Gun Dog Forum

Post by birddogger » Mon Sep 06, 2010 5:00 pm

quailrunner wrote:I guess If the birds around here left a 25-50 YARD scent cone, then a field trial bred dog would be great. Heck, my wife's King Charles Cavalier Spaniel (Pug nose and all) could find birds with those kinds of scent cones.
I look at it like this: The better hunter YOU are, the closer you like your dogs to work.


I am a little confused with this post. My dogs are hunting the birds, not me.

Charlie

Really? Do You also consider sitting in a tree stand waiting for a deer to walk by hunting too? Or walking a field with a row of 5-6 guys shooting every rooster that flies hunting too? Give me a break that's not Hunting, it's target practice. Most people don't know what real hunting is these days.
I don't need a dog to find the birds for me, I've spent 41 years in the field learning and studying the birds I hunt. I bring the dogs because I love to watch a good dog work. And if they are clear on the other side of kingdom come, then they are wasting time because I ain't gonna walk 500 yards to go shoot their birds while I know I have birds in front of me.

ACooper wrote:It seems that when talking range it is assumed by a few that everyone hunts the same terrain and style.

The whole concept of a dog being out of sight (unless of course it is in the woods and you just can't see him) is a totally foreign concept to Easterners.

There is much truth to the "genetic imprint" argument though. I think if the term "behavioral traits" was used originally by Ryman then it would have been more effective and less contentious. No argument from me that a Ryman is easier to train as a close, patient, thorough worker than several other breeds.

They are just naturally clingier dogs and very relaxed.

quailrunner wrote:

Post by birddogger » Mon Sep 06, 2010 5:00 pm

quailrunner wrote:I guess If the birds around here left a 25-50 YARD scent cone, then a field trial bred dog would be great. Heck, my wife's King Charles Cavalier Spaniel (Pug nose and all) could find birds with those kinds of scent cones.
I look at it like this: The better hunter YOU are, the closer you like your dogs to work.


I am a little confused with this post. My dogs are hunting the birds, not me.

Charlie

Really? Do You also consider sitting in a tree stand waiting for a deer to walk by hunting too? Or walking a field with a row of 5-6 guys shooting every rooster that flies hunting too? Give me a break that's not Hunting, it's target practice. Most people don't know what real hunting is these days.
I don't need a dog to find the birds for me, I've spent 41 years in the field learning and studying the birds I hunt. I bring the dogs because I love to watch a good dog work. And if they are clear on the other side of kingdom come, then they are wasting time because I ain't gonna walk 500 yards to go shoot their birds while I know I have birds in front of me.

Sorry, maybe it is just me, but you are making no sense to me.
Charlie

Birddogz wrote:
Whatever floats your boat, you should enjoy. What I am talking about, is the efficiency of the dog to produce results. Results that are consistent. Whatever dog does that the best is the one most hunters are going to want. If you get your limit quickly, pick up a camera.

And I'm talking about the efficiency of the dog to satisfy me.....consistently satisfy me. I could not care less what most hunters want. I've been around enough of the average weekend warrior to know that the average hunter will shoot any bird a dog puts up (pointing breed). Is it efficient? Certainly.

But as you say....whatever floats your boat.

Wyndancer wrote:

Birddogz wrote:
Whatever floats your boat, you should enjoy. What I am talking about, is the efficiency of the dog to produce results. Results that are consistent. Whatever dog does that the best is the one most hunters are going to want. If you get your limit quickly, pick up a camera.

And I'm talking about the efficiency of the dog to satisfy me.....consistently satisfy me. I could not care less what most hunters want. I've been around enough of the average weekend warrior to know that the average hunter will shoot any bird a dog puts up (pointing breed). Is it efficient? Certainly.

But as you say....whatever floats your boat.

