Style v Efficiency, and or other arguments that divide

[Cajun Casey]

@ Solon, a little Plato never hurt anyone, now did it?

Perhaps you should discuss this within the framework of punctuated equilibrium. I would greatly enjoy reading that! Unless, of course, you are a devotee of Dr. Wilson. Thanks for the perspective.

[Wenaha]

I think the controversy over this issue is a semantic one. We probably all agree that natural or artificial selection acts by biasing the gene pool in a direction that favors certain traits that are undergoing the selection. Thus the gene pool presents a variety of phenotypes that don't randomly contribute to the future genotypes due to the nonrandom probabilities of reproductive success. That is to say that the various genotypes have to provide the forms that selection can favor. The need for a given trait can not cause the gene pool to produce it as Lamarck postulated. Now what are the traits that are being selected? In performance breeds, these traits are functional. In the conformation arena, the traits being selected by the breeders are forms. The performance animal breeders are selecting for various performance qualities. Traits such as milk production for cows, speed for race horses, pointing instinct, speed and endurance, etc for bird dogs. The selection acts on the functional attributes; the mutations, cross breeding, and other genetic mechanisms affecting the gene pool generates the forms that will be most successful in the functions desired by the breeders, when measured in some way and the results used for breeding rights. So when one says that form follows function, it means that the selection is for function, first. The forms, that is the physical attributes, that best serve the desired functions will be selected secondarily as a consequence. Hence the other way to look at it is that the genotypic variations in the population will supply the forms that the breeder (or nature in the case of natural selection) will favor. So in that sense, the forms will precede the functions selected, but the forms that will be propagated are based on functional criteria.

In dog breeding the big division is over those that breed for a perceived optimal form without regard to function or testing for function versus those that breed for forms that support a set of given functions and the animals are tested for this set of functions.
So I would summarize it as form follows function if the selection being applied is for functional traits, and the opposite: function follows form when the selection is primarily for the form without regard to the function. It is the show vs field dichotomy. In nature, selection is for survival and reproductive success; whatever available forms that best accomplish this will be favored. This process is generally a very slow one compared to artificial breeding.

Well at least that is how I view this issue.

Solon

Thank you for your observations. I agree completely and felt that this was self evident. Apparently some misunderstood through a very narrow interpretation of the "form follows function" comment that I made. As I stated before it's all about selecting for traits that are demonstrated by the dogs best suited to forward the breeder's functional goal. And field trials are the testing ground. Ergo: selection is based on function, and the form follows from that.

I also feel that Ray Gubernat made an important observation about intangibles... desire for birds is paramount. Without it little is possible.

Mike

[Birddogz]

Style is the last thing I consider, but it is the cherry on top. A dog that hunts hard never gives up, and is intelligent is what I am after. A goose goes in the water and it is cold and windy in big water, I want my dog to go get it. No holding back. I want a dog smart enough to learn to track a crippled rooster, handle wild spooky birds.

A bird dog only gets better on wild birds, and lots of them. They need experience. The biggest thing I want in a dog is a mega biddable dog, that I NEVER EVER have to look for. If I have to go looking for a dog, I am very pissed off. That is the worst thing a dog can do to me. A dog needs to know that we are a team. It isn't about the dog, it is about the dog and hunter.

Now if a dog can do it all, and do it with style, all the better. Honestly, check your game bag at the end of the day in equal opportunities/states, and whatever dog makes mine heavier is the best dog. That is after all the planned end result.

[ezzy333]

Style is the last thing I consider, but it is the cherry on top. A dog that hunts hard never gives up, and is intelligent is what I am after. A goose goes in the water and it is cold and windy in big water, I want my dog to go get it. No holding back. I want a dog smart enough to learn to track a crippled rooster, handle wild spooky birds.

A bird dog only gets better on wild birds, and lots of them. They need experience. The biggest thing I want in a dog is a mega biddable dog, that I NEVER EVER have to look for. If I have to go looking for a dog, I am very pissed off. That is the worst thing a dog can do to me. A dog needs to know that we are a team. It isn't about the dog, it is about the dog and hunter.

Now if a dog can do it all, and do it with style, all the better. Honestly, check your game bag at the end of the day in equal opportunities/states, and whatever dog makes mine heavier is the best dog. That is after all the planned end result.

I have to agree with this if I am hungry. But I hunt primarily for enjoyment and that is primarily watching the dogs. I admit I may be wrong as far as importance go but I absolutely refuse to spend my time feeding and housing an ugly dog no matter how good it is in the field. And the nice thing is I can do that without giving anything up today as there are so many good looking stylish dogs in the world that they are easy to find.

Remember, once you have killed an animal everything from that point on it work. I'll spend my time making and collecting memories with the dogs while those of you that judge a hunt by a full game bag are working.

Ezzy

[JKP]

But I hunt primarily for enjoyment and that is primarily watching the dogs.

I have heard many expressions of this sentiment. So are we breeding dogs that look good?? and what separates that from the priorities of the blue haired show matrons??? they want what looks good too?

