Have foot hunting dogs changed?

[BigShooter]

Some folks have suggested numbers of birds in wild populations have declined substantially in a number of areas & therefore have postulated that change alone may have driven breeders to meet a different need for foot hunters, e.g. to produce better bird finding dogs than those of 40-50 or even 100 years ago? Although I'm not certain I know what a universal foot hunting dog is, I do know the hunter is afoot.

[ezzy333]

Some folks have suggested numbers of birds in wild populations have declined substantially in a number of areas & therefore have postulated that change alone may have driven breeders to meet a different need for foot hunters, e.g. to produce better bird finding dogs than those of 40-50 or even 100 years ago? Although I'm not certain I know what a universal foot hunting dog is, I do know the hunter is afoot.

I have a lot of trouble also with all of the labels we put on bird dogs. I have seen and owned some outstanding birddogs but I am not sure which label they should carry. Gues in my book I will just continue looking for that good bird dog and let someone else decide.

Ezzy

[Mountaineer]

Yes, breeders follow, or take into account to some degree, changes in birdhunting and birdhunters desires and requirements.

But not thru either lack of birds nor any desire for a "better" bird dog, IMHO....tho the "better" labeled bird dog may be intrepretated into how easy is it to sell a particular dog.
If marketing is involved then niche-ing a dog by trial status/history or specific bird speciality(ie...spooky ruffed grouse) may be viewed as simply trying to put the brightest ribbon 'round a dog's neck....that is part and parcel to dog sales today.

I have never seen any bird shot other than when on foot with a pointing dog paws down...but I live a sheltered life.

[Ryman Gun Dog]

BigShooter,
IMO a good reputable breeder always breeds to better their particular genetic breed line, they do not change breeding practices because there happens to be less birds around to hunt. Good breeders have always bred their dogs to do a certain job, some are more versatile then others, some are working dogs some are sporting dogs some are guard dogs, some are even fighting dogs. Again we go back to genetics and breeding practices to accomplish a certain task. People who believe dogs are not bred to preform a certain task, know very little about breeding and genetics. These genetic breeding practices are used in everything form horses, to Dairy cattle to Beef cattle ect.
RGD/Dave

[Birddogz]

I think the dogs were probably better 50 years ago, due to much higher bird populations throughout the country.
An old man told me it takes 3-400 quail killed over a dog to make them a bird dog. Many people can't find them. The best dogs live where there are lots of birds. Unless the owner travels extensively to where there are high populations of birds.

[Ryman Gun Dog]

BirdDogz,
What you are talking about is a dogs talent developemnet and I do agree to some extent as to the point your are making, however a breedlines genetics does not change
because of a lack of birds or bird contact. IMO a dog educates himself on wild birds, however he is either born with certain genetics or he is not.
RGD/Dave

[Vman]

I think the dogs were probably better 50 years ago, due to much higher bird populations throughout the country.

So today with a lesser number of birds to hunt and work, we don`t need as much dog????? :roll:

I think it is the other way around my friend. When hunting sparsely populated areas you need a better dog to find the birds. When hunting areas that are heavily populated I can get the birds with any mutt I take along.

I feel pretty strongly that our dogs today are better than the dogs of yesteryear. Not individual dogs so much, but the breeds as a whole. Fifty years ago they did not have AKC hunt test, NAVHDA Tests, NSTRA trials. They only had HB trials to compare their dogs and find the best of the best for breeding purposes. With these other venues available today more people are involved and I would like to think that they make more educated decisions. Could be wrong on that but I don`t think so at this time. We have the internet now and alot of people come here too further their knowledge on training techniques and breeding choices. I also believe our dogs are healthier today than yesteryear, for several reasons, diet, Vet care, ect.
While some breeds have suffered over the years, Irish Setters, labs, Goldens and a few others. The English Setters, Pointers, GSP,all the Wirehaired breeds, Vizsla, and Britts have all improved due to better decision making by the breeders and owners.
JMO.

[Vonzeppelinkennels]

Exactly if birds are thick as flies do you even need a dog? When birds are few & far between & you have a dog that finds them consistently you have a dog to be proud of.When they are so thick you can find them with out a dog how do you know if your dog is finding birds or just running into them.
Just because a dog points a bird doesn't mean he had to find it,it's more like training manners.

