range in hunting dogs

[snips]

Howie's probably like me...Does not look at a thread that says Range in hunting dogs because he knows 10 pgs later it is talking about society and divorce I just now looked at this

[Ryman Gun Dog]

Ruffshooter,
I understand what he is trying to say about a big running dog and extreme discipline. Owners who have dogs with a companion genetic dispositon have animals that seldom need to wear an e-collar and hunt for their masters, so little and no discipline is needed to actually hunt with these animal. Having to constantly hack, yell, beep or shock a dog to use the animal to hunt with, is extreme disciple to owners who hunt with fully trained companion type dogs, no matter the breed. However most times
the owners of these companion type dogs have not horse back Quail hunted or mountain Chukar hunted out west, where a big running dog who is doing his job correctly is prized for his independence and big movement. As long as the dog is doing his job correctly, the master is happy. There are different gun dogs for different kinds of
hunting. Sure you can fight the genetics with discipline but its a constant repetative situation.
RGD/Dave

[AzDoggin]

Sure you can fight the genetics with discipline but its a constant repetative situation.

Not much fun for hunter or dog. Re-emphasizes the importance of getting a dog whose parents hunted the way you want your dog to hunt.

[ACooper]

Quail runner: "A big running dog usually goes through extreme disciplinary training, "
:roll: :roll: :roll:

IMO "extreme disciplinary training" would be more of a reflection on the owners comfort level with a big running dog than an actual reflection of the dog.

[Birddogz]

I think what is odd to me is that very, very, very few people hunt on horseback on a 20,000 acre ranch. I have access to such places and don't do it. From the time and expense a horse adds, it just doesn't seem worth it. Anyway, many people own horseback trial dog genetics. In fact I can't tell you how many people will glowingly tell me how many ribbons their dog's lineage has racked up on horseback trials. When I ask what they are going to do, the answer is frequently "Hunt pheasants, and maybe some grouse." My point is that most people hunt on foot and definately don't need a dog that hunts past 300 yards, yet the genetics they get are many times from HB/supercharged genes. Why buy a Ferrari when you live on a street with a 45 mph zone? You many times end up spending time trying to "take it out of them". Why not buy foot hunting stock in the first place?

Why fight what a dog has naturally? It really isn't fair to you or the dog.

[Ryman Gun Dog]

ACooper,

No sir, a dogs genetics determines 70% of how a dog will instinctively preform, only 30% is actual training. No matter how good the trainer is the dog wants to hunt instinctively in a certain manner, if you train against the genetic instincts (Imprint) you must us some sort of discipline, today its mostly accomplished with mild electrical stimulation, until the dog submits to the masters training. Some people like this kind of training, personally I do not train Grouse dogs in this manner, others do.
I train animals who work for their masters out of love and respect not fear, again this goes back to genetic disposition.
RGD/Dave

[ACooper]

ACooper,

No sir, a dogs genetics determines 70% of how a dog will instinctively preform, only 30% is actual training. No matter how good the trainer is the dog wants to hunt instinctively in a certain manner, if you train against the genetic instincts (Imprint) you must us some sort of discipline, today its mostly accomplished with mild electrical stimulation, until the dog submits to the masters training. Some people like this kind of training, personally I do not train Grouse dogs in this manner, others do.
I train animals who work for their masters out of love and respect not fear, again this goes back to genetic disposition.
RGD/Dave

You make my point if it is 70% genetics anyway so regardless of training the dog will most likely hunt for you regardless of range. Big running and hard to handle rouge dogs are not one in the same. Just like close working does not equal easy to train hunting for the gun etc. It is about INDIVIDUALS. I am no proponent of huge running dogs but all the generalities in this post are ridiculous.

[adogslife]

No sir, a dogs genetics determines 70% of how a dog will instinctively preform, only 30% is actual training.

Can you show where you gathered this information?

Thanks

[Ryman Gun Dog]

Adogslife,
I gathered my knowledge from my mentor, Adam Fogie who was an old time German dog trainer, he helped get Ames started long ago, and worked closely with Davis
thru his life time. I am proud to say he was my mentor and that few people understood dog genetics & gun dog training as well as Adam, maybe George Ryman who I also spent time with as a boy, was Adams equal. If you would like to know more about Adams training trechniques, read Davis's old book, How to train your own Bird Dog
Lots of good information in that old book.
RGD/Dave

[cody]

I gathered my knowledge from my mentor, Adam Fogie who was an old time German dog trainer, he helped get Ames started long ago, and worked closely with Davis
thru his life time. I am proud to say he was my mentor and that few people understood dog genetics & gun dog training as well as Adam, maybe George Ryman who I also spent time with as a boy, was Adams equal. If you would like to know more about Adams training trechniques, read Davis's old book, How to train your own Bird Dog
Lots of good information in that old book.