+1

I wasn't trying to be accusatory, just trying to define what I mean by a good dog. I agree, a dog with manners is ideal. I guess I should have said a dog that produces the most birds with manners. I don't shoot birds my dogs don't point, unless I am waterfowling. If my dogs point, and I go up and flush a bunch of phez, I will shoot more than 1 out of a group. What I think is hard about these conversations is that we have no terms defined. I was attempting to quantify how I rate hunting dogs. I really don't care what breed it is, if it produces in the field consistently for the hunter with good manners he/she is alright with me.

quailrunner wrote:

Post by birddogger » Mon Sep 06, 2010 5:00 pm

quailrunner wrote:I guess If the birds around here left a 25-50 YARD scent cone, then a field trial bred dog would be great. Heck, my wife's King Charles Cavalier Spaniel (Pug nose and all) could find birds with those kinds of scent cones.
I look at it like this: The better hunter YOU are, the closer you like your dogs to work.


I am a little confused with this post. My dogs are hunting the birds, not me.

Charlie

Really? Do You also consider sitting in a tree stand waiting for a deer to walk by hunting too? Or walking a field with a row of 5-6 guys shooting every rooster that flies hunting too? Give me a break that's not Hunting, it's target practice. Most people don't know what real hunting is these days.
I don't need a dog to find the birds for me, I've spent 41 years in the field learning and studying the birds I hunt. I bring the dogs because I love to watch a good dog work. And if they are clear on the other side of kingdom come, then they are wasting time because I ain't gonna walk 500 yards to go shoot their birds while I know I have birds in front of me.

You must have more deer where you are then where I am!

I ain't gonna walk 500 yards to go shoot their birds while I know I have birds in front of me.

So why have a pointer at all? Flushers work great for birds right in front of you.

birddogger wrote:

quailrunner wrote:

Post by birddogger » Mon Sep 06, 2010 5:00 pm

quailrunner wrote:I guess If the birds around here left a 25-50 YARD scent cone, then a field trial bred dog would be great. Heck, my wife's King Charles Cavalier Spaniel (Pug nose and all) could find birds with those kinds of scent cones.
I look at it like this: The better hunter YOU are, the closer you like your dogs to work.


I am a little confused with this post. My dogs are hunting the birds, not me.

Charlie

Really? Do You also consider sitting in a tree stand waiting for a deer to walk by hunting too? Or walking a field with a row of 5-6 guys shooting every rooster that flies hunting too? Give me a break that's not Hunting, it's target practice. Most people don't know what real hunting is these days.
I don't need a dog to find the birds for me, I've spent 41 years in the field learning and studying the birds I hunt. I bring the dogs because I love to watch a good dog work. And if they are clear on the other side of kingdom come, then they are wasting time because I ain't gonna walk 500 yards to go shoot their birds while I know I have birds in front of me.

Sorry, maybe it is just me, but you are making no sense to me.
Charlie

It made sense to me. I have said for many years now that the average Joe Hunter does not want a hunting dog. They want to be the HUNTER. They want a companion dog to go with them while they hunt for birds. For myself, I have long since given up on being a bird hunter. I have dogs to do that for me. I am a bird shooter. The dogs hunt, I shoot. But I remember well the days before I had dogs that would do that and what it truly means to HUNT birds. I believe I shot just as many limits on birds in those days as I do now.

And I will gladly walk 500 yards to my dog and shoot the birds he has pointed. Once I am done with that I can send him back to find the ones I thought were where I came from. You know what they say about a bird in the hand.

Because I choose to have pointers.

For myself, I have long since given up on being a bird hunter. I have dogs to do that for me.

Right on!! Dogs hunt birds, I hunt dogs...or I just walk along daydreaming....http://www.vimeo.com/14758306

Since I really don't care, I will let most of this slide.

Why is it if you disagree with you all, you assume we have never hunted where you do? It is a false assumption. I have hunted late season pheasant in the Dakotas and grouse in Penn and Minn, with both flushers and wide going pointing dogs with some success.