[Birddogz]

Why do you suppose Pro-trainers go to ND,MT,SD.SK,etc. in the summer/fall for training? Do you suppose it is because there are lots of birds? Any trainer worth a darn will tell you it takes birds to make a dog. By your logic, to be a better basketball player, you should only shoot 20 baskets a day, instead of 500. :roll: Practice makes perfect, and that takes many opportunities. That takes good populations of wild birds. There is a reason that pros don't select New Jersey as a hot bed of training.

[Vonzeppelinkennels]

Why do you think I said it was like training?The more birds to train on the better but once trained it's time to hunt & find birds not trip over them not saying we don't want to hunt where there are birds just saying it takes a better dog to find birds where there aren't any. That's kinda what we all have been trying to make you realise.

[Birddogz]

I will bet you on average that bird dogs in ND,SD,NE,KS, etc. are better than most dogs in Ohio. I grew up in Ohio. I know what I have seen. This "it takes a great dog to find birds where there are few" has been created by people who live where there are few birds so they can feel that they have the best dogs. The more bird opportunities, the better the dog will become. This is what EVERY trainer I have ever known has told me, and what I have seen. The dog achieves its true potential. I don't understand how this can be an issue? This seems so obvious.

[Vonzeppelinkennels]

Where did I say I have the BEST dogs seems as though you heard yourself speaking. :roll:

[Birddogz]

I'm talking in general. In general, there are better bird dogs in the Dakotas than in Ohio. Just as there are better Walleye fisherman in Ohio than in Oklahoma. You need the quarry to be around, in order to get good at pursuing them. I don't even understand what the argument is? Less birds is better for a dog? I mean, that is the only thing I can take. I am just saying that more birds equal more bird dog experience. If not, why do people travel to these places to hunt?

[Elkhunter]

I agree with Ted, it does not take a good dog to find birds when there are hundreds of birds in a 40 acre field. I average 20-30 birds in a 3 hour hunt, covering a few miles and hundreds and hundreds of acres of steep terrain, so is the dog that finds 100 pheasants in a 100 acre field better than my dog? I would really like an answer to that question. Having tons of birds helps in the training and developing of a bird dog, but I think it would be hard to know just how good of a dog you have if you hunt only in areas with HIGH bird populations. What would that dog do if it went 2-3 hours without a bird contact? Would it shut down and stop hunting? Just as having good populations to test a dog I think having a dog work and really be a "Bird Dog" tells ya what you have.

[nikegundog]

Where I see dogs struggle in highly populated pheasant areas is in retrieving runners. When you lightly knock a pheasant down 40 yards out in one of the 40 acre fields that are holding a hundred pheasant that you have been driving down the field. That type of situation is where I see the local dogs dominate.The dogs might be able to adjust to running pheasants but not the trailing, or recovery of downed birds in heavy scent.

[Birddogz]

Where I see dogs struggle in highly populated pheasant areas is in retrieving runners. When you lightly knock a pheasant down 40 yards out in one of the 40 acre fields that are holding a hundred pheasant that you have been driving down the field. That type of situation is where I see the local dogs dominate.The dogs might be able to adjust to running pheasants but not the trailing, or recovery of downed birds in heavy scent.

I agree completely.

[Birddogz]

I agree with Ted, it does not take a good dog to find birds when there are hundreds of birds in a 40 acre field. I average 20-30 birds in a 3 hour hunt, covering a few miles and hundreds and hundreds of acres of steep terrain, so is the dog that finds 100 pheasants in a 100 acre field better than my dog? I would really like an answer to that question. Having tons of birds helps in the training and developing of a bird dog, but I think it would be hard to know just how good of a dog you have if you hunt only in areas with HIGH bird populations. What would that dog do if it went 2-3 hours without a bird contact? Would it shut down and stop hunting? Just as having good populations to test a dog I think having a dog work and really be a "Bird Dog" tells ya what you have.

I have run my dogs many times with 1-2 hours without a bird contact. On pheasants, that isn't usually the case. There aren't 100s of birds in every field. Some fields there are. I find that less experienced dogs are often confused the most by lots of scent, and haven't developed the ability to discern a bird still there or a cripple running amongst other birds. In all honesty, it takes a very thorough and well seasoned/trained dog to keep their cool and not go bonkers when there are many birds around. Less birds around, say 12-20 in an 80 acre patch usually is actually easier.

