Gun Dog Forum

The board has been a little dull outside why are GSPs popular (or not). For conversations sake lets get something going.

Here is the question if field trials are supposed to be about producing a better hunting dog through competition/comparison and selection, why does it seem that most "pro" field trialers breed to win trials and not to produce hunting dogs? Further why are health and structure secondary to performance? This would be mainly aimed at horse back breeders/dogs.

I am going to take cover now...

I hope you got your Helmet strapped tight and all the steel plates in your body Armour your about to receive some heavy fire take cover !

That's not what field trials are about. Field trials are about producing dogs that win field trials. Just like conformation shows are not about producing better pets. They are about producing dogs that win dog shows.

Field trials have there place. I credit them for improving the hunting skills of most breeds.

But breeding has got to take in all factors, or the weak trait will come back and bite you.

I think too many hunters worry about the range of the trial dogs, thinking that they would not make good hunting dogs.
There is some truth to that, but most good dogs adjust their range to the cover. I have seen some really good hunting dogs that were washouts due to shorter range than the FT guys want.

Cajun Casey wrote:That's not what field trials are about. Field trials are about producing dogs that win field trials. Just like conformation shows are not about producing better pets. They are about producing dogs that win dog shows.

Where do you get your info? Have you ever watched how far and easy a field trial dog can find birds. It's called breeding for the best. There are dogs from Hall Of Fame dogs that have produced some of the best NSTRA and Navda dogs ever. Period.

kensfishing wrote:

Cajun Casey wrote:That's not what field trials are about. Field trials are about producing dogs that win field trials. Just like conformation shows are not about producing better pets. They are about producing dogs that win dog shows.

Where do you get your info? Have you ever watched how far and easy a field trial dog can find birds. It's called breeding for the best. There are dogs from Hall Of Fame dogs that have produced some of the best NSTRA and Navda dogs ever. Period.

She gets her info from the computer were she gets everything else :roll:

Cajun Casey wrote:That's not what field trials are about. Field trials are about producing dogs that win field trials. Just like conformation shows are not about producing better pets. They are about producing dogs that win dog shows.

Does it have to be either or? The American Field trials I attend are regularly won by superior dogs in many ways.

many times CH Miller's White Powder for example:The best All Age producer of all time.

gittrdonebritts wrote:

kensfishing wrote:

Cajun Casey wrote:That's not what field trials are about. Field trials are about producing dogs that win field trials. Just like conformation shows are not about producing better pets. They are about producing dogs that win dog shows.

Where do you get your info? Have you ever watched how far and easy a field trial dog can find birds. It's called breeding for the best. There are dogs from Hall Of Fame dogs that have produced some of the best NSTRA and Navda dogs ever. Period.

She gets her info from the computer were she gets everything else :roll:

He just doesn't like it because I called a niece to his dog junk.

Andy, you better get back in that storm cellar!!!!

Sharon wrote:

Cajun Casey wrote:That's not what field trials are about. Field trials are about producing dogs that win field trials. Just like conformation shows are not about producing better pets. They are about producing dogs that win dog shows.

Does it have to be either or? The American Field trials i attend are regularly won by superior dogs in many ways.

I agree Sharon it doesn't have to be either or.

How about performance over structure? Is there less focus in FT dogs because most trialers believe form follow function?

snips wrote:
Andy, you better get back in that storm cellar!!!!

Yeah that is no kidding! Just hoping for a good discussion... it's that time of year things are kind of slow and I am bored...

I havn't participated in a field trial in about 15 years, but I still want pups out of field trial dogs. Looking for style, animation, a forward pattern, bird finding ability, range among other things. I believe that field trials ( I am primarily familiar with AKC and American Field) provide a venue for a dog to display those traits. I would much rather have a naturally big running dog than a dog that runs a shorter pattern. For several reasons. I usually run open country, believe a dog will adjust to the cover and its much easier to take a little run out of a dog than it is to put run into a dog. The professional field trial trainers I know never put health secondary. On the contrary, they take exeptional care of their dogs. Oh,I may be kennel blind, but very happy with our "hunting" dogs...

ACooper wrote:

Sharon wrote:

Cajun Casey wrote:That's not what field trials are about. Field trials are about producing dogs that win field trials. Just like conformation shows are not about producing better pets. They are about producing dogs that win dog shows.

Does it have to be either or? The American Field trials i attend are regularly won by superior dogs in many ways.