But the one thing I do want to comment on is objectives. While true we, as poor human hunters, cannot see objectives in many fields and venues, the birds and the dogs (and other prey animals( can. The objectives are where the wild birds are most likely to be if they are not in transition from one objective to another. Every watch a fox or coyote hunt, they do not quarter, they do not hunt every inch of a field, they go from objective to objective. Heck, my Boykins don't quarter in the wind shield wiper sense, they stay in front of me, but they too seek out productive cover.

And for those that think they know better where the birds are than a dog, you need better dogs and learn to let them hunt.

I do need to qualify one point, if I am going to hunt small thick areas that are known to hold a lot of birds, I hunt the flushers, not the pointing dogs. Just like I do not use a goose gun to hunt quail.

Neil

Neil,
Coyotes diet is about 90% mice. So that may be the best way to hunt mice. A coyote isn't hunting birds for a hunter. The reason you use flushers in thick cover is because you can't keep your pointers in the cover. This is my point. You guys are all the same. If the cover is tight and thick you need a flusher. How about a well trained pointing dog that knows when to stay close and quarter. In late season that will produce the most birds. Any pheasant guide in ND,SD will tell you that. That is why no phez guides hunt with big running dogs. PCs and Sharpies are a different story.

Gentlemen,
It has been a real interesting thread, in reality I am glad there are so many hunters still left that we can have differing views on a range question.
I have been hunting Grouse and Timberdoodles for over 50 years now, shot my 1st Grouse and Timberdoodle on the same day behind my Grandfathers Ryman dog in Potter County, Pa at the head waters of West Branch, I was 10 years old at the time. I know my views on dogs and hunting are not always the same as others, especially today.
Thanks for starting the thread and having a decent civil converstaion.
RGD/Dave

1. A lot of the range and cover style question boils down to different terrain, different birds, and different personal preferences.

2. Most all dogs will adapt to the terrain they are hunted in, the birds that they are hunted on and the way their owner hunts them.

3. Breeding, what Dave is calling "genetic imprinting" does, *on average* play a part in range. But,
A. There is also a range of ranges in every litter.
B. In addition to breeding, how a dog is brought along plays a huge part in their range.

4. Isn't there a "cover dog" circuit? Don't they field trial on wild grouse?

Bottom line: Each should hunt the way they like to hunt and be satisfied with that. Should not try to claim "best", "better", "most" etc, no try to force their way down someone else's throat.

Greg,
What you said has great merit, range can vary some what even with each individual dog in a litter. However in a good breeding program most of the dogs are going to be some what the same. In fact breeders breed to produce certain repetative genetic traits. For example a big running quail dog, say a Miller Pointer is vastly different from the German Small Munsterlander. However both these dogs are usually fantastic Grouse hunting dogs, they just preform in different ways They are both biddable animals that learn and adapt to the way their owners raises and hunts them. Once trained both animals hunt well with out an e-collar, their styles are vastly different however due to their genetic hunting imprint.
RGD/Dave

I didn't read this whole discussion but I will make a conjecture assuming we are talking about well bred dogs of various breeds. Most high desire, intelligent and cooperative dogs will develop through recognizing "the situation". Put them in the grassland enough, they will open up...put them in the grouse cover they will adapt range and speed to the situation...hunt the brush country and they will look for downwind edges... I think range has a lot to do with the dog and maybe more with our ability to keep our mouths shut and expose dogs to the different "situations" that an intelligent dog will learn to master.

Dave,

Would you please stop using the words "genetic imprint". It is a technical term you are misusing. To me it's like nails on a blackboard. Just say something like "on average, due to their breeding". There is of course genetic variation, therefore the use of the term "on average", otherwise you would be unable to explain bootlicker pups popping up in a relatively consistent breeding program.

Range means almost nothing out of context. It cannot be evaluated in isolation. A dog whose range & pattern remained exactly the same regardless of changing conditions would be a liability to a lot of hunters.

I want to go hunting with Doug Favor, he knows the program and what a good dog can do.

