Retrieving Stakes in Pointing Dog Trials

[Redneck]

It's senseless to argue the field trial dog vs hunting dog because if the owner is happy with his dog that is all that really matters.

Don't agree. As sportsman, we have the privilege to go hunting...but we have the responsibility to take home what we shoot. Personally, I am tired of hunting in ND and having my dogs bring me cold birds someone left behind...happens every year...or seeing wounded ducks out on the ice shelf because dogs couldn't search them up. Wait til the antis get hold of the fact that hunters are afield with dogs that could care less about finding cripples.

Now I'm betting most dogs will retrieve or at the least indicate dead. But, if we want to defend the rights we enjoy, we need to show we are making the effort to recover game...and having a trained dog is a major part of that.

Sportsmanship and killing are not the same thing. I kill a few birds every year for my dogs that enjoy retrieving and my young dogs and everything I kill ends up on the table. I let far more birds fly away to be worked again. A dog that locates a dead or crippled bird but doesnt retrieve it is still ensuring its recovery. As far as your reference to waterfowl its a whole different scenario. A retriever that wont retrieve is akin to a pointer that wont point.

[x Bred Pointer]

Reading all this makes me happy I have the opportunity to compete in coverdog trials where we can trial and hunt the same dogs on wild birds.
Virtually every coverdog champion that I know of is a hunting dog. I'm saddened to hear that is not the case in other venues.

[Hattrick]

Redneck I no they dont shoot birds at FTs and im not trying to change that. I respect all the dog games for what they are. I just feel after a dog finds and points a bird with style it should finished with a powerfull retrieve, to me that is a complete birddog. I will be doing FTs this spring and fall too. I perfer perfection in all aspsects of a fininshed dog maybe a finished dog isnt best for that type of game. I tend to train at a riduclous rate trying to perfect bird manners, maybe its a sickness. However per the thread topic i am for retrieveing in FT events . I think they should judge it tight, it might seperate the good from the great. It just seems on the eastcoast everybody has a FT title on there dogs with that said i havent seen vary many that impressed me around here. ( im not judging from the retrieve either). This may be different out west were the competition is higher. I train with alot FT guys around here and this is just what i've taking from what ive seen. Not all but most. I would luv to train with a few top guys outwest just to see the difference in training and the dogs. Hope i didnt affend anyone an its not going to change any trail rules again its just my 2 cents on what i like to see from a finished dog

[RayGubernat]

I just want to throw this one out there...

In all the years I have been running pointers, I have not had a single one that would not retrieve. Some were better than others and one kinda preferred to point dead, and would occasionally trap a wounded bird under its paws and wait for me, but every single one would retrieve. They all got it done one way or another.

I did have one who was forcibly(e-collar) discouraged from having a bird in its mouth as a youngster. She wa a field trial washout and probably got fried for diving in. She absolutely would not pick up a quail, and never did, but eventually did retrieve the occasional chuckar or pheasant. So even though this dog was forcibly discouraged from mouthing a bird...the instinct was strong enough to resurface.

IF retrieves at trials were all that necessary to keep the skill set alive and vibrant in a pointing breed, then present day pointers and setters should SUCK at retrieving, because there has not been a retrieve requirement for these breeds for a hundred years. My experience is that they don't suck.

The continentals might well be better at retrieving than pointers and setters. I will not argue that because I feel that they SHOULD be.

RayG

RayG

[JKP]

IF retrieves at trials were all that necessary to keep the skill set alive and vibrant in a pointing breed, then present day pointers and setters should SUCK at retrieving, because there has not been a retrieve requirement for these breeds for a hundred years. My experience is that they don't suck.

Ray,
I think most dogs WILL pick up or at least indicate dead. Personally, I don't think any hunting dog should be "crowned" that doesn't show some mastery of retrieving beyond 20 yards on mowed grass. However, we are in a PR war with the forces that would like to take our guns and our dogs, sterilize humans and return nature to the spotted owl. That's what should concern us. The longtail set is very busy showing dogs pointing, they should emphasize the conservation aspect of their dogs as well....we all should. BTW...a few years back, I read the report of a trial where birds were killed on course...where a handler passed on a shot bird because he considered the retrieve to be too difficult. Don't know what the venue was, but that should NEVER happen.

