A good dog, is a good dog, is a good dog....

[Middlecreek]

Why all the dissention among breeds?

Never really thought much of it, but the Ames thread and a few others got me to thinking about it.

What is meant by "if you want to run in pointer trials get a pointer"? Or "why be like the pointers"? Basically, why is it frowned upon to compare anything to the english pointers/ setters? Are you telling me that if the extreme range of a AA pointer is 1000 yds then a shorthair should be 800? Are you trying to say if a pointer has ground speed of 35mph I should breed gsp's for 30mph? Are you trying to tell me if a pointer has a 12 o'clock tail I should wash out anything over 11? Are you trying to tell me if pointers have 6 finds in an average 1hr. I should pick up on anything after 5? Are you telling me if my dog can run more than 1 hr. he's got too much endurance and should not be bred? Are you trying to tell me I should not do everything I can to own, breed, and train the best dogs I am able to because that would be trying to be a pointer? We want to have good dogs, but not too good, not too fast, not too snappy, not too stylish, dont quite fill all the country, don't handle too well, don't quite finish the lines, not too many finds ... you get the idea.

Why do we trial then? Why do we hunt test? Why do we navhda test? Why evaluate them at all then?... Hunt tests, trials and the like are not breed specific and have no limits on speed, style, find #'s, application, etc, etc, etc...

Aren't we all trying to make our dogs and breeds better? Eventually, if our respective breeds continue to progress (faster, stronger, bird finds, endurance, style, etc, etc, etc) they will ALL someday be for the most part equal, some just have a head start right?

You can see where I'm going with this right?

Common sense isn't that common any more, but does what I am getting at here make any sense to anyone? Some call it trying to be like something they are not, I call it logical progress of the breeds. Where do you draw the line and when will it be drawn? Can you imagine an ad for a litter that says "NOT very stylish, NOT bred for endurance, NOT good bird finders, bred to be WEAK...

Lots of questions, lets hear the answers...

[ezzy333]

You are making the mistake of using the same goals for all breeds. Should we judge all breeds on how fast and far they can run or are their other goals most of the continentals were bred for. Maybe the Brit was bred for easy handling, or a GSP for duck retrieving instead of just upland bird pointing. Every breed has a different goal or at least use to before we all decided the pointer was the ultimate and what we should all be trying to duplicate. So many differences that I wont try to list them all but I do not want a Brit to hunt like a pointer and I don't want a pointer to hunt like a Brit. They are different for a purpose.

Ezzy

[Stoneface]

You are making the mistake of using the same goals for all breeds. Should we judge all breeds on how fast and far they can run or are their other goals most of the continentals were bred for. Maybe the Brit was bred for easy handling, or a GSP for duck retrieving instead of just upland bird pointing. Every breed has a different goal or at least use to before we all decided the pointer was the ultimate and what we should all be trying to duplicate. So many differences that I wont try to list them all but I do not want a Brit to hunt like a pointer and I don't want a pointer to hunt like a Brit. They are different for a purpose.

Ezzy

Ezzy, you sound like one of those extreme self-righteous fanciers of show dogs who say, "you have to breed to conserve what the dog dog for what makes it unique." If you like Shorthairs and you like dogs that run at extreme ranges and eats up yardage, who are you to tell him he's barking up the wrong tree? I have a Pointer from big-running lines, but I've conditioned her to be anything but big-running. In fact, I way overdid it to begin with and amputated her range so I had to push her out a bit. Is that wrong? I just so happen to have found a breed that I've fallen head-over-heals for and I don't like dogs that push a thousand yards.

It's all relative. Pick a breed you like and do with them what you like. If you love a gun dog breed and want to show, then show. If you have a continental and are awe struck by a fire-breathing ground race, then go for it.

... I'd really love to hear your take on Pointing Labs.

[Middlecreek]

Ezzy,

... Are you trying to tell me if a pointer has a 12 o'clock tail I should wash out anything over 11? Are you trying to tell me if pointers have 6 finds in an average 1hr. I should pick up on anything after 5? Are you telling me if my dog can run more than 1 hr. he's got too much endurance and should not be bred? Are you trying to tell me I should not do everything I can to own, breed, and train the best dogs I am able to because that would be trying to be a pointer? We want to have good dogs, but not too good, not too fast, not too snappy, not too stylish, dont quite fill all the country, don't handle too well, don't quite finish the lines, not too many finds ... you get the idea.


Where do you draw the line and when will it be drawn? Can you imagine an ad for a litter that says "NOT very stylish, NOT bred for endurance, NOT good bird finders, bred to be WEAK...

Lots of questions, lets hear the answers...

What about the rest of the post? (I left those unanswered questions in my quote)

Just because I didnt list every possible thing every breed can excel at, doesn't mean I think they're not important. What about the other things that apply to all breeds? So, you want a brittany to be slow relative to other breeds and always hunt at a closer range?

