Just wondering Ezzy if you could expand on some of these methods. Do some breeds draw charts and graphs of the terrain? Do some hold their ear to the ground to listen for footsteps?ezzy333 wrote: Like slistoe said the goal is finding birds but the method of doing that is different within the breed as well as between the breeds. Every dog has its method.
Ezzy
I don't think I'm missing the point of the thread. I just don't believe there is a undeniable better and the sun don't shine on the same dogs butt every day . If it did the same dog would win every trial.Middlecreek wrote:Your missing the point of thread, I'm NOT looking to find the "best" breed. I'm looking for the honest answer of where do we draw the line between breeds and their attributes/abilities?cjhills wrote: We are chasing our tails here since "best" is subjective.Trial dogs are not my best.
I really liked my old PJ's Wildfire and Rip bred dog who ran a mile out in Montana, but I am sure he wasn't most people's best, he was mine. Had to put him down this summer. He was also a MH. That was a challenge. I had people find it unbelievable that you could shoot birds over him,out that far.He never busted a bird.
So,it is your choice but if you want to compete you have to breed to be competitive. If that's your choice go for it.
Give us your definition of best.
One last thing my best changes often and I like the options GSPs give me Cj
If your hunting behind two dogs(same breed) and one has a 12 o'clock tail and the other is 9 o'clock, all else being equal, which one do you prefer?
If your hunting behind two dogs(same breed) and they both have 5 bird finds, both ranged within 200yds, both had same style, but dog "x" covered the groung at twice the speed which one would you prefer?
If on a retrieve test one dog bolts to the bird and straight back with it to you, and the other ambles around to the bird, drops it a couple times on the way back, but gets you the bird, which one do you prefer?
The questions/scenerios are limitless... There is always an "undeniable better" on each specific component that makes up a birddog....
The question remains, where do we draw the line on each of those specific components that make up our respective breeds?
No, judges aren't 'grading' brits on what they think a pointer should do. They are grading all the dogs on the standard of the stake or whatever venue of competition they are judging. For instance there is one AKC gundog standard and all the dogs regardless of breed are judged according to it. Same with shooting dogs and all age dogs in American Field trials. And dogs in NSTRA trials. And NAVHDA tests. A good judge will màke accomodations and adjustments for the grounds and conditions, but should always be looking for the best bird dog regardless of breed. A good judge won't use a 1000yard dog in an eastern gun dog stake, nor would he use a 75 yd dog in a prairie all age - because those dogs don't meet the standards of the stake regardless of breed.UpNorthHuntin wrote:But the same judges are viewing the Britts with the pointers and are they not expecting the Britts (or "grading") the Britts on what they think a Pointer should do? My problem is this... Not everyone likes a 1000 yrd dog, nor is it practical to hunt in every state (other than out west) with a dog that ranges that far. But, everyone is trying to breed their dogs for that range so they can perform well at trials, regardless of breed. I own a Britt with phenominal lines, but all of his HOF Britts in his pedigree are from Montana, Arizona, Iowa.... etc... Big running Britts. He in turn is a pretty big runner. So 10 years from now what will the breed look like? Will the norm for a Britt be a dog that ranges 600-1000 yrds? I am all for field trials, and intend on entering them this spring and hunt tests as well, but who decides what makes an ideal dog??? The problem is that the judges at hunt trials do. In order to win, you have to show up with what the judges think your dog "should look like" and therefore that is what all dogs are bred to do? I have a problem with a dog that hunts and finds six birds losing a trial to a dog that finds only three "but really looks good missing the other three"!! The purpose for the dog is to find and point birds.... not look really good running past them!!
EXACTLY, who in their right mind would put those type of limits on their breed????slistoe wrote:So, what I gather middlecreek to be asking is which of those qualities - strength, speed, endurance, confidence do you want to set a limit on for Brittanys and say that this is enough - anything more is detrimental to the breed as a whole.
