Gun Dog Forum

Here's a topic id like to hear opinions on:
What do you feel about a dog trainer (for hunting and hunt tests/field trials) that doesn't hunt?
I know a few, but i know some people stay away from those people (with good reason) because how good of a trainer can he/she be if they don't hunt??

I understand going to hunt tests/trials is a hobby, and some people train dogs only for that reason, although I never will.
I suppose id just like to hear some opinions, no hard feelings intended.
Isaac and Banks

Hunting and trialling are separate. You do not need to be a successful hunter to be a successful trialer.

It depends very much what you want out of your dog. If you want a hunting dog then you likely ought to go to a hunting trainer, if you want a FT/HT dog you better look to a HT FT trainer. There is very little about a retriever FT that really resembles hunting. I worked labs with a couple guys who were big into FTs and while their dogs were workable hunting dogs, I seriously doubt most hunting dogs could compete at a retriever FT.

I wouldn't have any issue sending a hunting dog to a non hunting pro whether it was a retriever or a pointing dog. Experience makes a hunting dog, training makes it a little prettier to see.

Jim

I think it makes no difference. Concept is the same.

I would guess that most dog trainers who do not hunt, have....their reasons for not hunting may range from local/regional conditions to age to bigger names on other lines.
Irregardless, as they say around here, it is none of my business and use of any trainer's services should be based upon results sufficient to willingly allow a billfold to flop open.

Training a dog has nothing to do with hunting. There is nothing about hunting that will help you understand the dog training process any better.

If you wanted to rail on folks judging the application of trained dogs in tests and trials when they have no practical hunting experience then that would be a different matter.

I am not so sure about that. 95% of my training is hunting with a blank gun. You couldn't really finish a wild bird dog without running it and hinting wild birds IMO. There are all sorts of things a non hunting trainer can train a hunting dog to do though.

As for judging I agree 100%

Taking a dog for a run in the bush with a blank gun does not constitute hunting. Any dog trainer can do that and still not call themselves a "hunter".

I have to disagree with some of what was said. I think in order to finish a "Hunting" dog you need to train in and hunt over it on wild birds, not pigeons or pen raised birds.
We all know a wild bird will have more tricks up its sleeve than a pen raised one.
I think experience is a big portion of the training process
Isaac and Banks

Double Shot Banks wrote:I have to disagree with some of what was said. I think in order to finish a "Hunting" dog you need to train in and hunt over it on wild birds, not pigeons or pen raised birds.
We all know a wild bird will have more tricks up its sleeve than a pen raised one.
I think experience is a big portion of the training process

Good lord...does not the dog owner have some responsibility in the training and, especially, the ongoing training process?
It's apparent that a bit much may be expected from any Trainer.

Experience, few would argue it's importance, can also fall second to simply finding a bird.
Often, there is simply a great deal of luck involved and luck with the particular habitat in which each bird is found.
Handling a found bird though, dependent upon specie, can be easy or ...less than easy but there is precious little rocket science to bird hunting.

The difference between wild and pen-raised varies.
Young wild birds can be as dumb as a box of rocks and a pen-raised bird released for a while can juke and jive with the best of them.
Generalizations are, generally, a bad foundation.
Post-trainer, the hunter's responsibility continues.

Double Shot Banks wrote:I have to disagree with some of what was said. I think in order to finish a "Hunting" dog you need to train in and hunt over it on wild birds, not pigeons or pen raised birds.
We all know a wild bird will have more tricks up its sleeve than a pen raised one.
I think experience is a big portion of the training process
Isaac and Banks

+1

I believe young Isaac is wise beyond his years with this statement. It may not be derived from personal experience, but it's true nonetheless.

In my experience with hunt testing there are people who hunt their dogs because they are into hunt tests, and people who run hunt tests because they enjoy hunting their dog. The two are not necessarily the same, and often have different motivation. There are many good hunt test dogs out there that have very little experience with wild game, particularly when it comes to upland birds.