I agree Sharon it doesn't have to be either or.

How about performance over structure? Is there less focus in FT dogs because most trialers believe form follow function?

snips wrote:
Andy, you better get back in that storm cellar!!!!

Yeah that is no kidding! Just hoping for a good discussion... it's that time of year things are kind of slow and I am bored...

How can you have good long term performance with out good over all structure?

ACooper wrote:

Sharon wrote:

Cajun Casey wrote:That's not what field trials are about. Field trials are about producing dogs that win field trials. Just like conformation shows are not about producing better pets. They are about producing dogs that win dog shows.

Does it have to be either or? The American Field trials i attend are regularly won by superior dogs in many ways.

I agree Sharon it doesn't have to be either or.

How about performance over structure? Is there less focus in FT dogs because most trialers believe form follow function?

snips wrote:
Andy, you better get back in that storm cellar!!!!

Yeah that is no kidding! Just hoping for a good discussion... it's that time of year things are kind of slow and I am bored...

I think good form /conformation is inherent in a dog who is superior in trials . He won't be winning with inadequate aerobic power ( narrow rib cage)or hocked legs. I suppose he could do well with an undershot jaw.

PS This is a great topic and I look forward to reading posts from knowledgeable people. I think we are capable of keeping the personal jabs out of it and showing our maturity/restraint.

Cajun Casey wrote:That's not what field trials are about. Field trials are about producing dogs that win field trials. Just like conformation shows are not about producing better pets. They are about producing dogs that win dog shows.

I disagree In my opinion that IS what field trials are about... Conformation shows don't have anything to do with how good of a pet a dog can be... but a field trial should showcase the skills needed to be a top notch bird dog.

Question from a person who does not field trial at all....

Form follows function as we say in biology. So the question I have is how are some of the better field trial dogs holding up at age 10 or so? Or is the field trialing "done" for a dog when it reaches a certain age? I know they likely wouldn't be winning trials at 9 years old, but are they still healthy and vibrant?

RoostersMom wrote:Question from a person who does not field trial at all....

Form follows function as we say in biology. So the question I have is how are some of the better field trial dogs holding up at age 10 or so? Or is the field trialing "done" for a dog when it reaches a certain age? I know they likely wouldn't be winning trials at 9 years old, but are they still healthy and vibrant?

Bourbon XIII (britt) got 2nd in the american brittany club national open all age at 9 or 10--he was Purina high point dog of the year the year he was national runner up. Old dogs can still run

ACooper wrote:The board has been a little dull outside why are GSPs popular (or not). For conversations sake lets get something going.

Here is the question if field trials are supposed to be about producing a better hunting dog through competition/comparison and selection, why does it seem that most "pro" field trialers breed to win trials and not to produce hunting dogs? Further why are health and structure secondary to performance? This would be mainly aimed at horse back breeders/dogs.

I am going to take cover now...

Ok I'll bite here Andy..............
I wont speak for most field trial pro's, I'll speak about the one I use, and most of the others I know are similiar. They do produce better hunting dogs through selection of SOME not all trial dogs. There looking for a dog that can be DEVELOPED, not just bred, for trainability, brains, and to find birds and handle them in some tough conditions. Breeding is one key element, but developing a dog takes alot of time and patience, that IMO is the main difference in trialing, the development. Health is a very big key in my pro trainers breeding program, cannot speak for those I'm not familiar with. 90% of the dogs Dennis produces from his kennel are hunting dogs, maybe hunting/competition of some sort but hunters as well.

JMO

RoostersMom wrote:Question from a person who does not field trial at all....

Form follows function as we say in biology. So the question I have is how are some of the better field trial dogs holding up at age 10 or so? Or is the field trialing "done" for a dog when it reaches a certain age? I know they likely wouldn't be winning trials at 9 years old, but are they still healthy and vibrant?

That is one thing I keep track of religiously. My Casey's daddy ran the GSPCA National at age eleven (may have gone the next year, I'd have to look it up) and lived to be over fourteen. There are some lines that don't make it to that age breathing. What I find odd is when a heavily campaigned dog dies before age ten and a littermate is still going strong as a hunting dog.

Cajun Casey wrote:

RoostersMom wrote:Question from a person who does not field trial at all....

Form follows function as we say in biology. So the question I have is how are some of the better field trial dogs holding up at age 10 or so? Or is the field trialing "done" for a dog when it reaches a certain age? I know they likely wouldn't be winning trials at 9 years old, but are they still healthy and vibrant?