I have often thought that trialers are really "show babes" in disguise

[Birddogz]

But I hunt primarily for enjoyment and that is primarily watching the dogs.

I have heard many expressions of this sentiment. So are we breeding dogs that look good?? and what separates that from the priorities of the blue haired show matrons??? they want what looks good too?

I have often thought that trialers are really "show babes" in disguise

LOL

[Birddogz]

Style is the last thing I consider, but it is the cherry on top. A dog that hunts hard never gives up, and is intelligent is what I am after. A goose goes in the water and it is cold and windy in big water, I want my dog to go get it. No holding back. I want a dog smart enough to learn to track a crippled rooster, handle wild spooky birds.

A bird dog only gets better on wild birds, and lots of them. They need experience. The biggest thing I want in a dog is a mega biddable dog, that I NEVER EVER have to look for. If I have to go looking for a dog, I am very pissed off. That is the worst thing a dog can do to me. A dog needs to know that we are a team. It isn't about the dog, it is about the dog and hunter.

Now if a dog can do it all, and do it with style, all the better. Honestly, check your game bag at the end of the day in equal opportunities/states, and whatever dog makes mine heavier is the best dog. That is after all the planned end result.

I have to agree with this if I am hungry. But I hunt primarily for enjoyment and that is primarily watching the dogs. I admit I may be wrong as far as importance go but I absolutely refuse to spend my time feeding and housing an ugly dog no matter how good it is in the field. And the nice thing is I can do that without giving anything up today as there are so many good looking stylish dogs in the world that they are easy to find.

Remember, once you have killed an animal everything from that point on it work. I'll spend my time making and collecting memories with the dogs while those of you that judge a hunt by a full game bag are working.

Ezzy

Bring on the work, I'm not lazy.

[Vonzeppelinkennels]

Full bags are fine but they are not the end all if they were we would always be carring a gun & not a camera or blank gun.There is more to it then killing & most of us age to that point but I guess some never do.

[birddog1968]

Imagine not being able to go run your dogs, without a gun, and be in full enjoyment of what you see.....sounds sad don't it

[Birddogz]

Full bags are fine but they are not the end all if they were we would always be carring a gun & not a camera or blank gun.There is more to it then killing & most of us age to that point but I guess some never do.

I don't think that it is the end all be all, but it is the best way to gauge whether your dog is getting it done or not. You see bagging game is the reason we hunt. If it weren't we would call it photography, or field trialing. Limiting out may not be necessary to enjoy a day in the field, but I enjoy eating wild game, and would rather be successful. I dare say most people share my view, as hundreds of thousands of people travel to the Dakotas every year to do just that.
I find most people who claim that they are "above" caring about being successful in the field do so because they don't live where it is possible, or are no longer capable of doing so.

[nikegundog]

Bring on the work, I'm not lazy.

+1 and really how much work is cleaning a pheasant really? 1 minute to breast one, 3 to clean it, 1 to 2 minutes to rinse and bag, not really what I consider work.

[birddogger]

I can understand both sides here, but for me, it is all about the dog work and I just can't be satisfied with a dog that doesn't look good at doing what it does best. There was a time, years ago, when shooting the limit was the most important thing to me and bringing home meat was what it was all about. I still want a successful hunt but I want to do it with stylish dogs and while bringing home meat from the hunt is nice, it is not that important to me anymore.

Charlie

[birddog1968]

Imagine that spending a couple months on the prairie with a starters pistol.....guess im a photographer

[Birddogz]

Imagine that spending a couple months on the prairie with a starters pistol.....guess im a photographer

You don't take a gun to ND? Come on 1968. Why do you travel all the way to ND anyway? You can watch your dogs on a preserve. You like killing wild birds just like most folks......it's o.k., I won't judge.

[birddog1968]

Everyone likes to kill some birds, its the folks that can't see the other side of the coin I feel sorry for

[Birddogz]

Everyone likes to kill some birds, its the folks that can't see the other side of the coin I feel sorry for

1968, I run my dogs in the off season all the time, and enjoy it very much. I have a starter pistol too. My original point was that I judge my dogs performance (Efficiency) against my other dogs and other people's dogs by how consistently they handle the search/point/retrieve of wild birds. That is all I was trying to say.

[Vonzeppelinkennels]

Just a little side note Bob Whele of Elhew kennel fame was one that got past killing birds & in his later yrs said you don't have to kill birds to make bird dogs.But what did he know??
I like hunting & killing game is the end to hunting but I like to watch dogs work period!! Whether it's training,F Trialing,taking pics,I find it all relaxing & enjoyable!!
I enjoy time in the field with my dogs away from the pressures of every day life.

Birddogz are you married,have kids,it just seems to me you have a one track mind.