[Brooks Carmichael]

I think, I understand what Middlecreek is saying and is coming from. We are constantly improving are breed whether it be GSP, EP or Brit. etc. Are the shorthairs the same they were 40 or 50 years ago. They are not. They are faster, stronger, run bigger and more stylish and have improved bird finding ability. I can remember several German and Danish imports were brought over and they had tremendous impact on the breed. For instance Essers Chick, Axel v Wassersling and Tell just to name a few. But, at the same token if we take the best of what we have out there and continue to breed them to get where we want, what is wrong with that. The same goes for pointers and Brits. I can remember pointers on the prairies ran so big, you lucky to see them at all and lost them a majority of time. I am now seeing pointers handle better and are not running out of the country. They just don't run to run. These pointers are now hunting and running for their handlers. The same goes for the Brits. It is not my dog is better then yours, each has its on attributes and that is why own them. I have seen pointers beat shorthairs and vice versa. Same goes for Brits and other breeds out there. Each breed is constantly improving because the breeders are trying to breed the best to the best. Just my thoughts.

[jcbuttry8]

If that litter is posted I am sure I will be just fine without one.

I don't think it should be a matter of comparison. Whether or not a GSP could or could not make it to Ames, what's the point. To prove that it can, or prove that the good ol boys club so to speak let it happen. I think that what the Breed clubs have to offer is just as great. The invitational that was just held for the GSP's is a huge honor and should be considered as such. I have owned many different breeds over the years and have been happy with all of them. The best true birddog that I have ever owned was a gordon that never went out more than 50 yards but man what a dog. My last pointer, was an exceptional dog. What grace she had when she ran. There was no off switch, ever which is why momma made her move outside permanantly. As Ray put it, she had sparks fly when she hit the ground.

My new pup, sure you know the one, has a ton of brains. Just smart and has a great nose. Not sure of the run yet but knows where to go and look when she is on course. I think what it comes down to is total package. If you can find a breeder that is putting down the total package then that is the pup I want. i believe the reason for all the different venues or games if you will is to open the options up for whatever type of dog it is you have. They are not all straight out three hills over and nothing but a blip on the ol garmin. So, you have to have the tests for all types of dogs.

I want a dog that can do it all so to speak. it needs to be able to hunt birds. I want a dog that can come inside and chill next to me and the kids, and get psycho crazy when she sees we are pulling through the gate at the club. I want a dog that has the brains to know to pull in a little when she sees me on foot, and then hit the pedal when she sees me on the horse. When that pup becomes full grown and has the power and polish to truly amaze that is when I will see where her run puts her and those will be the games we play in. If it falls in the gundog bracket then we will have a ball at it. If she is ripping the country side then AA it is. That is how I pick my games. You will here plenty of guys that say they have gone through 25 dogs looking for a true AA prospect. They have chosen their game and need the dog to fit the bill. Not a "bleep" thing wrong with that. If it is your cup of tea have at it. I choose to trial my hunting dog, that is a game we can play in the off season. It is not the end all be all of my dog but it shows me how she is stacking up with what else is out there and also what she has come from.

I love the games. The joy of watching a dog stick the bird, the level at which those broke dogs handle it just takes my breath away. To come around a corner and witness two bold and beautiful specimens on point. Seeing a dog stop and honor another is just a master piece in my book. If you want to run at Ames then go for it. If you have a dog that can do it then give it a chance, but most importantly, do right by the dog and the breed which you have chosen. Breed for excellence and settle for nothing short. Play the game that best shows the ability of the dog and strive for perfection. I can guarantee that any dog, no matter what breed no matter the breeding and definitely no matter what may have been crossed into it somewhere in the past, is doing everything it can to just please you. Whether it be in the field, in front of a horse, or just playing retrieve in front of the christmas tree after the kids have decimated the presents.

M2C,

Joe

[Middlecreek]

You are making the mistake of using the same goals for all breeds....

Ezzy

Apparantly so is everyone else... other than retrieve/water retrieve requirements NAVHDA, AKC trials, AKC hunt tests, AF trials, etc., etc.,... do not have seperate rules for seperate breeds. Closed breed trials or not the rules and guidelines are the same....

[slistoe]

You are making the mistake of using the same goals for all breeds. Should we judge all breeds on how fast and far they can run or are their other goals most of the continentals were bred for. Maybe the Brit was bred for easy handling, or a GSP for duck retrieving instead of just upland bird pointing. Every breed has a different goal or at least use to before we all decided the pointer was the ultimate and what we should all be trying to duplicate. So many differences that I wont try to list them all but I do not want a Brit to hunt like a pointer and I don't want a pointer to hunt like a Brit. They are different for a purpose.

Ezzy

So if some Spinone owners got together to have a trial the first dog to the bird automatically loses? (Apologies to any Spinone owners) - really the goal of a dog is to find birds, right?