From this discussion, it appears to me folks take too lightly the forces that would rather see you growing vegetables. Its all a PR campaign and we need to understand it.

[Redneck]

Reading all this makes me happy I have the opportunity to compete in coverdog trials where we can trial and hunt the same dogs on wild birds.
Virtually every coverdog champion that I know of is a hunting dog. I'm saddened to hear that is not the case in other venues.

Youve got to appreciate the wild birds. It used to be that way everywhere, but sadly it is not anymore. From South Dakota north, places Nw, some west are about the only places where there are enough wild birds to field trial off horseback anymore. There are places making claims and putting on trials, but invariably the contestants come home disappointed in the bird numbers. Alot of the open trials in the SE claim to have wild birds on the plantations, I havent been there in awhile so I cant comment. Im glad you have the situation you do.

[Grange]

Reading all this makes me happy I have the opportunity to compete in coverdog trials where we can trial and hunt the same dogs on wild birds.
Virtually every coverdog champion that I know of is a hunting dog. I'm saddened to hear that is not the case in other venues.

Ain't that the truth. Put a dog in a trial that isn't a bird dog and you'll be going home without a placement.

[Redneck]

Redneck I no they dont shoot birds at FTs and im not trying to change that. I respect all the dog games for what they are. I just feel after a dog finds and points a bird with style it should finished with a powerfull retrieve, to me that is a complete birddog. I will be doing FTs this spring and fall too. I perfer perfection in all aspsects of a fininshed dog maybe a finished dog isnt best for that type of game. I tend to train at a riduclous rate trying to perfect bird manners, maybe its a sickness. However per the thread topic i am for retrieveing in FT events . I think they should judge it tight, it might seperate the good from the great. It just seems on the eastcoast everybody has a FT title on there dogs with that said i havent seen vary many that impressed me around here. ( im not judging from the retrieve either). This may be different out west were the competition is higher. I train with alot FT guys around here and this is just what i've taking from what ive seen. Not all but most. I would luv to train with a few top guys outwest just to see the difference in training and the dogs. Hope i didnt affend anyone an its not going to change any trail rules again its just my 2 cents on what i like to see from a finished dog

I respect your opinion, and as a hunter, I agree with it. American Field trials do not allow the use of live ammunition, that basically makes retrieving a moot point. It is all about liability issues. Most American Field trialers are concentrating on looking for extreme athletes with superior natural talent, often times the natural retrieve is there as well, it's just not developed because it's not needed in our venue. If you take these super talented dogs, train them along side your avg. bird dog with the same expectations, most times the more talented dog will turn out better. The key to these dogs, which I believe is too often overlooked, is cooperation. If the super talented dog is willing, the limits are endless. Most inexperienced dog people mistake not listening with exuberance - recognize it, and develop it, and you got something special. Give me the hardest going dog there is, and if hes got the willingness, I guarantee I can get him to retrieve - and I dont mean FF. I'll just say that re: retrieving IF you are killing wild birds, hunting dead is a must and retrieving is preferred.

[Winchey]

Reading all this makes me happy I have the opportunity to compete in coverdog trials where we can trial and hunt the same dogs on wild birds.
Virtually every coverdog champion that I know of is a hunting dog. I'm saddened to hear that is not the case in other venues.

Youve got to appreciate the wild birds. It used to be that way everywhere, but sadly it is not anymore. From South Dakota north, places Nw, some west are about the only places where there are enough wild birds to field trial off horseback anymore. There are places making claims and putting on trials, but invariably the contestants come home disappointed in the bird numbers. Alot of the open trials in the SE claim to have wild birds on the plantations, I havent been there in awhile so I cant comment. Im glad you have the situation you do.

Come on out east. 55 Grouse and 22 WC in 14 braces at our Amateur this fall. HB SD Ch out of Strut X Richfield Silver Belle won it.

