National Championships

[Neil]

Ezzy,

Still think this needs to be its own topic.

But I have seen photos from the 30's that show the Brittany to be of two distinct types, one as you describe, looking much like the EB of today, more spaniel like. And another that looks much like a lean, light footed English setter. After the devastation of WW II, the French imported Britts from the Americas to replenish their breeding stock. For several reasons they tended to select and further breed the short coupled, quick moving dog. Where, as you said, to hunt where and how we do in North America, we concentrated on the setter type. It was not us, but the French that changed the type to spaniel to exclude the more setter like. We have continued to have the two types, I have a roan in my kennel that would pass as an EB, yet she is out of Gambler's Ace in the Hole, more setter like.

I have also have seen a film clip of a dog show in Mexico City from the 30's that show dogs looking and moving like a thin, light boned cocker right beside the setter looking ones with a long stride.

From the time of the first importation in the teens Britts have been compared to and campaigned against pointers and setters, having some success.

[jetjockey]

Brittanys throughout their history have been bred as a close working ,quick, agile, and a biddable and responsive dog used by peasants when poaching the King's game. Their physical built makes them very well suited for that type of hunting but they were not built to be big fluid runners with their short coupled, cobby type body. After they were imported to this country where we had more ground to cover and our extreme desire for our dogs to be more stylish, we have seen the dogs become a little more aggressive in their demeanor which has translated into more style in the field. And at the same time we have tended to take some of the coat off of them, slim the body somewhat and encouraged them to run and hunt in a more reaching approach to our bigger spaces. We now see the Brittany that is currently being imported look and act much like our dogs did 60 and 70 years ago. More coat, smaller in size, and probably a little more inclined to hunt closer with that softer personality that seems to describe the Brits in Europe.

Ezzy

I didn't ask about the history of the breed. I asked how they are "suppose" to hunt. Where does it say they are suppose to be a close working dog? Is it in the breed standard? As far as I can tell, Brits are a cross between a Pointer, Setter, and a Spaniel. 2 out of those 3 are notoriously big running dogs.

[Soarer31]

Neil, what about the need for a split in the Brittany? The beauty of the GSP is that we acknowledge the split. We don't take show dogs, run them with a bunch of other "no goers" and call them all age dogs. A show dog might finish as a field champion in shorthairs if run enough. 99% have no shot in both arenas. Brits are nearly guaranteed to become duals. Go to a bunch of Brit trials and a bunch of GSP trials. An all age Brittany couldn't compete in most gun dog GSP stakes. Out of 50 Brits in an all age stake, you might have 5 that run enough to be considered all age. Only 1 or 2 are more or less all age dogs. But, I bet a bunch are show champions. Then take a show champion shorthair and run him in an all age stake, he gets demolished. Out of 50 shorthairs in an all age stake, many will run like fools but at least they run. Few, if any, are show champions. If other breeds would just admit the split, they'd be light years ahead. 'Course, take most all age shorthairs to the prairies and very few will be all age dogs even comparable to all age pointers.

Did you ever think that the field standard for a pointer has little to do with a GSP or a Brit. Once we forget what pointers are doing and concentrate on what our breeds are supposed to do we can work on improving our breeds and stop trying to make them pointers. I love pointers and if I want a dog to hunt like a pointer I would have a pointer. And when I own a GSP or a Brit I want them to hunt like their breed is supposed to. Pray tell, what is the advantage of the dog that runs faster? Maybe we should concentrate on the dog that finds birds, can turn quicker, and is bred to retrieve and be a nice calm house dog and family pet. For most people those are the characteristics they want in a dog. I think over all most breeds can do just that but would probably be even better at it if we actually bred for it. How fast they can run makes for a great game when played on a track. How well they hunt is a great game played in the upland fields. But we do not need 10 breeds that all hunt alike, hence, different breeds.