Easy Big Guy..... Didn't mean to insult anyone. As stated, I am a newby and didn't mean to imply or fabricate anything. If we are judging the dogs in a field trial with planted birds, why wouldn't each dog be given the same amount of birds to find?? And I didn't mean to say that the dog "intentionally bypassed" anything, but in some cases big runners that are extremely fast do miss opportunities at birds that more methodical slower working dogs find....If I'm wrong I apologize, but even though I am new to pointing dogs, I am not new to dogs or dog training. I've been training dogs for over 20 years. I udnerstand scent and scent patterns very well. I understand the effects of whether and wind on scent cones and dispursal very well too. What I don't understand is the relationship that everyone places on distance with independence. IMO the two are not as related as everyone else thinks. The true measure of independence is how long and how well a dog can search or hunt without direction or assistance from the handler. A dog can do that at 50 yards or 500.slistoe wrote: As to the other malarky - first you are making a gigantic assumption that there actually were three other birds there for the other dog to find and it intentionally bypassed them in order to make a big run. Second, the fabrication you are repeating is mostly just that - fabrication. While it is possible to win with fewer finds, and has actually happened on occasion (I have put up such a winner as a judge myself, and have been the second place dog in competition once) it is far less commonplace than anyone who doesn't want to argue about something to try to placate themselves would make out. In every case where it has happened I have yet to find argument from the competitors who were involved - but there are a couple of instances that make their way to the internet where a less than seasoned competitor who has blinders brought a dog severely lacking in some areas of performance and cried foul because they found more birds.
Exactly, there is no line and there should be no line. Every breed is a long way from perfection and will never reach it. Making progress within a breed is not a terrible thing! The navhda guys will never turn all GSP's into fur chasing demons, the nastra guys will never turn all gsps into 40acre finatics, the trial guys will never turn all gsps into 1000yd horizon skimming run offs, etc., etc. Same goes for progress in all breeds, progress is not a bad thing. Breed for the best and train for the rest....cjhills wrote:I don't think I'm missing the point of the thread. I just don't believe there is a undeniable better and the sun don't shine on the same dogs butt every day . If it did the same dog would win every trial.
I'm just saying if you want to compete in a open trial, breed to compete,or you are wasting your money.
. On the tail thing it makes no difference to me. Not sure on the speed thing. Obviously the quicker retrieve.
Now what i don't get is why you would draw a line. If you want to compete in a venue that pointers and setters generally win, don't draw a line you can find individuals in the breed that compete. Careful of the DNA Cj
You fabricated a six finds to 3 scenario along with the inclusion of the falsehoods and misconceptions.UpNorthHuntin wrote:Easy Big Guy..... Didn't mean to insult anyone. As stated, I am a newby and didn't mean to imply or fabricate anything. If we are judging the dogs in a field trial with planted birds, why wouldn't each dog be given the same amount of birds to find?? And I didn't mean to say that the dog "intentionally bypassed" anything, but in some cases big runners that are extremely fast do miss opportunities at birds that more methodical slower working dogs find....If I'm wrong I apologize, but even though I am new to pointing dogs, I am not new to dogs or dog training. I've been training dogs for over 20 years. I udnerstand scent and scent patterns very well. I understand the effects of whether and wind on scent cones and dispursal very well too. What I don't understand is the relationship that everyone places on distance with independence. IMO the two are not as related as everyone else thinks. The true measure of independence is how long and how well a dog can search or hunt without direction or assistance from the handler. A dog can do that at 50 yards or 500.slistoe wrote: As to the other malarky - first you are making a gigantic assumption that there actually were three other birds there for the other dog to find and it intentionally bypassed them in order to make a big run. Second, the fabrication you are repeating is mostly just that - fabrication. While it is possible to win with fewer finds, and has actually happened on occasion (I have put up such a winner as a judge myself, and have been the second place dog in competition once) it is far less commonplace than anyone who doesn't want to argue about something to try to placate themselves would make out. In every case where it has happened I have yet to find argument from the competitors who were involved - but there are a couple of instances that make their way to the internet where a less than seasoned competitor who has blinders brought a dog severely lacking in some areas of performance and cried foul because they found more birds.
The true measure of drive is how long a dog will work without some sort of praise (whether it be prey kill, or whatever, and the reason a dog hunts is to satisfy their "prey kill" drive....period) before he decides to shut down. I would love to see an AA Championship Dog Run, and I believe it is a thing to behold. My concern is that every breeder, regardless of breed, is striving for that in most breeds and to me that seems impracticle.
And my Britt will never be anywhere near 1000 yds. He started at about 200 and in the area I hunt mostly even that was a little far for me. What I would like is as you say, to teach the dog to adjust his range depending on the cover. That would be my ultimate goal. In open areas and fields I would say I would be happy with 200-300 yards, while in thickets maybe 50-75 yards.
