lab vs chessie

dkiller

lab vs chessie

Post by dkiller » Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:17 pm

what is a better over all duck hunter lab or chessie. I would like to hear from people who have had experience with both breeds. and what do you guys think is a better looking breed

User avatar
Loke
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:56 pm
Location: Following the Troopers Drum and Bugle Corps

Post by Loke » Sat Apr 19, 2008 10:01 pm

Image
'nuff said.

dkiller

Post by dkiller » Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:24 am

[quote="Loke"]

[img]http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118 ... der002.jpg[/img]

'nuff said.[/quote]

is that a chessie or a lab

User avatar
Loke
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:56 pm
Location: Following the Troopers Drum and Bugle Corps

Post by Loke » Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:04 pm

This is Shasta, my Chesapeake Bay Retriever. She will turn 2 in June. She loves the water, and will break ice to go swimming. Her retrieving skills are getting better the more we train. The most distinctive difference in the appearance of Chessies and Labs is the curly coat that the Chessies have. There is a lot of differences in their temperaments as well.

User avatar
Rick Hall
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:55 pm

Post by Rick Hall » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:52 am

Loke wrote:The most distinctive difference in the appearance of Chessies and Labs is the curly coat that the Chessies have.
Chessies have kinks on their butts to match the knots on their heads.

Image
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.

(And to see just how confused I really am, join us in my online blind at: Rick's 2009-2010 season log)

User avatar
Loke
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:56 pm
Location: Following the Troopers Drum and Bugle Corps

Post by Loke » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:28 am

And they don't make a Dead Grass Lab...

EWSIV

Post by EWSIV » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:36 am

They are both excellent breeds, and excellent retrievers. But, I think even the Chessie gentleman would agree that it is easier to find a good lab than it is to find a good chessie.

User avatar
Bowhunter20
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Utah, St.George

Post by Bowhunter20 » Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:59 am

I had one chessie and loved it. Then i got two labs and they blew the chessie out of the water.

Better looking too.
Image

Image
I am a proud member of Wingshooter forum, if you enjoy hunting, please check it out at www.wingshooter.netforums.us and join up!

User avatar
Grange
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1003
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:24 pm
Location: Green Bay, WI

Post by Grange » Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:51 am

My lab loves water and enjoys just going for a swim (not retrieve necessary). She is also very fast in the water. But compared to some of the chessies I had growing up she doesn't really compare. One of the chessies would rather swim than just about anything else and another was a rocket in the water. Never saw a dog that could come close the speed (including my fast lab) she had in water. The chessies looked more at home in the water than anywhere else.

If I wanted a waterfowl dog I'd definitely go with a chessie, but if I wanted a dog that would hunt uplands as much as waterfowl I'd go with a lab.

User avatar
Rick Hall
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:55 pm

Post by Rick Hall » Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:51 am

What kind of bird is the Lab holding in the bottom picture?
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.

(And to see just how confused I really am, join us in my online blind at: Rick's 2009-2010 season log)

User avatar
Loke
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:56 pm
Location: Following the Troopers Drum and Bugle Corps

Post by Loke » Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:57 pm

Bowhunter, that's a lot of snow for St. George.

User avatar
Loke
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:56 pm
Location: Following the Troopers Drum and Bugle Corps

Post by Loke » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:11 pm

EWSIV wrote:They are both excellent breeds, and excellent retrievers. But, I think even the Chessie gentleman would agree that it is easier to find a good lab than it is to find a good chessie.
And by the same logic, it is easier to find a bad Lab than a bad Chessie. I can find hundreds of Labs from questionable breeding in front of Walmart. Even some "purebreds with papers" that have blue eyes and white socks. I'm not saying that all Chessies come from championship lines. Just the fact that you have to look for a Chessie breeder increases your chance of finding a good one, than picking out a pup in the grocery store parking lot.

User avatar
Rick Hall
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:55 pm

Post by Rick Hall » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:04 pm

Loke wrote:
EWSIV wrote:They are both excellent breeds, and excellent retrievers. But, I think even the Chessie gentleman would agree that it is easier to find a good lab than it is to find a good chessie.
And by the same logic, it is easier to find a bad Lab than a bad Chessie... Just the fact that you have to look for a Chessie breeder increases your chance of finding a good one, than picking out a pup in the grocery store parking lot.
You lost me there. Anyone who buys any dog solely on the basis that it is a member of any breed is courting disappointment unless he's lucky and/or easily pleased.