Ezzy

Agreed 100% Ezzy,
I'm guilty as charged, I hunt feather and fur and I should be hunting with GSPs in which I have been in the past but now I hunt with pointers, what can I say! I just love the way the pointer hunts, style, that extra range, and the speed in which they cover the ground

Cheers

[trueblu]

Just STOP that logic thing jetjockey won't work.

Neil and Ezzy, An all age dog is an all age dog!! There is NO Brit all age, no GSP all age, and I'm not saying that brits or GSPs have to run like pointers, nor am I saying they should just run and not hunt. More reading into something a poster says and twisting it. There is ONE standard for any all age dog and it ain't close working and it ain't run with no hunt. The dog should stretch to the most distant likely objective to seek game, birds in our case. He should NEVER EVER EVER be close working. A brit all age dog should be at 400 yards, a shorthair at 600, and a pointer at 6 miles-HOGHWASH!! If you want the Brit to be a close working flusher, as he was bred, then make him that. But, don't make up your own definition of all age and pretend you are running an all age dog.

Most know me on this site. I just don't post much because of these types of arguments. However, my resume is not too important, just an opinion from someone with a keyboard. So, don't get too worried, no one will be bothered by the post. Except for those where the truth hurts.

[shags]

^^^ +1

Just because a dog is entered in an all age stake doesn't make it an all age dog.

[Neil]

Just STOP that logic thing jetjockey won't work.

Neil and Ezzy, An all age dog is an all age dog!! There is NO Brit all age, no GSP all age, and I'm not saying that brits or GSPs have to run like pointers, nor am I saying they should just run and not hunt. More reading into something a poster says and twisting it. There is ONE standard for any all age dog and it ain't close working and it ain't run with no hunt. The dog should stretch to the most distant likely objective to seek game, birds in our case. He should NEVER EVER EVER be close working. A brit all age dog should be at 400 yards, a shorthair at 600, and a pointer at 6 miles-HOGHWASH!! If you want the Brit to be a close working flusher, as he was bred, then make him that. But, don't make up your own definition of all age and pretend you are running an all age dog.

Most know me on this site. I just don't post much because of these types of arguments. However, my resume is not too important, just an opinion from someone with a keyboard. So, don't get too worried, no one will be bothered by the post. Except for those where the truth hurts.

I agree totally with the first paragraph, but when you tell us the best Brittany you have ever seen in the thousands of baraces you have judged would not be competitive in a GSP Gun Dog, I think your resume most important. You put down a whole breed of dog based on your extensive experience, but would cite your credentials?

[jetjockey]

To say a Brit GD is any different than a GSP GD is ridiculous. There's many open breed trials where they go head to head which proves it. Not to mention the AKC All breed Nationals where there hasn't been a bit of difference between the two.

I'll agree that just because a dog runs in AA, doesn't mean it's an AA dog. The same could be said for an AA dog entered in a GD trial. You can go even further and break it down to courses as well. On some courses a SD dog can compete with AA dogs due to the tight course. If I remember correctly, when the AKC Nationals ran at Ames, people who had witnessed both said there was very little difference between the AF and Many of the AKC dogs on the Ames Plantation. The same wouldn't necessarily be true in the prairies where a dog can show it's range.

At the end of the day, there's nothing wrong with a Brit or GSP that can make 700-800 yard casts off a horse but maintain a nice foot hunting range when hunting. IMO, that's what we should be breeding for. Dogs intelligent enough to know the difference, with the athleticism to do both. Unfortunately some people want to pigeon hole certain breeds into what they believe the breed should be, without grasping the idea of what they could be.

[whatsnext]

I did not know a britt was bred to be a close working flusher Or did i miss something?

[Trekmoor]

I am not sure what to make of this thread since I have never seen an American trial of any kind. I have owned and trained both Brittanies and GSP's however. There are at present, two Brittany Dual Champions in this country and both are very good or even exceptionally good dogs but I don't think either dog would win a present day field trial in their country of origin ... France . Not an Open trial anyway. The American influence has spread to France and a few folk I know well have watched or taken part in more recent French trials. The French now seem to be going the "big runners" route with their trials and this is causing some concern on this side of the pond.

