog. I have worked with quite a few and everyone of them would hunt whatever we wanted to hunt. Now I think anyone will admit a dog needs some exposure and experience in different terrains or with different birds but I am yet to find one that is picky as to what they will point unless they are trained not to. I think we all might also agree that some dogs may be better equipped to hunt some terrain than others. But no matter how we want to cut it birddogs are birddogs and hunt whatever is available, they handle any bird better with experience, and they all will qualify as companion birddogs since they are birddogs and they all are our companions.

It's an area that you can pick and choose since some birddogs have different physical attributes bred into them than others so pick the type you like to do whatever job it is that you enjoy. But get off the kick that one is better than the other as they all are qualified to hunt birds, but in different ways due to exposure, experience, and training.

Ezzy

[Winchey]

Well it's not Pennsylvania, but somehow these dogs that have been ruined by the trials manage to get some ruffies shot.

http://www.birddogsafield.com/episodes/ ... ughes.html

[dan v]

I have learned that when I open the general chat forum on gundogforum to not open any threads with 2 or more pages because no matter what the title is, it always goes into FT vs Hunting dogs arguing crap.

Yeah, and that the new math. In the old math that would have been 4 pages.

[dan v]

WynDancer,
Congrats on the nice article they did on your dogs in Gun Dog, very nice sir. Some day I would very much like to see your Gordons work the Grouse mountains,
I have been reading and hearing good things about them.

RGD/Dave

Thanks...we like them.

[Joe Amatulli]

Well I see this thread has sure taken a turn. Personally I think this equates to trying to teach a 15 year old about life, but hear goes!

Many of the dogs that just hunt are developed by field trialers and are trained for hunting. That is where the difference is, with trialers, the dogs must do more than just find birds and you need to do a lot of training to get a dog to that level. Dave I am haveing a lot of problems with what you posted! You cannot win a field trial nor will you shoot very many birds over a lost dog. You will not win very many trials or shoot very many birds over a dog that cannot find birds. You will not shoot very many birds or win any trials over a dog that cannot be trained. You will not win very many trials or shoot very many birds if the dog does not want to be with you. You will however shoot birds over a dog that cannot be broke, but you will not win any trials. You will shoot birds over a dog that is not independent, but you will not win very many trials. You will shoot birds over a dog that cannot run, but you will not win any trials and so on and so on.

It’s not that one is any better at its chosen field, but with trials we demand that the dogs do a lot more than just find birds.

Just as in sports a kid may be able to throw a football 70, 80 yards down field, but that quarterback needs to do a lot more to make it in the NFL.

One other point Birddogz and the reset, just because you say you shoot a lot of birds that does not make it so, when a field trialer says I have a champion there is proof. If your dogs are so good PROVE IT until than “BE SILENT AND LEARN”. I don’t know any field trialers that either did not start off as hunters or are still hunting, been there done that.

Also we are way past the idea that you need to kill to put meat on the table, fact of the matter, you can buy a lot of chickens for the coast of a hunting license.

[RayGubernat]

Ray,
You don't think that hunting 50-70 days ayear for decades affords a person knowledge of what a good dog is? I've hunted over hundreds in my life. Hunting for a day also gives you a better idea of what a dog is like, rather than an hour.

Birddogz -

There is a saying: Some folks have thirty years of experience and others have one year of experience repeated thirty times.

No actually I do not think that decades of of hunting affords a person the best knowledge of what a good dog is. You will certainly have an intimate knowledge of what YOUR dog will do in just about any scenario, but that does not necessarily translate into knowing what a good dog is. That is knowledge in a vacuum. You have to see lots and lots of dogs, make lots and lots of comparisons and compare your evaluations against those of others with even more expereince. That is the best way to learn and to improve, at least that is what I have found.

I hunted for decades and thought I had pretty good dogs until I got involved with field trials. I then realized that even though I did have some of the best bred dogflesh, there was a lot more that the dogs could do, if I were a better trainer.

You never really know where you stack up until you put it on the line with other dogs and other handlers. You may think you know...but you really don't. I didn't.

I thought I had pretty good dogs. I was wrong.
I thought I was a decent trainer. Boy was I waaaaay wrong.
I saw soooo many dogs that were so much better than anything I ever had. I knew right away that I wanted my dogs to be able to do it the way those other dogs can do it.

I will agree that the longer you watch a dog, the more you learn about it. However, following a hunting dog all day is not the same as running a dog in an hour competition. The phrase "cauldron of competition" comes to mind. In a trial, both the dog and the handler will be under tremendous pressure to perform...mot just well, but FLAWLESSLY. As you so correctly pointed out, one only has at most, an hour to show what the dog can do. One little bobble, one little letdown or lapse can mean the difference between placing first or third, or not placing at all. In that hour you are expected to show the judges the very best that your dog can do. Every move, every cast, every point, every aspect of that dog's performance will be scrutinized, picked apart and evaluated. something as minimal as a dog shuffling its feet while on point can and often does mean the difference between a first place, blue ribbon performance and...nothing.

I suggest that you try this experiment with your own dog sometime.... Set your watch and cut your dog loose. Watch its every move for a full hour and jot down what you see, both favorable and unfavorable. Be as objective as you can be. You will find that an hour can be a VERY long time to endure that kind of scrutiny.