I have a question that I would like you to answer honestly. If you want a kid to be a great tennis player, can there be too much practice? Too many many matches? Same goes for every sport. Basketball, you shoot as much as possible. Football, racing, baseball, etc. All take a ton of practice. Dogs are the same. I will say that hunting them on different quarry does improve their cerebrum. I hunt ducks, geese, pheasant, ruffs, Huns, sharpies, wood cock, quail, PCs. In a normal year. A dog that adapts to all is the better dog, no doubt.

[Elkhunter]

I look for a specialist, I hunt Chukars and the rare hun/sharptail. And I compete in FT's so I want a dog that will excel at that venue and those birds. I dont care about hunting a ditch bank or sitting in a duck blind. As for more bird contacts equals better dogs, there is an argument for that, also when you are talking dozens of birds in each fields it wont take a "great" dog to get it done IMO.

[JKP]

I think they have and for a lot of different reasons.

We have better training tools today....better communication (like GDF!!).... more pressure to breed good dogs and healthier dogs....an expansion of venues (HT, NSTRA, etc)...user friendly organizations for training (NAVHDA, various breed clubs)...and perhaps most important....more buyer awareness. I'm willing to bet its easier today to get a good prospect.

[Birddogz]

I look for a specialist, I hunt Chukars and the rare hun/sharptail. And I compete in FT's so I want a dog that will excel at that venue and those birds. I dont care about hunting a ditch bank or sitting in a duck blind. As for more bird contacts equals better dogs, there is an argument for that, also when you are talking dozens of birds in each fields it wont take a "great" dog to get it done IMO.

Dozens of birds isn't exactly a lot. I see dozens when I go Ruffed grouse hunting. If I hunted Chukar, I would do the same. I'm just saying in comparison to Chukar, far more people hunt pheasant, Ruffs, waterfowl. Nothing wrong with a big running dog for Chukar. That would be what I would prefer as well.

[prairiefirepointers]

Where I see dogs struggle in highly populated pheasant areas is in retrieving runners. When you lightly knock a pheasant down 40 yards out in one of the 40 acre fields that are holding a hundred pheasant that you have been driving down the field. That type of situation is where I see the local dogs dominate.The dogs might be able to adjust to running pheasants but not the trailing, or recovery of downed birds in heavy scent.

I agree completely.

+1 Agreed.

I will further add that it doesn't take a dog with a dizzying intellect to find and point Pen Raised birds.

[RayGubernat]

I can only answer the question as regards pointers. And yes foot hunted pointers have changed a great deal, I believe due to the influence of Mr. Whele and his Elhew dogs. Those dogs brought a level of biddability to the pointer breed that was not there prior to Mr. Whele.

The other thing that has changed the foot hunting pointers is technology, specifically the modern multi level electronic collar. it is now possible to modify a dog's behavior with the e-collar in ways that were impossible prior to its development.

RayG

[prairiefirepointers]

I can only answer the question as regards pointers. And yes foot hunted pointers have changed a great deal, I believe due to the influence of Mr. Whele and his Elhew dogs. Those dogs brought a level of biddability to the pointer breed that was not there prior to Mr. Whele.

The other thing that has changed the foot hunting pointers is technology, specifically the modern multi level electronic collar. it is now possible to modify a dog's behavior with the e-collar in ways that were impossible prior to its development.

RayG

I wish I could afford a lifesized Bob Wehle, and "Jem of Fern" statue in my front yard...

[Vman]

Birddogz,, do you mean better dogs then vs. now in regards to genetics? Or better TRAINED dogs then vs. now?

We have better genetics today."Thanks You American Field"!
We have better trained hunting dogs today, :Thank You TriTronics,Dogtra,Garmin,NAVHDA,AKC Hunt tests, and places like the GDF. The old boys would have loved to share dog knowledge like we do everyday.

[ezzy333]

I will bet you on average that bird dogs in ND,SD,NE,KS, etc. are better than most dogs in Ohio. I grew up in Ohio. I know what I have seen. This "it takes a great dog to find birds where there are few" has been created by people who live where there are few birds so they can feel that they have the best dogs. The more bird opportunities, the better the dog will become. This is what EVERY trainer I have ever known has told me, and what I have seen. The dog achieves its true potential. I don't understand how this can be an issue? This seems so obvious.