I think you are starting to get the point of this thread. The so called line is very adjustable. That is the great thing about the dogs we have. One's best can be not quite up to standard for another. When I went looking for an all around pup that is what I was set on and wasn't stopping until I found one that I thought would do the job, but i still invested in a pup. No one will ever be able to tell me what a dog will turn out to do at 6 to 12 weeks old. We take chances. We have a specific "Line" in our head as to what we want. If it doesn't match up, we move on and try again. I have a line. I know that my line is way different than the line my father had with his Brittany's. He loved them close. His boots were always clean. I hated tripping over a dog. He hated my shorthairs. Could never understand the point of having a dog out that far. Again, my line, I was happy. He wouldn't hunt with them. His line was different. That is the great thing about this line, is it can cover a wide variety of hunters.Sprigomatic wrote:And to think... I was having trouble just trying to name my dog. Instead, I should be worried whether or not my dog is the IDEAL Labrador. Hmmm... If that were the case, I should name my Black Lab female pup... Fell Short.
Seriously... What's the big deal. Just like the thread it titled: "A good dog, is a good dog, is a good dog..." I'm a duck hunter. You think I care whether or not my Labs can win dog shows or are from so-called "perfect" and "champion" bloodlines? No. Ask any duck hunter the same question and they will say, "Just give me a dog that's loyal and can bring my duck back to me." Last time I checked, that's just about (if not all) Labradors out there.
A dog is a living being (the same as a human). It's life should be valued the same regardless of how it looks or performs.
I am a foot hunter without horses. I don't have a GPS screen device. I have hunted with dogs of every stripe and I look forward to the day I have another dog that I can rely on to make 800+ yards on a cast when the occasion warrants it. Your post is offensive in its assumptions. As I breeder I would strive to create a dog that has no limitations on its abilities and applications - it will range if you need it to, it will babysit small children and it will retrieve what you send it for. To imply that any of those on incongruous with one another is simply to sell a dog short.Winglish wrote:I would not actively seek to own a true AA dog. I am a foot hunter without horses. That 1,500 yard dog is certainly NOT better suited for me than a 2-400 yard dog. The AA dog would be an ill-suited frustration for most foot hunters. I also prefer to actually watch the dog work. I don't want to be watching a little GPS screen all day. Again, no horses. The 1,500 yard dog is not a better hunting dog for most folks. It's only better for the small percentage of dog owners who trial their dogs or those who enjoy hunting on horseback.
Trials do not define what makes a better hunting dog. Trials define what makes a better trial dog. Please do not mistake this for meaning. I am not saying trial dogs are not hunting dogs. Quite the opposite!
Breeders have their own unique goals. Yours might be to create the fastest dog with the biggest range. Mine might be to create dogs with adequate hunting range and desire for the foot hunter who also wants a cooperative, mellow, gentle indoors pet that babysits small children and loves to retrieve ducks in frigid water.
A good dog is a good dog is a good dog. I agree.
I did not mean to imply. I was actually watching a Championship Trial video yesterday and watched a dog (very big runner) run past several birds that another dog came behind and successfully pointed. The conditions were terrible, dry, very windy. Since I understand scent cones and how they work (strong wind = slim scent cone) I understood what had happened, The dog blew through the skinny scent cone without having a chance to wind the birds. The dog did cover the entire field and had three solid points and retrieves after flush and shot and was very stylish. He really looked great. The next team the dog pointed several more birds, but lets just say did not look as good doing it. He lost. Now I am new to this so be gentle, but with that being viewed, and they ran one right after another, I would have viewed that as the dog blowing through a scent cone and missing a bird. Not saying that the dog scented it and ignored it, just that he missed it. Shouldn't that have been held against the dog? The hunters were practically running because it was timed and they had to find as many birds as they could in as fast a time as they could. It was interesting, and both dogs looked good to me...but the loser IMO did a better job according to the rules of that particular game.slistoe wrote: You fabricated a six finds to 3 scenario along with the inclusion of the falsehoods and misconceptions.