FWIW, when I was in my late teens to my early thirties, I hunted four days a week...every week of the season. I would wear out a pair of boots every year and a pair of leather faced hunting pants every two years. (Yeah I am that old). There was a time I thought I knew it all too. I learned different.

RayG

[Ryman Gun Dog]

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Thanks for the interesting conversation and for keeping it civil for the most part. Hope to see you in the Grouse woods with your favorite dog some day.
RGD/Dave

[Joe Amatulli]

Very good Ray!

Okay now that that’s over I think this is very appropriate:

Let me learn all I can, but let me acknowledge what I haven’t learned.

[nikegundog]

Ray wrote:

The phrase "cauldron of competition" comes to mind. In a trial, both the dog and the handler will be under tremendous pressure to perform...mot just well, but FLAWLESSLY. As you so correctly pointed out, one only has at most, an hour to show what the dog can do. One little bobble, one little letdown or lapse can mean the difference between placing first or third, or not placing at all. In that hour you are expected to show the judges the very best that your dog can do. Every move, every cast, every point, every aspect of that dog's performance will be scrutinized, picked apart and evaluated. something as minimal as a dog shuffling its feet while on point can and often does mean the difference between a first place, blue ribbon performance and...nothing.

I think proving my dog in a trial would be great, then I read this. I think it is great that people can get their dog to do all this, but as a hunter what's the point. I'm still can't understand why the shuffling of a dogs feet or the point of the tail make a good or great dog. All this flawlessness isn't necessary and doesn't relate. I think trialing is a great ideal, although flawed in its ideology. Its like bringing a judge to a trap shooting event and award half the points to how good the shooter looks and half towards hits (because judging his form he should of hit more).

[Winchey]

No it doesen't but when you have sveral great dogs then you have to seperate them through little things.

[kensfishing]

Ray wrote:

The phrase "cauldron of competition" comes to mind. In a trial, both the dog and the handler will be under tremendous pressure to perform...mot just well, but FLAWLESSLY. As you so correctly pointed out, one only has at most, an hour to show what the dog can do. One little bobble, one little letdown or lapse can mean the difference between placing first or third, or not placing at all. In that hour you are expected to show the judges the very best that your dog can do. Every move, every cast, every point, every aspect of that dog's performance will be scrutinized, picked apart and evaluated. something as minimal as a dog shuffling its feet while on point can and often does mean the difference between a first place, blue ribbon performance and...nothing.

I think proving my dog in a trial would be great, then I read this. I think it is great that people can get their dog to do all this, but as a hunter what's the point. I'm still can't understand why the shuffling of a dogs feet or the point of the tail make a good or great dog. All this flawlessness isn't necessary and doesn't relate. I think trialing is a great ideal, although flawed in its ideology. Its like bringing a judge to a trap shooting event and award half the points to how good the shooter looks and half towards hits (because judging his form he should of hit more).

It's called pride. Watch somesone's dog that doesn't back, or steal point from your dog. Or it steals a retrieve from your dog that pointed the birds in the first place. Then tell me it doesn't make a difference. It really doesn't take that much more to do it right than to do it wrong. It's called pride.

[dan v]

I think proving my dog in a trial would be great, then I read this. I think it is great that people can get their dog to do all this, but as a hunter what's the point. I'm still can't understand why the shuffling of a dogs feet or the point of the tail make a good or great dog. All this flawlessness isn't necessary and doesn't relate. I think trialing is a great ideal, although flawed in its ideology. Its like bringing a judge to a trap shooting event and award half the points to how good the shooter looks and half towards hits (because judging his form he should of hit more).

I'm going with my Homer Simpson analogy here.

What you have to realize is that when decision points are based on style, it's that usually the more basic components/requirements have been met. Shooting clays in competition is about numbers, not style not application, pure how many "kills."

The Simpson analogy is, Homer likes his donuts. He likes a basic old fashioned deep fried cake donut. Now somebody comes along and drizzles some chocolate on that donut. Homer likes even better. But a bad cake donut with chocolate drizzled on it is still a bad donut. So a good cake donut, drizzled with chocolate is good, maybe be better than the plain donut. Then somebody got the idea to put sprinkles on the cake donut that had chocolate icing on it. Homer didn't think that a cake donut could be improved, but Homer liked the chocolate iced donut...and he didn't think that could be improved on either. Then he had the cake donut iced with chocolate and WITH SPRINKLES. Homer was sure that was the best donut ever conceived.

But even with all the improvements such as chocolate icing and sprinkles...the donut still is no good if the basic deep fried cake donut is bad.

Field trialers like sprinkles, style and class equals sprinkles. But the basic dog needs to be good.

[kninebirddog]

Ray wrote:

The phrase "cauldron of competition" comes to mind. In a trial, both the dog and the handler will be under tremendous pressure to perform...mot just well, but FLAWLESSLY. As you so correctly pointed out, one only has at most, an hour to show what the dog can do. One little bobble, one little letdown or lapse can mean the difference between placing first or third, or not placing at all. In that hour you are expected to show the judges the very best that your dog can do. Every move, every cast, every point, every aspect of that dog's performance will be scrutinized, picked apart and evaluated. something as minimal as a dog shuffling its feet while on point can and often does mean the difference between a first place, blue ribbon performance and...nothing.