Fellow can go to any retriever hunt test or trial in the country and find a good many really fine Labs that's blood is well worth looking into. Yet any time one finds a couple or three really nice Chessies at the same event it's cause for celebration. (Unless, of course, that event is the Chesapeake field Specialty.)

And from what I've seen, looking up a Chessie breeder, even one who's been at it for decades, without doing your homework on their dogs, is little or no better than getting one from the grocery store parking lot.

Lord knows I love 'em, but finding Chessies I'm anxious to own has usually taken some doing.
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.

(And to see just how confused I really am, join us in my online blind at: Rick's 2009-2010 season log)

User avatar
Loke
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:56 pm
Location: Following the Troopers Drum and Bugle Corps

Post by Loke » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:55 pm

I believe that the majority dog owners do not research breeders, bloodlines, or anything else about the dogs that the buy. Most of the folks that I have met hunting the public areas that I hunt, would have no idea what a hunt test is, or have a desire to attend one. I have yet to meet anyone in the field whose dog has been trained to a level that I would be proud of. Most of the dogs I see while I am trying to train my dog, have no idea what honoring is, nor do their owners. Most of them comment that my dog is amazing because she will stop on a whistle (sometimes), and I can direct her with hand signals (sometimes). They are amazed that my dog won't break (sometimes) when a dummy is thrown, and will only go when I send her (she does this one quite well). I have gone to hunt tests, not to compete with my dog, but to see what she should be capable of. And to learn how I can train her to achieve that level. I don't expect my dog to be a champion, I'm not capable of training her to become one.
The vast majority of casual hunters don't visit forums such as this, and have much lower expectations for their dogs than the people here. I bought my dog to hunt ducks with me, and to be a family pet. She was not intended to be breeding stock. If I were to start a kennel, with the intention of breeding, selling, and competing with my dogs, I would have higher standards than for a dog I would keep for a hunting companion and a pet. The Chessie breeders that I have known, have all had the betterment of the breed as one of their breeding goals. The same cannot be said of the Lab breeders that I have seen. I know that there are a lot of breeders that are doing their best to breed the best Labs that they can. I also believe that there are also a lot of Lab breeders that are taking the breed in directions away from the "perfect hunting dog" that everyone claims it to be. I chose the Chessie because they are known to be a great waterfowl dog, loyal to a fault, and a great member of the family. I wasn't looking for a "pointing" retriever, or a "silver" one, and didn't want to figure out the difference between a "field" or "show" dog.

User avatar
Rick Hall
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:55 pm

Post by Rick Hall » Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:38 pm

Loke wrote:I also believe that there are also a lot of Lab breeders that are taking the breed in directions away from the "perfect hunting dog" that everyone claims it to be.
It would be incredibly naive to think a discouraging percentage of Chessie breeders aren't doing the same.
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.

(And to see just how confused I really am, join us in my online blind at: Rick's 2009-2010 season log)

User avatar
Loke
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:56 pm
Location: Following the Troopers Drum and Bugle Corps

Post by Loke » Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:12 pm

I'm sure that there are some disreputable Chessie breeders out there. But you don't hear of Chessies that are bred to point, one version for the show ring, and another for the field games, and others still for a recessive color. Labs are being pulled in many different directions. They are asked to be service dogs, drug and explosive sniffers, seeing eye dogs, oh, and hunt, too. I think the breed is asked to do too many things. If you were to take a champion field dog, and breed it to a champion show dog, would you get puppies that can do it all? You wouldn't know what you could end up with. I think that the split is big enough between the show and field lines that they could be considered separate breeds.
There is a saying among many dog owners around here. That "papers don't hunt". That can be taken two ways. A dog with the finest pedigree will still be worthless if it doesn't get good training. Or that even a mutt can turn out to be a great hunting dog. My opinion is that if you get a dog with great breeding, and give it the best training possible, you give yourself the best chance possible to have a great dog.

User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16625
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Post by ezzy333 » Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:43 pm

We have people in our area that show and test both. Its not hard to produce dual qualified dogs if the breeders will just do it.