Can you show where/how they gathered this information?

[AzDoggin]

The percentage of genetic contribution is guesswork - expert opinion from folks who've spent their lifetimes around dogs. I got an old book by Bill Tarrant and was reading a chapter on Robert Wehle (Elhew Kennels) last night. Wehle was basically saying the same thing about genetic contribution, and for him it was dogs, cattle, seems like chickens, and some other creatures. Wehles premise is that behavioral characteristics/tendencies are genetically transmitted just as physical characteristics are. His breeding of the Elhew pointers over time eventually resulted in dogs with some pretty predictable traits. The problem with behavioral characteristics is that interaction with the environment, i.e., experience and training, also provides a significant influence.

I doubt whether anyone could provide a % genetic contribution toward behavioral characteristics with other than a very gross degree of accuracy, however.

Does give us some pretty good fodder for a discussion board, eh?

[live4point]

Like begets Like.

[Birddogz]

Like begets Like.

Exactly!

[Ryman Gun Dog]

Cody,
As was stated these men gathered their knowledge thru life times of work with animals and genetics, if you are looking for a book written by some genetic scientist
I am afraid you are out of luck. These men understood German GVP testing cryteria and breeding, to assure a better genetic product each time they mated their animals. The generational pedigrees and GVP scores on these pedigrees assures the purchaser he is purchasing what he is paying for. With the addition of todays DNA testing traceability is pretty much asssured. As Birddogz points out like animals breed like animals genetically. Line breeding is a very good example of how this is controlled. Then outcrossing are used to keep the line genetically strong. The 70% genetics - 30% training is how I was taught animal husbandry actually works.
RGD/Dave

[Ruffshooter]

Dave , I can't believe I have such differing opinions as a fellow grouse hunter. I wish one that trains with the ecollar would please enlighten Dave to their modern method or tried and true method of training their bird dogs. I suspect they need very little correction once they are broke and I suspect it is the same type training we all do, except they use a horse or 4 wheeler to get to the dog once afield.

I do not believe that a well trained gun dog needs to be fried into compliance. Fried to break for deer chasing, Porky's, or snake avoidence sure. Bird dogs in General are bred to be easily trained and for type of dog.

I do not nor will not sucumb to the theory that a big ranging dog is not capable of being a companion. I see Wagon Master ,John, on here; he and his dogs seem pretty tight Same with Doug Favour.

I was asked to run a dog in a NSTRA trial, (yes foot trial) but the dog is of (I believe) SD, GSP type stock, and NSTRA stock (This dog is near self taught other than fine tuning his retrieve with ff. I met this dog on a Sat. The owner ran him, I watched. I got the dog the following Thurs. We went to the field, He minded fairly well, Jim went home the dog Max came home with me. He went in the house with the other 5 dogs, and sat in my recliner with me most of the night amongst socializing with the others. I ran him SAt and Sun. I learned real quick that this dog had some wheels. Sat not to much cooperation from him. I had a talk and ran him through some basic drills in the field. The next day he did real well, no placement, but found birds and was honest. He handled when I needed and I gave him his head when he needed. Finishing him and more time with this dog he would be unstopable. This dog if was in a Kennel or home in open country and run off horse back, would be one of those big running dogs, I believe. He was big running for a NSTRA trial but, would respond to my needs and wants with out much effort. So he fit.

I fell in love with that dog and had he been for sale I would have owned my first started/near finished gun dog that I did not train. This is the reason for the ranting story.I would say this dog meets companion status.

Dave, There are dogs that just are not grouse dogs or close working dogs that are good companions.

I sure am no scientist and no phsycologist, (not even sure I spelled it right), but I have a good nose for just plain ole commons scense and been around not as many dogs a you but enough to know better. At least I think I do.

[BigShooter]

Howie's probably like me...Does not look at a thread that says Range in hunting dogs because he knows 10 pgs later it is talking about society and divorce I just now looked at this

Howie lives in the area known as the "Iron Range" in northern MN. Residents of the "Range" are known as "Iron Rangers" or just "Rangers". You might say Howie is an expert on "range matters". The pun was intentionally made to provide a brief break in the action.