I think proving my dog in a trial would be great, then I read this. I think it is great that people can get their dog to do all this, but as a hunter what's the point. I'm still can't understand why the shuffling of a dogs feet or the point of the tail make a good or great dog. All this flawlessness isn't necessary and doesn't relate. I think trialing is a great ideal, although flawed in its ideology. Its like bringing a judge to a trap shooting event and award half the points to how good the shooter looks and half towards hits (because judging his form he should of hit more).

that is training ...In trials if a dog is shuffling the feet flagging this is a sign of the dog mentally getting ready to chase/take out a bird which is not good and so If you have a dog that is standing hard on point looking like a nice statue then you have same work but this dog number 2 is trying to take that extra step or shifts around as handler comes up why should dog two get placed over dog 1


This is where NSTRA comes in Sure the dogs do not have to be as steady on point but the better they remain on point the better the scores will be so again the better trained dog will out score a not so well mannered dog bird work for bird work where in AKC AF trials the not so well trained dog the judges will stop looking at...This is why new games are created so everyone has something fun and extra to do to hopefully have fun and add a little excitement of competition a way to show when the tail gate drops the BS stops

Sure they are all games...I choose that when I go wild bird hunting I walk with my gun broke open and will close it when my dog is on point...Should the bird fly before hand..Oh well My dog shouldn't be chasing it specially if I haven't shot. My Smile is shooting at birds which my dog has maintained manners on. I may only come out with a couple birds if I have a good day but I am not out just to fill a limit I am there to watch my dogs work ...That is me it is what and How I chose to enjoy my day and my dogs.

[Ryman Gun Dog]

NGD,
Very good point sir, most of my clients with Grouse dogs have your exact point of view, their dogs instinctively hunt Grouse as a companion hunting dog.
However some people have the mistaken idea that because their dog has been trained & bred to play FT games, that their dog has somehow become a better hunting dog, and they sell this mistaken idea to unsuspecting hunters who want a companion hunting dog. In the past this did not work to well, but with the advent of the e-collar
the FT discarded dog can be shocked into submission for actual hunting, this does not make him a good companion hunting dog. Fighting the genetic imprint
can be done but a dog should hunt for his master out of love and respect, not fear of being lit up each time he goes to the field or Grouse woods. No matter what these FT people try to tell you there is a big difference between a FT bred dog and a companion hunting dog, animals are bred in different ways for different uses. If some people want to fall for the crap that these dogs all come from the same kind of breeding programs they need to learn a lot more about genetics. One is bred to be an independent hunter, the other is bred as a companion hunter.
RGD/Dave

[birddogger]

Dave, I have no idea how my dogs would handle your Grouse, but man, would I love to hunt that beautiful country!!! To live in it too, I envy you sir.

P.S. Sorry to hear about your heart attack. I hope everything goes well. Modern medicine can do so much more for that sort of thing now days.

Charlie

[Ryman Gun Dog]

Charlie,
Thanks much for your kind words, and I do know how lucky I have been to have been raised here in our mountains. I know may way of life is very different and that I
do not have the same views and opinions as many other people. My traditional mountain way of life was taught to me by my family and its how I want to live.
Please try to make time to visit, you can stay at our mountain home and do some Grouse hunting with us.
Thanks again,
RGD/Dave

[ezzy333]

Dave, I would love to have the acres and cover with birds that you have to hunt. But I just cant believe you have 110,000,000 acres there to hunt.

We have about 110 million acres of thick Forest here that we Grouse hunt, and the dogs move where the birds are to set them up for gunning. More than once men have come here to Grouse hunt believing their dogs were well trained, and lost their dog for a complete day sometimes two.

With that big an area you can't possibly hunt it all or even have permission to hunt it. Plus I can see how you could lose a dog or get lost your self.

Ezzy

[Winchey]

Yes those trial dogs in the video sure looked like they had to be beat into submission. Terrible companions they were, just out of control runoffs.

[Ryman Gun Dog]

Ezzy,
In fact its even larger, we use about 25 thousand acres as we Grouse hunt across the mountain. The SFL lands alone are massive, the SGL that abut are also very large.
Here in our Potter/Tioga mountains you can hunt freely unless the land is posted, not much is because of the Clean and Green act. You can hunt freely from my place up against SGL 208 clear down to Kettle Creek 40 miles away, and clear over thru the Susquhana State forest, and down thru the 1st fork, a massive forest to be sure, another
60 miles worth.
RGD/Dave

[brad27]

i'm having trouble understanding this. How does a dog that runs at 300-400 yards, slams on point, stays there for 5 minutes until the hunter walks up to flush/shoot the bird get the title of "self hunter"?

[Joe Amatulli]

It doesn't it gets the title of champion, if he's broke!

[Ryman Gun Dog]

Brad27,
From what I see you own GSP dogs, do you really think you own FT stock, GSP dogs have been bred as Versatile companion hunting dogs for hundreds of years.
This is what I mean about dogs being bred for certain jobs, just because some of them are being used in FT competitions here in the US does not alter the historic breeding of the GSP. Have you ever heard of KS certifications?
RGD/Dave

[Winchey]

Dave, I would love to have the acres and cover with birds that you have to hunt. But I just cant believe you have 110,000,000 acres there to hunt.