Ezzy
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

User avatar
Rick Hall
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:55 pm

Post by Rick Hall » Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:10 am

Yep, there are folks striving to breed true Dual Chesapeakes - but that means they're doing the work to produce and prove dogs capable of competing with the best in the field - and not just waltzing through a relatively rare breed's show title. (One prominant show handler is quoted as quipping that she can put a Chesapeake bench CH "on anything brown".)

There are also show breeders with an eye to producing "dual nature" dogs that both show and test well.

And there are breeders with their sights on nothing but show ribbons and breeding for them without concern for field attributes.

If there were, as many claim, no split in the Chesapeake breed, it would only be because well bred field dogs can also win show titles - and no indication of a well bred show dog's field ability.

And, of course, most breeders are putting contrary old Buck on gun-shy Sally in hopes of getting something better and making a few bucks.

Buying a Chesapeake out of a barrel in the hope of getting the next DC AFC Decks instead of a sorry dog would be no different than buying a Chevrolet out of a barrel in the hope of getting a Corvette instead of a Corvair.
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.

(And to see just how confused I really am, join us in my online blind at: Rick's 2009-2010 season log)

User avatar
Rick Hall
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:55 pm

Post by Rick Hall » Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:28 am

Loke wrote:If you were to take a champion (Lab) field dog, and breed it to a champion show dog, would you get puppies that can do it all?
Just so's you knows, there are, in fact, some dual minded Lab breeders producing dogs that both show and hunt test well.

But I'm reminded of the old bit about Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe's kids getting his looks and her brain.

Still, the truth is that you'd probably produce a dog that could be trained to more than satisfy the indiscriminate hunting dog owner I gather you're worrying over. Probably do the same with the get of a "silver Lab" x bench champion cross, too.

What you're not nearly so apt to get is the quality of dog a discriminating hunting dog owner can enjoy.

Please know I mean no disrespect to you or your dog, but let's be honest: the things you've noted as impressing folks about your dog's work could easily be taught to most any stray off the street. I've had a retrieving beagle hound (linebred from what I understood to be the 15" variety's all time winningest show champ) that was rock steady and handled better than the vast majority of working retrievers.

By the same token, it would have been a very rare week when one of my hunters didn't declare the least inherently talented of my Chessies was the best gun dog he'd ever seen. Just meant he hadn't seen enough dogs...
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.

(And to see just how confused I really am, join us in my online blind at: Rick's 2009-2010 season log)

EWSIV

Post by EWSIV » Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:02 am

Loke wrote:
EWSIV wrote:They are both excellent breeds, and excellent retrievers. But, I think even the Chessie gentleman would agree that it is easier to find a good lab than it is to find a good chessie.
And by the same logic, it is easier to find a bad Lab than a bad Chessie. I can find hundreds of Labs from questionable breeding in front of Walmart. Even some "purebreds with papers" that have blue eyes and white socks. I'm not saying that all Chessies come from championship lines. Just the fact that you have to look for a Chessie breeder increases your chance of finding a good one, than picking out a pup in the grocery store parking lot.
That is not the same logic. Go to a field trial or hunt test. Count the number of Labs. Count the number of chessies. I would set the over/under on Chessie's in a trial or test in Texas at three and take the under all day. I realize that this isn't the chessie's turf, but there are lost of trials, tests, and duck hunters here. The odds are stacked in favor of the Labrador because of the very variety of fantastic dogs to choose from.

I am not disparaging Chesapeake Bay Retrievers. I think they are a fantastic breed, but there are a lot less good ones than there are labs. I have no doubt that the best chessie's can compete with the best labs, but there are smaller numbers of Chesapeake's.

This is a thread on a dog forum where a gentleman is searching for answers about Labs and Chessies, not a Wal Mart parking lot. If you are asking the question here, you are unlikely to buy a dog from the mall or roadside. You are seeking to educate yourself to make a good decision on what breed is best for your hunting.

Will

User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16625
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Post by ezzy333 » Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:23 am

Will,

I agree with much of your post and it agrees with much of what has been posted
That is not the same logic.
However I don't see where you disproved anything. Seems if there are more good one there also are more poor ones.

The answer to this whole post is there are good andbad in all breeds and how many there are has little to do with it.