There are certainly some good trainers out there who are far more committed to hunt testing than hunting. It doesn't mean they can't train a dog to hunt wild birds, but the hunt tests are where they make money.

That said, I think that a lot of good can come of training your dog for hunt tests. There is a high level of obedience required, and the dog must be able to perform without the aid of electronics. Hunt test people can help you train your dog to a higher level. They have the equipment to assist you in training, and are normally very willing and able to give you good tips.

Nate

I wouldn't trust a trainer who doesn't hunt. I'd wonder whether that trainer has a passion for what he does or if it's just a job. If you have a passion for dog work, it seem like you'd want to see your dogs perform on the real thing.

I think in order to finish a "Hunting" dog you need to train in and hunt over it on wild birds, not pigeons or pen raised birds.

The pen raised serve a purpose, the yare used on puppies, not 1 year old dogs proper use of training materials is important. If the dog never really hunts is it still a hunting dog? I mean only runs field trials on pen raised birds.

Are we talking about running trials, or are we talking about training? Taking a dog hunting is not training. It is hunting. Allowing a dog to find birds in the wild is not training, it is experience. You do not train a dog to hunt, you allow it to. Training is teaching the dog how we wish it to behave in various contexts. In regards to hunting, the training we need to instill are obedience commands and behavior once birds are found. Those are trained in the yard and transitioned to the field, but the actual training of the command has nothing to do with the actual act of hunting. Classical obedience and manners on birds can be trained by anyone who knows how to train dogs regardless of whether they hunt themselves or not. By contrast there are a myriad of folks who hunt a great deal with dogs who can't train a dog even the simplest of useful commands.

Proper education 1st, then apply for the job. Even with a masters degree the graduate still has to prove itself on the job. A solid foundation is a must though imo.. Talking dogs not people but it can be the same. I hunt very little now but stay busy training dogs for clients that hunt. I can't take off from my job to go hunting often and to be honest I would rather be training dogs than hunting. We each evolve differently .. Its all about the dogs for me now, not how many birds I can kill, I got over that phase years ago.

Mo

slistoe wrote:Are we talking about running trials, or are we talking about training? Taking a dog hunting is not training. It is hunting. Allowing a dog to find birds in the wild is not training, it is experience. You do not train a dog to hunt, you allow it to. Training is teaching the dog how we wish it to behave in various contexts. In regards to hunting, the training we need to instill are obedience commands and behavior once birds are found. Those are trained in the yard and transitioned to the field, but the actual training of the command has nothing to do with the actual act of hunting. Classical obedience and manners on birds can be trained by anyone who knows how to train dogs regardless of whether they hunt themselves or not. By contrast there are a myriad of folks who hunt a great deal with dogs who can't train a dog even the simplest of useful commands.

I should have waited a few minutes to post.. Your post covers it well Scott

Mo

slistoe wrote:Taking a dog for a run in the bush with a blank gun does not constitute hunting. Any dog trainer can do that and still not call themselves a "hunter".

It is one in the same to me. Only difference is I carry a longer gun that actually shoots and get a little more excited and screw up the enforcement and training a little bit.

I don't see how running a dog through a field full of pigeons or planted quail is training and running a dog through a cover full of grouse and woodcock is not?

"Allowing a dog to find birds in the wild is not training, it is experience. You do not train a dog to hunt, you allow it to. Training is teaching the dog how we wish it to behave in various contexts."

Regardless of which gun I have I am teaching and enforcing how I wish the dog to behave in various context.

If I don't know anything, and I am sending a dog to a trainer, depending on what I want from the trainer, I would hope at least that he has hunted a fair amount, I don't care if he hunts anymore, but I would hope he knows what a good hunting dog is, I don't know how you could learn what a good hunting dog is if you never hunted, or at least run dogs on wild birds.

If I want him to teach my dog whoa, come, break him on pigeons, FF than ya I agree, it doesn't matter much if he is a hunter or not.