Rumours, so far with no proof behind them, are flying about concerning illicit matings of Brits to pointers in order to take a shortcut route to having big running dogs. The French themselves have become a bit "Americanised" in their outlook on how brittanies should run. They pay very little attention to how well the dogs retrieve and that causes me concern for I really do need my dogs to be good and very keen retrievers for the work that I do. In addition to that, retrieving does play quite a large part in a British style of versatile dog trial. The saying here is that two good hunts could win you a trial but one poor retrieve will put you out.

I am becoming a bit wary of French Brittany imports from some lines of dogs maybe especially the ones winning in their more "modern" trials. Very few people in either France or Britain have access to the huge areas of ground that some of you folk hunt and more modest hunting ranges usually suit us far better. I was told the Brittany was first used in areas of sometimes pretty dense cover in France such as thorn bushes where woodcock hid. The dogs were required to hunt hard but not very wide. That suits most of the land that I can hunt over but even up on the grouse moors I find a dog that will hunt 100-200 yards to either side of me as it quarters the moor is just about enough to get a few finds.

My personal opinion is that GSP's are often better on the moors, they run a bit wider and their extra bit of size helps prevent their undersides getting rubbed red raw and bleeding by the heather which many people think is a kind of flower but which is actually a small bush with twigs instead of leaves.

Changing a breed to better suit the terrain normally hunted over is one thing but surely changing a breed just to try to win more trials on mainly wide open ground is doing the versatile breeds no favours ?

Bill T.

[ezzy333]

Bill, I agree wholeheartedly. We have seen that same progression here as we always hear from the trailer that they are improving the breed. After 70 years of hunting I haven't seen it myself. I have two excellent hunters today out of trial dogs and they are great and I love to watch them hunt. But 90% of the people who see them are not impressed as they are foot hunters who hunt 20 acre fields and fence rows. And as good as the dogs are they are not much different than the dogs I had 50 years ago. Both did a great job of finding birds but these two are just harder to keep tract of as they like to run a little further. But in both cases the dogs had to be shortened up so I could keep them on the grounds we had permission to hunt. I don't mind them ranging when you can see where they are and can get by with them as long as they point and hold it till I find them.

But the average weekend hunter does not want their dogs running all over and greatly prefer the dogs to be within the 50 or 60 yard limit, want dogs that retrieve, and dogs that do not require constant training to be a good pet and weekend hunter.

Ezzy

[Neil]

I guess I don't know the average weekend hunter, but if they need a dog at 50 yards, I would recommend they bring them in another 15 yards or so and get a flusher. But any dog can be trained to stay as close as you like, your thumb may get tired and the dog resentful, but it can be done. I see All-Age pointers kept that close on a relocation often and they seem to enjoy it.

Not sure what any of this has to do wiith National Championships.

[JKP]

Somone posted a link to a definition of an AA dog given by a legend of the game. He specifically stated that to define the AA dog in terms of range would be to do the AA dog a disservice...that range is only one factor. More important were application, courage, stamina and "bottom", etc. Why is it everytime we disucuss the AA dog (as if we couldn't respect any other kind of dog) we seem to focus on range??? Can't a 400 yd Britt show all these attributes?? Can't a 600 yd GSP do the same?? If the total package defines the AA dog (as explained by the master), why must it be 1000 yds or more??

[shags]

Because range IS one of the factors that determines the AA dog.

An AA dog needs to embody all those factors, not just one, two, or all but one.

[JKP]

So...would it be fair to say that all things being equal the dog that runs bigger, wider, farther ahead will win.....eventually leading to dogs we can't see but can find and don't judge during "game acquisition" or whether they ran over birds, blew out birds etc?? Sounds to me like every handler goes to the line hoping not to see his dog but to find it standing game....and that the gallery not be able to observe the dog too long.