Ezzy
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

EWSIV

Post by EWSIV » Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:44 am

ezzy333 wrote:Will,

I agree with much of your post and it agrees with much of what has been posted
That is not the same logic.
However I don't see where you disproved anything. Seems if there are more good one there also are more poor ones.

The answer to this whole post is there are good andbad in all breeds and how many there are has little to do with it.

Ezzy
Ezzy,

The point is that the 'Wal-Mart parking lot' type breeding is not something that a person that is venturing to educate themselves regarding breeding is likely to consider as the best way to find a hunting dog. I would not consider a Lab or Chessie from these circumstances when talking about field type dogs.

My opinion is that, when searching for a hunting dog, the only dogs under consideration are dogs that are trialed, tested, or bred by conscientous hunting dog breeders. As far as I'm concerned, they are the only dogs that exist within a breed.

User avatar
bobman
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1369
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:45 am
Location: Georgia

Post by bobman » Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:44 am

Bowhunter20 wrote:I had one chessie and loved it. Then i got two labs and they blew the chessie out of the water.

Better looking too.
Image

Image

hardcore woodpecker hunters will always find that labs can out perform chessies, :lol:
currently two shorthairs, four english pointers, one Brittany, one SPRINGER a chihuahua and a min pin lol

User avatar
Rick Hall
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:55 pm

Post by Rick Hall » Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:02 am

Ezzy, Brittany's being another "dual" breed, would you take your chances on show breeding or want to see field credentials?

(My own current Britt has DC grandparents, but I don't believe there was a straight show CH in his five generation ped...)
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.

(And to see just how confused I really am, join us in my online blind at: Rick's 2009-2010 season log)

User avatar
ezzy333
GDF Junkie
Posts: 16625
Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: Dixon IL

Post by ezzy333 » Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:33 am

Rick,

I would like to see the field titles if I knew nothing about the dogs but I look for the Dual normally as I want the dog to meet the breed standard. I probably over the years have hadmore dogs from show breeding than field. But I also knew the dogs were hunted. Most of the pups I sold were sold as hunting dogs and the number one concern was if the dog would range too far. Field trial breeding was not a plus for the average hunter. Most of the dogs with a field title were from the gun dog ranks and not the AA type dogs.

My goal yet today is to breed and raise good looking hunting dogs and family pets. I like to show them once they have proven themselves in the field. I have little desire and no need to see how far a dog can run here in IL. If I was out west on the prairie I would look for a wider ranging dog.

At least in the Brits, I think you have to look very hard to find a line of dogs that won't hunt. However, I sure don't appreciate what people do to a breed when they breed for just one aspect of what makes our different breeds great, and that is what has happened with way too many people interested in just showing or just trialing.

Ezzy
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=144
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=207

It's not how many breaths you have taken but how many times it has been taken away!

Has anyone noticed common sense isn't very common anymore.

User avatar
Rick Hall
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:55 pm

Post by Rick Hall » Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:54 am

ezzy333 wrote:At least in the Brits, I think you have to look very hard to find a line of dogs that won't hunt.
That is, of course, the claim often made for Chesapeakes. The validity of which comes down to one's concept of "won't hunt".

The very few straight show Britts I've seen in the field were lost in inner-space, but, again, I suppose something most hunters wanting something just to futz around out there with them might think fine.

Not saying that's a "bad" thing, just no more for me than a Chesapeake that has to be cajoled into making easy retrieves, thank you.
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.

(And to see just how confused I really am, join us in my online blind at: Rick's 2009-2010 season log)

User avatar
Rick Hall
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:55 pm

Post by Rick Hall » Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:59 am

bobman wrote:
Bowhunter20 wrote:I had one chessie and loved it. Then i got two labs and they blew the chessie out of the water.

Image

hardcore woodpecker hunters will always find that labs can out perform chessies, :lol:
Bobman, shame on me for thinking exactly that.

Bowman, please forgive me for pickin'. I'm glad you've dogs that please you so.
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.

(And to see just how confused I really am, join us in my online blind at: Rick's 2009-2010 season log)

User avatar
Rick Hall
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:55 pm

Post by Rick Hall » Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:09 am

In the interest of full disclosure, here are some shots of my current big, bad Chesapeake pup hunting:

Image

Image

And his kill:

Image

(Don't know what possessed me to register poor Peake as "Coyote In The Woodpile".)
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.

