Gun Dog Forum

In another thread the topic took an immediate turn into a prospective hijack, so to salvage the possibility of that thread, and because it's an interesting topic, I thought I'd start this one.

Do you care what your birddog looks like? I spoke to Ben Williams on the phone today and I asked him if he considers conformation at all when he's breeding. He said he breeds for nose and that's his standard, though he wouldn't breed a dog with a jacked up bite or anything like that. Said a guy he knew has a Britt who the guy complained was ugly. Ben replied, "He won't be ugly when he's putting birds in your bag."

You hear this alot. When I went to pick up Moxy I was checking her bite and her breeder said, "their teeth don't find birds." Honestly, though, asthetics in a birddog is important to me. I don't bird hunt, I bird dog and without the dogs I'd never chase another bird in my life. I want a dog with style, a dog that's nice to watch. Bob Wehle felt this ways to and said he had no interest in owning an ugly dog.

Not talking about wanting a dog to meet a sanctioned breed standard, just talking about the dog meeting your standard of looking like a good looking dog should, do you put any stock into looks or conformation?

For me in general, as I will not hunt as much as most people on here, looks is a bit more important to me. My soon to be born pup will be a family member first and a flusher second. just my 2 cents.

Corry

Nose is important but the way I see it, good conformation = athletic ability and intelligence = bird finding ability. An intelligent dog will have the brains to work around any short comings it might have in other areas. A dog with proper conformation burns less energy, will last longer and in turn hopefully breath more through their nose. You need to breed for it all but conformation and intelligence are at the top of my list.

Looks aren't as important to me, as long as the dog is healthy and from responsible breeding and can find the birds I'd be happy. Now that said, I definitely enjoy having a dog that is easy on the eyes, and would go with looks if all else is equal.

life is to short to hunt with an ugly dog. If you want a gsp that looks like a pointer then why not buy a pointer? Want a Britt to look like a setter why not buy a setter?

Ugly is as Ugly does. I'll take an ugly dog that out hunts any bird dog that is pretty.

i have SMALL MUNSTERLANDER pup coming soon and i picked him because he pointed at 6 weeks old.

that it was it,really did not even look at color of puppy too much.

As champion's for the dual standard for our dogs... I'd say yes, but within those confines. I have no problems with people trialing dogs outside the standard. It makes it really sweet when we go up against "out of standard - aka large" breed Brittany's and beat them handily with our "in standard" dogs.

Best quote ever... "look at that show dog coming to the line." Yep, he placed second that day.

But that being said, our breed standard looks for a 2 o'clock tail. Um, I'd prefer a bit higher than that for trialing (and have it in our 'next gen'). So YES definitely care what the trial dogs look like, especially on point, conformation be "bleep". 'nough said.

No, not really...... but if one wants to breed and sell pups at any point, then there is a responsibility inherent in that practice re traits and a monetary need to sell those resulting pups that looks will make easier.
Too many look too close to the present.

its like SMALL MUNSTERLANDER. breed standaRD is white around nose BUT today most want a complete brown head with no white.
i like white around nose which gives it a SPRINGER look on face with white whiskers.

YES, I care!!

Like a lot of relationships, generally we want it all ... but after initially being enamored with looks ... long term ... what they are like on the inside, personality, intelligence, heart, etc. are the things you have to live with. If I can't have it all ... I"ll take a great working dog with a nice personality over a great looker that's a poor worker.

I think the Trialers should care what the dog looks like, if only for the enhancement of the compition and quest for the "perfect" dog... but that's because there are plenty of us, myself being one of them, who benefit from the "cast offs" that don't make the cut... I have a house dog - pet that hunts... She was a butt ugly pup, but has actually turned out quite nicely at 2 yrs... we still kennel her with the breeder and he always laughs and says how much better she looks now... Her tail has always been at two or three o'clock until once this year she had a grouse nailed down good for the first time & it went "bang" at 12 o'clock and stuck... so i dunno, perhaps she'll be one of those gals you see years later at the reunion and say "wow"... we missed that how?.. doesn't really matter to me tho'... behavior & performance trumps looks for most i think.

You bet I care.

I field trial my dogs in addition to hunting. A field trial is just as much of a beauty pageant as a conformation event.