[Brazosvalleyvizslas]

I'd just like to see the dog that has 30-35mph ground speed. I don't care which breed it is but that would be impressive.

[Middlecreek]

Before this gets out of hand....

where do we draw the performance line between breeds? Should there be a line?

That is the core of my post. I always hear they're different, and I agree, but where exactly is the line drawn?

where for:
Tail carriage?
Speed/gait?
Endurance?
Bird finding?
Handle?
Temperment?

[Winchey]

Middlecreek I wonder the same thing. I like the variety whithin the pointers, setters, gsp's and britts. But when someone likes playing AA HB stuff with their britt, isn't the goal to play that game as well as the pointers? Makes my head spin when people say it shouldn't be.

[ACooper]

Before this gets out of hand....

where do we draw the performance line between breeds? Should there be a line?

That is the core of my post. I always hear they're different, and I agree, but where exactly is the line drawn?

where for:
Tail carriage?
Speed?
Endurance?
Bird finding?
Handle?
Temperment?

These are not qualities a person can judge individually in a breed, only in an individual.

How about
versatility?
water work?
retrieve?
tracking?

[Middlecreek]

Before this gets out of hand....

where do we draw the performance line between breeds? Should there be a line?

That is the core of my post. I always hear they're different, and I agree, but where exactly is the line drawn?

where for:
Tail carriage?
Speed?
Endurance?
Bird finding?
Handle?
Temperment?

How about
versatility?
water work?
retrieve?
tracking?

Exactly! Pointers play the navhda/versatile games too. Should the pointers at a duck search test be held to a lower standard? Add anything and everything to the list you can think of, the question still remains, where is the line drawn?

[slistoe]

Middlecreek I wonder the same thing. I like the variety whithin the pointers, setters, gsp's and britts. But when someone likes playing AA HB stuff with their britt, isn't the goal to play that game as well as the pointers? Makes my head spin when people say it shouldn't be.

No, the goal is to play the game better than any other Brittany. Therein improving the average ability of the gene pool of that breed. Whether that is good enough to beat any other breed is really moot - trialing with Brittanys is not meant to be for improvement of any other breed.

[Winchey]

Seriously, there is no desire for the best dog, just best of breed? Is that a joke. I meen I would be happy with the best setter, but happier if that setter was better than the pointers as well.

[Middlecreek]

Middlecreek I wonder the same thing. I like the variety whithin the pointers, setters, gsp's and britts. But when someone likes playing AA HB stuff with their britt, isn't the goal to play that game as well as the pointers? Makes my head spin when people say it shouldn't be.

No, the goal is to play the game better than any other Brittany. Therein improving the average ability of the gene pool of that breed. Whether that is good enough to beat any other breed is really moot - trialing with Brittanys is not meant to be for improvement of any other breed.

Your right, but what if that "best" Britt was better than a dog from breed "x" that has historically been better at a certain test/game? Just because it happens to be better that makes that dog less desireable in the gene pool because it was "too good"?

Makes ya wonder?... where is the line drawn?

[ezzy333]

Middlecreek I wonder the same thing. I like the variety whithin the pointers, setters, gsp's and britts. But when someone likes playing AA HB stuff with their britt, isn't the goal to play that game as well as the pointers? Makes my head spin when people say it shouldn't be.

How do you account for the difference in a shooting dog and an AA dog if we look for the same think in every dog. 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

[Middlecreek]

forgive my ignorance... add hunting along with all the different tests and trial formats. The most important part of BIRDdogs!

[cjhills]

A good dog is in the eyes of the beholder and there are many,many people who do not want a thousand yard dog and would not think it was a good dog. A 12 o'clock tail is of very little value on a bird dog and does not necessarily make a good dog . A good dog to me will have a natural retrieve.If it doesn't it is of little value to me. Speed has very little to do with what most people want in a bird dog as long as it is within reason. A dog that will run 13 miles and hour for half a day works for me. Most any pointing breed with a bit of conditioning will last as long as the hunter does. Endurance is not likely to be a issue either if it is conditioned a little.
Hunt tests, field trials and NAVHDA are not breed specific but there are breeds that do better than others in these events.
What is better is the question. I don't need my dogs to be faster. I don't think speed or style equates to more birds.
Personally, I don't want to see all breeds end up the same. I like having a choice.
Breeding better to me means better conformation,personality, bird finding and other hunting skills, longevity, natural talent and trainability, The future of the breeds(at least GSPs) will be good looking, well built dogs who are capable of performing in several venues. Dogs that have natural talent and are trainable.A lot of trialers on here. But a lot more that want to do other things in the real world.
I think the best think about dogs is that we have a choice and my good dog won't be yours. I won't try to change your mind . Don't try to change mine. Cj

[Middlecreek]

Middlecreek I wonder the same thing. I like the variety whithin the pointers, setters, gsp's and britts. But when someone likes playing AA HB stuff with their britt, isn't the goal to play that game as well as the pointers? Makes my head spin when people say it shouldn't be.

