Too much dog?

AzDoggin · Post by **AzDoggin** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 7:51 am

I've heard that expression a few times.

My interpretation of the phrase is that it reflects folks' opinion on a mismatch between a less experienced owner/trainer and a "spirited" pup from high performance parents. Is that how you interpret the statement?

For example, might that expression apply if a first-time dog owner wants to buy a pup with multiple FC's in the pedigree?

Buckeye_V · Post by **Buckeye_V** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:11 am

There is no such thing as too much dog, IMO. I've heard that a couple times from some people. I just smile.

solon · Post by **solon** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:19 am

AzDoggin wrote:
My interpretation of the phrase (Too much dog) is that it reflects folks' opinion on a mismatch between a less experienced owner/trainer and a "spirited" pup from high performance parents. Is that how you interpret the statement?

That is about it. What is too much dog depends on whether you are on a horse or not.

AzDoggin · Post by **AzDoggin** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:32 am

solon wrote:
AzDoggin wrote:
My interpretation of the phrase (Too much dog) is that it reflects folks' opinion on a mismatch between a less experienced owner/trainer and a "spirited" pup from high performance parents. Is that how you interpret the statement?
That is about it. What is too much dog depends on whether you are on a horse or not.

OK - so, for those who do not own horses...

ultracarry · Post by **ultracarry** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:37 am

Buy the dog you want and it will come around after its done running its demons out...

mountaindogs · Post by **mountaindogs** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:48 am

I do think some dogs are so high strung that they are hard for novice owners. They certainly CAN be trained and become great dogs, but the relationship is harder than it needs to be. Sometimes these are the flashy showy fun loving dogs that make playing dog games FUN, but still while you are getting the manners in, especially if they live inside or you are trying to make them live inside.
Unfortunatly I don't think there is a clear FC or not link. I have (full time board)a dog with heavy german and NAVHDA breeding that is the highest energy dog I have ever had. SO SWEET but really has to have a job or game going on ALL the time. Conversly I know lots of FC titled dogs that are the great housedogs, and nice well balance in energy, turning it on only when needed.

tommyboy72 · Post by **tommyboy72** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:50 am

Spoken like true trialers.

Nothing against trialers though but sometimes too much dog may apply such as if a grouse and woodcock hunter were to want to run a Miller bred dog out of Texas in the north woods.

mountaindogs · Post by **mountaindogs** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:03 am

Here is a true story. Years ago when I first started trying to show dogs, I didn't have a show dog but took a class to learn more. I had a fairly nice dog that boarded with me at the time, but he was a hard core hunting dog not even really house trained. I got permission from the owner, and I took him to class and he was bouncing and happy and wild and challenging but every so often he'd pause and I'd think "dang, that's a nice stack.." then it would disappear again and he bounce bounce wiggle circle sniff sniff...
After two weeks of this I though to myself something has to change here. I took him for a run off the 4-wheeler. I ran him until I saw his tail start to drop more towards level which turned out to be about 7 miles. Then I wiped him down and off we went to class.
4 different experienced show people came up to me that evening and said "wow! you have really been working with him, he is doing so well."

Post by **slistoe** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:06 am

solon wrote:
AzDoggin wrote:
My interpretation of the phrase (Too much dog) is that it reflects folks' opinion on a mismatch between a less experienced owner/trainer and a "spirited" pup from high performance parents. Is that how you interpret the statement?
That is about it. What is too much dog depends on whether you are on a horse or not.

You should take yuor blinders off and put them on your horse.

It has nothing to do with horses.

Too much dog is in no way venue specific. It has more to do with the owner and less to do with the dog.

RayGubernat · Post by **RayGubernat** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:25 am

I do believe that the expression "too much dog" reflects what a human will say.

I am also convinced that if the dogs could talk the expression might well be "not enough hunter" or "not enough trainer."

What is "too much dog" for one hunter might be just right for another. A lot depends on the expectations of the hunter, the experience level of the hunter and the kind of terrain the hunter finds themselves in.