Why when you ask a question because you say you don't know are you always able to refure every answer you get and say it is wrong. Tell us again why you need to ask a question that you are convinced you know the answer too? I think I saw severl posts from Knine trying to explain your problem and all I nsee is you are ignoring what she and everyone else has told you. I will tell you now o change your ways and if you can't then just don't post or I will give you a lot of time to think about this whole thing.

Ezzy

[birddogger]

Birddogz,, do you mean better dogs then vs. now in regards to genetics? Or better TRAINED dogs then vs. now?

We have better genetics today."Thanks You American Field"!
We have better trained hunting dogs today, :Thank You TriTronics,Dogtra,Garmin,NAVHDA,AKC Hunt tests, and places like the GDF. The old boys would have loved to share dog knowledge like we do everyday.

I agree with these points, but I have seen some awesome pointers 40 and 50 years ago. The best dog I have ever owned was a pointer about 40 years ago. She was out of Oklahoma Flush lines. She probably wasn't as biddable as dogs being produced now days and what I called style at the time wouldn't be considered great style by a lot of field trialers now days. But she was a bird finding machine and could go from morning till dark. This wasn't an exception, as I hunted with more than one awesome dog during that time period. The training would have gone much easier and faster with the technology and knowledge we have today. I am not talking field trialing or testing, but for natural instincts and hunting ability, I believe the pointers of then were pretty much as good as they are today with maybe the exception of certain genetic traits, such as biddability and difference in style. JMO.

Charlie

[ACooper]

All I can tell you is my foot hunting dogs have changed greatly over the passed 15-20 years, I can imagine people with more time in have seen a greater change.

For me I expect more, and put more time into training.

But an even bigger factor a major shift from (guestimate) 90% quail hunting and 10% pheasants, to now 80% pheasants 10% ducks and 10% quail. Birds available for me to hunt have changed so then the dogs I have selected have also changed.

[Elkhunter]

I look for a specialist, I hunt Chukars and the rare hun/sharptail. And I compete in FT's so I want a dog that will excel at that venue and those birds. I dont care about hunting a ditch bank or sitting in a duck blind. As for more bird contacts equals better dogs, there is an argument for that, also when you are talking dozens of birds in each fields it wont take a "great" dog to get it done IMO.

Dozens of birds isn't exactly a lot. I see dozens when I go Ruffed grouse hunting. If I hunted Chukar, I would do the same. I'm just saying in comparison to Chukar, far more people hunt pheasant, Ruffs, waterfowl. Nothing wrong with a big running dog for Chukar. That would be what I would prefer as well.

If you are hunting when its not uncommon to see "dozens" of birds in each field, then it wont take much of a bird dog to get results!

If I hunted Chukar, I would do the same.

Gotta love the confidence!

I have a question that I would like you to answer honestly. If you want a kid to be a great tennis player, can there be too much practice? Too many many matches? Same goes for every sport. Basketball, you shoot as much as possible. Football, racing, baseball, etc. All take a ton of practice. Dogs are the same. I will say that hunting them on different quarry does improve their cerebrum. I hunt ducks, geese, pheasant, ruffs, Huns, sharpies, wood cock, quail, PCs. In a normal year. A dog that adapts to all is the better dog, no doubt.

Its like a pro basketball player that shoots the ball 35 times to score 30 pts. Yes the 30 pts is impressive but he had to take 35 shots to get there, now the guy who takes 15 shots and scores 25 points then now I am impressed!! Thats a ball player! He got it done when there was not a ton of opportunity, same with a bird dog any old bird dog should be able to get it done when they are surrounded by hundreds of birds. Put that dog on a range of chukar hills with near vertical slopes and rocks everywhere with a few coveys scattered throughout the miles of country and see if he gets birds pointed! Birds could be low, could be high, could be halfway. Tons of ground to cover to find a covey of 10 birds.

[birddogger]

All I can tell you is my foot hunting dogs have changed greatly over the passed 15-20 years, I can imagine people with more time in have seen a greater change.

For me I expect more, and put more time into training.

But an even bigger factor a major shift from (guestimate) 90% quail hunting and 10% pheasants, to now 80% pheasants 10% ducks and 10% quail. Birds available for me to hunt have changed so then the dogs I have selected have also changed.