[Grange]

IF retrieves at trials were all that necessary to keep the skill set alive and vibrant in a pointing breed, then present day pointers and setters should SUCK at retrieving, because there has not been a retrieve requirement for these breeds for a hundred years. My experience is that they don't suck.

Ray,
I think most dogs WILL pick up or at least indicate dead. Personally, I don't think any hunting dog should be "crowned" that doesn't show some mastery of retrieving beyond 20 yards on mowed grass. However, we are in a PR war with the forces that would like to take our guns and our dogs, sterilize humans and return nature to the spotted owl. That's what should concern us. The longtail set is very busy showing dogs pointing, they should emphasize the conservation aspect of their dogs as well....we all should. BTW...a few years back, I read the report of a trial where birds were killed on course...where a handler passed on a shot bird because he considered the retrieve to be too difficult. Don't know what the venue was, but that should NEVER happen.

From this discussion, it appears to me folks take too lightly the forces that would rather see you growing vegetables. Its all a PR campaign and we need to understand it.

So to address this dogs should have to retrieve birds during the trial? That won't help the rest of your argument. Just think how well having a dog retrieve the bird it points especially when the trial is run on wild birds and out of hunting season would go over with the anti-hunting groups and probably a lot of hunters. In WI there is a Championship trial run on the State Threatened Greater Prairie Chicken. Think about having to retrieve a State Threatened bird.

[Redneck]

I just want to throw this one out there...

In all the years I have been running pointers, I have not had a single one that would not retrieve. Some were better than others and one kinda preferred to point dead, and would occasionally trap a wounded bird under its paws and wait for me, but every single one would retrieve. They all got it done one way or another.

I did have one who was forcibly(e-collar) discouraged from having a bird in its mouth as a youngster. She wa a field trial washout and probably got fried for diving in. She absolutely would not pick up a quail, and never did, but eventually did retrieve the occasional chuckar or pheasant. So even though this dog was forcibly discouraged from mouthing a bird...the instinct was strong enough to resurface.

IF retrieves at trials were all that necessary to keep the skill set alive and vibrant in a pointing breed, then present day pointers and setters should SUCK at retrieving, because there has not been a retrieve requirement for these breeds for a hundred years. My experience is that they don't suck.

The continentals might well be better at retrieving than pointers and setters. I will not argue that because I feel that they SHOULD be.

RayG

RayG

Interesting points Ray. In the eighties I trained alot of gun dogs - all breeds. I FF as many labs and continentals as anything else. I also have a pointer bitch that wont retrieve. Raised her from a pup and killed birds over her - never wanted a bird in her mouth unless she killed it! Phenominal bird dog though. Won multiple championships, well over 20 classics, beat 2 Nat. Ch. head to head, and honestly was never outbirded in a trial or training - flat out the best bird dog I've seen in 45 years of hunting, trialing, and training. She just always wants to find more. When I hunted her I always braced her with a dog that was a strong retriever. Interesting point was that she raised 3 litters - ALL natural retrievers.

[ultracarry]

If you do AF trials do you even train to retrieve?

Actually the exact opposite, at least in my case. I DO NOT WANT my dogs to even think about a retrieve in a trial setting.

More likely, some of the continental folks are getting tired of having their clocks cleaned by cross registered pointers and setters at trials they put on. Having more retrieve requirement stakes would serve to exclude those breeds which do not require a retreive or water test to finish. If they have enough dogs to put on a trial with all retrieve requirement stakes...God bless them and they should go for it.

As far as it becoming an across the board AKC requirement I do not see the Brittany, pointers or setters breed clubs agreeing to a required retrieve format for their FC or AFC anytime soon, so that ain't happenin. As mentioned previously, you can forget retrieves in AF or AFTCA stakes. Not gonna happen.

RayG

Goog post, I don't want mine to associate the retrieving in a trial and will kill birds and deter her from wanting to get them. Worked last weekend with 4 limb finds and not even moving to mark.