Obviously, a pup that is bred to run out to the limits on the prairies might prove to be a challenge to handle in the grouse woods of PA ...but even such a prairie bred pup CAN be conditioned to hunt in the dense woods, if it has the intelligence and the biddability to learn to adapt. There have been examples of dogs that have successfully competed and won championships in both horseback shooting dog events AND cover dog events. Therefore, if it can be done at the most demanding and competitive level, it can be done at the hunting dog level as well.

Of course, it would probably be a lot less difficult if one were to start out with a pup that was bred from stock that successfully hunted the dense woods, the way the hunter wished to.

All too often, WE are the weak link in the chain. It is easier to blame the dogs because they can't contradict us.

RayG

AHGSP · Post by **AHGSP** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:49 am

tommyboy72 wrote:Spoken like true trialers.

Nothing against trialers though but sometimes too much dog may apply such as if a grouse and woodcock hunter were to want to run a Miller bred dog out of Texas in the north woods.

You do realize that most, if not ALL Coverdog Trial stock(Setter, Pointer, no matter) comes from Horseback Blood don't you?

No such thing as "too much dog", as much as "not enough Trainer/Handler". That's my wooden nickel's worth.

Post by **topher40** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:58 am

The "to little trainer/handler" is a wonderful explanation. For instance I have have a dog for sale on here that is advertised as "NOT A NEWBIE" kind of dog. Not that the dog is to much, although she is better suited to a more experienced handler. I wouldnt sell the dog to a few guys that called wanting her because they just didnt have the experience level to handle a dog like this and it would have come back on me for selling a junk dog. This isnt the kind of dog that you break using the Wolters method.. :roll:

DonF · Post by **DonF** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:37 am

I think there is such a thing. But it apply's to a dog that is more than the owner can handle. I just wonder how many Nat Ch trial dogs that aren't run by their owners would be easily handled by the owner in a trial or hunting situation? So a dog can be to much dog for the individual. Some years back I was at my mom's in Salem and I saw a kid across the street with a nice shorthair. Talked to him and found out it Was Lemsloug breeding. Thoes were very nice and sprited dogs. Couple months later I was there again and the kid had a different dog. I ask him why and he said they had to get rid of the shorthair because it just wouldn't mind. To much dog for the individual.

Christopher · Post by **Christopher** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:57 am

Regarding Shorhairs, any book that says anything about the breed will note, "do not own this dog unless you have an active lifestyle." If I don't run my GSP everyday he begins to wiggle apart at the seems. People say it is a dog problem, nope, it is an owner problem. One thing that might help is to practice retrieving with our dogs. This seems to allow them to spend a lot of energy in short distances back and forth. And, my dog loves the "practice retrieving" game. After about 30 minutes of it, he has ran well.

I agree with what was posted above, there is no such thing as too much dog but there is such a thing as a wrongly placed dog. Please, bring me your so-called "high strung" GSPs. They are absolutely perfect for the type of hunting I do and I need another GSP.

gotpointers · Post by **gotpointers** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:58 am

My opinion pay attention to the pup he will pay attention to you. I handle my pups every day since the age of three days old. I will not run a dog that does not look to me. Ferrel Millers common sense bird dog training shows how. Champions are in the spot they are in beacause they are biddable among other things.

Winchey · Post by **Winchey** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 11:45 am

tommyboy72 wrote:Spoken like true trialers.

Nothing against trialers though but sometimes too much dog may apply such as if a grouse and woodcock hunter were to want to run a Miller bred dog out of Texas in the north woods.

Some of us do

Buckeye_V · Post by **Buckeye_V** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:16 pm

No such thing as too much dog. I don't ever, ever, ever, ever want a dog I am tripping over all the danged time and who hunts where I can find birds myself. I can real in one with a big motor, but I can't push the other one out.

We are also assuming too much dog applies to range. It could mean, too much drive, too much intensity, too much in the house, etc. All of those can be attributed to personal preferences in a dog. Give me a high-drive dog any day of the week for hunting or trialing or whatever. I like them better

AzDoggin · Post by **AzDoggin** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:20 pm

RayGubernat wrote: if the dogs could talk the expression might well be "not enough hunter" or "not enough trainer."
RayG

That's it right there, but a mismatch regardless and the dog suffers in a mismatch, IMO.