I agree, I also want a different type of foot hunting dog than I had back then. I was only talking about natural instincts and ability. As you say, hunting itself has greatly changed from what it was several years ago.

Charlie

[Birddogz]

I know dogs are trained better now because of technology, but does the training make up for the fact that the bird hunting was far better then. For instance, in Ohio in the 50s there were pheasants and quail everywhere. Now there are very few. I would say the foot hunting dogs of old have the advantage in that regard. The dogs are more controllable now, but I wouldn't say better as a whole. For instance, in the 50s I bet there were more great foot dogs in Ohio than now. In the Dakotas, Idaho, MT, Oklahoma,KS, NE the dogs are probably better due to the bird numbers being up and the technology combined. Not to mention the genetics are better as well.

Elkhunter said
"Its like a pro basketball player that shoots the ball 35 times to score 30 pts. Yes the 30 pts is impressive but he had to take 35 shots to get there, now the guy who takes 15 shots and scores 25 points then now I am impressed!! Thats a ball player! He got it done when there was not a ton of opportunity, same with a bird dog any old bird dog should be able to get it done when they are surrounded by hundreds of birds. Put that dog on a range of chukar hills with near vertical slopes and rocks everywhere with a few coveys scattered throughout the miles of country and see if he gets birds pointed! Birds could be low, could be high, could be halfway. Tons of ground to cover to find a covey of 10 birds."

Your analogy is flawed, because you are saying that the dog that is hunting were there are lots of birds is "missing shots". How is that? He isn't missing anything. Now, answer this one, how did Larry Bird become a great shot? The shot in this equation would be a bird encounter/point. He got that way by shooting thousands and thousands of shots. The more shots/bird contacts the better he was. If he were limited to say 30 shots per day, and Magic gets to shoot 200, who will be better? I think the answer is obvious.
Now, every bird provides a dog with different challenges. I have never hunted wild chukar. I do hunt Sharpies, Huns, and PCs in really big rolling hills. Not the severe grades that you are talking about, but very big country. My dogs have no trouble locating them. I have found that their best points are often on Sharpies. The reason is that there is no scent, no scent, no scent, no scent, lots of scent in a group of birds. Hard point! In the case of pheasants, there is scent everywhere, and much harder for the dog to pin point. Just my experience.

[Elkhunter]

The analogy is spot on, anyone can shine where opportunity abounds. Lets use your same example and say Larry Bird is playing on a team where he can only get 8 shots a game and Magic is playing on a team where he gets 20 attempts a game. Obviously Magic will score more points cause he gets more opportunity so people would assume he is the far better player. Same analogy with dogs, you feel you have great dogs cause you limit out all the time and judge the "value" of a bird dog on the amount of birds killed. But that is easy to do in an area where there are literally millions of birds killed each year.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGygDbHwirs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5W9i2q5C ... re=related

After watching these videos I can tell why you need one heck of a bird dog! Not a bird for miles!

[nikegundog]

Since we're talking basketball, I think this thread needs to be locked immediately before someone gets their feeling hurt.

[ACooper]

So I guess what I am getting from this thread is limited bird contacts make for better bird dogs?

[slistoe]

You have it backwards Coop. Better bird dogs are needed where there are limited bird contacts.
But read it whichever way makes you happier about the dogs you run.

[nikegundog]

That's for that clarification, I was just going to book a trip to some place that had no birds, to try to humble my dog.

[Elkhunter]

So I guess what I am getting from this thread is limited bird contacts make for better bird dogs?

No, you dont need a good dog when there are thousands of birds! You need a GREAT dog when there are limited birds!

[solon]

Even with my admittedly limited experience with grouse trials in the northeast, I have heard and agree with the opinion of others with more knowledge than mine that bird finding ability is a heritable trait that is honed by experience. In trials where half the dogs go birdless, and these are good dogs, the ones that win with some consistency and have multiple championships, generally have that bird finding trait to a high degree. Talk to Dave Hughes about some of the great ones and he will often say whatever such and such dog's other faults were, he could find grouse and get them pointed. These are usually single birds, not coveys leaving lots of scent, and in rough terrain. They say about some dogs: "that dog could manufacture birds". Sure, having lots of birds is great for training and polishing manners on birds, but finding them when they are scarce is what separates the winners from the also rans. And let me tell you, grouse are scarce in our areas in the spring compared to the fall after a good nesting season.