How do you account for the difference in a shooting dog and an AA dog if we look for the same think in every dog. 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

you look for the same thing in all shooting dogs
you look for the same thing in all all age dogs
you look for the same thing in all duck searches
you look for the same thing in all hunting dogs
you look for the same thing in all fur retrieves..... it goes on and on and on

I want to find just as many birds with a pointer as I do with a gordon setter
I want just as stylish of a setter as I do a britt

Breed makes no difference

Nobody ever says "wow, look how sloppy that dog looks on his birds" or "wow, that dog can barely swim I want one too"

[Middlecreek]

A good dog is in the eyes of the beholder and there are many,many people who do not want a thousand yard dog and would not think it was a good dog. A 12 o'clock tail is of very little value on a bird dog and does not necessarily make a good dog . A good dog to me will have a natural retrieve.If it doesn't it is of little value to me. Speed has very little to do with what most people want in a bird dog as long as it is within reason. A dog that will run 13 miles and hour for half a day works for me. Most any pointing breed with a bit of conditioning will last as long as the hunter does. Endurance is not likely to be a issue either if it is conditioned a little.
Hunt tests, field trials and NAVHDA are not breed specific but there are breeds that do better than others in these events.
What is better is the question. I don't need my dogs to be faster. I don't think speed or style equates to more birds.
Personally, I don't want to see all breeds end up the same. I like having a choice.
Breeding better to me means better conformation,personality, bird finding and other hunting skills, longevity, natural talent and trainability, The future of the breeds(at least GSPs) will be good looking, well built dogs who are capable of performing in several venues. Dogs that have natural talent and are trainable.A lot of trialers on here. But a lot more that want to do other things in the real world.
I think the best think about dogs is that we have a choice and my good dog won't be yours. I won't try to change your mind . Don't try to change mine. Cj

Great post, I agree... But are we going to fault dogs for being too stylish, too fast, finding too many birds, hunts out to 1000yds, but finds every bird along the way, etc., etc....

I get where your coming from, but do we want adequate to get the job done? or do we want to get the job done AND all the extras?

I'm not advocating any breed or type of dog, just posing the question where is the line drawn? Do you want the best representitve of your breed to be of less than average compared to all other breeds in all the catagories mentioned in your post?

[Middlecreek]

Breeding better to me means better conformation,personality, bird finding and other hunting skills, longevity, natural talent and trainability, The future of the breeds(at least GSPs) will be good looking, well built dogs who are capable of performing in several venues. Dogs that have natural talent and are trainable.

Same with me and everyone else from hunters to trialers to testers and everyone in between, the question still remains, are we going to fault dogs for being too good? Where do we draw the line?

[Winchey]

Ezzy I don't know what the difference is between AA and SD aside from literature and others opinions, only have participated in and watched coverdog trials. All I know is that a friend of mine up the road has a kennel full of the hottest HB AA and SD blood, out there, and has for many years, and hunts them exclusively in the thickest tightest grouse and woodcock cover imaginable. They all hunt and point wild birds and some of them run a little bigger than others.

All the guys running AA are looking for AA application and all the guys running SD are looking for SD application, so if a britt was running an AA trial I would want to see the best AA application period and vice versa. The goal is to put up the best performance with the correct application. I don't see why the application should differ between breeds playing the same game.

[cjhills]

The problem with the whole question is defining better. Is faster better. Is a 12 o'cock tail better than a 11 O'clock tail. If a dog hunts at 1000 yards is 1500 better. they don't judge field trials by the number of finds.I been there on that one. It is hard to breed for endurance but that can always be better.
We don't draw the line we try to make a more complete package. Hopefully trials are not totally judge by run and 12 0'clock tails. There is a lot more to style than the tail. I pretty much know very little about trials but to a outsider it seems like run is way over rated.
I do think I get what you are saying, but we definitely don't draw a line go for what you think is best. Cj

[Middlecreek]

Middlecreek I wonder the same thing. I like the variety whithin the pointers, setters, gsp's and britts. But when someone likes playing AA HB stuff with their britt, isn't the goal to play that game as well as the pointers? Makes my head spin when people say it shouldn't be.

No, the goal is to play the game better than any other Brittany. Therein improving the average ability of the gene pool of that breed. Whether that is good enough to beat any other breed is really moot - trialing with Brittanys is not meant to be for improvement of any other breed.

Again, good post, and I'm not picking on you but you bring up a good point. What about conformation between breeds? They are different, but they still have "best in show" AND "best in breed".