I guess this is how well-bred hunting breeds end up in rescue situations.

It must be frustrating to a breeder to hear that a family or individual is incapable of providing what their dog needs.

Gives more meaning to some breeders' statements that "we only sell dogs to licensed hunters" or "NA testing of pups is required."

Buckeye_V · Post by **Buckeye_V** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 12:59 pm

You can't save em all, brother. You can only hope some of them get placed in the "perfect" homes. It's also why we will take any of them back if they can't handle them.

Busterb · Post by **Busterb** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:04 pm

Here is what I understand it to mean. If I was hunting this dog in Kansas in a milo field or corn field this isn't what I would want to be happening.I like the dog on point but 636 yards is a long ways away to be hunting pheasants IMHO

Now if we are talking huns, sharptails, sage grouse, chukars, and quail in open desert country that usually hold I am ok with that, because of this:

Having one of these makes it faster to cover the distance and not to mention how much ground you can cover:

Which leads to this which is part of the reason to be out there:

ultracarry · Post by **ultracarry** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 2:33 pm

Nice pics!

asc · Post by **asc** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:03 pm

I've seen my Miller girl stretch it out 1000-1200 yds in central Fl. flatwoods yet when we hunt preserves she adjusts in accordingly to 50-150 yds. She ranges as far as she needs to find birds, within MY reason. In the house she is docile as can be.

Buckeye_V · Post by **Buckeye_V** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:06 pm

I'd still rather have that dog. Any time. I have way more options with that dog than I do with a boot licker.

This is not a field trialing thing. This is a common sense thing.

I'm sure there are some people who think they have too much dog.

Post by **ezzy333** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:37 pm

Every one has their opinion on range and truth be told one is no better or worse than the next. The important thing is to have the dog work at the range that gets the job done for you. And there is no need to try and tell someone else they are wrong since there is no wrong or right involved. It is just what you like that works for you and the way you like to hunt.

Ezzy

DonF · Post by **DonF** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:43 pm

[quote="Busterb"]Here is what I understand it to mean. If I was hunting this dog in Kansas in a milo field or corn field this isn't what I would want to be happening.I like the dog on point but 636 yards is a long ways away to be hunting pheasants IMHO

First garmin I ever saw. Is that the one that cost's something like $600? Nice dog aslo!

JKP · Post by **JKP** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 3:46 pm

Any dog that can't be effectively trained by the owner is a mismatch or possibly just a "nut job" of a dog...it can happen. My son learned to drive on a Ford pick up....it would have been a mistake to put him in a Porsche Turbo (well--he might not have thought so).

Dogs work out best when they are matched to the ability and tastes/needs of the owner.

ultracarry · Post by **ultracarry** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:19 pm

Don that would be the garmin all us use to find the too much dogs when they are on birds. If they aren't I don't care where mines at, as long as she is in front. Now its after your dog finds birds all the way up the mountain that you wish you had a closer working dog that didn't find them...

Post by **slistoe** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:25 pm

Hey Ultra, when I hunt terrain like that I don't like climbing randomly for nothing. I like to have a dog that makes the trip a half dozen times till he finds where the birds are and then I know where to climb. Leading a close worker up and across those ridges is not in my books. Haven't seen a need for that Garmin contraption yet though.

birddogger · Post by **birddogger** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 5:37 pm

Too much dog for some people may be just right for others. But there certainly is such thing as too much dog for certain people. If a person doesn't have the time, patience, etc. to satisfy the needs of a high strung dog, that dog is too much for that person. I have a non hunting friend who recently got a GSP puppy. She told me how beautiful and sweet he was. I warned her that I thought he would probably be too much dog for her. She is now trying to find somebody to take him because he is too much for her to handle. So there is such a thing as too much dog.