We have about 110 million acres of thick Forest here that we Grouse hunt, and the dogs move where the birds are to set them up for gunning. More than once men have come here to Grouse hunt believing their dogs were well trained, and lost their dog for a complete day sometimes two.

With that big an area you can't possibly hunt it all or even have permission to hunt it. Plus I can see how you could lose a dog or get lost your self.

Ezzy

Ezzy he doesen't, Pennsylvania is only 29 million acres in total, and not all of it is forest.

[Ryman Gun Dog]

Gentlemen,
I picked the 110 million acres to show the massive forest habitat, not as an exacting number, good grief. The point was we have massvie thick forest here to hunt Grouse in.
RGD/Dave

[ezzy333]

Ezzy,
In fact its even larger, we use about 25 thousand acres as we Grouse hunt across the mountain. The SFL lands alone are massive, the SGL that abut are also very large.
Here in our Potter/Tioga mountains you can hunt freely unless the land is posted, not much is because of the Clean and Green act. You can hunt freely from my place up against SGL 208 clear down to Kettle Creek 40 miles away, and clear over thru the Susquhana State forest, and down thru the 1st fork, a massive forest to be sure, another
60 miles worth.
RGD/Dave

Dave, 110 million acres is about 4 times the size of PA. I can't figure where you would find that much timber to hunt unless you are talking most of the country east of the Mississippi. And you say it is even bigger? I just can't believe it, some how I think you are exagerating again. I know you are located in a timbered area up there but it sure isn't close to that big.

Ezzy

[nikegundog]

This is beginning to sound like a conversation I just heard in a nursing home.

[doco]

This thread is enough to scare newbys away. Holy smokes. As a Hunter, I specifically went to FT stock to get my first bird dog. Now with my last two, and I have only been trialing for 3 years, the trialing has been more fun. Not only the training, but also the ability to see so many dogs. I get to hunt/train 12 months a year with my dogs. How can you go wrong with that. The FT's are just the reward for all of the work.

IMO, all of the competitions, standards, tests, are ensuring that the dog is what the dog is, and that the dog is what it is supposed to be. Without some type of Title, the dog is just another dog. There is no doubt in my mind that there are many hunting dogs that are probably better than many field trial dogs, but I certainly would not buy a dog from hunting stock that has not proved itself in the ring.

I'm not trying to offend anyone here, however, for those that don't know, you have to take the garage bred dog breeder's word that his dog is the best thing since sliced bread and no FT titled dog could ever hold a candle to it. I don't think that anyone here would buy into that, but many hunters might.

My final thought, if you were going to conceive a Child artificially, do you go to the Harvard Grad or down to the Starbuck's coffee counter and take your chances. Me, I'll stick with the higher odds stacked in favor of something that is proven and has shown it has the necessary tools.

It's all really a mute point, train your dog to do what makes you happy, because you 're the only one who should care.

[brad27]

do you really think you own FT stock

i don't know. i got my GSP in mid december. my first dog/bird dog. maybe some on here could answer your question. Hey guys, is FC TONELLI'S RISING SUN field trial stock? she got a double dose of him. what about FC STRIKE'S FLASH OF GOLD? is he FT stock? her pedigree is in my sig. I don't know any of those dogs except her momma. i do know she runs consistantly at about 300 yards. is that FT range?

my question was an honest one. I said NOTHING about what I have.

[Ryman Gun Dog]

Doco,
I take it you think George Ryman was a garbage breeder and that all GVP tested dogs are also. There are different proofs/tests for hunting and FT, your arguement does not hold water.
RGD/Dave

[Joe Amatulli]

I don’t know why I’m still here, but Brad simply put yes and I have seen both dogs and would take both of them home in a heartbeat.

Bill, it looks like you and I do have something in common besides being overweight, the field trial hock is firmly planted, well said.

Oh boy I see a patch of grass, I think I need to start training, I feel these youngsters snapping at my butt.

[RayGubernat]

Ray wrote:

The phrase "cauldron of competition" comes to mind. In a trial, both the dog and the handler will be under tremendous pressure to perform...mot just well, but FLAWLESSLY. As you so correctly pointed out, one only has at most, an hour to show what the dog can do. One little bobble, one little letdown or lapse can mean the difference between placing first or third, or not placing at all. In that hour you are expected to show the judges the very best that your dog can do. Every move, every cast, every point, every aspect of that dog's performance will be scrutinized, picked apart and evaluated. something as minimal as a dog shuffling its feet while on point can and often does mean the difference between a first place, blue ribbon performance and...nothing.

I think proving my dog in a trial would be great, then I read this. I think it is great that people can get their dog to do all this, but as a hunter what's the point. I'm still can't understand why the shuffling of a dogs feet or the point of the tail make a good or great dog. All this flawlessness isn't necessary and doesn't relate. I think trialing is a great ideal, although flawed in its ideology. Its like bringing a judge to a trap shooting event and award half the points to how good the shooter looks and half towards hits (because judging his form he should of hit more).