[jcbuttry8]

[/quote]I think the controversy over this issue is a semantic one. We probably all agree that natural or artificial selection acts by biasing the gene pool in a direction that favors certain traits that are undergoing the selection. Thus the gene pool presents a variety of phenotypes that don't randomly contribute to the future genotypes due to the nonrandom probabilities of reproductive success. That is to say that the various genotypes have to provide the forms that selection can favor. The need for a given trait can not cause the gene pool to produce it as Lamarck postulated. Now what are the traits that are being selected? In performance breeds, these traits are functional. In the conformation arena, the traits being selected by the breeders are forms. The performance animal breeders are selecting for various performance qualities. Traits such as milk production for cows, speed for race horses, pointing instinct, speed and endurance, etc for bird dogs. The selection acts on the functional attributes; the mutations, cross breeding, and other genetic mechanisms affecting the gene pool generates the forms that will be most successful in the functions desired by the breeders, when measured in some way and the results used for breeding rights. So when one says that form follows function, it means that the selection is for function, first. The forms, that is the physical attributes, that best serve the desired functions will be selected secondarily as a consequence. Hence the other way to look at it is that the genotypic variations in the population will supply the forms that the breeder (or nature in the case of natural selection) will favor. So in that sense, the forms will precede the functions selected, but the forms that will be propagated are based on functional criteria.

In dog breeding the big division is over those that breed for a perceived optimal form without regard to function or testing for function versus those that breed for forms that support a set of given functions and the animals are tested for this set of functions.
So I would summarize it as form follows function if the selection being applied is for functional traits, and the opposite: function follows form when the selection is primarily for the form without regard to the function. It is the show vs field dichotomy. In nature, selection is for survival and reproductive success; whatever available forms that best accomplish this will be favored. This process is generally a very slow one compared to artificial breeding.

Well at least that is how I view this issue.[/quote]

I like this explanation. I really think what he is saying here is that all of you that bash the trialers and smack about there arrogance and what they do with the these dogs, should go and buy a few show queens and see how that works for ya.

It's funny that all of those who have trouble with trialers seem to have a whole lot of trial blood in their pedigrees, and yet still seem to think that trial dogs can't hunt. Maybe Solon can give us the breakdown on why it is a trial dog can't hunt but his offspring and their offspring can? That would probably need to be on a separate thread.

Joe

[ezzy333]

Bring on the work, I'm not lazy.

Over the years there have been way way too many heavy bags for them to be considered a trophy of any kind. I admit it was a lot more important years ago but those days are long gone. Seems that's the way it is with most people who have been at this game for a few years and are concerned about the conservation of our birds and animals and understand memories are what are important at this age.

Ezzy

[Birddogz]

Just a little side note Bob Whele of Elhew kennel fame was one that got past killing birds & in his later yrs said you don't have to kill birds to make bird dogs.But what did he know??
I like hunting & killing game is the end to hunting but I like to watch dogs work period!! Whether it's training,F Trialing,taking pics,I find it all relaxing & enjoyable!!
I enjoy time in the field with my dogs away from the pressures of every day life.

Birddogz are you married,have kids,it just seems to me you have a one track mind.

I'm married, have 2 children, teach for a living, coach soccer and basketball for little kids. The one track mind is on target, I am either hunting or fishing every moment I get. I have a high drive, and try to eat wild game and fish 75% of all of my meals. I'm getting closer. My kids go with me many times. I even go to church, although I try to get out of it most Sundays.

You can't make a real bird dog without shooting birds over them. I want to see a dog retrieve in a duck swamp, a river with current, sit in a portable blind, remain calm, track a crippled running rooster, etc. Mr W didn't expect the versatility that I do. I share more in common with guys like Bob Farris.

[Birddogz]

Bring on the work, I'm not lazy.

Over the years there have been way way too many heavy bags for them to be considered a trophy of any kind. I admit it was a lot more important years ago but those days are long gone. Seems that's the way it is with most people who have been at this game for a few years and are concerned about the conservation of our birds and animals and understand memories are what are important at this age.

Ezzy

You aren't going to hug a tree are you?

As for conservation, hunting has very little to do with waterfowl and upland mortality. Weather and cover are the most important factors. I am involved in PF and DU. Waterfowl are 36% above average, and I only shoot roosters, so that is a moot point. I have passed on Huns this year, as they are way down.

No matter how old I get or how many birds I bag, I always get excited about a big gaudy rooster cackling as it gets up over my dog's point. If that ever fails to get me fired up, I'll find something else to do that will. That is the beauty of my love of the outdoors, it is my passion.

[Elkhunter]

I care about how many birds my dogs point, try to kill maybe one bird out of each covey. If its close to home, try not to kill any. I would rather have the birds in the hills than in the freezer! If I find 5 coveys in a day, and I am able to shoot straight, which is rare, I might limit out. Love seeing my dog standing birds on cheatgrass hills though and taking pictures.

This is what I like..


Birds in the bag are just a bonus, though I would continue to chase birds even if I could not shoot them and I bet I would still have some pretty "bleep" good dogs. Killing the birds is my job, and I dont shoot straight, so I dont judge my dog by how many birds I kill. But how many birds he finds.

[birddog1968]

Well said Elk, great picture too !