Charlie

gspguy · Post by **gspguy** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:00 pm

Too much dog is one that when you are done hunting you realize that you were stressed out the whole time and/or on your dog all the time to keep it where you want it or getting it to do what you want. Sometimes this is attributable to lack of training or knowledge of how the dog should be handled or both. Sometimes it is the fact that the dog is simply more dog than you can handle or are willing to try to handle.

My first dog was quite a handful and always on the edge but I didn't know any better and hunted the crap out of her and killed a lot of birds with her. She could really raise my stress level at times. Looking back she did some really amazing things. She would be too much dog for 90%+ of the hunters up here in MN. Most of the folks on this board would have no problem with her. My current dog is much easier to handle and also does some amazing things and I've killed a lot of birds over her too. If I were a serious trialer I'd take the first dog. Being a hunter I prefer my current dog.

It boils down to researching and picking the right litter to get a dog in your comfort zone. Then train it properly and hunt the crap out of it.

Post by **ezzy333** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 6:08 pm

I could make a strong case for too much dog if you have to have a Garmin to know where it is. The younger crowd just do not realize we hunted dogs and field trialed with out trackers of any kind and dogs that couldn't be found were rejected, but here years later people want to breed to those dogs that were not so well thought of in their day. When you don't have tools the expected behavior was a lot different. There are parts of the country where too much dog is almost impossible and there are parts where most dogs are too much. And yet we try to tell people what the best dogs are by how big they hunt no matter the cover, terrain, and size of the permissible area. Just does not make sense IMO.

Ezzy

ultracarry · Post by **ultracarry** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:47 pm

Those times are long gone and there is this thing called technology. Yea you know where the dog went and you could look harder for your dog on point but why not look down at this handy device and say 10 yards south walk a straight line instead of walking circles to find you passed your dog 10 times because its in a thick draw and covered in brush..... makes no sense when your hunting.

brad27 · Post by **brad27** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 8:59 pm

. The younger crowd just do not realize we hunted dogs and field trialed with out trackers of any kind and dogs that couldn't be found were rejected, but here years later people want to breed to those dogs that were not so well thought of in their day

I'm having trouble following your logic here. The only reason we know the names of dogs past is because they won, not because they got lost.

ultracarry · Post by **ultracarry** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:23 pm

I thought they won because they covered the most ground... Indians were often called in those days to track the dogs by their foot print. they (the handler) would keep track of their Indian and follow them until they found the dog on point or being chased back to camp by native wolves... this could take days and sometimes even weeks to determine the winner....

disclaimer: this was what I was told by my grandfather which was told by his great great great grandfather.

ezzy I know you may have experienced this first hand so please set the record straight.

Maurice · Post by **Maurice** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:29 pm

ezzy333 wrote:I could make a strong case for too much dog if you have to have a Garmin to know where it is. The younger crowd just do not realize we hunted dogs and field trialed with out trackers of any kind and dogs that couldn't be found were rejected, but here years later people want to breed to those dogs that were not so well thought of in their day. When you don't have tools the expected behavior was a lot different. There are parts of the country where too much dog is almost impossible and there are parts where most dogs are too much. And yet we try to tell people what the best dogs are by how big they hunt no matter the cover, terrain, and size of the permissible area. Just does not make sense IMO.

Ezzy

Right on the money Ezzy.

Mo

DonF · Post by **DonF** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 9:38 pm

ultracarry wrote:Don that would be the garmin all us use to find the too much dogs when they are on birds. If they aren't I don't care where mines at, as long as she is in front. Now its after your dog finds birds all the way up the mountain that you wish you had a closer working dog that didn't find them...

Reminds me of my old hunting buddy, Jack. He was quite a bit older than I and a deticated bird hunter. He'd even leave the wife at home on holidays to go hunting, she left him!

We were out chukar hunting one time and we'd been down a few hrs and had near limits. Jack looks up this impossibly long steep hill and his dog, Copper, is obviously getting on a bird. But he was below the bird and the bird kept going up the hill. Up near the top Jack say's, "I don't know if he knows it or not but, he points a bird and I'm not walking up there"! Not word for word, Jack was a very colorfull guy!