The judges are just looking for a different kind of beauty.

But the dog had better catch your eye both when it is moving and when it is standing still. if it don't make you say "WOW", it probably won't make the judges say "wow" either. A clean bodied pointer makes a better presentation than one that is heavily marked and heavily ticked. It is also easier to pick out of the cover. A light colored setter makes a better presentation than a darker one with heavy, dark ticking. It is also A LOT easier to spot in cover. A slightly smaller dog that runs with an animated gait and a lot of foot speed looks better on a tight course in mixed to heavy cover. In wide open country the bigger dog with the ground eating gait will blow the doors off the smaller dog with the quick feet and getting left in the dust NEVER looks good.

So yes, it makes a difference to me but it is not as simple as height at shoulder and angle of the dangle.

RayG

BigShooter wrote:Like a lot of relationships, generally we want it all ... but after initially being enamored with looks ... long term ... what they are like on the inside, personality, intelligence, heart, etc. are the things you have to live with. If I can't have it all ... I"ll take a great working dog with a nice personality over a great looker that's a poor worker.

+1.

Sounds to me like there are a number of folks that would do exactly in reverse what the show people have done to different breeds of dogs.

[quote="RayGubernat"]You bet I care.

I field trial my dogs in addition to hunting. A field trial is just as much of a beauty pageant as a conformation event.

The judges are just looking for a different kind of beauty.

But the dog had better catch your eye both when it is moving and when it is standing still. if it don't make you say "WOW", it probably won't make the judges say "wow" either. A clean bodied pointer makes a better presentation than one that is heavily marked and heavily ticked. It is also easier to pick out of the cover. A light colored setter makes a better presentation than a darker one with heavy, dark ticking. It is also A LOT easier to spot in cover. A slightly smaller dog that runs with an animated gait and a lot of foot speed looks better on a tight course in mixed to heavy cover. In wide open country the bigger dog with the ground eating gait will blow the doors off the smaller dog with the quick feet and getting left in the dust NEVER looks good.

So yes, it makes a difference to me but it is not as simple as height at shoulder and angle of the dangle.

RayG[/quote
+1

Rule #1 : ALWAYS LOOK GOOD!

RayGubernat wrote:You bet I care.

I field trial my dogs in addition to hunting. A field trial is just as much of a beauty pageant as a conformation event.

The judges are just looking for a different kind of beauty.

But the dog had better catch your eye both when it is moving and when it is standing still. if it don't make you say "WOW", it probably won't make the judges say "wow" either. A clean bodied pointer makes a better presentation than one that is heavily marked and heavily ticked. It is also easier to pick out of the cover. A light colored setter makes a better presentation than a darker one with heavy, dark ticking. It is also A LOT easier to spot in cover. A slightly smaller dog that runs with an animated gait and a lot of foot speed looks better on a tight course in mixed to heavy cover. In wide open country the bigger dog with the ground eating gait will blow the doors off the smaller dog with the quick feet and getting left in the dust NEVER looks good.

So yes, it makes a difference to me but it is not as simple as height at shoulder and angle of the dangle.

RayG

I pretty much agree with Ray with the exception that as beginning trialer with limited resources, I probably can't afford the IDEAL as he has stated so I am willing to compromise.
I am willing to compromise on the body markings first, appearance standing still next. If compromise on those two makes the dog ugly to you, then yes, I can live with an ugly dog.

If the physical conformation and gait don't please my eye, then I have no interest in the dog.

That's my $.02

DonF wrote:Sounds to me like there are a number of folks that would do exactly in reverse what the show people have done to different breeds of dogs.

It isn't the show people who have changed some breeds, but it is the people who only breed for one characteristic. This whole premis is wrong since you do not have to pick between looking good and field ability. Any responsible breeder will breed for both and we will be able to have dogs that look like they should as well as work like they should.

I get the impression from so many posts that this is something you can turn on or off at will. Truth is what you do today will be here for years to come.

The short answer to your original question is yes and the ones that are saying no aren't being real truthful. If they really don't care why did they pick a certain breed, or how do they know what breed it is? Why is the color of the head or the postion the tail is carried in be even noticeble to those who don't care? I am one of the ones that have no interest in owning an ugly dog no matter how it hunts since I can easily find a good looking one that hunts just as well.