That is one thing I keep track of religiously. My Casey's daddy ran the GSPCA National at age eleven (may have gone the next year, I'd have to look it up) and lived to be over fourteen. There are some lines that don't make it to that age breathing. What I find odd is when a heavily campaigned dog dies before age ten and a littermate is still going strong as a hunting dog.

I'd like to see some stats. to show that . I see it as a rare event that may happen due to an accident or some other unexpected event. The connection between a dog who has participated in trials and an earlier than expected death has never been proven. Other then accidents, dogs die from disease, hereditary genes and being too fat.

is it a possibility to take a great hunting dog without field trial lines and make a champion out of him/her?? is it a must that a dog be field trial stock to even hold up against the other dogs?? just curious since im not familiar with trialing and trialing lines all that much ..ruth

What does to the position of dogs tail have to do with the dogs ability to hunt? or does form not follow function?

Ruth...It certainly is possible to take a great hunting dog without field trial lines and make him or her a field champion. Seen it done many times...Good luck. --..Nike ..... According to Delmar Smith in his book Best Way to Train Your Gun Dog...he states " You make sure you get a high tail. That way you get an inch to inch and a half more muscle.....That gives the dog more reaching and pushing power. He's not choppy" (pages 8-9) Go figure, but if Delmar say's it, I believe it.

bossman wrote:Ruth...It certainly is possible to take a great hunting dog without field trial lines and make him or her a field champion. Seen it done many times...Good luck. --..Nike ..... According to Delmar Smith in his book Best Way to Train Your Gun Dog...he states " You make sure you get a high tail. That way you get an inch to inch and a half more muscle.....That gives the dog more reaching and pushing power. He's not choppy" (pages 8-9) Go figure, but if Delmar say's it, I believe it.

That rear power saves the dog's front from doing all the work and causing him to wear out more quickly. I've had the privledge of seeing Delmar describe a dog in person. It's fascinating.

Cajun Casey wrote:

bossman wrote:Ruth...It certainly is possible to take a great hunting dog without field trial lines and make him or her a field champion. Seen it done many times...Good luck. --..Nike ..... According to Delmar Smith in his book Best Way to Train Your Gun Dog...he states " You make sure you get a high tail. That way you get an inch to inch and a half more muscle.....That gives the dog more reaching and pushing power. He's not choppy" (pages 8-9) Go figure, but if Delmar say's it, I believe it.

That rear power saves the dog's front from doing all the work and causing him to wear out more quickly. I've had the privledge of seeing Delmar describe a dog in person. It's fascinating.

Never heard it was fascinating to hear someone describe what he thought about a dogs tail set. Just remember what Delmar was describing was a high tail set and not how the tail is carried. Two different things. And if you ever noticed the fastest of dogs as well as the fastest of animals all carry their tails low. I think if yu study it you will find the lower tail adds a great deal to manuverability instead of speed. Anytime you have a body appendage carried at an unusual position and kept stationary it is hinderance to movement and not an advantage.

Ezzy

ezzy333 wrote:

Cajun Casey wrote:

bossman wrote:Ruth...It certainly is possible to take a great hunting dog without field trial lines and make him or her a field champion. Seen it done many times...Good luck. --..Nike ..... According to Delmar Smith in his book Best Way to Train Your Gun Dog...he states " You make sure you get a high tail. That way you get an inch to inch and a half more muscle.....That gives the dog more reaching and pushing power. He's not choppy" (pages 8-9) Go figure, but if Delmar say's it, I believe it.

That rear power saves the dog's front from doing all the work and causing him to wear out more quickly. I've had the privledge of seeing Delmar describe a dog in person. It's fascinating.

Never heard it was fascinating to hear someone describe what he thought about a dogs tail set. Just remember what Delmar was describing was a high tail set and not how the tail is carried. Two different things. And if you ever noticed the fastest of dogs as well as the fastest of animals all carry their tails low. I think if yu study it you will find the lower tail adds a great deal to manuverability instead of speed. Anytime you have a body appendage carried at an unusual position and kept stationary it is hinderance to movement and not an advantage.

Ezzy

I'll make a note to look the next time I get divebombed by a peregrine falcon.

I'll make a note to look the next time I get divebombed by a peregrine falcon.