I am no proponent of huge running dogs but all the generalities in this thread are ridiculous.

I think you just made the point more succinctly than I did.

[Chukar12]

99 percent of the folks presenting percentages of genetics and trainability ratios as fact know that they cannot possibly be taken seriously and the other 1 percent have sobered up...

[Birddogz]

70% of the time it works 100% of the time. LOL

[birddogger]

Dave , I can't believe I have such differing opinions as a fellow grouse hunter. I wish one that trains with the ecollar would please enlighten Dave to their modern method or tried and true method of training their bird dogs. I suspect they need very little correction once they are broke and I suspect it is the same type training we all do, except they use a horse or 4 wheeler to get to the dog once afield.

I won't get into how the e-collar is properly used in training, because it has been explained so many times before. But it is true that a correction is seldom needed once they are broke and if it is needed, it is very mild.

Dave, the other thing I want to say is that I would never use the e-collar to adjust a dog's range. That would not be doing the dog justice and be very frustrating to the handler. That is just not the purpose of the e-collar.

Respectfully,
Charlie

[Ryman Gun Dog]

Birddogger,
I do think you have a misunderstanding of stimulation training, we do use the e-collar here but on a limited basis, we use the beeper here instead of different voice commands, there is a difference between full stimulation training, and using the beeper as a recall tool, that is all I was trying to point out. No one ever said the e-collar is not a good training tool. The end result or all the gun dog training should be the ability to use your hunting dog without your e-collar, except maybe as a locator in thick habitat. The dog should be biddable enough to work with his master when fully trained, not need to be disciplined repeatedly to force companion workage while hunting. I believe you misunderstood what my point was, maybe intentionally so. Also you and I both may not agree with using the e-collar to keep a dog from breaking point (Setting a manditory range on Point) but other trainers do train in this method.

As far as the genetic percentage and training percentage goes, you will find they hold true, arguing about the exact percentage was not the point. However this is how I was taught by some people who worked with dogs all their lives. You can disagree if you like. People who think all dog breeds work in the same mannner are blind to the actual genetic difference in hunting animals.

RGD/Dave

[Birddogz]

Dave , I can't believe I have such differing opinions as a fellow grouse hunter. I wish one that trains with the ecollar would please enlighten Dave to their modern method or tried and true method of training their bird dogs. I suspect they need very little correction once they are broke and I suspect it is the same type training we all do, except they use a horse or 4 wheeler to get to the dog once afield.

I won't get into how the e-collar is properly used in training, because it has been explained so many times before. But it is true that a correction is seldom needed once they are broke and if it is needed, it is very mild.

Dave, the other thing I want to say is that I would never use the e-collar to adjust a dog's range. That would not be doing the dog justice and be very frustrating to the handler. That is just not the purpose of the e-collar.

Respectfully,
Charlie

How else do you adjust range in a dog? This is the only way I have been able to do it, with dogs that like to range too far for my tastes.

[Chukar12]

Ryman,

How can you generalize to these percentages when puppies from the same litter vary so dramatically in characteristics? This is not complicated. Genetics and the individual characteristics of a dog play a major role in range. Those desiring closer working dogs are well served making choices where reasonable range has been the norm. However, what that actual range is will be dictated by the training, habitat and game hunted when in the hands of a competent handler. I hate the E collar discussion when it is used by those who have not shaped behavior adequately to serve their needs and they lay on the button during the hunt. That isn't training.

[ezzy333]

Birddogger,
I do think you have a misunderstanding of stimulation training, we do use the e-collar here but on a limited basis, we use the beeper here instead of different voice commands, there is a difference between full stimulation training, and using the beeper as a recall tool, that is all I was trying to point out. No one ever said the e-collar is not a good training tool. The end result or all the gun dog training should be the ability to use your hunting dog without your e-collar, except maybe as a locator in thick habitat. The dog should be biddable enough to work with his master when fully trained, not need to be disciplined repeatedly to force companion workage while hunting. I believe you misunderstood what my point was, maybe intentionally so. Also you and I both may not agree with using the e-collar to keep a dog from breaking point (Setting a manditory range on Point) but other trainers do train in this method.

As far as the genetic percentage and training percentage goes, you will find they hold true, arguing about the exact percentage was not the point. However this is how I was taught by some people who worked with dogs all their lives. You can disagree if you like. People who think all dog breeds work in the same mannner are blind to the actual genetic difference in hunting animals.