Pepper

The term "genetic imprint" is accurate. Wouldn't you say a Bloodhound has a certain "genetic imprint" to track the way it does? Or a terrier to kill for no reason? Or a Lab or Chessie to jump in water without fail with almost no training?

Perhaps it is hypertechnical but I don't see any reason why it can't be used. When he uses it I don't think he believes there can't be a variation from dog to dog, or that people selectively breed for non-sporting reasons, that would be naive.

Hotpepper wrote:I want to go hunting with Doug Favor, he knows the program and what a good dog can do.

Pepper

I want to go with Doug & Jerry. I'll get John to go, he'll bring Spot & I'll bring Tuffy.

"Genetic imprint" means something very specific to me. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genomic_imprinting .

IMHO, if you can't track down *how* it is inherited, you just can't talk about genetic imprinting.

But, that's me. We've long ago established that I'm a nerdy scientist type.

Greg J.

"A distinguishing influence or effect", that is how I take it.....

This sums up what it means to me:

Genomic imprinting is a genetic phenomenon by which certain genes are expressed in a parent-of-origin-specific manner. It is an inheritance process independent of the classical Mendelian inheritance. Imprinted genes are either expressed only from the allele inherited from the mother (e.g. H19 or CDKN1C), or in other instances from the allele inherited from the father (e.g. IGF-2).

You have to read that *very* carefully. Are we *really* wanting to say that range, or whatever, *always* comes from *only* the sire or the dam? No contribution from the other?

mcbosco wrote:The term "genetic imprint" is accurate.

False.

Furthermore to me, the term as used, creates an impression that every dog of a certain breed carries the same imprinted abilities & by implication other breeds cannot possess the same performance abilities. Large variation within breeds is ignored. Terms like this are often used without any corresponding mention of the appropriate recognition of the role socialization, exposure & training play in the development of a gun dog. None of you have taken a pup from its mother at birth, placed it in isolation for two years, taken it hunting & demonstrated all of its solely inherited instincts, unique to that breed.

I think sometimes we place limitations on our dogs or claim there are limits on other's dogs, that simply don't exist.

BigShooter wrote:

mcbosco wrote:The term "genetic imprint" is accurate.

False.

Furthermore to me, the term as used, creates an impression that every dog of a certain breed carries the same imprinted abilities & by implication other breeds cannot possess the same performance abilities. Large variation within breeds is ignored. Terms like this are often used without any corresponding mention of the appropriate recognition of the role socialization, exposure & training play in the development of a gun dog. None of you have taken a pup from its mother at birth, placed it in isolation for two years, taken it hunting & demonstrated all of its solely inherited instincts, unique to that breed.

I think sometimes we place limitations on our dogs or claim there are limits on other's dogs, that simply don't exist.

You can't always have a discussion with the most precise terminology, sometimes you have to generalize, which we all know he was doing. Think of an extreme example, say, could you train a Spinone to guard like GSD? The answer is no. It will never happen ever. Function of genetics pure and simple. Same for water dogs, no matter what you do nothing has the water drive of a Chessie. Function of genetics pure and simple. However, you are right not every Spinone is sweet as honey and not ever Chessie is going to jump in water during a Nor-easter.

I think he was too precise or imprecise depending how you look at it, and in fact I said that "behavioral traits" was a better choice of words. I understood what he was saying.

mcbosco wrote:"A distinguishing influence or effect", that is how I take it.....

Exactly, or "contribution."

On the other hand, if one wanted to perpetuate an argument, one could construct and disprove a straw man concept by literally defining "genetic imprint." That way, we could keep this thread going.

After initially saying I thought this topic had already been worked extensively, I've changed my mind. I want this thread to exceed the recent 6-pager!

Greg Jennings wrote:1. A lot of the range and cover style question boils down to different terrain, different birds, and different personal preferences.

2. Most all dogs will adapt to the terrain they are hunted in, the birds that they are hunted on and the way their owner hunts them.

3. Breeding, what Dave is calling "genetic imprinting" does, *on average* play a part in range. But,
A. There is also a range of ranges in every litter.
B. In addition to breeding, how a dog is brought along plays a huge part in their range.