Lie !!!! there are no falcons in your house while your looking at a computer screen :roll: but on a serious note hows trying to post on every single thread going for you ? don't you have dogs > and a pet shop to run ?

Excellent question.
When you take a look at what a 30 minute,or even an hour trial dog needs to have to win trials vs a what makes a great wild bird dog,you will find a few different requirements with some shared.
The trial dog needs to have great style,a good nose,and the stamina to go the 30 minutes,or the rare hour,he also has to be stone cold broke,go with and listen.
A snappy animated dog will also help you win trials.
A wild bird dogs has to be able to hunt hard for hours,be tough enough not to quit,when he blows a pad,or is just sore from yesterday.he has to be smart enough to find wild birds,and have a great nose,to be able to point birds from a distance.If you are hunting with multiple dogs on the ground,the dog must back at a distance.Style is a bonus,but not a requirement.
So the differences can be in stamina,style,nose,and honoring.
So the person who breeds for trial only,needs more style and less stamina or toughness,and can get by with a poorer nose,and is looking for more animation.This tends to favor smaller dogs,who are snappy
light on there feet,and who are quick with a ton of style.
The hardcore wild bird guy wants nose and stamina above all else,with toughness being right behind ,so often larger dogs with a longer stride,and a big deep chest that can cover the ground easier are what he breeds.
I also believe by far the best trial dogs have been hunted alot on wild birds.

RoostersMom wrote:Question from a person who does not field trial at all....

Form follows function as we say in biology. So the question I have is how are some of the better field trial dogs holding up at age 10 or so? Or is the field trialing "done" for a dog when it reaches a certain age? I know they likely wouldn't be winning trials at 9 years old, but are they still healthy and vibrant?

Many of them hold up fine. And they win at age nine and older. 19X CH Elhew Hannabell was competitive at age ten when she was retired due to illness. At local trials here it's not unusual to have dogs 10 or 11 years old entered and showing well. CH The Insider just won the Michigan SD CH and he's eight or nine.

A dog that's on the major circuit its whole life has a hard, hard life; IMO to be running at double-digit or close to it age is a testament to their durability.

So the person who breeds for trial only,needs more style and less stamina or toughness,and can get by with a poorer nose,and is looking for more animation.This tends to favor smaller dogs,who are snappy
light on there feet,and who are quick with a ton of style.
The hardcore wild bird guy wants nose and stamina above all else,with toughness being right behind ,so often larger dogs with a longer stride,and a big deep chest that can cover the ground easier are what he breeds.
I also believe by far the best trial dogs have been hunted alot on wild birds. Cannot disagree more with that statement that a trial dog doesn't need stamina. What a joke. Go watch hour stakes at Booneville, or any other place that has alot of cover and hills, draws and such and find out what stamina really is.

kensfishing wrote:So the person who breeds for trial only,needs more style and less stamina or toughness,and can get by with a poorer nose,and is looking for more animation.This tends to favor smaller dogs,who are snappy
light on there feet,and who are quick with a ton of style.
The hardcore wild bird guy wants nose and stamina above all else,with toughness being right behind ,so often larger dogs with a longer stride,and a big deep chest that can cover the ground easier are what he breeds.
I also believe by far the best trial dogs have been hunted alot on wild birds. Cannot disagree more with that statement that a trial dog doesn't need stamina. What a joke. Go watch hour stakes at Booneville, or any other place that has alot of cover and hills, draws and such and find out what stamina really is.

What does that venue prove over some others? Still just an hour...

Drag of the Race is why you need field trials. Unless you are measuring breeding stock for the highest performance then the genetic pull to mediocrity will result in inferior stock.

Vision wrote:Drag of the Race is why you need field trials. Unless you are measuring breeding stock for the highest performance then the genetic pull to mediocrity will result in inferior stock.

Genetic drag is usually attributed to inbreeding and some of the most closely inbred lines of dogs are field trial dogs.

--..Nike ..... According to Delmar Smith in his book Best Way to Train Your Gun Dog...he states " You make sure you get a high tail. That way you get an inch to inch and a half more muscle.....That gives the dog more reaching and pushing power. He's not choppy" (pages 8-9) Go figure, but if Delmar say's it, I believe it.

Bossman, thanks for the insight, right or wrong it was interesting to hear some biology behind the tail position.

Vision wrote:Drag of the Race is why you need field trials. Unless you are measuring breeding stock for the highest performance then the genetic pull to mediocrity will result in inferior stock.