[shags]

No, because as was said, the dog must embody many good traits other than range. I don't understand how to make that more clear to you.

As for seeing them during 'game aquistition' etc, why do you need to see every last move the dog makes, so long as finds and produces game? When your dog locates birds in the cattails or thick heavy cover in the woods, do you fuss that you didn't see him 'acquire' or are you happy to find him with birds in front of him?

In the trial game, if a dog is out of sight and busts birds, it's a non event - we don't judge what we can't see. However IME a dishonest dog will rarely fail to cut his own throat on a subsequent find. If he behaves, though, so what? Judging is about evaluating what we see, not about wondering 'what if'.

Every handler goes to the line hoping his dog will be seen...going forward the next ridge over, or making that tricky turn far ahead, or of course, being found standing at a distance.

All this doesn't have to lead YOU anywhere...just stay away from AA lines when you purchase your personal gundogs. There are dogs out there to suit just about anyone and no one is forced to endure what they don't like. If AA isn't your thing, why not move on and quit worrying about it, and leave it to those who admire those kinds of dogs?

[Grange]

So...would it be fair to say that all things being equal the dog that runs bigger, wider, farther ahead will win.....eventually leading to dogs we can't see but can find and don't judge during "game acquisition" or whether they ran over birds, blew out birds etc?? Sounds to me like every handler goes to the line hoping not to see his dog but to find it standing game....and that the gallery not be able to observe the dog too long.

So you ask why we always seem to focus on range and then in your next post you "ask" a question just to make a derogatory statement about range. You just answered your own question.

[RayGubernat]

Somone posted a link to a definition of an AA dog given by a legend of the game. He specifically stated that to define the AA dog in terms of range would be to do the AA dog a disservice...that range is only one factor. More important were application, courage, stamina and "bottom", etc. Why is it everytime we disucuss the AA dog (as if we couldn't respect any other kind of dog) we seem to focus on range??? Can't a 400 yd Britt show all these attributes?? Can't a 600 yd GSP do the same?? If the total package defines the AA dog (as explained by the master), why must it be 1000 yds or more??

Gee -

It seems to me that there is really only one person in this conversation that is fixated on range and obsessed with it as they related it to field trial pointers, especially all age pointers. I wonder whom that person might be.

It is YOU who attempts to turn every single discussion about all age dogs into a thousand yard range situation...which you then turn around and ridicule. That gets BORING.

Trust me, JKP...EVERYONE knows you have your shorts all in a bunch over all age pointers. Can you say OLD NEWS?? Give it a rest dude.

I'm sorry the bird season is over and you have nothing better to do. Maybe you should go fishing to relieve the stress.

On second thought, that wouldn't be fair to those guys. You will just start arguing with and belittling those anglers who use wet flies or float nymphs because that ain't the right way to fish. God forbid someone suggests using spinning tackle instead of a flyrod! They should all be whipping the water with dry flies, preferably a Hemingway Caddis or Royal Coachman...don'cha know!!

RayG

[Neil]

The abillity to show themselves at extreme range, without looking back, not checking in, just knowing how to be seen is most amazing, and the great ones will do it too regularly for it to be accidental. I have seen them be gone for 10 - 15 minutes, and just when the handler and judges are getting anxiious, you hear the handler shout in a joyful voice, "Yo, my dog" as he points 3 fields ahead and the dog flashes by headed further to the front. I don't get it, I don't know how to train for it, and I know it is sometimes the result of excellent scouting, but mostly the trait of the great ones.

I believe other dogs can make the same general move, only a few feet further into the cover, remain unseen and ruled lost, out of judgement. The difference between great and almost can be a matter of feet and a couple minutes. Had they made the move earlier or later they would been obscured by the terrain or trees.

How do they know? Why do they care?

Also, the smart ones know when when they have been lost on point and to leave the birds to come to the front, never coming through the gallery from behiind, but looping arouund. That I know how to train, but it takes a smart one.

[Sharon]

It's amazing isn't it. ? Amazing and well said.