Ezzy

It sounds superficial and really is but it goes a long way... For a gsp a solid liver head and nothing below a 11 o'clock tail really looks good. When you add ear patches and half faced blazes it looks like no attention was paid to what dogs were being bred. While a clean blaze or a small amount of white on the nose would be more acceptable. We all joke (and are sometimes serious) about dogs looking like other breeds. People breeding these dogs that come out should cull instead of making a few dollars.

For my family the wife would not allow an ugly do g. No exceptions.

BigShooter wrote:Like a lot of relationships, generally we want it all ... but after initially being enamored with looks ... long term ... what they are like on the inside, personality, intelligence, heart, etc. are the things you have to live with. If I can't have it all ... I"ll take a great working dog with a nice personality over a great looker that's a poor worker.

We are not just talking about four legs here.
Great advice

So you are saying this
Should look like this whenever possible?

Conformation has more to do with performance than it does with looking good.

Any breeder who overlooks conformation does not have the best interest of that breed in mind
and that includes teeth and bite.

Tommy: I almost threw up..... Show pointers are horrible looking when you look at the field bred.version

adogslife wrote:Conformation has more to do with performance than it does with looking good.

Any breeder who overlooks conformation does not have the best interest of that breed in mind
and that includes teeth and bite.

Have to call hogwash on that, sorry......

Bring the best conformed akc dogs to ames to run 3 hours.......


This comparison (although Ive posted before) seems pertinent.....

1930's Show CH,


modern show Ch


No .....show people done nothing wrong to the lab....

Absolutely. I don't want a fat dog who looks like a mix. Of course if he was capable of winning the National , I wouldn't care what he looked like.

Any responsible breeder will breed for both and we will be able to have dogs that look like they should as well as work like they should.

Can't say it any better... :thumbright:

Red wrote:

Any responsible breeder will breed for both and we will be able to have dogs that look like they should as well as work like they should.

Can't say it any better... :thumbright:

The sticker is the word...responsible.

Oftentimes, it is best to consider the lowest common denominator rather than the highest....as it applies to a dog's best interests.

Someone gets a liking for a particular look that can impact a dog while running or breathing hard..can be less than good.

I wanted a darker colored gsp but had to have a solid liver head and am pleased with how my pup is turning out although others may say he's too small, too skinny or whatever I wouldn't change a thing.

Have to call hogwash on that, sorry......

Bring the best conformed akc dogs to ames to run 3 hours.......

so, you are saying a dog with as correct conformation as there can be (no dog is perfect) will not be able to last 3 hours?

I don't use AKC CH title as a measure of a correct conformation.

Are you saying the dogs at Ames are not conformationally correct?
What about incorrect conformation in FT/Ames dogs that makes it possible to last 3 hours?

Are you really referring to conditioning and endurance training?

ultracarry wrote:

RayGubernat wrote:You bet I care.

I field trial my dogs in addition to hunting. A field trial is just as much of a beauty pageant as a conformation event.The judges are just looking for a different kind of beauty.

A clean bodied pointer makes a better presentation than one that is heavily marked and heavily ticked. It is also easier to pick out of the cover. A light colored setter makes a better presentation than a darker one with heavy, dark ticking. It is also A LOT easier to spot in cover. RayG

+1

Light coloring for field trialing is the same with a GSP ... so Ultracarry, what are you saying +1 to ?????????????

That show dog that was posted was pitiful. Looks like he's spent a few too many hours eating Bon Bons and watching Oprah. But, I bet we could find some dogs who have finished in the field who have no business with a field title.

On the flip side, though, there are a few folks in the show worlds who are trying to preserve both looks and workability. Penzance Pointers is one of them. Maybe she doesn't want dogs that eat up the ground like the AA dogs, but I've heard a few folks say her dogs can really move. Here is her featured champion stud.



Penzance is trying to produce dual dogs, but they do seem a little more weighted towards the show side. On the other hand, there's someone on this board who is trying to breed dual Pointers and doesn't seem quite so weighted towards the show side as opposed to the working side.

This first photo is of a dog that has points in the ring and is getting ready to start trialing. I hear he has a ground pattern that keeps your eyes glued to him.