Whether bird dogs of today have been bred so that their intelligence and its application to bird finding and handling is better than dogs of the past, I can't say. But I suspect it is true. I do think that low bird numbers makes for some problems in the wild bird trials. It means a fair amount of luck can be involved in whether a dog with a good ground race happens to get in the area of a bird and many competitive dogs just don't get the chance for a find despite their good bird finding ability. I would think that for getting valid judgements in these trials there would be an optimal bird density. Enough birds to give every dog a chance at bird work, but not so many that those with superior bird finding ability will be able to show it. I haven't yet seen a venue where I could say there were too many birds. So think about how hard it is when in a one hour stake a dog runs a 2 1/2 mile course and maybe has one bird find and 50% or more of the dogs have no finds. The dog that finds these needles in the haystack has a special talent.

Solon

[Birddogz]

When the average sportsman gets hold of this news, SD tourism is going to drop dramatically! Who knew I should have stayed in Ohio to develop my dogs.

By your logic, a lab that has retrieved 1000s of ducks in Saskatchewan won't be as good as the dog who retrieves ducks in Arizona? :roll: The Britt in the Dakotas isn't as good as the one in Connecticut? I never realized that trainers were so dumb. Why go to the prairie when they are eliminating the chance at a great dog.

Also, why would any intelligent person hunt where they consistently see 1-3 birds? Move for God's sake, or travel to hunt. If I want to catch a Tarpon, I go to Boca, not NC. Even though there are a few there.

[Grange]

I'm heading out tonight for the woods to run my dogs on grouse and woodcock. I'm going to an area where there are a lot of birds (relatively speaking) because I want to fine tune my setter on STWS for our trial this weekend. When I want to focus on her ability to find birds I go to an area where there are less birds (relatively speaking). That way she has to learn the micro habitats that have a better chance to hold birds in a larger area that had decent habitat for birds.

[RayGubernat]

When the average sportsman gets hold of this news, SD tourism is going to drop dramatically! Who knew I should have stayed in Ohio to develop my dogs.

By your logic, a lab that has retrieved 1000s of ducks in Saskatchewan won't be as good as the dog who retrieves ducks in Arizona? :roll: The Britt in the Dakotas isn't as good as the one in Connecticut? I never realized that trainers were so dumb. Why go to the prairie when they are eliminating the chance at a great dog.

Also, why would any intelligent person hunt where they consistently see 1-3 birds? Move for God's sake, or travel to hunt. If I want to catch a Tarpon, I go to Boca, not NC. Even though there are a few there.

Birddogz -

There you go again! You are the self proclaimed genius boy...and yet you seemingly cannot comprehend someone's answer that does not serve your purpose. We all know that is bogus.

You HAVE to try and twist it around to serve your purpose. That is rude and offensive because we all know that you know better. You know it, you have been told it by numerous folks on numerous occasions and yet...you persist in being an arrogant jackass.

Are you THAT psychologically insecure in your own self that you cannot acknowledge that someone else with a differing opnion might be actually right and you might be wrong???

RayG

[Elkhunter]

When the average sportsman gets hold of this news, SD tourism is going to drop dramatically! Who knew I should have stayed in Ohio to develop my dogs.

By your logic, a lab that has retrieved 1000s of ducks in Saskatchewan won't be as good as the dog who retrieves ducks in Arizona? :roll: The Britt in the Dakotas isn't as good as the one in Connecticut? I never realized that trainers were so dumb. Why go to the prairie when they are eliminating the chance at a great dog.

Also, why would any intelligent person hunt where they consistently see 1-3 birds? Move for God's sake, or travel to hunt. If I want to catch a Tarpon, I go to Boca, not NC. Even though there are a few there.

BD I will try to dumb it down for you a little more so you can understand, it does not take a GREAT dog to find birds where there are literally millions and millions of birds!!!! Of course pros go North for the summer because of the abundance of birds to train young dogs! A dog does not need to see thousands of birds each season to become a decent dog, by your logic every dog outside of ND and SD would be considered crap! Which I honestly believe you feel from your posts. If you are experiencing needing to have thousands of birds each season to be able to get decent dogs I would look at some other bloodlines or breeds.