(And to see just how confused I really am, join us in my online blind at: Rick's 2009-2010 season log)

BigShooter
GDF Junkie
Posts: 2514
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 6:20 pm
Location: Minnesota

Post by BigShooter » Tue Apr 22, 2008 10:19 am

First it was Bambi now it's Mickey Mouse. :P

I wonder which animal rights group will be the first to stick up for the mouse? :)

Why are your Chessie's always so wet and dirty lookin'? Can't they stay out of the water for even five minutes? :P

User avatar
Rick Hall
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:55 pm

Post by Rick Hall » Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:38 am

BigShooter wrote:Why are your Chessie's always so wet and dirty lookin'?
Image

Could be environmental:

Image


Or it could be his dumb-a--ed trainer who keeps landing bumpers on end, so they stick in the bottom gumbo:

Image


'Course, he's not always muddy:

Image
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.

(And to see just how confused I really am, join us in my online blind at: Rick's 2009-2010 season log)

User avatar
Grange
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1003
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:24 pm
Location: Green Bay, WI

Post by Grange » Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:42 pm

Rick, every time I see your chessie I can't help but think about my first chessie, Pepper. She was also a deadgrass color and looked strikingly similar to your dog. Man, do I miss that gal.

User avatar
Rick Hall
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:55 pm

Post by Rick Hall » Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:41 pm

I'm glad he does that for you, Grange. Peake is my fourth Chessie, and his resemblances to the first two,

in appearance and aptitude with Bud:

Image

and temperament with Chien:

Image

brings those two long gone friends to mind and heart daily.
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.

(And to see just how confused I really am, join us in my online blind at: Rick's 2009-2010 season log)

User avatar
Loke
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:56 pm
Location: Following the Troopers Drum and Bugle Corps

Post by Loke » Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:46 pm

EWSIV wrote: The point is that the 'Wal-Mart parking lot' type breeding is not something that a person that is venturing to educate themselves regarding breeding is likely to consider as the best way to find a hunting dog. I would not consider a Lab or Chessie from these circumstances when talking about field type dogs.
I have to disagree on this point. A person that is inquiring about this breed vs. another most likely doesn't know a lot about either breed, and wouldn't know what to look for concerning the breeding of his potential dog. He is asking, in effect, do I buy the Ford or the Chevy? There is no indication of the type of vehicle in question. All that is indicated is that the person wants a vehicle.
There are some folks on this forum that hunt and train dogs professionally. I wish that I had that level of expertise. Others that compete in hunt tests and trials. That would be fun as well, but I don't do that either. The reason that I bought my dog, (she was from a breeder that I met in the parking lot at Sportsman's Warehouse), was so that I would have an excuse to hunt waterfowl more. I believe that the vast majority of waterfowl hunters, especially first time dog owners, will purchase their dog based solely on the breed. And most of them will partially base their decision on the cost of the dog. It is much easier to get permission from the boss to buy a $300 dog with no papers, than a $1200 dog with an impeccable pedigree. Before I purchased my dog, I visited several forums to get an idea which breed might best suit my needs for the dog. I really wasn't interested in having a field/show champion quality dog. I wanted a dog that would be healthy, and that I could train to have manners in the blind. I wanted a dog that could be taught to handle, and to run a blind retrieve. From what I have seen on the WMA's that I hunt, my expectations for my dog are higher than 90% of the hunters out there. Shasta will never be a champion. She won't compete in field trials. She will never compare to those dogs that do. And neither will millions of Labs, or thousands of other Chessies.
The people on this forum that are asking advise on which breed to buy, are not interested in finding a show/field champion. Those who want a champion dog already know what breed the want. Those folks would be asking about bloodlines and pedigrees, not about breeds in general.

User avatar
Rick Hall
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:55 pm

Post by Rick Hall » Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:17 pm

Even if that is the case, why not offer the service of useful advice as to the advisability of paying heed to breeding, rather than meaningless or misleading breed generalizations?
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.