And his sire, who I believe has also seen the inside of a show ring and is throwing dual quality dogs.

BigShooter wrote:

ultracarry wrote:

RayGubernat wrote:You bet I care.

I field trial my dogs in addition to hunting. A field trial is just as much of a beauty pageant as a conformation event.The judges are just looking for a different kind of beauty.

A clean bodied pointer makes a better presentation than one that is heavily marked and heavily ticked. It is also easier to pick out of the cover. A light colored setter makes a better presentation than a darker one with heavy, dark ticking. It is also A LOT easier to spot in cover. RayG

+1

Light coloring for field trialing is the same with a GSP ... so Ultracarry, what are you saying +1 to ?????????????

Not all field trial dogs are white... Not all are liver roan either. To be productive in field growling you have to have a dog that looks good as well as performance. I think he broke it down nicely. I won't be running a white dog in the near future...... I wouldn't want to see an FC with no style, run, etc.... Dogs have particular builds which are shown best in different terrain. The way they are build also will show or hide some weaknesses in showcasing the dog on HB or walking. White is really easy to pick up but will also show the dog that slows down towards the end, where the dark dog will not show as well but as long as they are seen as a dot moving away can work towards your advantage.

When they are found standing in great places looking good, outweighs a dog that is observed 90% of the time and found standing with medium style. that's why some people always complain about not winning with 5 ok finds but no race or style. The dog that usually wins will keep the judges looking and not wanting to watch the other dog.

Ultra Star had 5 finds in an OLGD stake & was deemed TOO BIG for the stake,no placement!! Go figure but that's trialing.

ultracarry wrote:Tommy: I almost threw up..... Show pointers are horrible looking when you look at the field bred.version

I agree with you totally.

Looks like me compared to an Olympian.

Is the conformation standard not an average of what the breed should look like? Hunters like myself and field trialers that I am aquainted with don't want an average built dog. They want an exceptionally built dog. Sort of like crossing a long distance runner with an NFL safety. Big enough to play down in the box but not so big they can't cover for the safety. Big enough that they can bust cover and have good bone density to avoid easy injury but not so big they tire easily for the dog and with stamina to keep going all day long. An average built dog can't perform like that can they? Just asking.

You know, the thing about jumping from one side of the fence to the other repeatedly is that, eventually, as my grandma said, you'll come down astraddle. Creating discord through comparison gains no one anything in the long run.

These dogs of ours depend on the expression of only a handful of genes to make them what they are as any given individual. What is done will be undone and redone and done again by those who seek certain qualities in certain quantities.

Attempting to excel by forcing everything else below a certain level never works.

My dogs may not be very good at very much, but they are exceptional at being my dogs and that's what I look for.

Yeah Its really unfortunate that white dogs don't have style.
Have a solid liver that can throw a boat load of style as well.

I just want a class BIRD dog. It needs to have wheels and be classy moving, hunts smart, and looks good on birds.

I like dogs that look as good standing in the kennel as they do performing in the field & that's what I breed for.The key words being looks & performance but what appeals to me may not appeal to the next guy so there will never be an agreement on what is right or wrong.

Here is a pic of a S LVR dog that has a little Style & Class so color has nothing to do with it.Major will be 12 in another 2 wks & he hunts like a 6 or 7 yr old dog with that same style & class!
I know the pic is small but you can still see it coming out of him.

I do care what my dogs look like in the field and out of the field. They have to live with me, and I have to look at them for more months out of the year then they will work.
Working ability is always first, but there is no law that says i have to own an ugly dog who is a great working dog. I know many think the two cannot go hand in hand...but those folks have blinders on! IMO of course.

Having said that... small brag... my boy Louie is the first GWP Grand Ch/Dual Ch/NAFC yada, yada, yada! He came directly from our trainers home to the show where he won and finished his Grand Ch. Not a huge deal really, but always fun to be first!
fuzz

Ultracarry,

Just having a little fun with your post. Been to a couple of field trials myself. You're probably familar with the last half doz. years or so NGSPA & GSPCA AA National Champs. Now what ratio of light to dark dogs do you recall? Of course these dogs have to still be goin' away at time.

SCT wrote:YES, I care!!

Me too!