[ACooper]

I bird hunt because I love working dogs, but I am a hunter and will not feel bad or apologize for shooting birds. Sometimes its a bunch sometimes its a few, sometimes none. I shoot birds for birddogs. When I started pheasant hunting our limit was one bird per day, you had to work really hard to get a shot at that one bird. We have many many more pheasants around today but I have never gotten over the satisfaction of successfully bagging a rooster, and at this point I am not sure I will.

[Birddogz]

I care about how many birds my dogs point, try to kill maybe one bird out of each covey. If its close to home, try not to kill any. I would rather have the birds in the hills than in the freezer! If I find 5 coveys in a day, and I am able to shoot straight, which is rare, I might limit out. Love seeing my dog standing birds on cheatgrass hills though and taking pictures.

This is what I like..


Birds in the bag are just a bonus, though I would continue to chase birds even if I could not shoot them and I bet I would still have some pretty "bleep" good dogs. Killing the birds is my job, and I dont shoot straight, so I dont judge my dog by how many birds I kill. But how many birds he finds.

Finding birds is about 50% of an upland dogs job, and 0% of a waterfowl dogs job. I love a good point, but a great retrieve is also impressive. If you never shoot a bird, your dogs would never be complete.

Doesn't anyone enjoy eating wild game? That is one of the greatest benefits of hunting, I hope some of you don't look past that. You can enjoy it all, the point, the shot, the retrieve, the dinner, etc. It is about the entire experience. There is something very satisfying about eating what you kill and catch. That is why we developed bird dogs in the first place.

[Elkhunter]

I bird hunt because I love working dogs, but I am a hunter and will not feel bad or apologize for shooting birds. Sometimes its a bunch sometimes its a few, sometimes none. I shoot birds for birddogs. When I started pheasant hunting our limit was one bird per day, you had to work really hard to get a shot at that one bird. We have many many more pheasants around today but I have never gotten over the satisfaction of successfully bagging a rooster, and at this point I am not sure I will.

Agree 100%, I shoot birds all the time. But I dont judge the "success" of a hunt over how many birds I shoot. For example, took my 1 year old GSP out to look at a promising spot in early September and she pointed a covey of wild chuks. First time she ever pointed a covey of wild birds, HUGE success. Did not kill one bird.

I care about how many birds my dogs point, try to kill maybe one bird out of each covey. If its close to home, try not to kill any. I would rather have the birds in the hills than in the freezer! If I find 5 coveys in a day, and I am able to shoot straight, which is rare, I might limit out. Love seeing my dog standing birds on cheatgrass hills though and taking pictures.

Finding birds is about 50% of an upland dogs job, and 0% of a waterfowl dogs job. I love a good point, but a great retrieve is also impressive. If you never shoot a bird, your dogs would never be complete.

50% huh? When fields have 200+ plus birds I would tend to agree, dont take a great dog to find birds in that field. The wide open expanses that we have out west tend to challenge a good dog to get birds pointed, I would say its 95% finding the birds, 5% someone who knows how to handle a gun! Especially when finds are miles apart. I shoot birds all the time, just don't think you need to limit out each time to have a "complete" bird dog.

[Birddogz]

Agree 100%, I shoot birds all the time. But I dont judge the "success" of a hunt over how many birds I shoot. For example, took my 1 year old GSP out to look at a promising spot in early September and she pointed a covey of wild chuks. First time she ever pointed a covey of wild birds, HUGE success. Did not kill one bird.

I care about how many birds my dogs point, try to kill maybe one bird out of each covey. If its close to home, try not to kill any. I would rather have the birds in the hills than in the freezer! If I find 5 coveys in a day, and I am able to shoot straight, which is rare, I might limit out. Love seeing my dog standing birds on cheatgrass hills though and taking pictures.

Finding birds is about 50% of an upland dogs job, and 0% of a waterfowl dogs job. I love a good point, but a great retrieve is also impressive. If you never shoot a bird, your dogs would never be complete.

50% huh? When fields have 200+ plus birds I would tend to agree, dont take a great dog to find birds in that field. The wide open expanses that we have out west tend to challenge a good dog to get birds pointed, I would say its 95% finding the birds, 5% someone who knows how to handle a gun! Especially when finds are miles apart. I shoot birds all the time, just don't think you need to limit out each time to have a "complete" bird dog.[/quote]

95%? You must not hunt pheasants much or Ruffed grouse much. Heck, even quail are hard to find after the shot. Trying to find a woodcock is darn near impossible without a dog. After the shot is a huge part of a dog's job, especially a truly versatile dog that hunts waterfowl, upland, tracks bow shot deer.