RGD/Dave

What you are saying is true but where you are wrong is thinking those of us that run our dogs with collars are using them. I can count on one hand the times the collar have been used in the field on my three in the past three years. But they are there for the time when I need to insure compliance such as near a road or chasing a deer or whatever. And of course your assumption of e-collar use is completely baseless in any field trial and yet those dogs do handle and hunt just like yours but much faster and at greater distances.

You need to remember that you can train and hunt in the manner you like and so can everyone else. It appears the end result is very close to equal so it leaves little room for all of the explanations by anyone how their methods or dogs are better than any others. They may have different qualities but that does not equate many times to better. And I think we all understand there are differences in genetic qualities and that is why many of us do not want a Ryman type setter or a pointer,or any other breed or line. We like what we have because they are as good as any others and do their thing in the manner we like.

JMO
Ezzy

[Ryman Gun Dog]

Ezzy,
I do believe we are saying the same thing in different words, however if the natural instinctive range of a dog varries greatly inside a single litter either the breeding program is not refined enough, or the breeder is trying to produce a single outstanding dog instead of a uniform quality litter. Again genetic refinement by repetative breeding and testing. Each man picks the animal he most wants to hunt behind, but please do not try to tell me there is not a difference in breeding programs and that the end result produces the same genetics. Also it is not true that the dogs handle the same while hunting, one is bred repetatively for companion foot hunting the other is not, you are still trying to make an untrue point, the animals we are talking about are bred in different manners to work in different ways.

RGD/Dave

[dan v]

Birddogger,
People who think all dog breeds work in the same mannner are blind to the actual genetic difference in hunting animals.

RGD/Dave

Simple question.

Back in the day, say the dates range of 1870-1900. Could you explain the genetic difference is the setter breeds, and the genetic difference between setters and pointers?

Thanks in advance....Dan

[Birddogz]

I don't use my collar much in the field at all anymore. But I sure did in the beginning. Once a dog knows a command, disobeying deserves a correction. It isn't about what he wants to do, it is about what I want him to do. Alpha status must be established and followed.

[Birddogz]

Birddogger,
People who think all dog breeds work in the same mannner are blind to the actual genetic difference in hunting animals.

RGD/Dave

Simple question.

Back in the day, say the dates range of 1870-1900. Could you explain the genetic difference is the setter breeds, and the genetic difference between setters and pointers?

Thanks in advance....Dan

Setters genetically had longer fur.

[Ryman Gun Dog]

Wydancer,
This is real simple, way back all Setters fell under one universal breed standard, the dogs were then refined by different men, these Setters still met accepted breed standard. Today the "Field Setter" does not most time meet breed standard, and in reality should have been forced to take on another name. Genetics assure breed standard. The English Pointer genetically has changed little, because of the their repetative breeding programs, their breed standard remains the same.
RGD/Dave

[BigShooter]

Ezzy,
I do believe we are saying the same thing in different words, however if the natural instinctive range of a dog varries greatly inside a single litter either the breeding program is not refined enough, or the breeder is trying to produce a single outstanding dog instead of a uniform quality litter.

Dave,

In a smaller working dog the difference in ranges may be less noticeable and one may think there is less variance in the litter.

The difference between two pups of a litter working at an average of say 50 yards & 175 yards, respectively is 125 yards and yet both may be considered to range relatively close. The difference in larger ranging dogs is a greater distance and would be more noticeable to me and others I think. If two pups from a larger running litter naturally range at an average of 400 yards and 800 yards, respectively, that is a difference of 400 yards.

The actual variance in the smaller working dogs example is 250% (175-50=125 & 125/50= 250%). In the larger working dogs example the variance is 100%.

Just something to think about.

[dan v]

Wydancer,
This is real simple, way back all Setters fell under one universal breed standard, the dogs were then refined by different men, these Setters still met accepted breed standard. Today the "Field Setter" does not most time meet breed standard, and in reality should have been forced to take on another name. Genetics assure breed standard. The English Pointer genetically has changed little, because of the their repetative breeding programs, their breed standard remains the same.
RGD/Dave

Dave,

You appear to be well read....suggest you go back and have a look at the historical size and build of setters in the time frame I mentioned and prove to me that the field dog of today are not nearly the same in terms of size/weight. You'll get no argument from me however on the change in pointing/setting posture.

way back all Setters fell under one universal breed standard,

Could you then explain the genetic differences in the setters of today, in terms of range? And further more, seeing as you have a Gordon, could you explain to ME the genetic difference, of the method of hunt and or range of the English and Irish? I hear all the time a Gordon should hunt differently than the other setters....and I'm always curious at how they should be different and why they should be different.