Charlie

fuzznut wrote:I do care what my dogs look like in the field and out of the field. They have to live with me, and I have to look at them for more months out of the year then they will work.
Working ability is always first, but there is no law that says i have to own an ugly dog who is a great working dog. I know many think the two cannot go hand in hand...but those folks have blinders on! IMO of course.

Having said that... small brag... my boy Louie is the first GWP Grand Ch/Dual Ch/NAFC yada, yada, yada! He came directly from our trainers home to the show where he won and finished his Grand Ch. Not a huge deal really, but always fun to be first!
fuzz

Bernee -

That is AWESOME. There are those who do not know, because they have not seen the dog, but I have seen her Louie in the field and he is the real deal..,.an honest to goodness bird dog that hunts with you and for you. I am not a huge fan of continental breed dogs as a rule, but he is a good one and can hold is own in the field.

RayG

BigShooter wrote:Ultracarry,

Just having a little fun with your post. Been to a couple of field trials myself. You're probably familar with the last half doz. years or so NGSPA & GSPCA AA National Champs. Now what ratio of light to dark dogs do you recall? Of course these dogs have to still be goin' away at time.

Didn't say they couldn't and didn't... Just won't see me with one. This was an opinion thread if I remember right.

Cajun Casey wrote:You know, the thing about jumping from one side of the fence to the other repeatedly is that, eventually, as my grandma said, you'll come down astraddle. Creating discord through comparison gains no one anything in the long run.

Were you speaking of me? I don't recall jumping from one side of the fence to the other. See that little punctuation mark called a question mark in my first post. That meant I did not understand the statement and was asking if that was what was meant by the previous post. I was not trying to create discord by making a comparison. Sorry you automatically took it that way. Know what my grandma said about ASSUMING something? It makes a you know what of well I think you know the rest.

Cajun Casey wrote:Attempting to excel by forcing everything else below a certain level never works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding

Thanks Ray, he's had a great couple of years of field competition and certainly has proven himself there, and we did this Grand Ch thing only because he could do it. He has been a lot of fun, and he's a love to boot!
Fuzz

Were you speaking of me? I don't recall jumping from one side of the fence to the other.

Must not have been speking to you so enough saidright there.

Ezzy

fuzznut wrote:I do care what my dogs look like in the field and out of the field. They have to live with me, and I have to look at them for more months out of the year then they will work.
Working ability is always first, but there is no law that says i have to own an ugly dog who is a great working dog. I know many think the two cannot go hand in hand...but those folks have blinders on! IMO of course.

Having said that... small brag... my boy Louie is the first GWP Grand Ch/Dual Ch/NAFC yada, yada, yada! He came directly from our trainers home to the show where he won and finished his Grand Ch. Not a huge deal really, but always fun to be first!
fuzz

That is tremendous. Wow. Congrats.

I see no reason to settle of an ugly dog. There are lots of great bird dogs out there, that handle the bird well and look good doing it.

Now we may have different opinions of what good looking is:

tommyboy72 wrote:

Cajun Casey wrote:You know, the thing about jumping from one side of the fence to the other repeatedly is that, eventually, as my grandma said, you'll come down astraddle. Creating discord through comparison gains no one anything in the long run.

Were you speaking of me? I don't recall jumping from one side of the fence to the other. See that little punctuation mark called a question mark in my first post. That meant I did not understand the statement and was asking if that was what was meant by the previous post. I was not trying to create discord by making a comparison. Sorry you automatically took it that way. Know what my grandma said about ASSUMING something? It makes a you know what of well I think you know the rest.

Cajun Casey wrote:Attempting to excel by forcing everything else below a certain level never works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_breeding

Not speaking of you and didn't see the entirety of the post you're referring to because my itty bitty not smart phone doesn't load pictures so good. The dogs you posted look like four blocks of brown and green. Sorry.

SetterNut wrote:I see no reason to settle of an ugly dog. There are lots of great bird dogs out there, that handle the bird well and look good doing it.

Now we may have different opinions of what good looking is:

I agree, glad we have all these different choices. That is a good looking setter, but definitely not my style. Looks are important in a dog, as long as they can hunt everything in any condition, dove to geese, ice water to 90*. Here is my idea of a looker!!