Like I said the GREAT dogs find birds when they are rare................ how you dont understand that I do not know.

[Birddogz]

I don't think you could dumb it down any more, it's pretty dumb.

In one breath you say of course trainers go to the Dakotas to train. I'm with you. Then you go on to say you don't need to get your dogs into thousands of birds per year to make a good dog. I agree, but having the dog into thousands of birds certainly won't hurt!
My female Britt will turn 14 years old this year. She has hunted in KS,MO,MI,PA,OH.ONT.,SASK.,WI,SD,NE, and ND. She isn't the best dog in history, but she is darn good. Geriatric now, but will still go for an old girl. I can tell you that she has always been far sharper when hunting in the prairie states a lot. The bird contacts have never had a negative effect on her.

Do you need a dog to kill birds in the Dakotas? No. What fun would it be with out a dog. I'm sure it is like that in many states. The point is, the dog's job is to increase your odds of finding and harvesting the birds.

Your point is that it takes a great dog to find birds when there are few. I am saying in order to have a great dog in the first place the dog needs as much bird contact as possible, and that is done where there are lots of birds. WIthout the exposure, it is a moot point.

[Birddogz]

Ray,
Good morning old man, thank you for the kind words.

[ezzy333]

So what is the purpose of this topic? Seems it is for the OP to tell everyone the facts about the question he asked? Just doesn't add up.

Ezzy

[nikegundog]

Ezzy, besides for asking the first question, the OP hasn't made one other comment on the thread.

[ezzy333]

Ezzy, besides for asking the first question, the OP hasn't made one other comment on the thread.

YOu are right. I was thinking this was the other thread.

Sorry

Ezzy

[MATT4126]

Has the OP ever shown pictures of his great dog work or all the birds he has slayed, or all the fish he has caught. I think it's about time to call big talking BS. If I kill a couple a birds a year that's a lot. Love being outside with mans best friend, not big talking my abilities.

[Birddogz]

I didn't start this topic.

[Chukar12]

I would suspect, and I believe most of you who have followed things would know that the original poster started this thread with more than just a touch of sarcasm in response to another thread. I believe he knew it would be hi-jacked and planned it as such; well done. He knew that opinions would get taken to extremes. It certainly takes birds to make a bird dog, and under the wrong trainers guidelines there can be too many birds. There is a Ben O. Williams school, let them hunt and make mistakes be patient and over time things will work out. There are other trainers that stop bump and chase the day they get a point; not to return to birds for several months until its time to break, and sort of a pile of folks in between.

Birds are not the only reason trainers go north in the summer. Heat, stickers and space are big factors as well. As far as the basketball analogy... If you cut a kid with natural talent loose on the floor and never teach fundamentals and discipline they never make it. If you pressure that same kid with nothing but drills and take all the fun out, its likely their passion for the game leaves them and it is visible in their performance. I believe dogs are the same.

Foot hunting dogs have not changed but foot hunters have. A huge percentage of hunters do nothing other than pay to shoot liberated birds on clubs, it is all their time and locale affords them. Trainers can take a dog with genetics and shape them pretty well, lot's of birds and hunting experience certainly make for better dogs. The disappointing part of these exchanges is that a few internet hacks with a passion for birds and hunting take their specific, limited experiences and apply them in broad terms, and then make it worse by arguing or irritating the real trainers that could help new people out.

[baileydog2007]

Being new here, I find this site comical. I have had several folks PM me, all but 1 have been extremely helpful and pleasant, thanks. The other, not so much. These threads about events, trainers, FT vs everyone esle, FT dogs, ect, and folks just cant accept that what works for one, wont work for everyone and that "maybe" no one is "right". I posted a question, and received PMs from a guy who pretty much told me Im a retard and to give the dog up and his advise was given in hopes of "saving a pointing dog". I also got some very helpful and thoughtful ones as well. Now, I certainly cant speak for everyone, obviouisly, but if/when I start a thread (one of which was locked) I certainly not doing it with the intent of starting an arguement. Yet it seems there is a handful of guys who seem intent on hi jacking every thread, instead of letting those who would like reply, do so. it should be OK to post an opinion??? It should be ok to have differeing opinions without one of the 2 being an idiot??