I never said you had to limit out to have a complete dog, I was simply responding to your statement that if you never shot a bird you would still have good dogs. This idea that finding birds is the major job of a dog is false, if you expect what I do from my dogs. If I shoot a duck in a 100 acre slough, I expect my dog to search until she finds it, and sit at my side and deliver a bird. When I am hunting sharpies, I expect the dog to work at 200-300 yards. Hunting thick cover for pheasants they need to be able to handle running birds. They need to learn to run to the front and hunt back to pinch birds. Be able to track a crippled pheasant, bow shot deer, etc . My point is, when I say a complete dog I mean point, back, retrieve, hunt dead, have enough sense to sit still when I am hunting waterfowl, heal, whoa, on and on. A complete dog to me is never finished, and always learning. That same dog needs to chill out on the couch when I get home. There is a lot more to a bird dog than search to me, if that is all you desire you will be much happier than me. It takes a while to get them to do everything right.......well, maybe eternity.

[birddog1968]

funny thing is, I don't discount your opinion, its yours. But everyone elses opinion isn't wrong because you can't accept others dont think like you.

[Birddogz]

funny thing is, I don't discount your opinion, its yours. But everyone elses opinion isn't wrong because you can't accept others dont think like you.

This whole thread is about a persons opinion. I don't care what others do, just giving my thoughts on the topic.

[SCT]

"I think the controversy over this issue is a semantic one. We probably all agree that natural or artificial selection acts by biasing the gene pool in a direction that favors certain traits that are undergoing the selection. Thus the gene pool presents a variety of phenotypes that don't randomly contribute to the future genotypes due to the nonrandom probabilities of reproductive success. That is to say that the various genotypes have to provide the forms that selection can favor. The need for a given trait can not cause the gene pool to produce it as Lamarck postulated. Now what are the traits that are being selected? In performance breeds, these traits are functional. In the conformation arena, the traits being selected by the breeders are forms. The performance animal breeders are selecting for various performance qualities. Traits such as milk production for cows, speed for race horses, pointing instinct, speed and endurance, etc for bird dogs. The selection acts on the functional attributes; the mutations, cross breeding, and other genetic mechanisms affecting the gene pool generates the forms that will be most successful in the functions desired by the breeders, when measured in some way and the results used for breeding rights. So when one says that form follows function, it means that the selection is for function, first. The forms, that is the physical attributes, that best serve the desired functions will be selected secondarily as a consequence. Hence the other way to look at it is that the genotypic variations in the population will supply the forms that the breeder (or nature in the case of natural selection) will favor. So in that sense, the forms will precede the functions selected, but the forms that will be propagated are based on functional criteria.

In dog breeding the big division is over those that breed for a perceived optimal form without regard to function or testing for function versus those that breed for forms that support a set of given functions and the animals are tested for this set of functions.
So I would summarize it as form follows function if the selection being applied is for functional traits, and the opposite: function follows form when the selection is primarily for the form without regard to the function. It is the show vs field dichotomy. In nature, selection is for survival and reproductive success; whatever available forms that best accomplish this will be favored. This process is generally a very slow one compared to artificial breeding.

Well at least that is how I view this issue."

This is a great post and hits the nail on the head. Especially this part "" the forms will precede the functions selected, but the forms that will be propagated are based on functional criteria."" Efficiency and style are both tied to this statement. You can also include aesthetics...IMO

[myerstenn]

Full bags are fine but they are not the end all if they were we would always be carring a gun & not a camera or blank gun.There is more to it then killing & most of us age to that point but I guess some never do.

I don't think that it is the end all be all, but it is the best way to gauge whether your dog is getting it done or not. You see bagging game is the reason we hunt. If it weren't we would call it photography, or field trialing. Limiting out may not be necessary to enjoy a day in the field, but I enjoy eating wild game, and would rather be successful. I dare say most people share my view, as hundreds of thousands of people travel to the Dakotas every year to do just that.
I find most people who claim that they are "above" caring about being successful in the field do so because they don't live where it is possible, or are no longer capable of doing so.

"ANY DOG CAN BE SUCCESSFUL IN SOUTH DAKOTA"

[Birddogz]

Full bags are fine but they are not the end all if they were we would always be carring a gun & not a camera or blank gun.There is more to it then killing & most of us age to that point but I guess some never do.

I don't think that it is the end all be all, but it is the best way to gauge whether your dog is getting it done or not. You see bagging game is the reason we hunt. If it weren't we would call it photography, or field trialing. Limiting out may not be necessary to enjoy a day in the field, but I enjoy eating wild game, and would rather be successful. I dare say most people share my view, as hundreds of thousands of people travel to the Dakotas every year to do just that.
I find most people who claim that they are "above" caring about being successful in the field do so because they don't live where it is possible, or are no longer capable of doing so.

"ANY DOG CAN BE SUCCESSFUL IN SOUTH DAKOTA"

This comment makes no sense. Any dog can be successful in any state. Dogs have MORE CHANCES to be successful in the Dakotas. This isn't a bad thing, it is a great thing. The more bird contacts a dog has, the quicker they learn. When I coach basketball I remind kids of the great Larry Bird. He shot thousands and thousands of shots to perfect his game. The work obviously paid off. The same goes for dogs, the more "playing time" they can get in "game" situations the faster they will learn and mature. This is why pros run their dogs in the Dakotas in the summer.