4. Isn't there a "cover dog" circuit? Don't they field trial on wild grouse?

Bottom line: Each should hunt the way they like to hunt and be satisfied with that. Should not try to claim "best", "better", "most" etc, no try to force their way down someone else's throat.

Very well said and I agree with all of it. FWIW.

Charlie

I think that the guys that talk about range adjusting field trial bred dogs are talking about such a small percentage of those specifically bred dogs that it really should be a mute subject. You talk about those experienced, well mannered dogs like they are the norm, when in fact it is not. If you have a dog that was bred for field trialing, and it gets to go out hunting 1 day a week, then you are in a small minority, if you have a field trial bred dog, and it learns to whoa on command, then your even in a smaller minority.

I also think Greg provided a reasonable summary of a few thoughts posted on this thread.

BigShooter wrote:This subject can be debated forever. It is possible we could agree on a few things. A good pointer to hunt with:

1. is honest on it's birds, standing well off & by it's actions hold the birds as well as possible until the hunter arrives,
2. goes with the hunter whether very close or a ways off, i.e. keeps track of where the hunter is, generally follows the hunter's line of travel & does not run off
3. has a good nose and finds birds
4. conserves energy, not wasting a lot of energy covering non-bird producing ground, maintains a reasonable pace & doesn't poop out half way through the hunting day
5. comes when called
6. tracks & retrieves wounded & dead birds
7. doesn't fart in a vehicle when human passengers are present

If a dog doesn't do the minimum it's going to be a relative liability for the hunter.

Ignore the word genetic unless the actual gene action has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by scientific research. Understand everyone has OPINIONS about what genes are present at birth that dictate behaviors not learned from the dam, the owner, other dogs or the environment. Also understand every pup from a litter will carry different traits than its litter-mates, so they are not identical genetic carbon copies of each other.

The above was posted early on page 2 & I don't believe anybody has taken a potshot at 1through 7 yet.

I agree with that post. Great list, I must have missed it earlier.

Birddogz wrote:Neil,
Coyotes diet is about 90% mice. So that may be the best way to hunt mice. A coyote isn't hunting birds for a hunter. The reason you use flushers in thick cover is because you can't keep your pointers in the cover. This is my point. You guys are all the same. If the cover is tight and thick you need a flusher. How about a well trained pointing dog that knows when to stay close and quarter. In late season that will produce the most birds. Any pheasant guide in ND,SD will tell you that. That is why no phez guides hunt with big running dogs. PCs and Sharpies are a different story.

You miss the part about foxes not quartering? No predator quarters.

Like nearly all pheasants guides, I use flushers on birds in tight cover because it works and I do not like watching a pointing dog hunt like a flusher (that hangs up on the flush). The quartering, then point and creep until the bird flushes, bores me. I like a robust flush.

Over half of the serious pheasant hunters and guides use Labs for a reason.

Still I kill a good many birds over my pointing dogs, and enjoy seeing it done right.

Neil

quailrunner wrote:I think that the guys that talk about range adjusting field trial bred dogs are talking about such a small percentage of those specifically bred dogs that it really should be a mute subject. You talk about those experienced, well mannered dogs like they are the norm, when in fact it is not. If you have a dog that was bred for field trialing, and it gets to go out hunting 1 day a week, then you are in a small minority, if you have a field trial bred dog, and it learns to whoa on command, then your even in a smaller minority.

I think it has more to do with training and what you want to use the dog for than whether or not it is a "field trial bred dog". In fact, I believe a large majority of "field trial bred" dogs never make the grade in the field trial venues. On the other hand, I believe the large majority of field trial bred dogs can make good, well mannered hunting dogs. JMO.

Charlie

No predator is hunting for its master, and foxes and coyotes eat very few mature pheasants.

BigShooter wrote:I also think Greg provided a reasonable summary of a few thoughts posted on this thread.