NGD -

It has been explained a couple of different ways by others, but as far as a hunter is concerned...you are absolutely right. A lot of the things we look for in a trial dog are things that a hunter does not need ...at least not to that degree. Trialers are constantly in pursuit of perfection and MORE ability. A dog that stands like a Marine Major on a paradeground, no matter what kind of temptation there is...is a better prospect for breeding than one that shuffles its feet or takes a step toward the bird because hwioe both dogs may well posess the genetic talent to point with good style, the dog that demonstrated the high style in competition obviously not only HAS the genetic ability to stand its birds with high style, It has DEMONSTRATED the ability to take the training necessary to perform consistently at that level.

However, when you are looking for your next pup, it might be really nice to know that this trail dog or that trial dog that is sire or dam of the litter you ar looking at, , was able to be trained and able to perform at a level that is well beyond what you need. Here's why...

Puppies are a crapshoot and most puppies won't be as good as their momma or daddy. That is the reality that a trialer deals with. No matter how good the two dogs are, there is no guarantee that the pupps will be as good and a slim chance that one will be just a tad better in some way. However, practically every single puppy will be fairly close to their parents in ability because "the apple don't fall too far from the tree".

If you know for a fact that momma and daddy were able to be trained to be steady to wing shot and fall, you can be pretty sure that any one of their pups will be able to be trained to hold point until you get there and flush. If it goes with the bird, you probably don't care. I didn't when I was just hunting. But the fact that I knew the parents of these dogs were dead steady gave me confidence that even I could make a good hunter out of one of their pups.

THAT, I think, is why those embellishments are(or should be) important to hunters. It virtually guarantees that puppies from those dogs will do the job for the hunter with a small amount of training time and effort.

RayG

[Birddogz]

Ray,
What about the abilities to retrieve and hunt dead? Most FTs don't test that. That is why I think NAVHDA is the best. It allows for that evaluation.

Also, sometimes I think that a FT bred dog can have too much forward running in them. For a foot hunter I mean. Not all of them run too big, and I understand that training can help, but too much octane can lead to dogs that get lost. I've seen it over and over. My DD would never run away and get lost. My friend had 2 GSP high octane dogs that were GREAT dogs, but ran way too big. He shocked them over and over, and it helped. He finally sold them. Now, don't get me wrong, I own FT stock, and love their drive, but there can be disadvantages to breeding to a trial standard. MANY more positives though. Also, don't get me wrong there are things about DDs that I wish were different. Fts serve a very important purpose.

[doco]

Doco,
I take it you think George Ryman was a garbage breeder and that all GVP tested dogs are also. There are different proofs/tests for hunting and FT, your arguement does not hold water.
RGD/Dave

Dave,

OK, I guess I engage in the game now.

I said no such thing of Ryman being a garbage breeder. New to me, I can only assume that He was a proven breeder and therefore his name carries on with the respect that he has earned. I am sure if he hadn't proved his lines, he would have been gone like the wind. However, would you buy a Setter from Joey Downtheroad cuz he said his waz the bestest. Your argument leads me to believe that the only thing that matters is what good are the parents. There is no need for a pedigree because if none of the dogs are titled, then it really doesn't matter. Just go by what I'm telling you about the lineage that only a few hunters have seen.

As to your second line, that is what I was alluding to when I was talking about trials, comp's, tests.........Proving the dogs ability to a point where it is acknoweldged and recognized.

As to the argument side, the common thread coming from you seems to be argumentative that trial dogs are no good for hunting and you wouldn't own one. I wouldn't own a dog that didn't have FT Ch's in their pedigree. Even in the worst case after buying an apple that fell from the Field Trial tree, (Thanks Ray) that apple is still going to make a great hunting dog.

The reason my first dog in 92' was field trial stock was because I knew enough to know that it would be a great hunting dog. She was a great meat dog because that was what I wanted. IMO, all hunting dogs should be steady to wing and shot. I just hunted over one that was not broke and the owner shot 4' over it's head as it was chasing after a rooster in SD. When I was chastized for not shooting I very quickly Quipped, that it wasn't my dogs head to shoot over. However, the owner didn't give a rat's A** about himself shooting over it. He was more concerned about shooting it first. He was actually 10 yards to the right of me.

Now that all being said and I totally am on board with great bird dogs, hunting or Field Trialing. However, you need to train for your liking. Personally, now that I understand Field Trialing and enjoy the game, if I had a dog that only ran 300 - 400 yards I'd sell it to a hunter because that dog would tighten up his range in the woods if he was smart enough to adapt. My big runnin GSP went 2nd out of 22 in an Am. walking stake in the Grouse woods and then went 1st out of 38 in an Open horseback stake the next day. Not braggin, I'm the weak link as a newby and these were some of our first broke stakes. Just sayin she is smart enough to adapt!

Bill

[Winchey]

Ray,
What about the abilities to retrieve and hunt dead? Most FTs don't test that. That is why I think NAVHDA is the best. It allows for that evaluation.