Do you mean field trials are needed to avoid mediocrity or testing in general? If you mean testing in general I would agree if you mean field trials specifically I would strongly disagree.

Cajun Casey wrote:

Vision wrote:Drag of the Race is why you need field trials. Unless you are measuring breeding stock for the highest performance then the genetic pull to mediocrity will result in inferior stock.

Genetic drag is usually attributed to inbreeding and some of the most closely inbred lines of dogs are field trial dogs.

Not true in any way. All breeding tend to go towards the median or average. Poor dogs will tend to produce puppies that are better than themselves and good dogs tend to produce poorer if they are left to randomly breed. Has absolutely nothing to do with inbreeding.

Ezzy

If you buy from field trial stock you are banking on the opinion of several independent judges that have put ch's on that pedigree. If you buy so called "hunting dog" stock you are often taking one man's opinion.

I say if you buy well bred pups the best you might get is a field trial champion and the worst you will get is a good hunting dog.

As in most of these post, most people here have never ran a dog in an AF or AKC event that requires not just a great or good bird dog or the stamina it takes to get a dog around in an hour stake let alone to finish with pop or the feeling the dog still has a tank full looking good. Most people who hunt that thinks their dogs can compete with the best bred trial dogs have another thing coming. You just can't do it. As was said you may either get a really good trial dog or a great hunting companion.

ACooper wrote:The board has been a little dull outside why are GSPs popular (or not). For conversations sake lets get something going.

Here is the question if field trials are supposed to be about producing a better hunting dog through competition/comparison and selection, why does it seem that most "pro" field trialers breed to win trials and not to produce hunting dogs? Further why are health and structure secondary to performance? This would be mainly aimed at horse back breeders/dogs.

I am going to take cover now...

Spoken like a true DK person. False premise. Actually, a number of false premises. Field trial dogs are hunting dogs. We have nothing but in our hunting group, and seem to do pretty well. Also, most field trial pros don't breed, the owners breed. But that's not what this thread is about, is it Coop?

Better question is why DK's are bred to kill cats, "protect the family," and fetch fox carcasses instead of to hunt. And why, after all these decades, DK people are still so into propaganda. Beyond me why you guys are still doing it, gluttons for punishment I guess.

There are too many variables in any testing or trialing format for it to be used as a sole breeding evalution tool.

30 minutes, 1 hour, 3 hours, 10 hours 6 days in a row. There are some pretty big differences in trialing and hunting, the most obvious is the time you spend afield. You would not condition a trial dog to run at a 10 hour pace.

ACooper wrote:

Cajun Casey wrote:That's not what field trials are about. Field trials are about producing dogs that win field trials. Just like conformation shows are not about producing better pets. They are about producing dogs that win dog shows.

I disagree In my opinion that IS what field trials are about... Conformation shows don't have anything to do with how good of a pet a dog can be... but a field trial should showcase the skills needed to be a top notch bird dog.

Most top notch bird dogs are not expected to be dead broke and most field trial dogs are not expected to chase down runners or retrieve. They all draw their first breaths as hunting dogs, so I don't think field trials are a fair platform to examine hunting skills.

Wagonmaster wrote:
Spoken like a true DK person. False premise. Actually, a number of false premises. Field trial dogs are hunting dogs. We have nothing but in our hunting group, and seem to do pretty well. Also, most field trial pros don't breed, the owners breed. But that's not what this thread is about, is it Coop?

Better question is why DK's are bred to kill cats, "protect the family," and fetch fox carcasses instead of to hunt. And why, after all these decades, DK people are still so into propaganda. Beyond me why you guys are still doing it, gluttons for punishment I guess.

DK person? I don't own a DK I haven't owned a DK, I am not into the german testing system...would I own one? Maybe if it were the right dog.

False premise? OF COURSE! What else are we going to do to get a good conversation going? It would be extra boring around here if no one ever posted anything off the wall made up or a hair brained idea. I can start another topic about why navhda sucks and how those dogs all hunt too close, and lack style?

Do to my job situation I wouldn't be able to get my dog to many trials, but also due to my job I am able to get my dog with a pro who is able to get him to some trials. So trying to pigeon hole me as a trial dog hater you are way off base, IMO the best dog is the one that can do it all.