( I also like to watch the smart ones use the direction of the wind to only need to take the tree line once. )

[ezzy333]

Once we forget what pointers are doing and concentrate on what our breeds are supposed to do we can work on improving our breeds and stop trying to make them pointers.

IMO....Pointers have at the same time been a great influence on other breeds and a horrible influence. They are an important foundation breed for many others...that's the positive. But then they have also influenced those other breeds often to emulate the Pointer...and that is the negative. When folks stop trying to copy the Pointer,,,and stop making apologies for doing so....it all ends.

The pointers that have fathered so many of the breeds was not our American Pointer

Ezzy

[slistoe]

Maybe we should concentrate on the dog that finds birds, can turn quicker, and is bred to retrieve and be a nice calm house dog and family pet. For most people those are the characteristics they want in a dog.
Ezzy

Funny thing is, most every pointer I had the occasion to know was just that dog. So how would you tell the Brit from the GSP from the Spinone from the Pointer when this is your criteria?

[ezzy333]

I agree every breed has dogs that fit that recipe. That's why we continue to have all of the breeds.

[trueblu]

Another time Neil where you say something was said, but NEVER was. I did NOT say the best AA Brit couldn't compete in GSP gun dog stakes!!! What I am saying is that 95% of what I have seen in Brit all age stakes and yes, hour all age championships, are far from all age dogs. I am also not saying that brits or shorthairs should run as big as a prairie all age dog or prairie all age pointer. Nor am I saying that the pointers set the standard. But a 200 yard dog at best is NEVER ever an all age dog. If the grounds will not allow a dog to stretch more than that, don't run the dang all age stake. Why pretend? However, I am saying there is one all age standard and most often brits do not meet that standard in 95% of the cases I have seen, in the gallery or judging. I did judge "jayhawk" at Ardmore in an hour championship, run by Scott Johnson, and he was a true all age dog by anyone's definition. He also was about the only dog out of 45 or so that fit the bill. he was NOT judged based on range alone by any means. He hunted, hit the right edges, NOT SPOTS, he was always to the front, we saw his rear at the end of an edge rolling would then find him on point. He had excellent style, was just a heck of a nice dog, that day. I've just seen a large percentage who run to run, who run off, or who flat don't go anywhere. It's true in all breeds, even pointers, and certainly shorthairs. Like was said, just because it's an all age stake flat doesn't make all the dogs all age dogs. But, if you're gonna run a dog in an all age stake, for the love of all that is holy, why run a 100 yard dog, that I suspect is always a 100 yard dog!!

[JKP]

The abillity to show themselves at extreme range, without looking back, not checking in, just knowing how to be seen is most amazing, and the great ones will do it too regularly for it to be accidental. I have seen them be gone for 10 - 15 minutes, and just when the handler and judges are getting anxiious, you hear the handler shout in a joyful voice, "Yo, my dog" as he points 3 fields ahead and the dog flashes by headed further to the front. I don't get it, I don't know how to train for it, and I know it is sometimes the result of excellent scouting, but mostly the trait of the great ones.

Does this trait express itself genetically?? When you breed such dogs together, do you see a higher % of this kind of cooperation in subsequent litters??? If so, then this is genetic. If not, wouldn't we have to attribute this to training, the handler knowing how to follow his dog or good fortune??

[jetjockey]

I think you try and breed for it with two parents who do the same, but at the end of the day, those dogs are found, not bred or trained. However, you will increase your chances of finding one of those dogs by breeding smart, independent dogs who run. That's one reason I laugh at people who judge trial dogs but have never been to a trial. When you see the dog that punches to the front, shows up exactly where it's suppose to, disappears when it's suppose to, and gets found on point looking like a million bucks, it's a thing of beauty. I dont know how the dogs do it, but when you see it, you know. Few dogs have it, and the ones who do, win a lot. Until you've see it, nobody will be able to explain it to you. Once you see it, you will want to see it again and again. It's only then, once you realize it's not something most dogs posses, that you will really be able to appreciate it. Anyone can breed a 200-300 yard gun dog who typically shows to the front and rarely goes out of sight. Breeding an AA dog that disappears off into the distance only to be found standing on point exactly where it's suppose to be, and can do that over and over again, is as much luck as it is skill. That's why not many of those dogs exist.