[Middlecreek]

The problem with the whole question is defining better. Is faster better. Is a 12 o'cock tail better than a 11 O'clock tail. If a dog hunts at 1000 yards is 1500 better. they don't judge field trials by the number of finds.I been there on that one. It is hard to breed for endurance but that can always be better.
We don't draw the line we try to make a more complete package. Hopefully trials are not totally judge by run and 12 0'clock tails. There is a lot more to style than the tail. I pretty much know very little about trials but to a outsider it seems like run is way over rated.
I do think I get what you are saying, but we definitely don't draw a line go for what you think is best. Cj

Better is exactly as you described it here:

Breeding better to me means better conformation,personality, bird finding and other hunting skills, longevity, natural talent and trainability, The future of the breeds(at least GSPs) will be good looking, well built dogs who are capable of performing in several venues. Dogs that have natural talent and are trainable.

All the other things you mentioned are the extras within those core things. A breeder, whether it be trialing, testing, hunting, or whatever is going in the wrong direction if they don't look for those core qualities first and probably won't win much either

[Winchey]

The problem with the whole question is defining better. Is faster better. Is a 12 o'cock tail better than a 11 O'clock tail. If a dog hunts at 1000 yards is 1500 better. they don't judge field trials by the number of finds.I been there on that one. It is hard to breed for endurance but that can always be better.
We don't draw the line we try to make a more complete package. Hopefully trials are not totally judge by run and 12 0'clock tails. There is a lot more to style than the tail. I pretty much know very little about trials but to a outsider it seems like run is way over rated.
I do think I get what you are saying, but we definitely don't draw a line go for what you think is best. Cj

I think the dog that all things being equal the dog that can do it faster is better and the dog that handles flawlessly at 1500 yards is more impressive than the one that does it at 1000. I would also find the dog that runs with the most animation and style and looks the best on point better then the other, all else equal. Trials are not only about running huge and looking good. First and foremost they have to be birdogs, it is how impresive the performance is. You can't just count finds, but it is a big factor in all the trials I have seen. If the dog is hunting all the right places and the birds just aren't there it is not the dogs fault. I have never seen a trial where the winner didn't have birds, if the dog is not consistenly finding birds in trials it is probably not going to have a very long trial career.

I have no problem with people have got off the couch and given the trials an honest look and deciding it is not for them and don't like the dogs, but it kind of gets to me when someone has never seen one and decides they aren't bird dogs.

[rkappes]

I have no problem with people have got off the couch and given the trials an honest look and deciding it is not for them and don't like the dogs, but it kind of gets to me when someone has never seen one and decides they aren't bird dogs.

I think maybe non-trial folks decide that trial dogs are not bird dogs because it seems like a lot of trial folks repeatedly talk big runnin’ dogs and a lot of non-trial people don’t care about runnin’ big, they just want a dog that produces birds. I’d say the average hunter or non-trial person just wants a natural hunting dog and doesn’t care about style, run, tails, etc…

It’s probably also hard for a person to fathom a dog running 1,000 yards out, pointing a bird and holding until the hunter arrives, unless witnessed firsthand most people probably don’t believe it’s possible.

[rkappes]

Down the road when we get an EB pup I hope to give trials a shot. Not only do I want to win breed trials I also want to compete and win against all breeds (pointers, GSPs, ABs, Setters, etc…) I want the EB to be the best within its breed and I want it to be the best in all breeds. I want people to say, ‘Holy Smokes, did you see that little EB?!”.

I hope to accomplish this without changing what the dog was breed to do.

[Middlecreek]

...... Every breed has a different goal or at least use to before we all decided the pointer was the ultimate and what we should all be trying to duplicate. So many differences that I wont try to list them all but I do not want a Brit to hunt like a pointer and I don't want a pointer to hunt like a Brit. They are different for a purpose.

Ezzy

This is a serious question Ezzy,

Here are a few things we evaluate dogs on, what are the quantifiable differences between pointers(or any pointing dog breed) and britts(or any pointing dog breed) on these things:

tail carriage?
speed/gait?
range?
retrieve?
bird finds?
cover application?
temperment?
versatility?
trainable?

You hit the core of my question/thought process with your reply. My answer to all of them is: the best in my respective breed and continually improving. If that happens to be better than some other breed than so be it. What are your answers? Feel free to add to the list if you need to

[Middlecreek]

I have no problem with people have got off the couch and given the trials an honest look and deciding it is not for them and don't like the dogs, but it kind of gets to me when someone has never seen one and decides they aren't bird dogs.

I think maybe non-trial folks decide that trial dogs are not bird dogs because it seems like a lot of trial folks repeatedly talk big runnin’ dogs and a lot of non-trial people don’t care about runnin’ big, they just want a dog that produces birds. I’d say the average hunter or non-trial person just wants a natural hunting dog and doesn’t care about style, run, tails, etc…

It’s probably also hard for a person to fathom a dog running 1,000 yards out, pointing a bird and holding until the hunter arrives, unless witnessed firsthand most people probably don’t believe it’s possible.