Why can't we ever just discuss? Give YOUR thoughts on this topic does form follow function? I tend to believe that it does? How about you?

kensfishing wrote:As in most of these post, most people here have never ran a dog in an AF or AKC event that requires not just a great or good bird dog or the stamina it takes to get a dog around in an hour stake let alone to finish with pop or the feeling the dog still has a tank full looking good. Most people who hunt that thinks their dogs can compete with the best bred trial dogs have another thing coming. You just can't do it. As was said you may either get a really good trial dog or a great hunting companion.

I have not been able to acquire as much field trial experience as I would like yet, and no doubt you have forgotten more than I know. But we ought to be able to discuss differing opinions. I did go to Eureka and ride a bunch a braces several years ago, I did see some excellent dogs go, unfortunately my riding skills were not up to par the time and I spent more time worrying about the horse than I did about seeing the dogs run...

It is interesting, althought I know the thread is young, that all the posters are from somewhere other than the Northeast. This concept is totally foreign to many of us. The tradition here is far more field sport and recreational and the dogs have generally been much larger and closer if not spot on the "adopted" standard. Setters are a great example, Shorthairs to a lessor extent.

RoostersMom wrote:Question from a person who does not field trial at all....

Form follows function as we say in biology. So the question I have is how are some of the better field trial dogs holding up at age 10 or so? Or is the field trialing "done" for a dog when it reaches a certain age? I know they likely wouldn't be winning trials at 9 years old, but are they still healthy and vibrant?

Form follows function is Lamarckian and is not correct, as we say in all my comparative anatomy classes in grad school in Biology.

By contrast, in Darwinian evolution, form (variation) precedes function (as determined by selection). That is to say in Lamarckian evolution the form is altered by the required function, whereas in Darwinian evolution small variations in form allow some parts of the population to function 'better', and are therefore more successful reproductively.

northern cajun wrote:

RoostersMom wrote:Question from a person who does not field trial at all....

Form follows function as we say in biology. So the question I have is how are some of the better field trial dogs holding up at age 10 or so? Or is the field trialing "done" for a dog when it reaches a certain age? I know they likely wouldn't be winning trials at 9 years old, but are they still healthy and vibrant?

Form follows function is Lamarckian and is not correct, as we say in all my comparative anatomy classes in grad school in Biology.

By contrast, in Darwinian evolution, form (variation) precedes function (as determined by selection). That is to say in Lamarckian evolution the form is altered by the required function, whereas in Darwinian evolution small variations in form allow some parts of the population to function 'better', and are therefore more successful reproductively.

This is always what I have been taught too. You have to have the form that allows a certain function and that is why I still think different breeds were meant to work differently and should be judged by different standards.

Ezzy

Wagonmaster wrote:

Spoken like a true DK person. False premise. Actually, a number of false premises. Field trial dogs are hunting dogs. We have nothing but in our hunting group, and seem to do pretty well. Also, most field trial pros don't breed, the owners breed. But that's not what this thread is about, is it Coop?

Better question is why DK's are bred to kill cats, "protect the family," and fetch fox carcasses instead of to hunt. And why, after all these decades, DK people are still so into propaganda. Beyond me why you guys are still doing it, gluttons for punishment I guess.


Wagonmaster,
Here's why the DK is
1)bred to kill cats - because feril cats kill what hunters hunt
2)DKs are not human sharp
3)they fetch fox carcasses b/c it shows more about a dog than simply bird finding ability
the DK is a versatile dog,bred to perform versatile tasks
and lastly, why do you vehemently state DKs don't hunt?

This attack on DKs is uncalled for.

adogslife wrote:Wagonmaster wrote:

Spoken like a true DK person. False premise. Actually, a number of false premises. Field trial dogs are hunting dogs. We have nothing but in our hunting group, and seem to do pretty well. Also, most field trial pros don't breed, the owners breed. But that's not what this thread is about, is it Coop?

Better question is why DK's are bred to kill cats, "protect the family," and fetch fox carcasses instead of to hunt. And why, after all these decades, DK people are still so into propaganda. Beyond me why you guys are still doing it, gluttons for punishment I guess.


Wagonmaster,
Here's why the DK is
1)bred to kill cats - because feril cats kill what hunters hunt
2)DKs are not human sharp
3)they fetch fox carcasses b/c it shows more about a dog than simply bird finding ability
the DK is a versatile dog,bred to perform versatile tasks
and lastly, why do you vehemently state DKs don't hunt?

This attack on DKs is uncalled for.

I don't think its an attack. I wonder the same things.