[Ryman Gun Dog]

WynDancer,
George Ryman based his breeding progam on the Breed standard of the English Setter, so I probably do not need to go and review it. However I think I understand what you are trying to point out. The breed standard for Setters was what we now call Dual Setter Type dogs. As far as the Gorden Setter dogs go, I own two of them and the female barely meets breed standard, she is almost to small, in fact even with her fantastic talent for hunting Grouse, I questioned breeding her. Even Norm Sorby has several differnt families of Gordon Setters that work and hunt differently. Actually when looking at the breed standard the Irish and English Setters are not all that different, its not until you start looking at "Field stock" smaller dogs, that the dogs differ. That is why when talking about Setters its so important to get the genetic package you want to own. The AKC & FDSB did owners no favors when they allowed these different smaller dogs, registration when they did not meet breed standard.
RGD/Dave

[Grange]

I had my field bred english setter and lab in the grouse woods yesterday. She had a cast out over 300 yards, multiple casts over 200 yards in very heavy cover. She had 7 productive points with several of those points producing multiple birds in the 1hour 20 minutes. My lab probably got no farther than 30 to 40 yards at most away and had three flushes in the same time. Two very different styles hunting and both worked though I must admit hearing that bell stop now gets me as excited as seeing my lab's tail turn into an out of control windmill. The only bad thing about yesterday was running out of blanks for my pistol.

[dan v]

WynDancer,
George Ryman based his breeding progam on the Breed standard of the English Setter, so I probably do not need to go and review it. However I think I understand what you are trying to point out. The breed standard for Setters was what we now call Dual Setter Type dogs. As far as the Gorden Setter dogs go, I own two of them and the female barely meets breed standard, she is almost to small, in fact even with her fantastic talent for hunting Grouse, I questioned breeding her. Even Norm Sorby has several differnt families of Gordon Setters that work and hunt differently. Actually when looking at the breed standard the Irish and English Setters are not all that different, its not until you start looking at "Field stock" smaller dogs, that the dogs differ. That is why when talking about Setters its so important to get the genetic package you want to own. The AKC & FDSB did owners no favors when they allowed these different smaller dogs, registration when they did not meet breed standard.
RGD/Dave

I own 8 Gordons right now, and over the years have had a few more. In fact have a litter of 9 right now. The bride and I have had two Dual Champion/Amateur Field Champions and one of those was a Master hunter as well.

So you state that one of your females barely meets the breed standard. What breed standard Dave? The current one adopted in 2002, which is nearly the same as the 1992 version, which is nearly the same as the 1962 version? But I'd wager that the female you describe as barely meeting the breed standard would fall squarely in the 1924 standard. Which by the way is the standard that Norm and Sue Sorby espouse.

I don't know George Ryman from Adam, but I'll go out on the limb the King perches on and state, George Ryman developed a line of dogs that pleased him, regardless of what any breed standard had to say. Breed standards change. The function has stayed nearly the same for 150 years.

I'll gonna leave with the following thought. Breed standards are put in place for conformation people to have something to be judged against.

[birddogger]

Birddogger,
I do think you have a misunderstanding of stimulation training, we do use the e-collar here but on a limited basis, we use the beeper here instead of different voice commands, there is a difference between full stimulation training, and using the beeper as a recall tool, that is all I was trying to point out. No one ever said the e-collar is not a good training tool. The end result or all the gun dog training should be the ability to use your hunting dog without your e-collar, except maybe as a locator in thick habitat. The dog should be biddable enough to work with his master when fully trained, not need to be disciplined repeatedly to force companion workage while hunting. I believe you misunderstood what my point was, maybe intentionally so. Also you and I both may not agree with using the e-collar to keep a dog from breaking point (Setting a manditory range on Point) but other trainers do train in this method.

As far as the genetic percentage and training percentage goes, you will find they hold true, arguing about the exact percentage was not the point. However this is how I was taught by some people who worked with dogs all their lives. You can disagree if you like. People who think all dog breeds work in the same mannner are blind to the actual genetic difference in hunting animals.

RGD/Dave

Dave, I may have misunderstood your point, but It was not intentional. That is not my style. Additionally, I do not have a misunderstanding of stimulation training. I think we are in agreement that after being fully trained the e-collar is rarely needed. That was my point. The fact that some misuse the e-collar is a fact, but I was only referring to the proper use of it.