Also, sometimes I think that a FT bred dog can have too much forward running in them. For a foot hunter I mean. Not all of them run too big, and I understand that training can help, but too much octane can lead to dogs that get lost. I've seen it over and over. My DD would never run away and get lost. My friend had 2 GSP high octane dogs that were GREAT dogs, but ran way too big. He shocked them over and over, and it helped. He finally sold them. Now, don't get me wrong, I own FT stock, and love their drive, but there can be disadvantages to breeding to a trial standard. MANY more positives though. Also, don't get me wrong there are things about DDs that I wish were different. Fts serve a very important purpose.

Someone I know has a leonberger who is a run off, well walk off. So what?

[Birddogz]

Point is that breeding for a FT standard can have some negatives. Every dog has a range they are born with naturally. Some FT dog's natural range is out further than a foot hunter needs. That is all I am saying. My DD hunts at a much tighter range naturally. Not boot licking, but closer. That is all I was saying. In general FTs are a tremendous benefit to a hunter.

[Dave Quindt]

Point is that breeding for a FT standard can have some negatives. Every dog has a range they are born with naturally. Some FT dog's natural range is out further than a foot hunter needs. That is all I am saying.

And that is your opinion, and nothing else. I whole-heartedly reject the idea that "range" is a trait determined "naturally", but that's a whole other discussion.

If you had said

Some FT dog's natural range is out further than some foot hunters need.

your comments would have probably been more widely accepted as potentially accurate.

Of course, you could have also written

Some hunter-bred dog's natural range is out further than a foot hunter needs.

And

Some NAVHDA-bred dog's natural range is out further than a foot hunter needs.

And

Some show-bred dog's natural range is out further than a foot hunter needs.

And

Some JGV-bred dog's natural range is out further than a foot hunter needs.

And all of those would have been as potentially accurate as your original statement.


The first step to getting yourself out of a hole is to stop digging.

[Winchey]

True. Nobody is saying Feild Trials are perfect or for everyone. The only thing people are telling you is not to say something else is infinately better if you haven't done it. I am sure Ray and many others on this sight can list off all kinds of things that are wrong with trials, but have been involved with them for long enough to know they are still pretty good. If you actually had been there and done that I would give your veiws a little more weight. I know you enjoy other things more than you feel you would enjoy trials, and that is absolutely fine, but you are hardly qualified to compare them. I am not qualified to say which is better, and those that are seem to be smart enough not to say one is better.

[Birddogz]

Point is that breeding for a FT standard can have some negatives. Every dog has a range they are born with naturally. Some FT dog's natural range is out further than a foot hunter needs. That is all I am saying.

And that is your opinion, and nothing else. I whole-heartedly reject the idea that "range" is a trait determined "naturally", but that's a whole other discussion.

If you had said

Some FT dog's natural range is out further than some foot hunters need.

your comments would have probably been more widely accepted as potentially accurate.

Of course, you could have also written

Some hunter-bred dog's natural range is out further than a foot hunter needs.

And

Some NAVHDA-bred dog's natural range is out further than a foot hunter needs.

And

Some show-bred dog's natural range is out further than a foot hunter needs.

And

Some JGV-bred dog's natural range is out further than a foot hunter needs.

And all of those would have been as potentially accurate as your original statement.


The first step to getting yourself out of a hole is to stop digging.

You don't think range is natural? Come on. How many Ryman Setters will compete well with Horse back/FT Setters in range? I can tell you that all my dogs had a "natural" preferred range.

[birddogger]

I think proving my dog in a trial would be great, then I read this. I think it is great that people can get their dog to do all this, but as a hunter what's the point. I'm still can't understand why the shuffling of a dogs feet or the point of the tail make a good or great dog. All this flawlessness isn't necessary and doesn't relate. I think trialing is a great ideal, although flawed in its ideology. Its like bringing a judge to a trap shooting event and award half the points to how good the shooter looks and half towards hits (because judging his form he should of hit more).

As a hunter, I still strive to have dogs that are steady and run and point with style. I like to admire my dogs when they are working the cover and when they slam a point or I find them on point, I want to be able to say WOW!! look at that. Also, once they lock up, I don't want them moving as much as a toe. It doesn't always happen, but that is what I strive for. In other words, If I was judging nothing but a hunting dog, I would consider not only the number of birds found, but also the style in which it was done. After all, the love and fascination of the dogs are the only reason I hunt birds. If all I was interested in was filling the freezer, I would hunt something larger and wouldn't feed and train dogs all year.

Charlie

[Chukar12]

I think that range is largely a product of handling and shaping early on or a lack thereof. Confident dogs encouraged to seek objectives out of sight . There is some genetics clearly but how many are scared and nervous when they can't see pup? A lot of us...part not all of having an AA run is wanting one and fostering the confidence to get it.

[dan v]

I think that range is largely a product of handling and shaping early on or a lack thereof. Confident dogs encouraged to seek objectives out of sight . There is some genetics clearly but how many are scared and nervous when they can't see pup? A lot of us...part not all of having an AA run is wanting one and fostering the confidence to get it.

I think range is 90% genetics..maybe higher.

I'm not talking about run-offs here. I'm talking about truly big going dogs that still know where you are. These dogs have a couple things, 1) a huge desire to find birds, and 2) self confidence. They are comfortable hunting at extended range without being run offs. Runoffs don't care...they are neither no good as hunting dogs or as FT dogs. They may fool some at a FT pretending to be AA dogs....but they are not AA dogs. They are run offs that got stopped by a bird.