Yes, there is a problem with terminology and how it is used by different people to mean different things. A dog that looks for and requires continuous feedback from the owner will never range to 1000 yards. Only a measure of independence and confidence will allow the dog to acquire that type of range. Mix in a healthy dose of cooperativeness and you have a dog that you get to take home at the end of the day. IMO true All Age dogs are the epitome of cooperativeness in a dog. Most folks equate a dog that is totally dependent with being cooperative, which they aren't.
Drive (or heart) is also an admirable quality, but it is not the same as independence. I have seen very dependent dogs with no quit in them. I have seen very independent dogs that give up far too quickly.
That is way different format than Slistoe would be comparing with you...(i think) Those timed trials such as BDC, or maybe you refer to NSTRA have different rules and you are dealing in much tighter geographic areas and by simple geometry more predictable scent and bird finding. An hour course is 5 miles give or take a mile on a horse, the dogs cover multiples of that. Identifying what a dog runs by in that is difficult...now...having said that, if you know where the birds are and you can walk your dog that sticks his or her nose in every bush up to said bush...they will probably smell and find more birds than the dogs that are casting by them to objectives...but the former isn't very natural in wild bird hunting and if it was it wouldn't be much fun...UpNorthHuntin wrote: I would have viewed that as the dog blowing through a scent cone and missing a bird. Not saying that the dog scented it and ignored it, just that he missed it. Shouldn't that have been held against the dog? The hunters were practically running because it was timed and they had to find as many birds as they could in as fast a time as they could. It was interesting, and both dogs looked good to me...but the loser IMO did a better job according to the rules of that particular game.
I'm pretty sure it was a NSTRA Championship. Kind of a wierd format I thought, but looked fun. I don't thuink they knew where the birds were, but in that format I thought the slower dog was more productive and was more practical, but I am pretty sure he lost. WOW!!! Five miles?? I would want a 1000 yard dog then two if I had to cover that much ground...Chukar12 wrote: That is way different format than Slistoe would be comparing with you...(i think) Those timed trials such as BDC, or maybe you refer to NSTRA have different rules and you are dealing in much tighter geographic areas and by simple geometry more predictable scent and bird finding. An hour course is 5 miles give or take a mile on a horse, the dogs cover multiples of that. Identifying what a dog runs by in that is difficult...now...having said that, if you know where the birds are and you can walk your dog that sticks his or her nose in every bush up to said bush...they will probably smell and find more birds than the dogs that are casting by them to objectives...but the former isn't very natural in wild bird hunting and if it was it wouldn't be much fun...
Couldn't be NSTRA - that is the classic design of the folks who felt that finds trumps all. Unless the dog with 6 finds simply did not retrieve any of them. There are some style points, but not enough to overcome an extra find and retrieve.UpNorthHuntin wrote:I'm pretty sure it was a NSTRA Championship. Kind of a wierd format I thought, but looked fun. I don't thuink they knew where the birds were, but in that format I thought the slower dog was more productive and was more practical, but I am pretty sure he lost. WOW!!! Five miles?? I would want a 1000 yard dog then two if I had to cover that much ground...Chukar12 wrote: That is way different format than Slistoe would be comparing with you...(i think) Those timed trials such as BDC, or maybe you refer to NSTRA have different rules and you are dealing in much tighter geographic areas and by simple geometry more predictable scent and bird finding. An hour course is 5 miles give or take a mile on a horse, the dogs cover multiples of that. Identifying what a dog runs by in that is difficult...now...having said that, if you know where the birds are and you can walk your dog that sticks his or her nose in every bush up to said bush...they will probably smell and find more birds than the dogs that are casting by them to objectives...but the former isn't very natural in wild bird hunting and if it was it wouldn't be much fun...
I'll have to watch it again if I can find it. It may have been something else the dog did that caused him to lose or be disqualified or something then. Off topic, I wish I lived out west and could have the opportunity to see just how far my Britt will range. Kind of hard to tell in the "Big Woods" of Northern Michigan. Not many birds here in the fields anymore, and we are a little short on big praries:)slistoe wrote: Couldn't be NSTRA - that is the classic design of the folks who felt that finds trumps all. Unless the dog with 6 finds simply did not retrieve any of them. There are some style points, but not enough to overcome an extra find and retrieve.