[Vonzeppelinkennels]

My pro breaks,runs,& conditions his dogs in Ohio & he wins very very often!! Fact is he just won the GSPCA NFC went to Wye Island Maryland & won the AA Phez Ch.for the 3rd yr in a row plus had RU & won the Derby & another dog he trains went 2nd in the Biggest Amt stake ever ran there.Not bad for an Ohio man huh that has NO BIRDS.

[Cajun Casey]

My pro breaks,runs,& conditions his dogs in Ohio & he wins very very often!! Fact is he just won the GSPCA NFC went to Wye Island Maryland & won the AA for the 3rd yr in a row plus had RU & won the Derby & another dog he trains went 2nd in the Biggest Amt stake ever ran there.Not bad for an Ohio man huh that has NO BIRDS.

Does he not go South any more in the winter?

[Vonzeppelinkennels]

Yes he still does go south in the winter for winter camp mostly for the weather conditions but he also does some guiding while there.He used to go to Nebraska for summer camp but has found he gets more acompplished here.It's been about 5 yrs since he went out west for summer camp.

[birddog1968]

Dogs have MORE CHANCES to be successful in the Dakotas.


And the absolute best place is around Garrison....everyone flock to garrison, its the dog training mecca.....don't miss the chance to make your dog the best it can be in GARRISON

[ezzy333]

Full bags are fine but they are not the end all if they were we would always be carring a gun & not a camera or blank gun.There is more to it then killing & most of us age to that point but I guess some never do.

I don't think that it is the end all be all, but it is the best way to gauge whether your dog is getting it done or not. You see bagging game is the reason we hunt. If it weren't we would call it photography, or field trialing. Limiting out may not be necessary to enjoy a day in the field, but I enjoy eating wild game, and would rather be successful. I dare say most people share my view, as hundreds of thousands of people travel to the Dakotas every year to do just that.
I find most people who claim that they are "above" caring about being successful in the field do so because they don't live where it is possible, or are no longer capable of doing so.

This has to be one of the most uninformed posts I have read.

No.1- a limit is the best way to see if your dog is getting it done. Truth is a full bag says nothing more than you shot that many birds. Your dog and mine could be identical on any given day but I took pictures rather than shoot, I missed most of them, or I let my neighbor kid who has never hunted before get the first shot. Or heaven forbid I maybe didn't take the dog but had no trouble filling my bag.

No.2 If it wasn't about killing our limit we wouldn't call it hunting---If it really is about killing as much as legal then it would be called shooting. Hunting is a whole nother ball game.

No.3- Bagging game is the reason we hunt-- was probably true back in history when it was the way we could put meat on the table. Also was the reason I hunted before I had a dog. Since that time we all hunt for sport and if that means killing as much as is legal each day then I will have to change sports.

No.4 The meaning of successful has nothing to do with killing your limit unless that is your purpose in being there--- So it is successful for you but many of us are just as successful without killing a thing or maybe one or two.

No.5 Hundreds of thousands go to S.Dakota to kill their limit---probably well over half of them go to hunt their dogs where there are a lot of pheasants and filling their game bag is secondary to watching their dogs work.

No5. You keep using the term successful if the field in direct relationship to killing your limit----as stated before that is only true for those that love to shoot birds, and has little to do with the hunter who has and loves to watch his dogs hunt and continue to marvel at what they can do.

Truthfully your description of successful escaped me many many years ago and was reinforced when I had my four boys learning how to hunt and what a true sportsman really is. Luckily they have retained what they were taught and am proud to say that they each know there is much more to being a true sportsman than killing the legal limit.

Ezzy

[nikegundog]

Full bags are fine but they are not the end all if they were we would always be carring a gun & not a camera or blank gun.There is more to it then killing & most of us age to that point but I guess some never do.

I don't think that it is the end all be all, but it is the best way to gauge whether your dog is getting it done or not. You see bagging game is the reason we hunt. If it weren't we would call it photography, or field trialing. Limiting out may not be necessary to enjoy a day in the field, but I enjoy eating wild game, and would rather be successful. I dare say most people share my view, as hundreds of thousands of people travel to the Dakotas every year to do just that.
I find most people who claim that they are "above" caring about being successful in the field do so because they don't live where it is possible, or are no longer capable of doing so.

This has to be one of the most uninformed posts I have read.

No.1- a limit is the best way to see if your dog is getting it done. Truth is a full bag says nothing more than you shot that many birds. Your dog and mine could be identical on any given day but I took pictures rather than shoot, I missed most of them, or I let my neighbor kid who has never hunted before get the first shot. Or heaven forbid I maybe didn't take the dog but had no trouble filling my bag.

No.2 If it wasn't about killing our limit we wouldn't call it hunting---If it really is about killing as much as legal then it would be called shooting. Hunting is a whole nother ball game.

No.3- Bagging game is the reason we hunt-- was probably true back in history when it was the way we could put meat on the table. Also was the reason I hunted before I had a dog. Since that time we all hunt for sport and if that means killing as much as is legal each day then I will have to change sports.