Good post rkappes, and your right

I’d say the average hunter or non-trial person just wants a natural hunting dog and doesn’t care about style, run, tails, etc…

But, should the best of our breeds and the goal or our breeding programs and our quest for the best dog possible within our breed not include "style, run, tails, etc..."?

If so, the question still remains, where do we draw the line?

[rkappes]

But, should the best of our breeds and the goal or our breeding programs and our quest for the best dog possible within our breed not include "style, run, tails, etc..."?

If so, the question still remains, where do we draw the line?

If style, run, tails, etc… make for a better dog then certainly we should. I do believe that you should only breed the best to the best. Why would anyone breed to produce an average dog? Not all dogs should be bred, they should be bred if they are worthy of being bred. I think we have too many people these days that only breed dogs to try and turn a profit.

[slistoe]

But, should the best of our breeds and the goal or our breeding programs and our quest for the best dog possible within our breed not include "style, run, tails, etc..."?

If so, the question still remains, where do we draw the line?

If style, run, tails, etc… make for a better dog then certainly we should. I do believe that you should only breed the best to the best. Why would anyone breed to produce an average dog? Not all dogs should be bred, they should be bred if they are worthy of being bred. I think we have too many people these days that only breed dogs to try and turn a profit.

The amount of time that a dog spends actually working/pointing game is extremely small. The vast majority of the time we are simply watching the dogs run/hunt for birds. I certainly consider that a dog more pleasing to the eye while in motion is a better dog.

[ACooper]

So far this is a good post, hope it stays this way.

In reading the posts CJHILLS posts make me think, who's better are we talking about? Your better and my better are probably not the same. The core criteria are probably very similar but I would bet the there are some marked differences as well.

My opinion has always been that the AF pointer and setter folks have it figured out, for the most part they all breed toward the same goal. As far as that goes the britt folks do a great job also with so many DCs. Maybe it is because I have shorthairs but there seems to be far more dissension among the ranks in the GSP world. With HT folks, walking trials, HB trials, Navhda, then the folks chasing duals, or just show dogs.

So who's better are we talking about?

[rkappes]

But, should the best of our breeds and the goal or our breeding programs and our quest for the best dog possible within our breed not include "style, run, tails, etc..."?

If so, the question still remains, where do we draw the line?

If style, run, tails, etc… make for a better dog then certainly we should. I do believe that you should only breed the best to the best. Why would anyone breed to produce an average dog? Not all dogs should be bred, they should be bred if they are worthy of being bred. I think we have too many people these days that only breed dogs to try and turn a profit.

The amount of time that a dog spends actually working/pointing game is extremely small. The vast majority of the time we are simply watching the dogs run/hunt for birds. I certainly consider that a dog more pleasing to the eye while in motion is a better dog.

I agree. I don't really care about killing. I get a kick out of watching the dogs work.

[cjhills]

I have no problem with people have got off the couch and given the trials an honest look and deciding it is not for them and don't like the dogs, but it kind of gets to me when someone has never seen one and decides they aren't bird dogs.

I think maybe non-trial folks decide that trial dogs are not bird dogs because it seems like a lot of trial folks repeatedly talk big runnin’ dogs and a lot of non-trial people don’t care about runnin’ big, they just want a dog that produces birds. I’d say the average hunter or non-trial person just wants a natural hunting dog and doesn’t care about style, run, tails, etc…

It’s probably also hard for a person to fathom a dog running 1,000 yards out, pointing a bird and holding until the hunter arrives, unless witnessed firsthand most people probably don’t believe it’s possible.

That is not my post I'm getting credited with. Although I do basically agree with it.
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

[tommyboy72]

Seems to me that some of the breeds outside of pointers and to some degree setters try and use pointer qualities to quantify whether or not they have superior dogs within their breed. That is not fair to that dog or that breed. Use qualities that are inherant and strong within that breed to quantify whether a particular specimen in that breed should be allowed to reproduce. If you have a lab or gsp or britt or vizla then you should use characteristics for that breed to choose your breeding pairs rather that whether or not they run 1000 yards like a pointer or whether or not they run 25 mph or whether or not they seem to glide when they run. I will use a sports comparison to make my point. Renaldo Nehemia was a world class hurdler, Willie Gault was a world class sprinter, Michael Jordan was a world class NBA multi time champion, Bo Jackson a world class football player but look at their other endeavors. Renaldo Nehemia and Willie Gault were never NFL receivers on the level of Jerry Rice, John Taylor, or Michael Irvin. Michael Jordan is arguably the greatest NBA player of all time but will never compare to Hank Aaron or Cal Ripken in baseball. Bo Jackson was a superb football player but will never compare to Reggie Jackson or Babe Ruth in baseball. There are rare exceptions like in the case of Deion Sanders or Jim Thorpe or bullet Bob Hayes where there are athletes that are superior in both sports they choose to participate but those instances are exceptions to the rule rather than the norm. Choose a breed that fits the venue you wish to trial in and then use traits and characteristics that are inherant and front running in those breeds to evaluate your specifice specimen. JMO and no offense to anyone intended.