[Vonzeppelinkennels]

Thanks jetjockey for saying what I have been wanting to say but I have declined because everything I post any more is considered an argument so I try to keep quiet!!One thing I will add is the breeding of 2 AA dogs produces very many more
G Dogs & S Dogs then it does more AA dogs!!

[Neil]

Neil, Brits are nearly guaranteed to become duals. Go to a bunch of Brit trials and a bunch of GSP trials. An all age Brittany couldn't compete in most gun dog GSP stakes. .

Trueblu,

I quoted you very accurately, you just can't remember what you say.

Still think you need to get out more. A Dual Champion is not guaranteed and should be celebrated.

I have never heard of the Britt that impressed you so, he must not have won much and Ardmoore even in the 70's is hardly All-Age country. So I hope some of the thousants of braces you have judged were in more open ground.

I repeat, it really isn't necessary to put down one Breed to elevate another.

"An All-Age Brittany couldn't compete in most GSP Gun Dog stakes" is not true in my experience, and you can check my credentials.

[Neil]

You're probably right Neil, judging hundreds and hundreds of both breeds doesn't give me a right to an opinion. Not sure where I need to "get out" to see these dogs. I've judged and ridden Brit hour all age championships, judged and ridden many many brit all age stakes, run all age shorthairs, judged them, ridden too many all age stakes to count, been to nationals and competed and ridden thousands of braces. Just let me know where I should go to see these magic brits!

I really would like to verify this vast experience, "- ridden thousands of braces".

[trueblu]

Sorry Neil, YOU ARE RIGHT!! OK, I'll stand by it then, most all age brits couldn't compete in most GSP gun dog stakes!!

Well, now that I am a retired trialer, I'll have to go with my past qualifications, over 100 trial placements, 30 or so first place finishes, finished 3 total field champions, bred dogs that have placed in the GSPCA national all age, placed in the futurity, won derby classics, and yes ridden thousands of braces. Judged somewhere around 75 stakes. I do believe I at least have a right to an opinion.

[jetjockey]

You never answered my question about Brits vs GSP's. If what you say is true, why do GD Brits go head to head in All Breed trials with GD GSP's, and do just fine?

[Neil]

Sorry Neil, YOU ARE RIGHT!! OK, I'll stand by it then, most all age brits couldn't compete in most GSP gun dog stakes!!

Well, now that I am a retired trialer, I'll have to go with my past qualifications, over 100 trial placements, 30 or so first place finishes, finished 3 total field champions, bred dogs that have placed in the GSPCA national all age, placed in the futurity, won derby classics, and yes ridden thousands of braces. Judged somewhere around 75 stakes. I do believe I at least have a right to an opinion.

Nope, you did not say most Brittanys, you said, "- an All-Age Brittany couldn't compete in most GSP Gun Dog stake". Meaning no All-Age Brittanys could compete. You have a very selective memory.

About your experience, I just wanted to verfy which Brittanys you had seen and where, your name would give us a way to check at the AKC site. I have no doubt you are experinced with GSPs, just wondering how you could evaluate all Brittanys.

[jetjockey]

I'm also curious about the Jayhawk dog he mentioned, and which trial it was he judged.

[Neil]

I'm also curious about the Jayhawk dog he mentioned, and which trial it was he judged.

Me, too, I do know Scott has and has always had some nice dogs, as did his dad, but apparently none would be competitive in most GSP Gun Dog stakes. Oh, as to which trail, if an hour championship at Lake Murray aka Ardmore, it was most likely the US Open, I will check.