Dogs have a predisposed range at which they are comfortable with, and that range can be managed to a degree. Close working dogs will trend to be close, big dogs will tend to stretch the envelope.

[ymepointer]

Time has taught me that the more I study bird dogs the less I feel I know. Range, Style, Pups/adults. You just never know how a pup is going to turn out. To many factors to predict with 100% accuracy.

[Chukar12]

I truly lack the experience to argue the point as i have only a single source of data to justify my theory...All my life, I have conditioned young dogs to a closer range, or so I thought...as I entered the field trial arena I garnered a new found comfort in my training and the confidence I had in a dog that covered ground out of my sight albeit to the front for extended periods. I have let my latest pup roll and put so many fewer restrictions on him than I had namy others. As an experiment I did not even formally teach a here command until the dog was 8 months old I just more or less put myself in situations where the dog could see and stay with me. At two he won the ABC AA futurity, and backed it up with a placement in an AA hour championship. It was a "shooting dog" run by AF standards to be sure, but I feel it will extend as he gains more confidence...now to my point. I may be lucky...but the pups from his litter that i know of are fine dogs in their own right, but they are dogs hunted largely on preserves or closer working pheasant dogs on tighter land tracts in the farm lands of Ca.

I really do bow to greater experience and i trust that Dan has just that ... but from a personal point of view it makes a person formulate some thoughts...

[doco]

...now to my point. I may be lucky...but the pups from his litter that i know of are fine dogs in their own right, but they are dogs hunted largely on preserves or closer working pheasant dogs on tighter land tracts in the farm lands of Ca.

My point to a tee x2! They will adapt and accept what works for both, hunting or trialing, it is a team approach!

[Birddogz]

I think that range is largely a product of handling and shaping early on or a lack thereof. Confident dogs encouraged to seek objectives out of sight . There is some genetics clearly but how many are scared and nervous when they can't see pup? A lot of us...part not all of having an AA run is wanting one and fostering the confidence to get it.

I think range is 90% genetics..maybe higher.

I'm not talking about run-offs here. I'm talking about truly big going dogs that still know where you are. These dogs have a couple things, 1) a huge desire to find birds, and 2) self confidence. They are comfortable hunting at extended range without being run offs. Runoffs don't care...they are neither no good as hunting dogs or as FT dogs. They may fool some at a FT pretending to be AA dogs....but they are not AA dogs. They are run offs that got stopped by a bird.

Dogs have a predisposed range at which they are comfortable with, and that range can be managed to a degree. Close working dogs will trend to be close, big dogs will tend to stretch the envelope.

Totally agree.

That is why I think that hunting with the parents is key, if possible.

[slistoe]

Range is a combination of genetics and training. A dog that was not born with the physical and mental capabilities to carry a 600 yard cast in front of a horse will never be able to be taught to do so. A dog that is born with the capability can be allowed to do so - or not, according to the ability and whim of the trainer. Given the right dog with the right trainer and every range can be expressed from at heel to 1000 yards - at the whim of the handler/trainer.

[RayGubernat]

It has been my experience that a dog whose natural inclination is to be a close working dog can be stretched out...a little. When the terrain opens up, the dog may(and shjould0 open up as well, to fillup the avaialble country. For the most part though...you got what you got and what you see is what you got.

My experience has been with big running shooting dog stock not AA. I have found that many of those dogs also posess a significant amount of desire to stay with their hunter/handler. The dogs with big wheels that want to stay with their human...will do that. They will adjust their ground application to suit the terrain and the pace of the hunter/handler. They will range out and then check back.

The same dog that will range out and then check back, when the handler has a blank gun in their hand, will very often tighten right up when that handler is carrying a shotgu.

The same dog that will hunt and check back on his walking handler or hunt to the gun when his handler is carrying a shotgun may range out of sight when the handler is on horseback.

I have seen that happen too many times, with too amny different dogs for it to be a coincidence.

A big part of the "elasticity" of a dog's range is, I believe, how well they like you, respect you, how much they want you to be a part of the hunt and how well and how often the dog has been conditioned and encouraged to make those kinds of transitions.

There is not much we can do or need to do with the close working dog.

With the bigger running dog, how we train the dog to use that ability can make a huge difference in the dog's ultimate performance.

RayG

[Birddogz]

Range is a combination of genetics and training. A dog that was not born with the physical and mental capabilities to carry a 600 yard cast in front of a horse will never be able to be taught to do so. A dog that is born with the capability can be allowed to do so - or not, according to the ability and whim of the trainer. Given the right dog with the right trainer and every range can be expressed from at heel to 1000 yards - at the whim of the handler/trainer.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Condescending rubbish. The dog that runs huge does it because he has more "mental capabilities". The dog that hunts closer isn't as bright. This is total BS. There isn't a Lab in the country that will run like an AA dog. There isn't an AA dog nearly as intelligent as a smart Lab. This can be seen in the versatility of the Lab. Drug dog, seeing eye dog, etc. Besides HB hunting, there is zero reason to have a dog run super big.