Winchey wrote:
If I don't know anything, and I am sending a dog to a trainer, depending on what I want from the trainer, I would hope at least that he has hunted a fair amount,

And what do you envision that the trainer who has hunted is going to do differently with your dog than the one who has not?

It depends what I sent him there for. Like I said, if I just want him broke on pigeons and whoa broke or ff'd I don't really care. If I want him developed as a wild bird dog or wild bird trial dog I want him out there running it on wild birds and I don't know how someone who has never hunted or run on wild birds is going to do a decent job or be able to tell me if I have a jam up hunting dog or trial prospect on my hands.

I think a lot of folks are internet pros. Anyone can sound like they know everything online. Winchey is taking heat for mainly using a blank gun but his dog(s) is probably better than 80% of other people's dogs on here.

Winchey wrote:It depends what I sent him there for. Like I said, if I just want him broke on pigeons and whoa broke or ff'd I don't really care. If I want him developed as a wild bird dog or wild bird trial dog I want him out there running it on wild birds and I don't know how someone who has never hunted or run on wild birds is going to do a decent job or be able to tell me if I have a jam up hunting dog or trial prospect on my hands.

So we've come full circle.

CDN_Cocker wrote:Winchey is taking heat for mainly using a blank gun but his dog(s) is probably better than 80% of other people's dogs on here.

What thread are you reading?

I think some things have gotten lost here.... In the original post the OP it talking about non hunting FT/HT trainers. the fact is, like Mo said, you send a young dog to a trainer to learn a specific set of skills. Whether that is FF, Breaking a pointing dog, or teaching a lab blind retrieves. Once your dog knows what it has gone to learn it is up to the owner to apply these skills to what they are going to do with the dog.

The fact is there is very little about the mechanics of training specific skill that require a hunting background.

You don't have to have ever handled a shotgun or shot a bird to teach a lab blind retrieves. you don't have to have ever been to the piney woods of GA to break a bird dog to stand through the fall. I have no issue with a trainer that has never hunted. I WILL HUNT MY DOG.

You know what they say, Those who cant do, teach......
Jim

Maurice wrote:Proper education 1st, then apply for the job. Even with a masters degree the graduate still has to prove itself on the job. A solid foundation is a must though imo.. Talking dogs not people but it can be the same. I hunt very little now but stay busy training dogs for clients that hunt. I can't take off from my job to go hunting often and to be honest I would rather be training dogs than hunting. We each evolve differently .. Its all about the dogs for me now, not how many birds I can kill, I got over that phase years ago.

Mo

Could you be as good of a trainer if you didnt spend the boot leather following good dogs on wild birds? Learning what makes the good ones good, figuring what traits are important, etc.

Someone once told me you cant bs an old southern quail hunter.

I did not send my dog to the pro I used so he could take him hunting, I sent him there to break him. Its my job to take my dog hunting and provide exposure, not the trainers. Unless that is something that you agreed on before hand.

I would sure be upset if I sent my dog 3500 miles to the praries and all they did was break him.

Winchey wrote:I would sure be upset if I sent my dog 3500 miles to the praries and all they did was break him.

So part of the breaking process involves proofing the dog on wild birds with a blank gun. Anyone that is familiar with the expected behavior of the dog on birds can do that. What does it have to do with hunting? My 10 year old daughter would take the blank with her when she went for a walk with one of the broke dogs just in case they found a bird so she could flush and blank it. It made here feel important - like a dog trainer. She still does not/will not "hunt" at 27 years of age, but I would bet she would be as capable as anyone of training a hunting dog for those things we train.

Are you sending your dog for training or do you want evaluation?

I believe it was Wehle that I first hear say, "I have a lot more use for a live bird than a dead one."

At the time I did not understand, at 66 and thousands of birds killed - I get it.

Fully agree with the comments about judges. If they have not done it, they cannot evaluate it. That's a fact.