[slistoe]

Reading all this makes me happy I have the opportunity to compete in coverdog trials where we can trial and hunt the same dogs on wild birds.
Virtually every coverdog champion that I know of is a hunting dog. I'm saddened to hear that is not the case in other venues.

Ain't that the truth. Put a dog in a trial that isn't a bird dog and you'll be going home without a placement.

That holds true for every trial venue.

[slistoe]

Personally, I don't think any hunting dog should be "crowned" that doesn't show some mastery of retrieving beyond 20 yards on mowed grass.

An upland dogs job is to find birds. And they do that well. For the vast majority of situations in upland hunting the actual picking up of the bird and bringing it back to hand is nothing more than a convenience to the hunter - it has ZERO to do with the conservation of game. Sure, some folks will get on here about the chukar over a cliff or the occasional pheasant over an irrigation ditch, but those are exceptions to the millions of birds shot over pointing dogs every year.

If the dog finds birds alive, what makes the bird unfindable by the dog once it is wounded or dead? NOTHING. Good dogs find birds.

[Ms. Cage]

Sorry I disagree. Recovery of game is a big part of conservation. A dog that can track and retrieve cripples is a great asset to any hunter.

[x Bred Pointer]

Reading all this makes me happy I have the opportunity to compete in coverdog trials where we can trial and hunt the same dogs on wild birds.
Virtually every coverdog champion that I know of is a hunting dog. I'm saddened to hear that is not the case in other venues.

Ain't that the truth. Put a dog in a trial that isn't a bird dog and you'll be going home without a placement.

That holds true for every trial venue.

Slistoe, if that is the case, why did you say this in an earlier post?
As a result the superlative field trial dog in operation in that environment bears little resemblance to his working cousin, the bird dog.

I'm confused.

[Buckeye_V]

Why in the h e double hockey sticks would you not want a bird dog to mark the flight of a bird? I have never, ever been able to figure that one out. How does that make for a higher class bird dog? Is it like Paris Hilton walking by you on the street and never batting an eye as she floats by? Higher class, huh? My butt.

I have pictures of a judge. Long tail guy. Judging a continental national championship with retrieving. Watching the dogs feet to make sure it did not mark flight. WTH???? That is about as dumb as they come. A vizslas is supposed to retrieve the freakin bird. Lets just ask the dog to fail by not marking flight. Stupid. Stupid stupid.

I'm not getting into an argument about how much to mark. Thats another topic for another day.

I wish people really did know what in the heck they were looking at. AND most importantly ----- WHY!

[Chukar12]

Why in the h e double hockey sticks would you not want a bird dog to mark the flight of a bird? I have never, ever been able to figure that one out. How does that make for a higher class bird dog? Is it like Paris Hilton walking by you on the street and never batting an eye as she floats by? Higher class, huh? My butt.

I believe this gets completely over blown. For every example that we collectively have for a judge dropping a dog down for a supposed "clean" mark how many times in the thousands of field trials annually is that not the case. There are a number of field trial judges on here and few if any have responded that they do not like a mark. I personally feel there are many varying degrees of that mark that cannot be summed up with phrases as simple as forward movement. The dogs reaction to the flight of the bird, the shot and the heeling or the collaring by the handler is a dynamic time in dog manners. I do not like a dog being picked up for "an aggressive" mark that a reasonable person would find short of a chase...however, there are plenty of situations where you are just flat beat as a trainer and handler because too many of the other factors are close and your dog is steppy, whining and wiggling... It is a subjective look usually only sorted out in the law of large numbers...any given judge can be a tool, but so can we internet hacks....and we don't have to have ANY credentials.

[Winchey]

It would be nice if the people whoknew the most weren't too busy handling, training, doing important things and or worried about pissing off customers particpated on here.

[JKP]

An upland dogs job is to find birds. And they do that well. For the vast majority of situations in upland hunting the actual picking up of the bird and bringing it back to hand is nothing more than a convenience to the hunter - it has ZERO to do with the conservation of game. Sure, some folks will get on here about the chukar over a cliff or the occasional pheasant over an irrigation ditch, but those are exceptions to the millions of birds shot over pointing dogs every year.