(And to see just how confused I really am, join us in my online blind at: Rick's 2009-2010 season log)

User avatar
Loke
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:56 pm
Location: Following the Troopers Drum and Bugle Corps

Post by Loke » Tue Apr 22, 2008 9:00 pm

I didn't mean to sound ungrateful for the advise that has been offered, and that I have taken. I appreciate all of the education that I have gotten from those who contribute to these forums. I also remember how I felt when some of the advice offered was so far above my understanding that I felt stupid for asking. (I'm still trying to figure out the difference between line bred and inbred). I have come to understand the importance of looking at the breeding of a dog when searching for the perfect dog. If I were to put together the greatest Little League baseball team ever, I would focus on the sons of Major League players. That would give you ]the best chance of finding the best athletes.
When someone asks which breed to buy, the expectations for the dog need to be clarified. As well as the prospective owner's experience with dogs. There are a lot of dogs out there that are stuck in a kennel in the backyard, because someone wanted a duck dog, but don't have time for a pet. I don't think this is fair to either the dog or the owner. These folks would be better served by hiring a guide for the two or three days that they hunt. And it would probably be cheaper in the long run as well.

User avatar
natetnc
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 714
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:59 pm

Post by natetnc » Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:11 am

Loke wrote:
EWSIV wrote: The reason that I bought my dog, (she was from a breeder that I met in the parking lot at Sportsman's Warehouse), was so that I would have an excuse to hunt waterfowl more. I believe that the vast majority of waterfowl hunters, especially first time dog owners, will purchase their dog based solely on the breed. And most of them will partially base their decision on the cost of the dog. It is much easier to get permission from the boss to buy a $300 dog with no papers, than a $1200 dog with an impeccable pedigree. Before I purchased my dog, I visited several forums to get an idea which breed might best suit my needs for the dog. I really wasn't interested in having a field/show champion quality dog. I wanted a dog that would be healthy, and that I could train to have manners in the blind. I wanted a dog that could be taught to handle, and to run a blind retrieve. From what I have seen on the WMA's that I hunt, my expectations for my dog are higher than 90% of the hunters out there. Shasta will never be a champion. She won't compete in field trials. She will never compare to those dogs that do. And neither will millions of Labs, or thousands of other Chessies.
The people on this forum that are asking advise on which breed to buy, are not interested in finding a show/field champion. Those who want a champion dog already know what breed the want. Those folks would be asking about bloodlines and pedigrees, not about breeds in general.
1) first bird dog i have owned
2) bought so i could go bird hunting
3) never knew anyone who had bird dogs
4) bought my brit based on breed and $ (i was in college)
5) after getting ped noticed she was inbred as all get out
6) had vet check hips out turns out they are good
7) came from farm owners in NE, parents had limited hunting experience
8- being my first cant comment on ease of training
9) buddy bought e setter 3wks older than my brit (his from ch lines)
10) his dog will cover more ground but we shoot more over my dog

looking back i would have never purchased this pup, but glad i did. i do consider myself lucky, not only because she is a healthy solid dog but because she is a good hunter too. like said above she will never be a champion but that isn't what i bought her for, i bought her to hunt.

my suggestion to the poster, you can't look at a specific breed and ask which is better, as mentioned earlier it is too broad of a question and is a set up for a bunch of arguing, then you have to wade through all the bs to find the points made. look at some different lines in each breed that you are interested in, i am not a waterfowl person but i bet you will find a line in each that will suit your needs. post what you are looking for and i am sure there are some on here that can point you in the right direction.

EWSIV

Post by EWSIV » Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:33 am

And neither will millions of Labs, or thousands of other Chessies.
The people on this forum that are asking advise on which breed to buy, are not interested in finding a show/field champion. Those who want a champion dog already know what breed the want. Those folks would be asking about bloodlines and pedigrees, not about breeds in general
I am not giving advice on how to find a champion. If you buy a dog from the 'Wal-Mart parking lot' type, then you have no idea what you are getting. It may be a great hunting dog, or it may be part pit bull for all you know.

My suggestion for those that want a good hunting dog is to find a puppy whose parents are field trialed, hunt tested, and/or find a breeder of hunting dogs that you trust.

sjohnny

Post by sjohnny » Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:41 am

EWSIV wrote:If you buy a dog from the 'Wal-Mart parking lot' type...it may be part pit bull for all you know.
The question is not if it is but what %age.