Are you saying that if I had a dog on the major AA circuit that it would make no difference if I sent him to Manitoba for the summer with your daughter or Colvin Davis so long as he was broke?

slistoe wrote:

Winchey wrote:I would sure be upset if I sent my dog 3500 miles to the praries and all they did was break him.

So part of the breaking process involves proofing the dog on wild birds with a blank gun. Anyone that is familiar with the expected behavior of the dog on birds can do that. What does it have to do with hunting? My 10 year old daughter would take the blank with her when she went for a walk with one of the broke dogs just in case they found a bird so she could flush and blank it. It made here feel important - like a dog trainer. She still does not/will not "hunt" at 27 years of age, but I would bet she would be as capable as anyone of training a hunting dog for those things we train.

Are you sending your dog for training or do you want evaluation?

Exactly. Sometimes a good trainer can no longer have a real gun for good reasons.

Colvin Davis has a proven track record. Is that because he is a hunter? Is he a hunter?

Because he has probably done his fair share of hunting and has run and seen many good dogs run on wild birds and knows what they are supposed to do and can help them reach their potential. There is more to it than following around with a blank gun. My dogs are broke, if I let my brother follow them with a blank gun for me they wouldn't be broke very long.

Breaking a dog and then letting it do what it wants in the wild are just 2 parts of training.

Most trainers or FT handlers make their money winning trials or training dogs, not taking dogs hunting. My dog was in Colorado for 3 months last summer, not a lot of wild bird hunting happening. But I take him hunting all the time, and he does great. And he is broke, so mission accomplished.

Winchey wrote:I would sure be upset if I sent my dog 3500 miles to the praries and all they did was break him.

That would be something you discussed with the trainer you choose, not something that all successful dog trainers must do. My dog was in Colorado all summer being broke, which is all I wanted. Dead broke. Could care less about wild birds at that time, was just working on him standing birds.

It takes me a lot longer for my dogs to be capable hunters by my standard than it does for me to break/train them to run in a trial. However, after they are broke my part in the training is so limited it is almost immeasurable. I do generalize their behaviors and apply discipline in new scenarios to reinforce what they have been taught, usually during and after the flush or shot, but I cannot recall a single thing I do that qualifies as an applied action by me under the category "teaching or training them to hunt." If you do too much fussing, hacking and training prior to the flush on wild birds you weaken the advantage the dog gains from having exposure to them.

The original poster was wondering the importance of a trainer being a hunter. In most cases I will summarize by saying it is not important, not nearly as important as their understanding of dogs first and their clients needs and priorities second. Most upland hunters' dogs break after the flush or shot, given enough time on wild birds, most dogs reach this discipline level of their own accord, most upland hunters of this ilk consider the key components to their dogs training what I call the three R's in this order....Recall, Range and Retrieve. I will go further and say that even a two year old dog owned by a hunter and given to a trainer for breaking in a 90, 120 or 180 day program will default to being un-broke by the trainers standard after a season under the owners gun. (this is of course a generality).

Over the years I believe a hunting dog and a trial dog improve their own skills with experience. The requirements placed on them in their hunt and their bird contact play a role in their discipline and behavior, and I believe we can take the hunt out of a dog but we cannot train it in. If you could find a trainer that claims to be a wild bird only trainer, and that they will finish your hunting dog, you had better be willing to leave the dog for 3 or 4 years, and if you want them top shelf in multiple species and geographies, be prepared to pay for travel. It will take that long to provide the exposure that will differentiate the dog, and at least that long to get the right set-ups to apply the discipline needed to break the dog.

Winchey wrote:My dogs are broke, if I let my brother follow them with a blank gun for me they wouldn't be broke very long.

He must not be much of a hunter then eh?

Mine never came unbroke with a 10 year old girl following them with a blank gun - why was that?

Elk I am not debating that. I am just saying that there are more things to do then break a dog. I have already said that if I just want him broke, or taught here, then it matters little. For some purposes of sending a dog to a trainer then it does matter.