Why isn't a dog simply referred to as having a naturally closer working range. It isn't a negative. In fact 99% of hunters I know would sell a dog that ran out past 500 yards all the time.

I know you can shorten dogs up, but why go through the battle of taking the way a dog hunts naturally out of them. Wouldn't it be easier to simply get a dog that was bred to hunt closer? This is what Ryman dogs do. This is what French Britts do. My DD does. They hunt closer ON AVERAGE than the AA bred dogs. I am not saying that you can't take a dogs range down a notch, but why fight a battle you don't have to?

[Coveyrise64]

Range is a combination of genetics and training. A dog that was not born with the physical and mental capabilities to carry a 600 yard cast in front of a horse will never be able to be taught to do so. A dog that is born with the capability can be allowed to do so - or not, according to the ability and whim of the trainer. Given the right dog with the right trainer and every range can be expressed from at heel to 1000 yards - at the whim of the handler/trainer.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Condescending rubbish. The dog that runs huge does it because he has more "mental capabilities". The dog that hunts closer isn't as bright. This is total BS. There isn't a Lab in the country that will run like an AA dog. There isn't an AA dog nearly as intelligent as a smart Lab. This can be seen in the versatility of the Lab. Drug dog, seeing eye dog, etc. Besides HB hunting, there is zero reason to have a dog run super big.

Why isn't a dog simply referred to as having a naturally closer working range. It isn't a negative. In fact 99% of hunters I know would sell a dog that ran out past 500 yards all the time.

I know you can shorten dogs up, but why go through the battle of taking the way a dog hunts naturally out of them. Wouldn't it be easier to simply get a dog that was bred to hunt closer? This is what Ryman dogs do. This is what French Britts do. My DD does. They hunt closer ON AVERAGE than the AA bred dogs. I am not saying that you can't take a dogs range down a notch, but why fight a battle you don't have to?

Dude.....slow down, you're going way to fast for them.

Coveyrise64

[tommyboy72]

Birddogz, I hate to do this but I am going to have to disagree with you in some respects on your last post. Just a few days ago before it got 30 below 0 here again I took my dogs out quail hunting. I hunt big country that probably most people do not have a chance to. Thousands of acres unbroken by fences and littered with coveys of blue and bobwhite quail if you can find them. Most of the area where I live looks dead flat but it isn't. Where I hunt there are large plateaus with low valleys in between and then large expanses of flat high desert looking country. There is a reason for dogs to range big in country like this. Flat out I am a lazy a$$. I do not want to walk every single one of those thousands of acres. I get on top of one of those large plateaus and will stand sometimes 20-30 minutes just watching the dogs. They were out the other day sometimes as far as somewhere between a 1/4 and a 1/2 a mile. I am not exactly sure of the range because my rangefinder only goes out to 450 yards. That was a guestimation. My dogs check back in on their own and if they get out far enough to look like specs on the horizon I will give a whistle blast or a light stimulation with the ecollar in windy conditions and they come right in. I let them cover a full 360 degree area like this before moving on and doing the same thing. Both my dogs run big like this but I also can shorten them up in heavy pheasant cover and tighter more dense quail cover. My dogs will hunt in close when they have scent but will range big if there is nothing they can smell in close. Sometimes in heavy cover it is a pain to constantly rein them in till they wear themselves out enough to stay in close on their own but sometimes it is a blessing to have big running dogs in big country even while on foot.

As far as labs as drug dogs go, I know a bit about drug dogs as well since I work in law enforcement and our undersheriff who is more like family to me than a friend or employer and who I have known personally for about 18 years is a certified drug and bite dog trainer and has let me in on a few training sessions. Drug dogs are not exactly used because of their intelligence. They are used for what the trainers call "prey" drive as it is related to a little yellow tennis ball. They look for the dogs whether they be Labs, Malinois, German Sheperds, etc. that want that little yellow tennis ball more than they want life itself. They start out putting the tennis ball under a wooden box and letting the dog find the ball and scratch at that box and then give the dog the ball. Pretty soon they do the same thing with 3 boxes set side by side until the dog has it down pat and can find the ball no matter what box it is under. They then overlay this by putting different drugs under the box with the ball. They do this one drug at a time. First usually marijuana since it has a really strong odor, then cocaine, meth, heroine, etc. until the dog can find the drugs with the ball all the time. The dog's reward is playing with the ball and fetching it for the officer. Sometimes they will teach the dog to sit before giving him the ball so that when the dog finds the drugs/ball under a box he will sit in front of whichever box has the drugs in it. This is called passive training. Dogs who claw and scratch at the boxes are called aggressive trained dogs. Here where I work they have both. When they finish the dogs training on boxes they will go into a parking lot usually at the PD or sheriffs office and plant the drugs under a tire or bumper or somewhere else on a car in the lot and allow the dog to simulate finding the drugs like it would in a real life scenario. This is just a short synapsis of the training but you get the picture. It does not have so much to do with intelligence as it does just wanting that tennis ball more than anything in the world. Heck one time the chief of police of our town of about 10,000 had a fat roly poly mutt he saved from the pound that was one of the best drug dogs I have ever seen because he wanted that tennis ball more than anything.