Horse feathers!!! I have hunted many areas where a bird could be dug in under your feet....without a dog you would never find it. We must hunt different terrain.

What I hear is a lot of excuses for the most part why retrieving is less important...very interesting.

[ACooper]

It would be nice if the people whoknew the most weren't too busy handling, training, doing important things and or worried about pissing off customers particpated on here.

Now who could argue with this! I know several very knowledgable folks that read but do not post, they don't have time or tolerance for an Internet pissing match.

[Gordon Guy]

Though this conversation string has nothing to do with my original questions I'll still add a comment or two

I believe the "point" haha Slistoe was making (I could be wrong) is that retrieving and finding the birds/game conservation are two similiar but different things

Retrieving = a dog finding, picking up, and bringing the bird to the handler. The convenience part of this is "Bringing it back."

Finding the birds = A dog pointing and finding a shot bird, standing over it until the handler picks it up.

Other than semantics, ethically I don't see a difference. Both birds are in possession. One is a matter of personal preference

[fuzznut]

I don't know anyone with the continental breeds that trial who don't want the dogs to have to prove their retrieving abilities.

The problem is how to do it so it makes the most sense. We all hate callbacks. Kill on course is impossible to do on so many of the courses we use.

I've seen so many dogs that had near perfect runs taken down by messed up call back situations, and lesser dogs walking into the points because of it.

I'm all for our dogs retrieving!!!!! My dogs must do it and do it naturally. But I've come to figure out that in most trials it's nothing more then a pain in the butt and proves very little in the bigger picture.

There has to be a way to make it better.
Dual

[dan v]

There was a movement afoot to institute a Retrieving Certificate....but as I understand, the GSPCA didn't care for the idea.

[JKP]

I think killing birds on the course would also allow dogs to show that they are steady to the Fall as well. The bird hitting the ground offers a whole new level of stimulus to the hard charging dog.

[Buckeye_V]

I am not going to debate marking here. Different topic for a different time. The point was you can't judge retrieving if you don't expect your own danged dog to do it or even know what it would or should look like.

I hunted with AKC rep this past fall. He shot a bird that was wounded. Had my POS retrieving dog not been on the scene that bird would have never been in the pot that night. Period and end of story. I'll fight like heck to make sure bird dogs actually have to retrieve the shot bird as long as I am kicking.

I guess if I am for any change if it is going to make the retrieving requirement better and not worse or more diluted. There I am done now.

[Moulders Farm]

I though every one looking for a hunting dog wouted a complet bird dog the field trailes most talked about you need a gray hound if all you wont is to see it run I wont a dog that finds every bird in the field if possible ,points , backs then retreave to hand every bird I kill . that is the hunting compain I wont in the field with me one that hunts for me not one I have no hunt for .

[dan v]

I guess if I am for any change if it is going to make the retrieving requirement better and not worse or more diluted. There I am done now.

That's all well and good, but you have to get the non-ret breeds on board then as well. And the FC standards in the retrieving dept are the domain of the breed club.

[Gordon Guy]

I don't know anyone with the continental breeds that trial who don't want the dogs to have to prove their retrieving abilities.

The problem is how to do it so it makes the most sense. We all hate callbacks. Kill on course is impossible to do on so many of the courses we use.

I've seen so many dogs that had near perfect runs taken down by messed up call back situations, and lesser dogs walking into the points because of it.

I'm all for our dogs retrieving!!!!! My dogs must do it and do it naturally. But I've come to figure out that in most trials it's nothing more then a pain in the butt and proves very little in the bigger picture.

There has to be a way to make it better.
Dual

That's great that your dog has a natural retrieve, but can the judge tell the difference in a call back?

If trials are to meant to determine the best breeding stock for future trial/hunting dogs it doesn't make sense that we're measuring something (retrieving) in which the retrieve can be completely manipulated?

Maybe there is a better way!

[dan v]

Maybe there is a better way!