[jetjockey]

Face it, they usually aren't. I just checked out the results of OLGD trial held by the Central Georgia Pointing Dog club. There were 20 starters. 10 Brits, 7 GSP's, and 3 V's. 1st-3rd were Brits, and 4th was a GSP....... The Brits never had a chance... Oh wait.. Never mind!

[slistoe]

Face it, they usually aren't. I just checked out the results of OLGD trial held by the Central Georgia Pointing Dog club. There were 20 starters. 10 Brits, 7 GSP's, and 3 V's. 1st-3rd were Brits, and 4th was a GSP....... The Brits never had a chance... Oh wait.. Never mind!

Those were GunDog Brits - that's why they were competitive. It is those All Age Brits that can't compete in a Gun Dog Stake.

[Chukar12]

Huh...in the last two GSP trials I entered I won the OD and the OAA...Sonny and Patch the britts don't know any better...and I won the OAA today at the northern ca britt trial, only 1 GSP in the stake, but 7 setters and the rest were britts.

[Neil]

Huh...in the last two GSP trials I entered I won the OD and the OAA...Sonny and Patch the britts don't know any better...and I won the OAA today at the northern ca britt trial, only 1 GSP in the stake, but 7 setters and the rest were britts.

I have never been beaten by a GPS, not once. So I could say a GSP is not competitive with a Britt, but it would not be true, there are just not many in my part of the country. But I have seen some really nice ones, really nice.

Joe, congratulations on a great spring.

[Chukar12]

Thanks Neil, I just love being around dogs, horse et al...it is icing to get a ribbon. In the west there are huge number of GSPs...the Americanized version as labeled by some are well suited for the desert and Great Basin conditions. On top of that, we have a ton of very good pros, Ziggy, Azevedo, Merrell, Berry, Porter and some great amateurs young and old vets alike all just in Ca...I have been humbled by them more than once and I suspect it will happen more than once in the future. However, in the subject at hand, the GSPs have numbers on the Britts and every bit as good in genetics and field characteristics, to proclaim superiority on either side as has been done is just ignorance, regional or breed blindness, and as you have pointed out is just rude anyway.

[Neil]

As we have been discussing a split in the show and field Brittany, I used to advocate an increase of height of at least an inch. My rationale was nutrition, control of disease, early conditioning and genetics seems to increase the size of all animals, including man. Even an inch would give the Britts a bit better chance of competing against dogs that their standards allow for 4 or 5 inches more in height, while still retaining the dual standard.

I was met with huge push back and reconsidered. Thinking about Ezzy's and other's position on retaining the original intent of the breed, perhaps keeping them small will continue to foster the differences. Yet at the same time there are some field people that will ignore the standard, and breed and campaign 25+ inch Britts. Dogs that are Brittany in name only, but do win.

What do others think? Should the brittany standard be increased? Should we breed and sell oversized dogs? And how important is the dual standard? And does the current standard contribute to maintaining (or regaining) their original intent? Is that important?

[Chukar12]

I think there are a number of issues and they collectively call for caution when considering where to go or stay with the Brittany. First is that nothing in a judging standard in the field or bench directly relates to the temperament of the dog and it is one of the characteristics most middle of the road Brittany folks laude as their reason for the breed. I am sitting at a trial now watching calm quiet dogs on the line and yapping circle turners. Without question the quieter group is also the higher performing field bunch. In human terms we would simply call it more common sense...

just called to fill in judge somebody is sick...more thoughts later
joe

[jetjockey]