[Winchey]

They aren't playing different positions or different sports though. If you are doing coverdog stuff why would you want a different performance between a Britt and Setter? If you are doing AA HB why would you want a different performance between a shorthair nd pointer?

[Middlecreek]

Seems to me that some of the breeds outside of pointers and to some degree setters try and use pointer qualities to quantify whether or not they have superior dogs within their breed. That is not fair to that dog or that breed. Use qualities that are inherant and strong within that breed to quantify whether a particular specimen in that breed should be allowed to reproduce. If you have a lab or gsp or britt or vizla then you should use characteristics for that breed to choose your breeding pairs rather that whether or not they run 1000 yards like a pointer or whether or not they run 25 mph or whether or not they seem to glide when they run. I will use a sports comparison to make my point. Renaldo Nehemia was a world class hurdler, Willie Gault was a world class sprinter, Michael Jordan was a world class NBA multi time champion, Bo Jackson a world class football player but look at their other endeavors. Renaldo Nehemia and Willie Gault were never NFL receivers on the level of Jerry Rice, John Taylor, or Michael Irvin. Michael Jordan is arguably the greatest NBA player of all time but will never compare to Hank Aaron or Cal Ripken in baseball. Bo Jackson was a superb football player but will never compare to Reggie Jackson or Babe Ruth in baseball. There are rare exceptions like in the case of Deion Sanders or Jim Thorpe or bullet Bob Hayes where there are athletes that are superior in both sports they choose to participate but those instances are exceptions to the rule rather than the norm. Choose a breed that fits the venue you wish to trial in and then use traits and characteristics that are inherant and front running in those breeds to evaluate your specifice specimen. JMO and no offense to anyone intended.

I get where your coming from, but its not really the answer to the question I am after. Comparing athletes from the same game comes closer though. Compare Shaq to Larry Bird... both dominated, one from beyond the arc, the other exclusivley inside the paint. They both acomplished the goal, just different ways of going about it in a very tangible, easy to see way.

My question is: where does it say britts(or any other breed) should be slower, less stylish, find less birds, handle less, etc... than any other breed?

Where is the line drawn? What are these often talked about, never explained, differences that our respective breeds should conform to?

[Middlecreek]

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

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?

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?

[Sprigomatic]

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.

[UpNorthHuntin]

Middlecreek I wonder the same thing. I like the variety whithin the pointers, setters, gsp's and britts. But when someone likes playing AA HB stuff with their britt, isn't the goal to play that game as well as the pointers? Makes my head spin when people say it shouldn't be.

No, the goal is to play the game better than any other Brittany. Therein improving the average ability of the gene pool of that breed. Whether that is good enough to beat any other breed is really moot - trialing with Brittanys is not meant to be for improvement of any other breed.

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!!

[Middlecreek]

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.

Spot on post, but we're talking about things on a whole different level...

I should be worried whether or not my dog is the IDEAL Labrador.

Absolutely not!!! You have what you want, and should never let anyone tell you any different. You like what you like, but don't try to tell a pro lab trainer/breeder his entire existance is useless for anything beyond what "your" minimium requirements are

Is this what lab breeders and your breed as a whole should strive for??

"Just give me a dog that's loyal and can bring my duck back to me."

[slistoe]

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.

Spot on post, but we're talking about things on a whole different level...

Is this what lab breeders and your breed as a whole should strive for??

"Just give me a dog that's loyal and can bring my duck back to me."

The trouble is that folks like sprigomatic just take it for granted that "that's just about (if not all) Labradors out there" without any thought as to how that came to be and continues to be. They don't think about such stuff as memory, depth perception and marking ability as traits that can and have been cultivated in selective breeding programs over many generations through trialing formats to come up with dogs that naturally display these things above all other types of dogs.
And, No, it is not just about all Labradors out there. Even at the most basic level of "just get my ducks" there are many Labs that will fall far short of expectations.

[campgsp]

It doesn't say that. And to anyone who thinks pointers and setters are the top of the line dogs your wrong. Every breed is just as good as the rest. If it finds game points flushes it doesn't matter its still a good bird dog. So only a pointer and setter can run out 1000 yards and quarter great? Huh if that's what everyone thinks. I thinks people need to get out and hunt over more breeds. Individual dogs can be and are different. Pj wildfire was mentioned pj was a top big running gsp in the days. My old man competed with him numerous times.

The differences in each breed is what makes each unique. I for one would never co pair my gsp to a pointer or setter. Why? Because its a different breed. What the heck do I caref a pointer points like my Gsp or finds game or has style like them. Its a pointer not something I would breed one of my gsp to or have breed back.