No.4 The meaning of successful has nothing to do with killing your limit unless that is your purpose in being there--- So it is successful for you but many of us are just as successful without killing a thing or maybe one or two.

No.5 Hundreds of thousands go to S.Dakota to kill their limit---probably well over half of them go to hunt their dogs where there are a lot of pheasants and filling their game bag is secondary to watching their dogs work.

No5. You keep using the term successful if the field in direct relationship to killing your limit----as stated before that is only true for those that love to shoot birds, and has little to do with the hunter who has and loves to watch his dogs hunt and continue to marvel at what they can do.

Truthfully your description of successful escaped me many many years ago and was reinforced when I had my four boys learning how to hunt and what a true sportsman really is. Luckily they have retained what they were taught and am proud to say that they each know there is much more to being a true sportsman than killing the legal limit.

Ezzy

Ezzy, either you qouted the wrong comments or you are reading things any his comments that I don't see.

[ezzy333]

They are up in one of the early posts, you will see it.

[Garrison]

Full bags are fine but they are not the end all if they were we would always be carring a gun & not a camera or blank gun.There is more to it then killing & most of us age to that point but I guess some never do.

I don't think that it is the end all be all, but it is the best way to gauge whether your dog is getting it done or not. You see bagging game is the reason we hunt. If it weren't we would call it photography, or field trialing. Limiting out may not be necessary to enjoy a day in the field, but I enjoy eating wild game, and would rather be successful. I dare say most people share my view, as hundreds of thousands of people travel to the Dakotas every year to do just that.
I find most people who claim that they are "above" caring about being successful in the field do so because they don't live where it is possible, or are no longer capable of doing so.

This has to be one of the most uninformed posts I have read.

No.1- a limit is the best way to see if your dog is getting it done. Truth is a full bag says nothing more than you shot that many birds. Your dog and mine could be identical on any given day but I took pictures rather than shoot, I missed most of them, or I let my neighbor kid who has never hunted before get the first shot. Or heaven forbid I maybe didn't take the dog but had no trouble filling my bag.

No.2 If it wasn't about killing our limit we wouldn't call it hunting---If it really is about killing as much as legal then it would be called shooting. Hunting is a whole nother ball game.

No.3- Bagging game is the reason we hunt-- was probably true back in history when it was the way we could put meat on the table. Also was the reason I hunted before I had a dog. Since that time we all hunt for sport and if that means killing as much as is legal each day then I will have to change sports.

No.4 The meaning of successful has nothing to do with killing your limit unless that is your purpose in being there--- So it is successful for you but many of us are just as successful without killing a thing or maybe one or two.

No.5 Hundreds of thousands go to S.Dakota to kill their limit---probably well over half of them go to hunt their dogs where there are a lot of pheasants and filling their game bag is secondary to watching their dogs work.

No5. You keep using the term successful if the field in direct relationship to killing your limit----as stated before that is only true for those that love to shoot birds, and has little to do with the hunter who has and loves to watch his dogs hunt and continue to marvel at what they can do.

Truthfully your description of successful escaped me many many years ago and was reinforced when I had my four boys learning how to hunt and what a true sportsman really is. Luckily they have retained what they were taught and am proud to say that they each know there is much more to being a true sportsman than killing the legal limit.

Ezzy

This has to be one of the most uninformed post that I have read.

Maybe it's time to get off the high horse. I enjoy every part of the hunt, watching the dogs work is number one, but I sure as heck won't tell someone else how to enjoy their hunt, or they are wrong or less of sportsman if they choose to in a different fashion then me.

Last I checked the South Dakota Pheasant Limit was 3 Roosters, One guy wants to maybe kill one and one guy wants to kill all three, I think the guy who kills two is the real sportsman, what a joke.....

[slistoe]

This has to be one of the most uninformed post that I have read.

Maybe it's time to get off the high horse. I enjoy every part of the hunt, watching the dogs work is number one, but I sure as heck won't tell someone else how to enjoy their hunt, or they are wrong or less of sportsman if they choose to in a different fashion then me.

Last I checked the South Dakota Pheasant Limit was 3 Roosters, One guy wants to maybe kill one and one guy wants to kill all three, I think the guy who kills two is the real sportsman, what a joke.....

Were you referring to Ezzy or birdogz? Birdogz attitude is quite the joke - anyone who does not kill a limit is because they are not capable. Talk about high horsing.

[Garrison]

This has to be one of the most uninformed post that I have read.

Maybe it's time to get off the high horse. I enjoy every part of the hunt, watching the dogs work is number one, but I sure as heck won't tell someone else how to enjoy their hunt, or they are wrong or less of sportsman if they choose to in a different fashion then me.

Last I checked the South Dakota Pheasant Limit was 3 Roosters, One guy wants to maybe kill one and one guy wants to kill all three, I think the guy who kills two is the real sportsman, what a joke.....

Were you referring to Ezzy or birdogz? Birdogz attitude is quite the joke - anyone who does not kill a limit is because they are not capable. Talk about high horsing.