That said, I will probably never send a dog to a trainer, unless I was able to tag along the whole time he was being worked, and pick the trainers brain and watch. I enjoy doing it myself and you learn a lot doing it yourself.

Chukar, it depends on how many wild birds you can get a dog into, it shouldn't take long at all to break a dog on wild birds if you have the birds and the dog is ready. I would still prefer to make any mishaps, or any negative experiences on pigeons first rather than wild birds though.


"He must not be much of a hunter then eh?

Mine never came unbroke with a 10 year old girl following them with a blank gun - why was that?"

He doesn't pay attention, and doesn't care. If they were so broke they could be run on birds all year with zero maintainance, that is some dog imo.

Winchey wrote:Chukar, it depends on how many wild birds you can get a dog into, it shouldn't take long at all to break a dog on wild birds if you have the birds and the dog is ready. I would still prefer to make any mishaps, or any negative experiences on pigeons first rather than wild birds though.

But the point is if we are only working on the disciplines of standing, backing, retrieving, etc... in 90, 120 or 180 days of hour a day training what difference do the wild birds make?

That does not make a hunting dog where I need one, it takes a lot more time than that and I don't have much to do with the hunting part, that is all between the birds, the dogs and their schedule, I am along for the ride.

Double Shot Banks wrote:Here's a topic id like to hear opinions on:
What do you feel about a dog trainer (for hunting and hunt tests/field trials) that doesn't hunt?
I know a few, but i know some people stay away from those people (with good reason) because how good of a trainer can he/she be if they don't hunt??

I understand going to hunt tests/trials is a hobby, and some people train dogs only for that reason, although I never will.
I suppose id just like to hear some opinions, no hard feelings intended.
Isaac and Banks

If the client has the intention to do Hunt tests I would advise them to go to the top Hunt Test handler/Trainer that suits their style and type of dog and that the client is comfortable with the way they train both the dog and owner.
If the client has the intention to do Field Trials I would advise them to go to the top Field trial handler/trainer that suits their style and type of dog and that the client is comfortable with the way they train both the dog and owner.
If the client has the intention of only hunting the dog and not entering tests/trials I would advise them to go to the top hunter with their style of dog and that the client is comfortable with the way they train both the dog and the owner.
.........
If the client has the intention of doing more than one or all three I would advise them to go to someone that has experience of all three that suits their style and type of dog and that the client is comfortable with.
........
Hunt tests/trials are more than a hobby to someone who trains other peoples dogs for this and charges money for it. It's a business. If it Isn't ,then it has no value.
Trainers are only as good as the last dog they trained for a client. So I would further advise anyone contemplating any of the above to 'talk to the last client'?

http://www.polmaisegundogs.co.uk/

1) Training a hunting dog has absolutely nothing to do with being a hunter.

2)"Finishing a "Hunting" dog has to be done on wild birds" is a ridiculous statement as well and may be one of the most ridiculous statements I have heard on this forum. A finished hunting dog performs as a member of a team that hunts. What do wild birds have to do with training when a dog my never hunt over a wild bird? Learning to stand or point or sit at the scent of a bird so the hunter can flush it and kill it is what a good hunting upland dog does in my opinion. Sitting patiently in a blind is what a great retriever does in my opinion.

3)The greatest dog trainers are not great because they are hunters. Instead they have spent their time learning dog psychology. How to handle a soft dog vs a knucklehead. What will make the dog successful. Their motivation may have been hunting or field trialling or hunt tests. But they have spent hours learning their craft. Methods of how to put a dog in situations that the dog can learn from.

Great Hunting dogs come from breeding, environment and tons of exposure to what you want to teach them. Some will learn quicker than others.

Chukar12 wrote:

Winchey wrote:Chukar, it depends on how many wild birds you can get a dog into, it shouldn't take long at all to break a dog on wild birds if you have the birds and the dog is ready. I would still prefer to make any mishaps, or any negative experiences on pigeons first rather than wild birds though.