Post by **ezzy333** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:11 pm

brad27 wrote:
. The younger crowd just do not realize we hunted dogs and field trialed with out trackers of any kind and dogs that couldn't be found were rejected, but here years later people want to breed to those dogs that were not so well thought of in their day
I'm having trouble following your logic here. The only reason we know the names of dogs past is because they won, not because they got lost.

Thank you, my point exactly. The great ones didn't need a tracker but the ones that ran like some of the dogs do today without checking in were the ones you never heard of. I am not against using a tracker but just saying we didn't always have them and we got the good dogs around without them and we hunted them and had little trouble knowing where they were.

Ezzy

Post by **ezzy333** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 10:16 pm

ultracarry wrote:I thought they won because they covered the most ground... Indians were often called in those days to track the dogs by their foot print. they (the handler) would keep track of their Indian and follow them until they found the dog on point or being chased back to camp by native wolves... this could take days and sometimes even weeks to determine the winner....

disclaimer: this was what I was told by my grandfather which was told by his great great great grandfather.

ezzy I know you may have experienced this first hand so please set the record straight.

Think someone was reading to many novels. And by the way, one really really good reason to not use all of todays technoligy is the 5 hundred to a thousand bucks plus having a dog you never see.

Ezzy

ultracarry · Post by **ultracarry** » Thu Dec 22, 2011 11:28 pm

ezzy333 wrote:
ultracarry wrote:I thought they won because they covered the most ground... Indians were often called in those days to track the dogs by their foot print. they (the handler) would keep track of their Indian and follow them until they found the dog on point or being chased back to camp by native wolves... this could take days and sometimes even weeks to determine the winner....

disclaimer: this was what I was told by my grandfather which was told by his great great great grandfather.

ezzy I know you may have experienced this first hand so please set the record straight.
Think someone was reading to many novels. And by the way, one really really good reason to not use all of todays technoligy is the 5 hundred to a thousand bucks plus having a dog you never see.

Ezzy

Interesting because I see her all the time........ can't take months off to run trials in the mid west and no bird season in progress. If you could afford it you would too....

solon · Post by **solon** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:32 am

ezzy333 wrote:I could make a strong case for too much dog if you have to have a Garmin to know where it is. The younger crowd just do not realize we hunted dogs and field trialed with out trackers of any kind and dogs that couldn't be found were rejected, but here years later people want to breed to those dogs that were not so well thought of in their day. When you don't have tools the expected behavior was a lot different. There are parts of the country where too much dog is almost impossible and there are parts where most dogs are too much. And yet we try to tell people what the best dogs are by how big they hunt no matter the cover, terrain, and size of the permissible area. Just does not make sense IMO.

Ezzy

+1.

Ryan Frame has an article on the Foster Award site on this topic and the effect of tracking collars in field trials. I invite you to read it. It is new and not listed in the table of contents, but it is at the top of the page:" "The case against tracking collars" revisited." So scroll down from the top when you open the link.

http://www.fosteraward.com/Essays%20fro ... 0Edge.html

Personally I like the Garmin for hunting and training. Ryan told me he talked to a handler at a HB trial that said we shoot dogs like that, referring to dogs that check back with the handler. Seems strange to me as even the all age dogs are expected to handle.

brad27 · Post by **brad27** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:13 am

ezzy333 wrote:
brad27 wrote:
. The younger crowd just do not realize we hunted dogs and field trialed with out trackers of any kind and dogs that couldn't be found were rejected, but here years later people want to breed to those dogs that were not so well thought of in their day
I'm having trouble following your logic here. The only reason we know the names of dogs past is because they won, not because they got lost.
Thank you, my point exactly. The great ones didn't need a tracker but the ones that ran like some of the dogs do today without checking in were the ones you never heard of. I am not against using a tracker but just saying we didn't always have them and we got the good dogs around without them and we hunted them and had little trouble knowing where they were.