Sure there is....it's done in the breedings and then personal experience of the dogs. Having me judge a retrieving stake does one thing, "Yep, he stood, he waited until sent, and brought the bird back." That's it. I have no idea if the ret is natural or FF'd....nor do I care. I'm not there to speculate.

[slistoe]

Ain't that the truth. Put a dog in a trial that isn't a bird dog and you'll be going home without a placement.

That holds true for every trial venue.

Slistoe, if that is the case, why did you say this in an earlier post?
As a result the superlative field trial dog in operation in that environment bears little resemblance to his working cousin, the bird dog.

I'm confused.

Because you need to be a bird dog - and then some. It is the expression of the "then some" that removes the trial environment from the utilitarian bird dog environment. Depending on the venue the differences may be more noticeable than others.

[slistoe]

Sorry I disagree. Recovery of game is a big part of conservation. A dog that can track and retrieve cripples is a great asset to any hunter.

A dog that can track and find cripples is an asset to any hunter. Picking them up and returning with them so the hunter does not have to walk over there and pick them up themselves is immaterial to the recovery of game or the conservation question - obscure scenarios aside.

[slistoe]

An upland dogs job is to find birds. And they do that well. For the vast majority of situations in upland hunting the actual picking up of the bird and bringing it back to hand is nothing more than a convenience to the hunter - it has ZERO to do with the conservation of game. Sure, some folks will get on here about the chukar over a cliff or the occasional pheasant over an irrigation ditch, but those are exceptions to the millions of birds shot over pointing dogs every year.

Horse feathers!!! I have hunted many areas where a bird could be dug in under your feet....without a dog you would never find it. We must hunt different terrain.

What I hear is a lot of excuses for the most part why retrieving is less important...very interesting.

Read much? Who said you shouldn't have a dog find the bird that is dug in under your feet? That is the dogs job - find the bird. Horse feathers to you to with your comprehension skills.

[JKP]

Amazing...1000 yd dogs are defended with the reasoning that the dog does the running so the hunter doesn't have to. But when it comes to the retrieve....if a cripple is 100 yds away, the dog doesn't need to get it.

Sounds like there just may be some retrieving issues

[slistoe]

The original question - there are certain breeds who are concerned with the loss of retrieve in breeding stock so have insisted that a dog demonstrate the ability to retrieve to achieve a FC title. For a variety or reasons this is accomplished with a callback at the end of the stake for most trials. Is it a necessity? As I and Ray have pointed out the experience of over 100 years of Pointer breeding would suggest that the original premise is false for the level of retrieving that is being tested for in Pointing Dog Field Trials and for Pointing Dog upland work in general. That alone would suggest that the inclusion of the retrieve for getting a FC title is a fruitless exercise. The desire to have a bird in the mouth is so intrinsic to all other motivators that drive high level performances of bird dogs that even when we encounter the odd specimen who does not exhibit the desire it will likely have little effect on future generations - as evidenced by the anecdote of one in this thread which I hear repeated many times.
Now, if what the GSP, GWP etc. breed clubs are concerned with is the actual ability to be a retriever then the inclusion of a retrieve in an upland hunt scenario of a field trial (which is akin to the expectation of performance of a 3 month old Lab prospect) is rather pointless as well. If they are concerned with retaining those things that make up a "retriever" they will need to institute an actual test of memory, marking and handling against factors of distance, time and terrain because no matter how you rework the "retrieve" in an upland trial/test scenario you will never find out anything about whether the dog is a "retriever" or not.

[slistoe]

Amazing...1000 yd dogs are defended with the reasoning that the dog does the running so the hunter doesn't have to. But when it comes to the retrieve....if a cripple is 100 yds away, the dog doesn't need to get it.

Sounds like there just may be some retrieving issues

Sounds like some wishful thinking on your part so you don't have to open your mind to the real issue.
I did have one dog that would not retrieve - got her as a 2 year old that was bird shy and gun shy both of which we worked through - but I never lost a shot bird when she was on the ground. Of the dozens of upland dogs I have owned over the years only one would play fetch - never ever bothered with any of the others to even try. Without exception, every single one of those dogs would retrieve shot birds, every time, all the time.
And we have chased wounded birds for over 1/2 mile to make a recovery, so horse puckey to your measley 100 yards.