But the point is if we are only working on the disciplines of standing, backing, retrieving, etc... in 90, 120 or 180 days of hour a day training what difference do the wild birds make?

That does not make a hunting dog where I need one, it takes a lot more time than that and I don't have much to do with the hunting part, that is all between the birds, the dogs and their schedule, I am along for the ride.

You are going to have a dog that is learning to hunt and handle wild birds at the same time as learning those other things. I agree though, there are more efficient, time and cost effective ways of doing it.

I think there is more to 'training' than obedience and steadying, which is the reason why I want someone that knows good bird dogs inside and out, the kind of experience that is gained through a lot of experience with good dogs on wild game. For those that have the resources, vacation and bird population to provide the necessary experience and exposure at the right time, it might not be as big of a deal. I am not that fortunate. It was 97 here today, will be 75 tonight and wild birds are on the endangered species list.

I would have no issue paying a trainer to get a young dog into a lot of wild birds, whether it was on a GA plantation or the canadian prairies. Wild bird exposure is important in developing a dog to their highest potential. When you are putting the polish on a finished dog, put him through an hour work out and shoot a bird or two for him, are you a trainer or hunter? How do you put the handle and pattern on a young dog if you dont have the experience of hunting birds (I am not saying that your goal has to be filling a game bag)?

I just paid a dog trainer to take a young dog north for the summer, get her into as much game as possible, see if she has the heart and grit I want in a dog. I hope first and foremost she is a bird dog and second that she might make a dog I can run in amateur trials. She'll need to go with and come back when called, but other than that, she won't see a lick of 'training'. A friend, who despises the existence of trials, uses the same trainer to get his dogs in shape for the fall hunting season. He sent four north. When his dogs come home in September, they'll be in the best shape possible, polished on game and serious about finding and pointing birds. He uses this trainer not because of his field trial or training record, but because he is a lifetime bird hunter.

cmc274 wrote:

Maurice wrote:Proper education 1st, then apply for the job. Even with a masters degree the graduate still has to prove itself on the job. A solid foundation is a must though imo.. Talking dogs not people but it can be the same. I hunt very little now but stay busy training dogs for clients that hunt. I can't take off from my job to go hunting often and to be honest I would rather be training dogs than hunting. We each evolve differently .. Its all about the dogs for me now, not how many birds I can kill, I got over that phase years ago.

Mo

Could you be as good of a trainer if you didnt spend the boot leather following good dogs on wild birds? Learning what makes the good ones good, figuring what traits are important, etc.

Someone once told me you cant bs an old southern quail hunter.

Chris I would still be hunting if we had wild quail in the area that I live and train in, as you know they are in short supply. The next best thing is the pre released quail that I train on with the pups and the dogs that are broke on planted birds. There is a big learning curve with some of the dogs, others not so much. Experience is a great teacher for dogs and people, that's for sure. Even when we had a good number of wild quail in sc it was never enough to break a paying string of dogs on. More can be done with pigeons and pen birds for putting manners on a dog. It has been common practice for years even as early as the early 1900's to take advantage of planted game. E R Shelley wrote a book on it way back then, later Al Brennemen wrote a more detailed book on it. He worked for and learned from Shelley as did the great field trial trainer Clyde Morton from Alabama. Most all the trainers I know hunted when we had birds to hunt. You learn from watching dogs interact with wild birds. You also learn the habits of wild birds by being in the field hunting for them. It don't matter if you are carrying a blank gun or a shotgun IMO

Mo
Mo

Winchey wrote:
He doesn't pay attention, and doesn't care. If they were so broke they could be run on birds all year with zero maintainance, that is some dog imo.

Who said zero maintenance? She had the blank gun and knew the drill - what the dog was expected to do and how to correct it. The point is that the trained actions of the dog have nothing to do with the trainer knowing anything about hunting.