Charlie

[birddogger]

How else do you adjust range in a dog? This is the only way I have been able to do it, with dogs that like to range too far for my tastes.

I am only speaking for myself, but if I am truly unhappy with a dog's range, I will try to find him/her a new home. I want my hunts to be as enjoyable and stress free as possible without constantly hacking or stimulating my dog.

Charlie

[cody]

The English Pointer genetically has changed little, because of the their repetative breeding programs, their breed standard remains the same.
RGD/Dave

Where might I find the breed standard for a EP?

I own 8 Gordons right now, and over the years have had a few more. In fact have a litter of 9 right now. The bride and I have had two Dual Champion/Amateur Field Champions and one of those was a Master hunter as well.

So you state that one of your females barely meets the breed standard. What breed standard Dave? The current one adopted in 2002, which is nearly the same as the 1992 version, which is nearly the same as the 1962 version? But I'd wager that the female you describe as barely meeting the breed standard would fall squarely in the 1924 standard. Which by the way is the standard that Norm and Sue Sorby espouse.

I don't know George Ryman from Adam, but I'll go out on the limb the King perches on and state, George Ryman developed a line of dogs that pleased him, regardless of what any breed standard had to say. Breed standards change. The function has stayed nearly the same for 150 years.

I'll gonna leave with the following thought. Breed standards are put in place for conformation people to have something to be judged against.

now this actually makes sense to me

[Ryman Gun Dog]

WynDancer,
For sure you did not know George Ryman, one of his big qualilfications for running his kennel was that all his dogs had to meet breed standard, he actually culled them if they did not. He was also payed big money to judge English Setters for breeding during his era. Further our Gorden Penny is a almost to small in height to meet breed standard. Breed standards for most dog breeds seldom change, in fact most have changed very little thru the years, and yes the Gordon is one that has changed, but not all that much and Norm is definitely credited for most of the changes here in the USA. However to say breed standards are for show type judging only, is to miss the real reason for breed standards. Breed standards are to assure the purchaser, that he is investing in a Pedigreed animal that meets the accepted definition of the dog breed he is purchasing.
The standard even goes so far as to spell out the qualifications for personality of the breed. In the USA the AKC & FDSB are somewhat lacks on breed standards, lots of politics played here with the dogs, due to prize money and breeding rights. In Europe especially in Germany breed standards have been controlled very tightly for hundreds of years, by the breed Wardens of each major dog breed club, each licensed by their governments. Each breed has its own testing crytera for breeding and judging is done to a pre set breed standard, now even genetically traced via DNA testing. Not only must the dog meet physical breed standard, it must have a certain personality and score
to a certain GVP hunting standard, to meet qualifications for breeding. The scores are then affixed to the Pedgrees of each individual dog, for traceability of the animals in each breeding kennel. Because of the differences in breed standards in the USA and Europe, many Euro breeders will not allow their dog to be sold in the USA.
The Breed Wardens believe most of the dogs in the USA fail to meet true breed standard, and when tested genetically most times the Breed Wardens are proven correct.
Example, most times a German Shorthair in Germany and a German Shorthair in the USA are not genetically the same animal, but do have the same name.

RGD/Dave

[cody]

My dad used to tell me "when you find yourself in hole, stop digging." Sound advice for many

[dan v]

WynDancer,
Further our Gorden Penny is a almost to small in height to meet breed standard. Breed standards for most dog breeds seldom change, in fact most have changed very little thru the years, and yes the Gordon is one that has changed, but not all that much and Norm is definitely credited for most of the changes here in the USA. However to say breed standards are for show type judging only, is to miss the real reason for breed standards. Breed standards are to assure the purchaser, that he is investing in a Pedigreed animal that meets the accepted definition of the dog breed he is purchasing.
RGD/Dave

Dave,

Here is a portion of the 1939 GSCA Breed standard:

The 1939 standard is as follows:
General Impression: A stylish, rather racy built, medium size, muscular dog of clean setter type, usual length legs
and of symmetrical conformation throughout. Strong fairly short back and short tail, a fine head, clearly lined,
intelligent expression, clear colors and straight or slightly wavy coat.

Size: Shoulder height for males 22 inches to 25 inches; for females, 21 inches to 24 inches.