Ezzy

Nothing has changed. The one's that get lost today still don't get placed/win. Technology has nothing to do with it. You make it sound like because of trackers people want to breed to uncooperative dogs. How does that sales pitch go: " Well, I have my boy Hank here. He's been in alot of trials, never placed or won and everytime I put him on the ground we get picked up because I lose him and have to pull out the garmin. He's a good dog though and I'm offering him as a stud." Makes no sense.

volraider · Post by **volraider** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:23 am

I have never seen too much dog, BUT I have seen not enough handler!!! All joking aside there is certian lines of dogs that increase your chances of making the type of dog you want. People that have to see their dog the whole time would be wise not to by one out of a all-age stock.

BRIAN

cjuve · Post by **cjuve** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:25 am

The great ones didn't need a tracker but the ones that ran like some of the dogs do today without checking in were the ones you never heard of. I am not against using a tracker but just saying we didn't always have them and we got the good dogs around without them and we hunted them and had little trouble knowing where they were.

Ezzy

Where are all these dogs today that don't check in? I have hunted and rode behind some pretty hot dogs and for the most part I do not see what you are describing.

Post by **slistoe** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 10:52 am

cjuve wrote:
The great ones didn't need a tracker but the ones that ran like some of the dogs do today without checking in were the ones you never heard of. I am not against using a tracker but just saying we didn't always have them and we got the good dogs around without them and we hunted them and had little trouble knowing where they were.

Ezzy
Where are all these dogs today that don't check in? I have hunted and rode behind some pretty hot dogs and for the most part I do not see what you are describing.

That is because they only exist in the minds of those who want something to rail about. They do not want to face the simple fact that those dogs are losers - whether you are hunting or trialing. They simply are not bred because they simply cannot get it done.
But, for those who don't understand that such dogs are losers the Garmin poses a real threat because they will now follow the dog around, shoot birds, call it an awesome dog and breed it.

Hotpepper · Post by **Hotpepper** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:33 am

I have found that term, when it us used by judges, for moving you down instead of up when giving placements.

U get a red ribbon (2nd place) instead of a blue (1st place). Happened to me with my old dog too many times to remember.

No such thing as "too much dog", SILLIEST thing I ever heard.

Power, speed, nose, all equates to a better animal in the stake, in a hunting situation, it is non existent

Pepper

RayGubernat · Post by **RayGubernat** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 11:51 am

All this Hooha about too much dog really cracks me up. Especially when the folks get on their soapbox about beepers, trackers, astros and such.

When I was a youngster I foot hunted over big running dogs, right from the get go. They were my uncle's dogs and he had a kennel full. My uncle had legs all the way up to his neck...or at least it seemed that way at the end of the day sometimes. He could walk!!

You cut a brace of dogs loose and followed them. If the dog disappeared into a stand of trees or up a creek bottom and didn't come back in about five minutes or so, you went in the direction you last saw the dog until you found it on point. They you flushed and shot the bird, cut the dog loose and followed it back to the other hunter(s) and the other dog.

If the dog didn't come back around and could not be found...you went on and continued hunting. It was, quite simply, the dog's job to find and keep track if the hunters, not the other way around.

I have been hunting and walking and riding behind that kind of dog for over fifty years now. I ain't lost one permanently...yet. With the advent of modern tracking technology, I don't expect to.

The good ones come back around for you because they want to. My limited experience with the Astro has done nothing but reinforce that observation. I have watched dogs fade out of sight to the front or out to one side and then watched them(on the Astro) make a HUGE circle, completely out of my sight, only to appear back in front again. I have watched dogs push out to the front while I was singing to them and then, when I shut up, saw the yardage on the Astro drop until I caught sight of the dog coming back in to check on me.

The good ones adjust their ground application to the terrain, the type of game and the pace of the hunter/handler. It matters not a bit whether we are talking about foot hunting, or horseback hunting the wide open prairie, foot hunting the grouse woods of Pennsylvania, foot hunting on a forty acre preserve or field trialing . The good ones stay with you and come back around for you because they want to.