BigShooter wrote:This subject can be debated forever. It is possible we could agree on a few things. A good pointer to hunt with:

1. is honest on it's birds, standing well off & by it's actions hold the birds as well as possible until the hunter arrives,
2. goes with the hunter whether very close or a ways off, i.e. keeps track of where the hunter is, generally follows the hunter's line of travel & does not run off
3. has a good nose and finds birds
4. conserves energy, not wasting a lot of energy covering non-bird producing ground, maintains a reasonable pace & doesn't poop out half way through the hunting day
5. comes when called
6. tracks & retrieves wounded & dead birds
7. doesn't fart in a vehicle when human passengers are present

If a dog doesn't do the minimum it's going to be a relative liability for the hunter.

Ignore the word genetic unless the actual gene action has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by scientific research. Understand everyone has OPINIONS about what genes are present at birth that dictate behaviors not learned from the dam, the owner, other dogs or the environment. Also understand every pup from a litter will carry different traits than its litter-mates, so they are not identical genetic carbon copies of each other.

The above was posted early on page 2 & I don't believe anybody has taken a potshot at 1through 7 yet.

#7. is complete BS. Stinky dogs are better. All the best dogs I've been around fart in the truck. So if your dog doesn't fart in the truck it must not be worth a darn.

BigShooter wrote:I also think Greg provided a reasonable summary of a few thoughts posted on this thread.

BigShooter wrote:This subject can be debated forever. It is possible we could agree on a few things. A good pointer to hunt with:

1. is honest on it's birds, standing well off & by it's actions hold the birds as well as possible until the hunter arrives,
2. goes with the hunter whether very close or a ways off, i.e. keeps track of where the hunter is, generally follows the hunter's line of travel & does not run off
3. has a good nose and finds birds
4. conserves energy, not wasting a lot of energy covering non-bird producing ground, maintains a reasonable pace & doesn't poop out half way through the hunting day
5. comes when called
6. tracks & retrieves wounded & dead birds
7. doesn't fart in a vehicle when human passengers are present

If a dog doesn't do the minimum it's going to be a relative liability for the hunter.

Ignore the word genetic unless the actual gene action has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt by scientific research. Understand everyone has OPINIONS about what genes are present at birth that dictate behaviors not learned from the dam, the owner, other dogs or the environment. Also understand every pup from a litter will carry different traits than its litter-mates, so they are not identical genetic carbon copies of each other.

The above was posted early on page 2 & I don't believe anybody has taken a potshot at 1through 7 yet.

Well, you did pose a challenge...

I also agree with 1-7, and hope my dog gets there some day.

However, as for IGNORING a genetic contribution altogether, can't do it. You didn't ignore it either when you bought those good looking dogs of yours with those fine pedigrees. Otherwise, I'd just go buy my next pup from the cheapest backyard breeder I could find, and put all my money into training equipment.

Scientists have been debating nature versus nurture since science existed, and they don't have it solved yet, so I doubt we will any time soon. I'll agree with you that genetic expression isn't easy to measure and does depend on so many variables, but I see no reason to overlook genetics altogether just because we can't pin down its' exact contribution in every case.

Some folks overstate the contribution of genetics.
Some folks understate the contribution of genetics.
Some folks pass more gas in their vehicles than their dogs do.

Gentlemen,
It seems the term genetic imprint is causing some trouble, the German breeders have been using this term sense WWII. Its how the German Breed Warden traces
many different genetic elements of a high bred animal, from hunting instinct and style, to repetative breed conformation, it is a repetative genetic code that identifies each German high bred/pedigreed animal, that is registered with the government. Traceable by GVP type testing and recorded on the German animals Pedigree. Here in the USA each kennel is free to develope a repetative genetic imprint as they breed their own animals, no breed warden required by law. Out crossings usually occur and then the dogs are bred back into the original family line. In reality this term genetic imprint is used in eveything from dogs to cattle ect. It is a scientific term developed by the Germans as they invented AI, for their breeding programs. It traces many different genetic markers that can be identified and recorded when used correctly. The Nazi Scientists developed all this for use on humans, now we us it for high bred animals. Now we even have DNA testing for it, to assure the identity of breed lines and individual animals. Yes genetic imprint matters and is very traceable.
RGD/Dave

I understand a big running dog can be trained to hold point all day,but I've never seen anybody be able to train a wild pheasant to hold FOR that point all day.I prefer a medium range dog at most.