And then a similar portion of the 1962 standard:

1962 Standard and description of The Gordon Setter
General Impression: The Gordon Setter is a good sized, sturdily built, black and tan dog, well muscled,
with plenty of bone and substance, but active, upstanding and stylish, appearing capable of doing a full
day’s work in the field. He has a strong, rather short back, with well-sprung ribs and a short tail. The
head is fairly heavy and finely chiseled. His bearing is intelligent, noble, and dignified, showing no signs
of shyness or viciousness. Clear colors and straight or slightly waved coat are correct. He suggests
strength and stamina rather than extreme speed. Symmetry and quality are most essential. A dog wellbalanced
in all points is preferable to one with outstanding good qualities and defects. A smooth, free
movement, with high head carriage, is typical.

Size: Shoulder height for males, 24 to 27 inches. For females, 23 to 26 inches.

Weight: Males, 55 to 80 pounds: females, 45 to 70 pounds. Animals that appear to be over or under the
prescribed weight limits are to be judged on the basis of conformation and condition. Extremely thin or fat
dogs should be discouraged on the basis that under or overweight hampers the true working ability of the
Gordon Setter. The weight-to-height ratio makes him heavier than other Setters.

Note the 1939 version contains no mention of weight.

The most glaring change is in terms of size, for males the increase from 22"-25" for males in '39 to 24"-27" in '62.
And for females 21"-24" in '39 to 23'-26" in '62.

So if people like you, or Norm & Sue (Springset), had been breeding Gordon Setters in the 1950's that trended to the smaller end, according the standard published at the time....by 1962 your dogs would have been too small according to the standard adopted in 1962.

How can you square that? The fact is the only way that can be reasoned is that the dogs being shown in the 1950's were above the published standard, and hence the standard was changed by the conformation people (who make up the majority of club members) to reflect what was being shown at the time.

So did the field dog change? Or more correctly I believe, the standard left the field dog.

one of his big qualilfications for running his kennel was that all his dogs had to meet breed standard,

He had in his mind the vision of the English Setter....and then he bred for it.

[Ryman Gun Dog]

Wyndancer,
Well I guess you better fly over to Scotland and tell them that there Gordon Grouse dogs don't meet breed Standard, course they have been Breeding Gordon Setters a few years long than we have in this country, you might just get an arguement from them. I have done my best to explain why breed standards are genetically important, and I know AKC & FDSB here in the USA are no where near as strict with pedigrees, so I understand your thinking, but I sure do not agree with it.
RGD/Dave

[fuzznut]

WOW!!!!!!!! That change in the Gordon standard is amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How does one go from "rather racy built, medium size" to "good sized, sturdily built, with plenty of bone and substance" in less than 30 yrs? Those two descriptions are worlds apart.

No wonder that breed has such a split in breed type!
Fuzz

[Chukar12]

Wyndancer,

Nice to read some fact rather than all the conjecture. That is an interesting progression that can be seen clearly... Too many of us are making our point a moving target here. Frankly, unless we are referencing credible documentation no one knows George Ryman's purpose.

[Birddogz]

How else do you adjust range in a dog? This is the only way I have been able to do it, with dogs that like to range too far for my tastes.

I am only speaking for myself, but if I am truly unhappy with a dog's range, I will try to find him/her a new home. I want my hunts to be as enjoyable and stress free as possible without constantly hacking or stimulating my dog.

Charlie

I totally agree. It is a battle that I never want to battle again. Isn't fair to the dog or the owner.

[dan v]

WOW!!!!!!!! That change in the Gordon standard is amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How does one go from "rather racy built, medium size" to "good sized, sturdily built, with plenty of bone and substance" in less than 30 yrs? Those two descriptions are worlds apart.

No wonder that breed has such a split in breed type!
Fuzz

I probably went a little over top on Dave. But he says that he has a female that was too small according "the standard"....the standard moved away from a capable sporting dog...IMO of course. The field breeder gets accused of "changing the breed" when historical size says otherwise.

Here's a quote from Gompertz book.

An American authority wrote that Gordon Setters at this period were ‘of immense size ... entirely too heavy in make to please the majority of English sportsmen’. It is surprising in view of this comment, together with the Rev Pearce’s statement that it was Kent’s ‘large stature’ which impressed the judges and his earlier remark in the original edition of ‘Stonehenge’s’ book (it is not found in later editions) that ‘Kent is one of the largest Setters in England of any breed’, to see from the measurements given in this same book that he was 25½ inches in height, since this would not be regarded as exceptional by present-day standards.