Thou shalt not do what the DK people do to the American Bred GSPS!! Shame Shame!! That is truely funny!!

ACooper wrote:

kensfishing wrote:So the person who breeds for trial only,needs more style and less stamina or toughness,and can get by with a poorer nose,and is looking for more animation.This tends to favor smaller dogs,who are snappy
light on there feet,and who are quick with a ton of style.
The hardcore wild bird guy wants nose and stamina above all else,with toughness being right behind ,so often larger dogs with a longer stride,and a big deep chest that can cover the ground easier are what he breeds.
I also believe by far the best trial dogs have been hunted alot on wild birds. Cannot disagree more with that statement that a trial dog doesn't need stamina. What a joke. Go watch hour stakes at Booneville, or any other place that has alot of cover and hills, draws and such and find out what stamina really is.

What does that venue prove over some others? Still just an hour...

This truly is one of the most laughable comments in this thread. I ran quite a few dogs that were not at all competitive for an hour in front of a horse but they could quite easily handle 3 hour stints of hunting 2 x a day for 3 days in a row.

Although there are a tremendous number of Hour Winners in the AKC ranks, it is one of the drawbacks of the system IMO that there is no requirement for an Hour Win to qualify for FC. Stamina is one of the fundamentals of a good dog and although a 1/2 horseback stake can be tough it is the final 10 min. of the hour that separates winners from losers - dogs with grit/heart/guts/bottom (whatever you want to call it).

slistoe wrote:

ACooper wrote:

kensfishing wrote:So the person who breeds for trial only,needs more style and less stamina or toughness,and can get by with a poorer nose,and is looking for more animation.This tends to favor smaller dogs,who are snappy
light on there feet,and who are quick with a ton of style.
The hardcore wild bird guy wants nose and stamina above all else,with toughness being right behind ,so often larger dogs with a longer stride,and a big deep chest that can cover the ground easier are what he breeds.
I also believe by far the best trial dogs have been hunted alot on wild birds. Cannot disagree more with that statement that a trial dog doesn't need stamina. What a joke. Go watch hour stakes at Booneville, or any other place that has alot of cover and hills, draws and such and find out what stamina really is.

What does that venue prove over some others? Still just an hour...

This truly is one of the most laughable comments in this thread. I ran quite a few dogs that were not at all competitive for an hour in front of a horse but they could quite easily handle 3 hour stints of hunting 2 x a day for 3 days in a row.

Although there are a tremendous number of Hour Winners in the AKC ranks, it is one of the drawbacks of the system IMO that there is no requirement for an Hour Win to qualify for FC. Stamina is one of the fundamentals of a good dog and although a 1/2 horseback stake can be tough it is the final 10 min. of the hour that separates winners from losers - dogs with grit/heart/guts/bottom (whatever you want to call it).

Speaking of laughable took you long enough... did you read what I posted? "What does that venue prove over some others?"
No doubt the time can separate the good from the bad, BUT an hour is still an hour, and a dog OUGHT to be able to put down an hour race, there shouldn't be any great accolades for completing an hour strong, as this is what is expected. Is an hour at Booneville tougher than an hour at Mile post 9? I hear a lot about Mile post 9 or the White Mountains in AZ (maybe the should be the black mountains now after the fire)... Further you cannot compare the pace and ground coverage of a dog being followed on foot as opposed to a dog being followed on horseback. It is obvious that it takes much more for a dog to stay in front of a horse for an hour than it does a handler on foot.

If it isn't obvious it should be this post from the beginning was meant to stir debate! The last thing I want is to get into another DK vs GSP as that is just a tired and pointless argument that doesn't really interest anyone anymore...

[quotThis truly is one of the most laughable comments in this thread. I ran quite a few dogs that were not at all competitive for an hour in front of a horse but they could quite easily handle 3 hour stints of hunting 2 x a day for 3 days in a row.

Although there are a tremendous number of Hour Winners in the AKC ranks, it is one of the drawbacks of the system IMO that there is no requirement for an Hour Win to qualify for FC. Stamina is one of the fundamentals of a good dog and although a 1/2 horseback stake can be tough it is the final 10 min. of the hour that separates winners from losers - dogs with grit/heart/guts/bottom (whatever you want to call it).e][/quote]
I have never watched or participated in any kind of horseback trial, but I know there is a difference between hunting for an hour and competing for an hour. An hour of fast paced competition woud have to be pretty demanding I would think.

Charlie