Both, we all enjoy are dogs and the sport why argue about it, enjoy it how you want to enjoy it. The purest saying you don't know how to enjoy the sport is the same as the hair trigger saying you are not hunting unless you fill your bag. Three bird argument, move on.

I like taking pictures more than shots does that mean I am any more or less of a sportsman than anybody else?

The effort should be spent on protecting new habitat and keeping the sport alive.

[Elkhunter]

Garrison you dont know Birddogz background. The pheasant is king, his dogs are the best cause he limits out etc. etc. etc. etc.

[brad27]

I like taking pictures more than shots does that mean I am any more or less of a sportsman than anybody else?

Yes. I have shot 2 birds over your dog. You are less of a sportsman then me.

[Garrison]

Garrison you dont know Birddogz background. The pheasant is king, his dogs are the best cause he limits out etc. etc. etc. etc.

Nothing that a week long chukar hunt won't cure. None the less, I wish Ezzy's key strokes went to his congressman instead, but I guess anymore that is about an equal waste of time.

[Garrison]

I like taking pictures more than shots does that mean I am any more or less of a sportsman than anybody else?

Yes. I have shot 2 birds over your dog. You are less of a sportsman then me.

All bets are off as soon as Lucy gets home.

[Winchey]

I missed 25 grouse and 2 woodcock yesterday because I am trying to conserve them :roll:

[Kmack]

In the argument over style, I think way too much emphasis is placed on the wrong end of the dog. And I'm not talking about the tail, I'm talking further back say 30 to 1000 yards.

Style to me is displayed more by the way the dog goes about getting things done than by the way it looks on point or how it holds it's tail when it runs. If the dog wreaks of exuberance in everything it does, and takes your lead willingly as opposed to reluctantly, then it is showing high style to me regardless the venue.

Counting birds is a way to put the guy behind the dog on a pedestal and the dog on a lower pedestal. I believe it should be the other way around.

[Birddogz]

Holy smokes are people funny. I can picture it know, Ezzy with a tweed shooting jacket on horseback going for a run with the dogs, and having to stop for noon tea.

Ezzy you may want to be a metrosexual, but I am into traditions of our country. I shoot what I eat and catch, and believe it or not I enjoy the process.Why would you rather eat a hormone injected/processed piece of meat when you could be eating wild game and fish? You can go to the store for your food, well sure, but why wouldn't you rather save the extra money, and eat better? It is like you are arguing for a suburban/urban lifestyle as opposed to a rural one.

I love a great bird dog working in front of me. I have hunted ruffs, pheasant, huns, bobs, woodcock, sharpies, prairie chickens, scalies, all waterfowl including swans and cranes. I hardly know only about pheasants. I have no idea how you can infer that I don't enjoy watching bird dogs, I love it! I also love shooting birds, and watching them retrieve/hunt dead, which is also a MAJOR part of a bird dogs job.

It is as if you scoff at a full game bag as something you are above. If I were to bet, I would bet I have hunted in far more places, on far more birds, on far more days than you have. Know one who is an informed hunter would make such ridiculous statements. It is as if you take the point of view of MSNBC. I like to hunt, and eat wild game. You obviously know this by now, or your reading skills are horrific. Knowing this, how on God's green Earth would you be surprised when I equate success with a full game bag? That is my goal/mission. Can you have a great time and get skunked? Yes, but chances are if you get skunked, your dog hasn't been into many birds. All things being equal, I would rather have some birds to clean.

All that being said, you are a moderator on "GUNDOG" forum. What is the gun for you suppose? This has been fun, I have to go clean my 13 geese from this morning.

[Birddogz]

This has to be one of the most uninformed post that I have read.

Maybe it's time to get off the high horse. I enjoy every part of the hunt, watching the dogs work is number one, but I sure as heck won't tell someone else how to enjoy their hunt, or they are wrong or less of sportsman if they choose to in a different fashion then me.

Last I checked the South Dakota Pheasant Limit was 3 Roosters, One guy wants to maybe kill one and one guy wants to kill all three, I think the guy who kills two is the real sportsman, what a joke.....

Were you referring to Ezzy or birdogz? Birdogz attitude is quite the joke - anyone who does not kill a limit is because they are not capable. Talk about high horsing.

Slistoe do you need help with your reading skills? I never said if a person doesn't limit out it is because they are incapable? In MOST cases I believe it to be true, but their are no absolutes. Are there guys who take their dogs out in season, and don't shoot at birds they could? Sure. Why do they generally not shoot them? Because they are conserving them. They don't have a ton of birds around. I have tons of birds where I live. I'm not saying it to act as if I am great, just stating the facts. I have no need to conserve.

High horsing? I am stating a geographical fact. All I see on here is that people around the country have no wild birds left in their state. How the heck are they going to limit out? They simply are not capable. Doesn't make them bad folks, just disadvantaged. I see pheasants, Huns, Sharpies, ducks, geese, swans, etc. on almost a daily basis. I moved to ND for that reason. Living where I live, I see no reason why a full game bag is a problem. I can assure you that 99% of North Dakotans think the same way.