You can compare them but you can't say one is better than the other, In other words lets say the Brit is the ultimate dog, and in some areas they probably are, and we use their range as the best then we would have to say the Pointer that is ranging twice as far is running to big. However, we never do that because our bias is the bigger the better, and that isn't always true. This in it self is one of the reasons pointers have been considered the ultimate Quail dog for the south, but the Brit or GSP will do a better job on pheasants. We can say the Viszla is a faster water retriever than a GWP but the GWP will do it longer and in worst conditions. The Black Lab is a good upland dog but the Springer will outdo it if the weather is hot.Middlecreek wrote:DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!! EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLYbrad27 wrote:You don't. The second you put limits on something is the second you stop making progress.Where do we draw the line on this progress???
That is exactly why no one was able to and never will be able to "draw the line" or give me specific differences between the breeds and what they should strive for or progress into.
Unless you want to degrade your respective breed or inhibit it's progress, THERE IS NO LINE!
Therefore, comparing pointing dog breeds on a whole is not such a bad thing is it? Yes, comparing two specific dogs of different breeds on the same day for the same two hours, on the same ground, doing the same thing has very little significance to the "big picture", but as a whole comparing breeds is not such a bad thing.
slistoe wrote:Couldn't be NSTRA - that is the classic design of the folks who felt that finds trumps all. Unless the dog with 6 finds simply did not retrieve any of them. There are some style points, but not enough to overcome an extra find and retrieve.UpNorthHuntin wrote:I'm pretty sure it was a NSTRA Championship. Kind of a wierd format I thought, but looked fun. I don't thuink they knew where the birds were, but in that format I thought the slower dog was more productive and was more practical, but I am pretty sure he lost. WOW!!! Five miles?? I would want a 1000 yard dog then two if I had to cover that much ground...Chukar12 wrote: That is way different format than Slistoe would be comparing with you...(i think) Those timed trials such as BDC, or maybe you refer to NSTRA have different rules and you are dealing in much tighter geographic areas and by simple geometry more predictable scent and bird finding. An hour course is 5 miles give or take a mile on a horse, the dogs cover multiples of that. Identifying what a dog runs by in that is difficult...now...having said that, if you know where the birds are and you can walk your dog that sticks his or her nose in every bush up to said bush...they will probably smell and find more birds than the dogs that are casting by them to objectives...but the former isn't very natural in wild bird hunting and if it was it wouldn't be much fun...
There is a HB SD Championship, britt championship, several uscsda and coverdog championships in your state. Go see them and see where your dog stacks up there. USCSDA and coverdog events should be spectator friendly regardless if you hqve a horse.UpNorthHuntin wrote:I'll have to watch it again if I can find it. It may have been something else the dog did that caused him to lose or be disqualified or something then. Off topic, I wish I lived out west and could have the opportunity to see just how far my Britt will range. Kind of hard to tell in the "Big Woods" of Northern Michigan. Not many birds here in the fields anymore, and we are a little short on big praries:)slistoe wrote: Couldn't be NSTRA - that is the classic design of the folks who felt that finds trumps all. Unless the dog with 6 finds simply did not retrieve any of them. There are some style points, but not enough to overcome an extra find and retrieve.
Perhaps it was NSTRA. If it was, they plant 5 birds between every brace and it is rather unusual that those birds are not all found, which would mean that the birds found by the second dog were quite likely not there when the first dog went through. Also the running thing seems odd - competitors in NSTRA disavow any running exists.UpNorthHuntin wrote:I'll have to watch it again if I can find it. It may have been something else the dog did that caused him to lose or be disqualified or something then. Off topic, I wish I lived out west and could have the opportunity to see just how far my Britt will range. Kind of hard to tell in the "Big Woods" of Northern Michigan. Not many birds here in the fields anymore, and we are a little short on big praries:)slistoe wrote: Couldn't be NSTRA - that is the classic design of the folks who felt that finds trumps all. Unless the dog with 6 finds simply did not retrieve any of them. There are some style points, but not enough to overcome an extra find and retrieve.
He was referencing a 6 to 3 find discrepancy.kninebirddog wrote:slistoe wrote:Couldn't be NSTRA - that is the classic design of the folks who felt that finds trumps all. Unless the dog with 6 finds simply did not retrieve any of them. There are some style points, but not enough to overcome an extra find and retrieve.UpNorthHuntin wrote: I'm pretty sure it was a NSTRA Championship. Kind of a wierd format I thought, but looked fun. I don't thuink they knew where the birds were, but in that format I thought the slower dog was more productive and was more practical, but I am pretty sure he lost. WOW!!! Five miles?? I would want a 1000 yard dog then two if I had to cover that much ground...