Note the reference to "largest Setters in England of any breed"....25 1/2". Tell ya what, roll into any Gordon conformation show, and tell me if 25 1/2" is the tallest dog you see. But remember, the field people changed the breed. :roll:

[JKP]

Breed standards are put in place for conformation people to have something to be judged against.

I can agree in part with this but if we were to breed all dogs to maximize their ability in the field, they would gravitate to all looking alike. The best of many breeds are interchangeable as far as function.....the only thing that separates them is appearance. Sounds like we have some folks that want to drop the whole "breed thing" and just breed "dogs"...which may be why a lot of GSPs look like they belong in longtail stakes

We forget that having some confidence in the pedigree, that it is accurate, represents the performance and type of dog we want. To tat end, having breeds and sme kind of standard is helpful.

[ezzy333]

Breed standards are put in place for conformation people to have something to be judged against.

I can agree in part with this but if we were to breed all dogs to maximize their ability in the field, they would gravitate to all looking alike. The best of many breeds are interchangeable as far as function.....the only thing that separates them is appearance. Sounds like we have some folks that want to drop the whole "breed thing" and just breed "dogs"...which may be why a lot of GSPs look like they belong in longtail stakes

We forget that having some confidence in the pedigree, that it is accurate, represents the performance and type of dog we want. To tat end, having breeds and sme kind of standard is helpful.

Gee, someone gets it. And it isn't show people or trial people who change breeds, it is Gordon Setter people, or people in any other breed who start breeding for just one element of the breed instead of breeding to maintain or improve all segments of a breed. We hear so much about breeding to improve a breed when we probably need to hear a lot more about maintaining a breed. Each breed was bred to look a certain way, function in a certain manner, and act in a definite way, and those qualities are different in each breed by intent. It has always been my feelings if you don't like the size or the performance of the breed you have then get the breed that fills your desires instead of trying to change the one you have. But I think society as a whole today tends to operate on the theory if something doesn't agree with your desires then change it rather than your desires.

Remember what we hear from the people who think performance is the only aspect of breeding, form follows function. I think that is pretty much true, and if you can't get a dog to function in the manner its form will allow, then the chances are great that you are trying to get the dog to do something it was never intended to do. If you can't win a race with a basset, then get a greyhound instead of trying to change the form of the basset. The basset is formed exactly the way it was intended to perform its function as a slow moving scent hound. Same is true with our bird dogs and other sporting dog breeds.

Ezzy

[BigShooter]

Ezzy,

I understand what you are saying and there is merit to your point. However, if everyone down through the centuries had acted as you espouse, the development of many of the various sporting breeds we have today would never have incurred. There are barriers to the establishment and registration recognition of new breeds, so breeds have been as we say, "tweaked". Once again I will foster the point that the size & varying conditions across the U.S. are significantly greater than found in the European Countries many breeds were developed in. As an example: rather than subdivide breeds into say a "Western Brit" & an "Eastern Brit", we have attempted to maintain one Brit across the country. This creates obvious consequences and may make some of us uncomfortable with the compromise that occurs.

If one hunts exclusively in the Eastern woods for ruffs or the Western lands for chuker one would likely want a very specific performance. However for the guys & gals that like to hunt & play all over the country a narrow, specific performance would obviously work less well for them than a breed or line with sufficient flexibility and intelligence to excel in nearly all venues. Personally I want the breed and the individual dog that will provide good performance under vastly varying conditions. I respect the rights of individuals that want & breed for very specific narrow performance characteristics in their dogs. It works for me to hear people say, "this is what I like best" rather than "mine is the best".

I also agree that everyone should evaluate how they intend to use their dog the most & seek the best fit for their circumstances. For many folks the term "pet for the house" would have to be the #1 use of their sporting dog.

[dan v]

Ezzy,

What defines a breed? It's a question that I struggle with.

Leaving out appearance, please list qualities that are unique to Brit's, or sufficiently different from other pointing breeds such that that trait is easy to identify.

[Neil]

From Mr. Legget a judge from the 1940's:

A shooting dog should be something more than just a machine to go out to kill birds over. He must possess style and a certain amount of class, and while I will not tolerate a dog I must continually hunt for, I demand one wide enough to find birds I would not walk up myself.

If only I could say it as well, been nearly 60 years since he penned those words, as true now as then,

Neil

[AzDoggin]

Agree Neil, it can't be said much better than that. Thanks for finding that quote.

Interesting to me how much discussion this topic always produces. I guess the "range" concept (which is an oversimplification) almost gets at the essence of what hunting with a dog is all about.