Sticking to the subject...think of this situation. You have a racecar, and you take it to a normal shop for maintinence. Sure they know how to chainge oil and stuff but they have never raced a car and dont know exactly what specifications it needs to be so it can preform.
Not the best analogy but i would feel better if my trainer was a hunter. Because i wouldnt send him to a show dog trainer even if he was only getting taught sit, here, heel, and etc.
Great thoughts so far
Isaac and Banks

Double Shot Banks wrote:You have a racecar, and you take it to a normal shop for maintinence. Sure they know how to chainge oil and stuff but they have never raced a car and dont know exactly what specifications it needs to be so it can preform.

Okey dokey Isaac...lets assume a few of the things in the race car analogy are gearing, fuel, air ratios et al...

What are the dog training equivalents of these things that ONLY a hunter can know when training a dog? I don't think anyone can answer intelligibly until they know what one trainer can or might do that the other cannot.

Maurice wrote:

cmc274 wrote:

Maurice wrote:Proper education 1st, then apply for the job. Even with a masters degree the graduate still has to prove itself on the job. A solid foundation is a must though imo.. Talking dogs not people but it can be the same. I hunt very little now but stay busy training dogs for clients that hunt. I can't take off from my job to go hunting often and to be honest I would rather be training dogs than hunting. We each evolve differently .. Its all about the dogs for me now, not how many birds I can kill, I got over that phase years ago.

Mo

Could you be as good of a trainer if you didnt spend the boot leather following good dogs on wild birds? Learning what makes the good ones good, figuring what traits are important, etc.

Someone once told me you cant bs an old southern quail hunter.

Chris I would still be hunting if we had wild quail in the area that I live and train in, as you know they are in short supply. The next best thing is the pre released quail that I train on with the pups and the dogs that are broke on planted birds. There is a big learning curve with some of the dogs, others not so much. Experience is a great teacher for dogs and people, that's for sure. Even when we had a good number of wild quail in sc it was never enough to break a paying string of dogs on. More can be done with pigeons and pen birds for putting manners on a dog. It has been common practice for years even as early as the early 1900's to take advantage of planted game. E R Shelley wrote a book on it way back then, later Al Brennemen wrote a more detailed book on it. He worked for and learned from Shelley as did the great field trial trainer Clyde Morton from Alabama. Most all the trainers I know hunted when we had birds to hunt. You learn from watching dogs interact with wild birds. You also learn the habits of wild birds by being in the field hunting for them. It don't matter if you are carrying a blank gun or a shotgun IMO

Mo
Mo

I understand the need for pigeons and pen raised birds for sure. I was trying to communicate that I believe there are times when in a dogs development that dogs can benefit from hunting like exposure. During this time a trainers knowledge of hunting is useful. Regardless if its wild or pre released birds. I think developing young dogs between 6 mos and a year and polishing older ones would be the best examples.

Chukar12 wrote:
Okey dokey Isaac...lets assume a few of the things in the race car analogy are gearing, fuel, air ratios et al...

What are the dog training equivalents of these things that ONLY a hunter can know when training a dog? I don't think anyone can answer intelligibly until they know what one trainer can or might do that the other cannot.

It depends how far you want the trainer to go, and what your training the dog for,
Like others said if you want it to woah, sit steady here FF etc...
or experience with real world ie placing birds and shooting them,
In my mind knowing what you will actually will do with the dog is going to help the trainer know what to train.

Again if i ever were to send a dog off. i would want a trainer that has hunted. Only because i will probably never enter HT/FT.
sorry for the poor analogy

Double Shot Banks wrote: i will probably never enter HT/FT.

Why not?
It allows your dog to "hunt" year round -- and shows you what you need to be working on in training.

Double Shot Banks wrote: In my mind knowing what you will actually will do with the dog is going to help the trainer know what to train.

You don't train a dog how to hunt, only the manners you require of it while it is hunting. You allow a dog to hunt and thereby it gains experience.