I have seen on a few occasions where a dog with better style out scored a dog with poor style and more birds. I ran against a pointer that had such poor style on point that my 5 birds 5 retrieves out scored the pointers 6 birds 6 retrieves ..it happens specially if you have judges that are willing to properly use the scoring system..and a handler and their dog could stand to better themselves if they would take and work on what is wrong with their dog instead of always blaming the judge for their dogs poor work...
Ezzy,ezzy333 wrote: You can compare them but you can't say one is better than the other, In other words lets say the Brit is the ultimate dog, and in some areas they probably are, and we use their range as the best then we would have to say the Pointer that is ranging twice as far is running to big. However, we never do that because our bias is the bigger the better, and that isn't always true. This in it self is one of the reasons pointers have been considered the ultimate Quail dog for the south, but the Brit or GSP will do a better job on pheasants. We can say the Viszla is a faster water retriever than a GWP but the GWP will do it longer and in worst conditions. The Black Lab is a good upland dog but the Springer will outdo it if the weather is hot.
I want a Pointer that can float over wide areas while I want the Brit that can stop and turn on a dime. I want a GSP that will hunt with its head high and with some style while a beagle or coon dog hunts with its head low. A bird dog that is silent in the field but a hound that will bay. Every breed of dog has been bred to look a certain way so that they can perform in their intended style since form and function go together. Every sporting dog breed, every working dog breed, and every hound breed has been bred with a certain goal in mind and each is built and performs differently but anyone would be hard pressed to say one breed is better than the other in any of these groups. I do think you could have an opinion at the very least as to which breed does one certain thing the best but over a broad area there is no way.
Ezzy
ezzy333 wrote:I have never put limits on progress but I do breed for Brittany traits and not pointer traits. I have never bred a dog based on speed or directly on range. I have bred on bird finding ability, nose, temperament, conformation, coat, color, size, and agility. I have never felt the need to draw a line and say that is good enough as there is always something that could be better, but that is based on a Brittany standard and not a Pointer standard. Why should we try to breed for what a pointer can do when they are smart enough not to breed on what a Brittany can do. In other words, the goal is your problem since no one can say what is better. I want my Brit to look, act, hunt, and behave like a Brit and that will tell me I have done well. I hope every other breed is doing the same thing so we will always have a dog that performs in a manner we like.
Ezzy
Are these not the traits that all pointing dog breeders/owners strive for at the core, most basic requirements of their programs?ezzy333 wrote:I have bred on bird finding ability, nose, temperament, conformation, coat, color, size, and agility.
Ezzy
Exactly my point, there is always something that could be better. If that "something better" happens to be a different breed(any breed) what is the harm in comparing it. What is wrong with saying "I wish my dog could be as agile as a visla" or "I wish my dog could have as good a nose as a GSP"ezzy333 wrote: I have never felt the need to draw a line and say that is good enough as there is always something that could be better
Ezzy
Use your intelligence. Sitting patiently and quietly in a duck blind requires a temperament and body type that is directly polar opposite from what is required from the AA type runner. As a breeder, one must breed to one side or the other or one is simply going for the middle.As I breeder I would strive to create a dog that has no limitations on its abilities and applications - it will range if you need it to, it will babysit small children and it will retrieve what you send it for. To imply that any of those on incongruous with one another is simply to sell a dog short.
vartz04 wrote:Does anyone just bird hunt anymore? Or are all of you guys trialersDoes anyone just bird hunt anymore? Or are all of you guys trialers
Yeah, the first dog had finds quicker, and it was a YouTube from an NSTRA Championship Trial. I will post the link if I can find it. I think the problem was that one dog would not retrieve one of the killed birds and then when he finally did another bird flushed. When you go back and view it it appears that the reason he wouldn't go retrieve the fallen bird is because he was trying to point the bird in between him and the fallen bird. It didn't appear that they planted more birds in between, it seemed like they went one right after the other.. The whole thing seemed kinda rushed to me. I think they had 20 minutes to point, flush, and retreive 6 birds, but if neither got all six then there was a run-off or something like that. I'll try to find the video.slistoe wrote:Not sure what you were watching because there are very few CH that I am aware of that have the performance of every dog on video. I also don't get the bit about the handlers running - no trial format I am familiar with. And then the part about they had to find as many birds as they could in a short a time frame certainly doesn't jive with the dog finding 3 and winning over finding 6 - or did the fast dog average 2 min. per find and the other dog found 6 but took the full 30 min and so it was 6 min. per find? You say the dogs were in successive braces - did they show the planting of the birds between braces - is it possible the birds weren't there the first time through?