That's the whole point for compairing dogs to dogs to see what attributes a certain dog has that could possibly better the breed of another line but same breed.

I just think everyone is so caught up in the bs politics of the dog world and have forgot the whole point of owning a bird dog. Bird dogs are to find the game for you. To get in the thick stuff so you don't need to. They are first and foremost for hunting. Believe it or not our ancestors made these breeds for that purpose and that purpose only trials hunt test etc are for fun not to make a living.

[Middlecreek]

It doesn't say that. And to anyone who thinks pointers and setters are the top of the line dogs your wrong. Every breed is just as good as the rest. If it finds game points flushes it doesn't matter its still a good bird dog. So only a pointer and setter can run out 1000 yards and quarter great? Huh if that's what everyone thinks. I thinks people need to get out and hunt over more breeds. Individual dogs can be and are different. Pj wildfire was mentioned pj was a top big running gsp in the days. My old man competed with him numerous times.

The differences in each breed is what makes each unique. I for one would never co pair my gsp to a pointer or setter. Why? Because its a different breed. What the heck do I caref a pointer points like my Gsp or finds game or has style like them. Its a pointer not something I would breed one of my gsp to or have breed back.

That's the whole point for compairing dogs to dogs to see what attributes a certain dog has that could possibly better the breed of another line but same breed.

I just think everyone is so caught up in the bs politics of the dog world and have forgot the whole point of owning a bird dog. Bird dogs are to find the game for you. To get in the thick stuff so you don't need to. They are first and foremost for hunting. Believe it or not our ancestors made these breeds for that purpose and that purpose only trials hunt test etc are for fun not to make a living.

I am thouroughly impressed with most of the respnoses on this thread including the one quoted above.

The differences in each breed is what makes each unique. I for one would never co pair my gsp to a pointer or setter. Why? Because its a different breed. What the heck do I caref a pointer points like my Gsp or finds game or has style like them.

Right again, I don't care either comparing breeds, but what are these differences? And why is it so frowned upon to strive for excellence if that means comparing different breeds to do so?

Is it so bad that one might want:
to retrieve like a lab....
point like a pointer....
have the nose of a hound...
have the endurance of a sled dog....
act like a cat in the house....
have the speed of a greyhound...
on and on and on...

If it is improving the breed why inhibit progress??? Where do we draw the line on this progress???

[brad27]

Where do we draw the line on this progress???

You don't. The second you put limits on something is the second you stop making progress.

[Middlecreek]

I just think everyone is so caught up in the bs politics of the dog world and have forgot the whole point of owning a bird dog. Bird dogs are to find the game for you. To get in the thick stuff so you don't need to. They are first and foremost for hunting. Believe it or not our ancestors made these breeds for that purpose and that purpose only trials hunt test etc are for fun not to make a living.

I agree wholeheartedly! But times have changed and we do not rely on them to survive for the most part. They are a luxury, just the same as show cars and race cars are... a seat and four wheels will get you from point a to point b, everything else is luxury. We're talking about what birddogs, as a breed should strive for, and if there are limits..... Where is the line drawn???

[slistoe]

Middlecreek I wonder the same thing. I like the variety whithin the pointers, setters, gsp's and britts. But when someone likes playing AA HB stuff with their britt, isn't the goal to play that game as well as the pointers? Makes my head spin when people say it shouldn't be.

No, the goal is to play the game better than any other Brittany. Therein improving the average ability of the gene pool of that breed. Whether that is good enough to beat any other breed is really moot - trialing with Brittanys is not meant to be for improvement of any other breed.

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!!

The judges are not judging on "what a pointer should do". They are judging on what a bird dog should do - hunt birds. They judge the dogs that are shown to them that day on the relative merits of the individual dogs and how they compare to an ideal for a bird dog. There is no fixed range number that any dog or breed of dog is required to live up to - only that the dog will show the ability to range out and seek for birds. Dogs that are stronger, faster, have more endurance and show greater confidence in their abilities will naturally range more than another dog that is weaker in some of those areas when shown over similar terrain in a similar time frame. 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.

Now, the problem with your 1000 yard dog is that just because a dog has the necessary mental and physical ability to range to 1000 yards does not mean that he should, could or will in any and all circumstances. A good bird dog will hunt the cover that is presented to him in an intelligent manner, as his training and breeding allow. That includes going to 1000 yards if required - and you will find very few Britts that would live up to that.

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. Third, and this is the biggest malarky of the whole thing, is the supposition that the ability to find birds is somehow opposed to the ability to look good while moving and to range out.

[Middlecreek]

Where do we draw the line on this progress???

You don't. The second you put limits on something is the second you stop making progress.

DING DING DING DING!!!!!!!! EXACTLY, EXACTLY, EXACTLY

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.