Sounds like you're going to the same Walmarts I am :roll: :lol:

John

User avatar
Rick Hall
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:55 pm

Post by Rick Hall » Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:50 am

I keep reading that folks aren't looking for a champion, but why the heck wouldn't a hunter want to find a champion, or at least the inherent trainability and aptitude to become one?
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.

(And to see just how confused I really am, join us in my online blind at: Rick's 2009-2010 season log)

User avatar
Loke
Rank: Junior Hunter
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 8:56 pm
Location: Following the Troopers Drum and Bugle Corps

Post by Loke » Wed Apr 23, 2008 2:55 pm

I guess the point I'm trying to make, is the vast majority of dog owners (and not just hunters) have no idea what characteristics give a dog the potential to become champions. If my sister's dog goes more than a day without wetting on the floor she is ecstatic. My standards are a bit higher than that. I've had dogs as pets as long as I can remember (that gets shorter every day), but Shasta is the first real hunting dog for me. At this point, I don't have the available funds to send her to a trainer, so she will be trained as well as I can learn to train her. Right now her potential is limited more by my abilities than her breeding. I also believe that this would apply to the vast majority of the dogs out there. Their potential is limited by their owners, not their breeding. When my ability to train my dog gets better, hopefully my dog will also. And I will probably look fro a better dog next time around. The comment was made that any stray off the street could be trained as well as my dog. That is probably true. In fact I could probably train any stray off the street to do what my dog can do right now. Not everyone needs a dog that has the potential to be the next Number One Dog in the country, nor could they do it justice. Most would be served well by a healthy dog that can learn better than they can teach. And they should be smart enough to realize that they don't need to start another neighborhood puppy mill. The breeding is best left to the professionals that are working to better the breed no matter which one it may be.

I'm done venting. I feel better now. :wink:

Whit

Re: lab vs chessie

Post by Whit » Thu Nov 13, 2008 12:37 am

I have trained both Chessie's and Lab's. Both are amazing dogs. This has been a very delicate debate over the years for reason being of ownership of either breed. Anything that we own or are part of such as organizations much like politics, religion, cars, relationships, kids, sports, guns, and so on...we personalize this. It has to be as good if not better than what anyone else has.

It is just as rewarding to have a dog that wins field trials left and right as it is as to have a dog that you can completely connect with out in the field or marsh creating lasting memories that will last a lifetime. Much like relationships...how many of our girlfriends or wives won Miss America? But they should have :)

This being said...if the big one happened tomorrow and we all had to start over like Jeremiah Johnson or something like that....I hope you have a Chessie.

vikings269
Rank: Senior Hunter
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 7:16 pm

Re: lab vs chessie

Post by vikings269 » Fri Nov 14, 2008 7:37 pm

This being said...if the big one happened tomorrow and we all had to start over like Jeremiah Johnson or something like that....I hope you have a Chessie.
haha, i actually just got my first chessie and so i cant or shouldnt comment on the diference between the two but i've had many labs over the years so ok i will. This chessie i have seems to be way more tolerable in the house then just about every lab i ever been with growing up, a lab seems will walk by the coffee table wagging its tail and knock everything off it and think he did no wrong (ok maybe they were younger labs) my chessie wont even pick up anything in the house unless i give it to him (then he knows its his) just amazing. I'm sure many older labs are good too so you lab lovers dont get mad at me and like i said i have had only one experience with a chessie and as short as its been he is one of the most respectful dogs i think i ever had!

Aaron Proffitt

Re: lab vs chessie

Post by Aaron Proffitt » Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:13 pm

Is it true Chessies are lacking as field dogs ?

User avatar
Rick Hall
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:55 pm

Re: lab vs chessie

Post by Rick Hall » Wed Nov 19, 2008 6:23 pm

Aaron Proffitt wrote:Is it true Chessies are lacking as field dogs ?
Yes, it's true: some poorly bred Chessies are dang near as lacking afield as well bred Labradors.
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.

(And to see just how confused I really am, join us in my online blind at: Rick's 2009-2010 season log)

Aaron Proffitt

Re: lab vs chessie

Post by Aaron Proffitt » Thu Nov 20, 2008 7:44 am

Rick Hall wrote:
Aaron Proffitt wrote:Is it true Chessies are lacking as field dogs ?
Yes, it's true: some poorly bred Chessies are dang near as lacking afield as well bred Labradors.