I haven't had much luck with my dogs on Item 7. Especially if the wife used them as a garbage disposal for left over white beans and corn bread....

Dave, it sounds like you're talking about Eugenics.

Greg,
All part of the same scientific genetic technology.
RGD/Dave

Dave,

You're a nice guy and a gentleman so I really dislike belaboring the point. Genetic imprint is an English expression with an English meaning that has been articulated accurately by at least two posters. The meaning by English definition is not the same as the way you are using the words. Although we make reasonably accurate translations of foreign words often the translation is not exactly what the words express in another language. I suspect this is the case here. If you give us the German words used a couple of us can take a stab at the most likely meaning. Never-the-less the English words "genetic imprint" have a specific meaning in genetics in English. A couple of us have suggested other, more appropriate words you may use to improve accuracy and avoid the potential for misleading readers.

Also FYI, DNA can be used to determine that a pup came from certain parents. DNA cannot, for example, be used to determine that no pointer genes have been bred into a GSP line.

Greg Jennings wrote:Dave, it sounds like you're talking about Eugenics.

Yep, that was the Nazi's agenda - to improve the German "race."

Not seen as OK with humans now, although there are "genetic counselors" to give guidance to parents that carry genetically-transmitted anamolies.

Eugenics was and is a pseudo science.

Genetic counseling now-a-days is a remnant that still has to be viewed very carefully for unintended consequences.

BTW, and OT, the second worst offender in the Eugenics debacle, behind NAZI Germany, was....California.

Greg J.

Actually Eugenics preceded the Nazi's and was actually embraced by many Americans including Woodrow Wilson believe it or not.

live4point wrote:I understand a big running dog can be trained to hold point all day,but I've never seen anybody be able to train a wild pheasant to hold FOR that point all day.I prefer a medium range dog at most.

I understand where you are coming from and this is a legitimate consideration. However, I've seen too many dogs stop to point at the wrong distance to the quarry. So we can't factor out how well the dog handles the birds. Now if we define medium as within a range that allows that particular hunter in that particular situation with that particular dog sufficient time to get to the dog & bird for the flush I think most everyone wants that.

MC,
You are correct sir, also there is a difference between the english term and the German science and this is exactly why I posted as I did. One is scientific fact the other is a made a up term with no scientific backing. Genetic imprint is part of the German AI science, and many genetic markers can be traced and used in breeding programs,
from bulk milk production in Dairy cows, to new calf sizing for high bred beef cattle, making 1st time calf birthing easier on cattle. Genetics is proven science not a mere term from the english. I am talking about science not some english term. Your understanding of genetic imprint is not part of the science, its something unproven.
A German high bred dogs genetic imprint is proven by repetative GVP testing recorded on the animals pedigrees, and passed down from generation to generation.
German Breed Wardens control the breeding thru this testing progam to assure high quality dogs that meat breed standard.

RGD/Dave

The discussion of semantics is lost on me. I don't think too many people will argue that if you want a dog that hunts a certain way your best bet is to find 2 dogs that have been bred that both hunt in the manner that you prefer. It is no guarantee though. If you are lucky and if you bring up and train that pup in a manner that is consistent with what you are looking for, you might just end up with the worlds first perfect dog.

Little luck, couple might's, bunch of if's, and alot of you's.

Ditch__Parrot wrote:Little luck, couple might's, bunch of if's, and alot of you's.

That takes care of it right there. Could have saved alot of server space if you'd just posted this earlier!

Ok so let's move on to the "raw diet is best" thread in the other section,