That has not changed. What also has not changed is the fact that some folks refuse to take responsibility for their own inadequacies. They would much rather blame the dog. You can take the widest ranging horseback all age dog and bring it in to hunt for you on a forty acre preserve field. It is a reasonably straightforward thing to do with an e-collar.

So, if the hunter is not capable or willing to do the work that is necessary to have the dog hunt the way they want...it ain't the dog's fault. It is the trainer's, plain and simple.

If you buy a well bred dog there will be dogs that are tougher to get than others and sure there will be a very few that will not make the grade, despite the best efforts of a knowedgeable trainer.

But let there be no doubt that the number of well bred dogs that cannot be molded into good, solid hunting dogs, is a very, very small fraction of the well bred dogs out there. It takes time, patience and a trainer that knows how to get it done.

I am all for folks buying the kind of dog they like, from breeders who produce the kind of dog they like. It does indeed make it easier on both the trainer and the dog.

But a good dog is a good dog and it is the trainer's responsibility to mold that dog into the kind of dog they like. If a well bred dog does not turn into a good hunting dog...most often it ain't the dog's fault. If more folks would face that reality, and do something about it... there would be a lot less dogs being put up for adoption.

RayG

p

solon · Post by **solon** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:41 pm

Well I notice that in last years National Championship, that the tracker was pulled out for 5 out of the 39 dogs that ran. Of course, maybe these weren't good dogs or their mounted handlers and scouts were not good trainers. On the other hand, I would say on that day, they were too much dog.

AHGSP · Post by **AHGSP** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 12:55 pm

solon wrote:Well I notice that in last years National Championship, that the tracker was pulled out for 5 out of the 39 dogs that ran. Of course, maybe these weren't good dogs or their mounted handlers and scouts were not good trainers. On the other hand, I would say on that day, they were too much dog.

How many of them were found on point, where they had been ridden by and just missed buried up in cover? How many that were "lost", had just gone a different line than what had been thought? Were they really too much dog, or did the Handler's and Scout's just mis-judge? Honest questions.

live4point · Post by **live4point** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:14 pm

Yes,there can definately be too much dog for the situation.All this talk of it being the trainers fault,and has nothing to do with the dog is nuts.Too much dog usually means too much range.If a guy buys a dog out of big running bloodlines,but needs a dog that will hunt close and clean,he probably has bought himself too much dog for his situation and is more than likely going to be constantly fighting to keep the dog at the range he needs.The reason alot of us hunters hunt a certain piece of ground is because we know there are birds there,and we generally know the general area where the birds will be,we don't need a dog thats constantly trying to hunt the next section over.I hunt quail and pheasants that are decendants of birds I hunted 30 years ago, that eat sleep and live in the same places their ancesters did.I did my scouting of all the places I hunt many years ago,the places I hunt have always held birds,the places that I hunted several times and never found birds in I don't fool with.I don't know how many times I have called a dog in and made them hunt an area out and watch them go on point,why,because I was finding birds there before they were born.If you are constantly hunting a new area every time you go hunting,or are a new younger hunter finding your first honey holes,maybe you need a bigger going dog to scout the new area,but many of us dont,we hunt small farms and sections we know hold birds,and we need a dog that hunts closer and clean to pinpoint them.When bird season rolls around every year,I can't wait to go hunting,but with work and family obligations I never get as many days in the field as I would like,so when I do get to hunt, I, like many others am going to hunt my sure areas.Our dogs are lucky,in that we are taking them to ground where they can more than likely find a bird,they just need to work with us and be cooperative and pinpoint them.

Post by **slistoe** » Fri Dec 23, 2011 1:57 pm

live4point wrote:All this talk of it being the trainers fault,and has nothing to do with the dog is nuts.

Too much dog has nothing to do with if the dog is nuts. If the dog is nuts it is nuts and it is not too much dog - it is nothing.

As for your hunting stuff - yes, I like a hunting dog. I don't hunt anymore - the dogs do. And there are places I KNOW where the birds will be. I don't need a dog of any sort to "hunt" those birds.