LOL...what I meant to say was as flushers. Are they as versatile ?

User avatar
Rick Hall
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:55 pm

Re: lab vs chessie

Post by Rick Hall » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:28 am

Sorry, Aaron, I thought you were just stirring the pot a bit.

My upland experience with Chessies has been as mixed as with Labs, some get after it and can go hard all day and some are less keen on or fit for flushing work. The best of my waterfowling Chessies probably enjoyed upland work even more and worked many a hunter into the ground pursuing wild quail and woodcock. My "worst" upland Chessie was too wooly to handle warm days well and tended to let up after long periods without hitting scent.
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.

(And to see just how confused I really am, join us in my online blind at: Rick's 2009-2010 season log)

User avatar
crackerd
Rank: 5X Champion
Posts: 1085
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 6:57 am

Re: lab vs chessie

Post by crackerd » Thu Nov 20, 2008 11:31 am

Don't you keep a spotted Chessie in your kennel for that sort of stuff? Not that Labs weren't honored that you so deemed the "spotted" one elsewhere.

MG

User avatar
Rick Hall
Rank: 3X Champion
Posts: 510
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 3:55 pm

Re: lab vs chessie

Post by Rick Hall » Thu Nov 20, 2008 2:37 pm

Everything I've ever had during my adult life, but the beagle, has pulled both upland and waterfowling duty, MG. And, if memory serves, the name "spotted Lab" came from one of my hunters that duck hunted the big marsh over the current Britt, where the 38-pounder was more adept at staying atop the flotant than the 96lb Chessie I then had.

Never know when something unexpected might leave us without one or the other, so I've always kept everything current in both. But there are also moods, upland situations and bird species a flusher better suits than a pointer. I wouldn't, for instance, let my Louisiana pointing dogs know rails, snipe or even doves are anything but trash, because such birds are thick enough here to pose a real nusiance if treated as game during our quest for more generally favored quail and woodcock. But when I do feel like gunning them, the flushers are better suited to that end, anyway.

And for a period of a few years while a setter was semi-retired, it may well have been that the Chessie I also had put as many wild quail in the bag as any pointing dog in the state, as some of our leases were then relatively thick with them and the Chessie, Bud, and I were nuts over hunting 'em. Those days of quail plenty are now history here, as their numbers have plummeted in just the past decade - and my current pointing dog may well be my last. May just do all the hunting left to us over Chessies, we'll see...
If you think I'm wrong, you might be right.

(And to see just how confused I really am, join us in my online blind at: Rick's 2009-2010 season log)

Aaron Proffitt

Re: lab vs chessie

Post by Aaron Proffitt » Thu Nov 20, 2008 5:04 pm

Rick Hall wrote:Sorry, Aaron, I thought you were just stirring the pot a bit.

My upland experience with Chessies has been as mixed as with Labs, some get after it and can go hard all day and some are less keen on or fit for flushing work. The best of my waterfowling Chessies probably enjoyed upland work even more and worked many a hunter into the ground pursuing wild quail and woodcock. My "worst" upland Chessie was too wooly to handle warm days well and tended to let up after long periods without hitting scent.


Thanks ,Rick. That was kind of what I wanted to know. I have been really impressed with the breed. I love my Labs, but they are getting a little on with age. Thinking about Chessies next but was a little concerned should I want to turn a successful morning duck hunting into an afternoon chasing pheasants. Right now I can do both.

Bowbldr

Re: lab vs chessie

Post by Bowbldr » Mon Dec 01, 2008 9:44 pm

Only had one Chessie and no Labs.
Too my knowledge Brandy never left a wounded duck on the ground or water. Most days she brought in birds I wasn't sure I'd hit. She would point quail, turtles, lizards, copperheads, most flying bugs and rabbits.

I was young then, so young I wasn't even aware dogs needed to be trained. Her training consisted entirely of retrieving tennis balls until I was too tired of swinging a raquet.

I also have to confess, in matters that did not involve retrieving or companionship she could be the most hard headed, thick skulled dog I've ever known. She never could pass up a good smelling garbage can.

Post Reply