I don't know - is the video online?
Unfortunately thats how it usually goes around here... A topic is brought up that is not concerning trialing, but the second the word "trial" or "range" or "big running" or something anywhere close to that gets mentioned, all the hunting guys freak out and say, "thats not what dogs are for" and the trial guys freak out and say "They can do both"... then all the logical, open minded people generally vacate the premises and both sides are left to bang their heads against the wall going off on some long winded tangent about how their view is right. When that wears down then it usually turns into my breed is better, then my dog is better... Not that nothing new comes from it or nothing is learned, but it kind of defeats the purpose of that little box you can click that says "NEW topic" doesn't it?vartz04 wrote:Does anyone just bird hunt anymore? Or are all of you guys trialers
No...and you still haven't fixed your sig.Chukar12 wrote:
I train, hunt and trial extensively in that order...can I be of service?
I have one of those big running All Age dogs and I hunt him on foot. I bought him after I took him out hunting as a pup and I saw what an outstanding hunting dog he could become. He had the nose, speed, style everything I wanted in a hunting dog. As he grew up and matured he became true AA dog. I am still hunting him on foot. When on foot he is never more then a 100 yards from me and in thick cover he is within 30 yards. I could not ask for more. In the end, Trey has won a couple of championships along with winning the NFC. I expect to hunt and trial him for many years yet since he only turned 5.Winglish wrote:I would not actively seek to own a true AA dog. I am a foot hunter without horses. That 1,500 yard dog is certainly NOT better suited for me than a 2-400 yard dog. The AA dog would be an ill-suited frustration for most foot hunters. I also prefer to actually watch the dog work. I don't want to be watching a little GPS screen all day. Again, no horses. The 1,500 yard dog is not a better hunting dog for most folks. It's only better for the small percentage of dog owners who trial their dogs or those who enjoy hunting on horseback.
Trials do not define what makes a better hunting dog. Trials define what makes a better trial dog. Please do not mistake this for meaning. I am not saying trial dogs are not hunting dogs. Quite the opposite!
Breeders have their own unique goals. Yours might be to create the fastest dog with the biggest range. Mine might be to create dogs with adequate hunting range and desire for the foot hunter who also wants a cooperative, mellow, gentle indoors pet that babysits small children and loves to retrieve ducks in frigid water.
A good dog is a good dog is a good dog. I agree.
A good dog is a good dog! Sounds like yours is a great one. As an NFC, I would expect that he's certainly exceptional, as opposed to average.I have one of those big running All Age dogs and I hunt him on foot. I bought him after I took him out hunting as a pup and I saw what an outstanding hunting dog he could become. He had the nose, speed, style everything I wanted in a hunting dog. As he grew up and matured he became true AA dog. I am still hunting him on foot. When on foot he is never more then a 100 yards from me and in thick cover he is within 30 yards. I could not ask for more. In the end, Trey has won a couple of championships along with winning the NFC. I expect to hunt and trial him for many years yet since he only turned 5.
What's wrong with it? I hate the internetWyndancer wrote:
No...and you still haven't fixed your sig.
Chukar12 wrote:What's wrong with it? I hate the internetWyndancer wrote:
No...and you still haven't fixed your sig.
I don't think I would say that. I want my dog to be thurough, with a decent range, steady to wing and shot, but yes, If there are birds in the field, of course I want him to find them. If my dog can point five/six birds in a mile of cover, why would I want to trek five miles for the same thing? And style does mean alot to me, but style is in the eye of the beholder... Maybe my idea of stylish is different than yours. I am not sure that I understand the "style" piece of it because that is subjective IMO.Vonzeppelinkennels wrote:Upnorth NSTRA should appeal to you as it rewards the most finds over almost everything else & from your posts seems as though you think along those same lines.