[JKP]

"retrieve" in an upland trial/test scenario you will never find out anything about whether the dog is a "retriever" or not.

With that kind of reasoning, we would never know if a dog is a natural pointer or not...or if a dog could hold wild birds....or if a trainer put birds in the hedgerow 500 yds away to train a dog to reach. I'm stretching the point, but your reasoning sounds stretched...if we have to train it, how do we know if its true???

My reasoning is that in today's world we need to make it plain that recovering shot game is a priority. A lot of venues don't do that.

[dan v]

My reasoning is that in today's world we need to make it plain that recovering shot game is a priority. A lot of venues don't do that.

No venue tests that. To my knowledge there is no event that actively shoots wild birds. None.

[slistoe]

My reasoning is that in today's world we need to make it plain that recovering shot game is a priority. A lot of venues don't do that.

No venue tests that. To my knowledge there is no event that actively shoots wild birds. None.

Let alone one that would purposely wound a wild bird, allow it to escape and then see whether the dog could find and fetch it or not. (How is that for a stretch JKP?)

[Hattrick]

If the cripple hits the ground an dont go in a hole my dog will bring it back to hand every time prowd as could be too

[Hattrick]

Dang it ! Nobody took the bait:)

This for the most part has been a really good tread so its a good time to close it.

[Saddle]

With that kind of reasoning, we would never know if a dog is a natural pointer or not...or if a dog could hold wild birds....or if a trainer put birds in the hedgerow 500 yds away to train a dog to reach. I'm stretching the point, but your reasoning sounds stretched...if we have to train it, how do we know if its true???

My reasoning is that in today's world we need to make it plain that recovering shot game is a priority. A lot of venues don't do that.

You don't teach dogs to run big they either do it on their own or they don't. You teach them where to run. Do you teach your dogs to point? I wasn't aware that was a viable option.

[slistoe]

With that kind of reasoning, we would never know if a dog is a natural pointer or not...or if a dog could hold wild birds....or if a trainer put birds in the hedgerow 500 yds away to train a dog to reach. I'm stretching the point, but your reasoning sounds stretched...if we have to train it, how do we know if its true???

My reasoning is that in today's world we need to make it plain that recovering shot game is a priority. A lot of venues don't do that.

You don't teach dogs to run big they either do it on their own or they don't. You teach them where to run. Do you teach your dogs to point? I wasn't aware that was a viable option.

Good luck Saddle.

[Neil]

They all will retrieve, there is no need to test for it,

Only the very best will properly hunt dead, search and make a difficult retrieve, and I don't know of a way to fairly test for that.

[RayGubernat]

Why in the h e double hockey sticks would you not want a bird dog to mark the flight of a bird? I have never, ever been able to figure that one out. How does that make for a higher class bird dog? Is it like Paris Hilton walking by you on the street and never batting an eye as she floats by? Higher class, huh? My butt.

I have pictures of a judge. Long tail guy. Judging a continental national championship with retrieving. Watching the dogs feet to make sure it did not mark flight. WTH???? That is about as dumb as they come. A vizslas is supposed to retrieve the freakin bird. Lets just ask the dog to fail by not marking flight. Stupid. Stupid stupid.

I'm not getting into an argument about how much to mark. Thats another topic for another day.

I wish people really did know what in the heck they were looking at. AND most importantly ----- WHY!

It is far, far easier to ding a dog for this or that and knock it out of contention in your mind rather than to look for the positives and try to look for the most positives. Negative judging is easy, by comparison, and more easily defended by the judge because there is a "deficiency" that can be readily pointed to. The dog "did " this or didn't do "that".

I believe a good deal of the confusion about marking comes to be simply because some of the folks that are sitting in the judicial saddles are not experienced hunters. It also comes to be because often a trial dog is not hunted while being campaigned, and therefore is not expected, or even "corrected", for marking.

ANY hunter knows that a GOOD bird dog can be expected to mark, and SHOULD mark, because, once the hunter kills the bird, the dog is going to be asked to go get it.

I have never knocked a dog for marking as long as there was no forward progress toward the bird. Don't think you should.

RayG

[slistoe]

I have never knocked a dog for marking as long as there was no forward progress toward the bird. Don't think you should.

RayG

I have never personally encountered a situation where a dog was knocked for a movement to mark. I have seen a great number of times where handlers have bemoaned how they were mistreated by a judge on a "movement to mark". A dog bolting forward towards a bird in plain view, stopping on the fourth bellering of "WHOA" does not qualify as movement to mark.

[RayGubernat]

I have never knocked a dog for marking as long as there was no forward progress toward the bird. Don't think you should.

RayG

I have never personally encountered a situation where a dog was knocked for a movement to mark. I have seen a great number of times where handlers have bemoaned how they were mistreated by a judge on a "movement to mark". A dog bolting forward towards a bird in plain view, stopping on the fourth bellering of "WHOA" does not qualify as movement to mark.

Funny you should say that. I have actually and although it did not happen to me or my dog, I didn't agree with it and noted the judge. When judging I have had a handller look up with innocent eyes and ask if that sideways leap toward the flying bird, complete with with snapping jaws... was too much. It is sometimes hard to keep a straight face.

I do use the criterion, "no significant forward progress toward the bird". Happy feet, even a step...I'm OK with that, but not a whole lot more.

RayG

[UpNorthHuntin]

Ezzy

The "hunt" is about finding the game, the retrieve is about recovering the game. Any poodle can retrieve. While I agree that a complete hunting dog will retrieve, it is only a small part of the total picture and is not the definition of "superior hunting skills." It's senseless to argue the field trial dog vs hunting dog because if the owner is happy with his dog that is all that really matters. The difference between the two is that any field trial winner can be hunted, but most average hunting dogs cant win a field trial.[/quote]


I agree with this![/quote]

But why the disparity. I haven't been to a trial yet, but I intend to this spring. My question though is why do we create the disparity between a "Trial" dog and a "Hunting" Dog. The simple truth is that all upland bird breeds were bred to hunt. The two main purposes for using a dog in the first place are finding more game, and maybe even more importantly game preservation. The biggest piece of that game preservation element is a dog that can successfully find dead game and retrieve it safely to the handler. In most of the Grouse Woods in particular that I hunt in Northern Michigan, without a dog that can successfully locate and retrieve dead birds, I would never find half of them. I just don't understand why that element is not as important as any other? My dog can be as stylish as any other, but IMHO if he can't find and return my shot birds to me then he isn't a truly outstanding bird dog.

[slistoe]

I took a placement one time with significant forward movement, and had I been the judge I would have given credit as well. On her 3rd bird, dog was buried 10 ft inside cover with grass over my waist. I went in to flush and the bird left from the open edge flying across the field. At the shot, the dog went straight forward two bounds to break the edge of grass and locked up, leaning hard forward into the bird flight. I looked at the judge, he gave the OK and we carried on.

Had my dog not stopped upon breaking the edge she would have got a whoa on the first movement outside the cover and a leash on her collar - I wouldn't have bothered to ask the judge his opinion.

[slistoe]

But why the disparity...... The two main purposes for using a dog in the first place are finding more game, and maybe even more importantly game preservation. The biggest piece of that game preservation element is a dog that can successfully find dead game and retrieve it safely to the handler. In most of the Grouse Woods in particular that I hunt in Northern Michigan, without a dog that can successfully locate and retrieve dead birds, I would never find half of them. I just don't understand why that element is not as important as any other? My dog can be as stylish as any other, but IMHO if he can't find and return my shot birds to me then he isn't a truly outstanding bird dog.

The primary element of success at hunting is finding the game. So you get a dog that has shown it has an excellent aptitude for finding game. The primary element of game preservation after the shot is finding the game. You already have a dog that has shown it has an excellent aptitude for finding game. I don't understand why you think there are two elements here? There is no disparity.