The problem with sticking to a standard that was developed several hundred years ago, is that hunting conditions aren't the same as they were several hundred years ago. heck, they aren't the same as they were 20 years ago. With less and less birds, we need dogs who can go out and find fewer birds. That means ranging further, more stamina, better noses, etc. I love Brits because of their temperaments, their spunk , loyalty, and a heck of a lot of other reasons. But the bird numbers just are the same as they where when I grew up. Pheasants were king, and chuckar and quail were an after thought. Now, chuckar and quail hunting can be much better than the pheasant hunting, but a great day now days was an average day 20-30 years ago. Dogs with longer range, better stamina, and more independence become more of an asset than the close working dogs that I used to kill a ton of birds over. So what's wrong with keeping everything that is wonderful about Brittany's, and breeding dogs who can be better at hunting in todays changing wild bird environment? If that means breeding dogs that are a little over standard, so be it. If the bird dogs don't change with the hunting conditions, they will become useless lap dogs like many of the other breeds have. Cockers are a great example. They are awesome little hunting dogs, but don't have what it takes to go all day. With high bird populations, it's not an issue. With today's bird numbers, guys want, and need, dogs who can hunt longer, faster, and wider.

[ezzy333]

I don't think the number of birds has anything to do with how big they should be or how far we want them to range. I do think the local environment has a lot to do with it. If you have prairie to hunt then a faster dog that ranges can be good. But if you are hunting small tracts of land then it isn't so great. Besides that argument I have found the smaller dogs are many times quicker, practically always have more stamina, and will last longer with more bottom in heavy cover. It is just easier for them to wiggle through and not have to try and push through like a bigger dog. A longer back translate to more speed over the long haul but small with the longer back says speed and quickness.

JMO
Ezzy

[Chukar12]

Back to my point before the whiskey sets in, forgive me if it already has. Division will occur in the breed when one side or the other becomes intolerant of the others needs and or wants. Standards are not etched in stone, and if size was simply a matter of crossing with other pointing breeds the issue would have; and may have peaked long ago. Time and technology through DNA will prove to be a greater deterrent than arbitrary observation. I venture in the 70s and 80s behind the barn breedings were more prevalent than today.

I have a stud dog that has been bred either 11 or 12 times it slips my mind at the moment. 80 percent of those pups that I see regularly are good gun or shooting dog prospects, the other 20 percent have potential to be all age dogs. Only one has proven it thus far, and I am sure that from the balance of the twenty percent only a handful of them will make it. Such is the nature of genetics and the laws of drag on the breed. The concern that all the dogs will run too big and are too high strung based on the perception that big runners are such; is terribly misguided. Not many all age dogs are born and fewer are developed in the right hands. The best all age brittany in the country is on someone's couch tonight and hunts 8 or 10 times a year at Smilin John's Pheasant Haven. All age dogs are not less personable than gun dogs, nor are they more hyper in the house, car, or on the line.

In my opinion, the greatest danger in the dual concept of the sporting breed is not that a GSP, Irish Setter or Brittany becomes too much like one of its cousins in the sporting breed, the danger comes when it becomes too much like its brethren in the ring. Sporting dogs do not need excess weight, feathers of hair, they should be trim like athletes meant to perform in the field for sporting purpose, show them, but show them to a field standard. If legitimate Brittany breeding through attrition, nutrition, or happenstance brings larger dogs (in the same in arguable manner that people are larger) then by all means allow the breed clubs to change the standard.

When you breed hunting dogs, you need to first breed for a predator.

[JKP]

If legitimate Brittany breeding through attrition, nutrition, or happenstance brings larger dogs

So are you saying let the game dictate the dog (attrition)?? Certainly 95% of the hunters in the land don't need the extreme. Is a 24" all white Britt with no feathering acceptable as a standard?? I have a feeling you would go with that if it could win.

With today's bird numbers, guys want, and need, dogs who can hunt longer, faster, and wider.

Is it really that bad?? Why do we see pictures of guys and birds from Saskatchewan to Iowa and Maine to Montana with those bootlicking Vdogs, you know the motorless NAVHDA dogs.


I am always amazed at the number of reasons FT'ers can come up with as to why we need dogs out of sight in front of us

[jetjockey]

Who said anything about out of sight? It's obvious you have no desire to learn about the FT world, so why do you post about it? For the record, I'm a hunter first and foremost. My dog gets trialed in 1 hr AA Brit trials, the occasional AAA weekend trial, and I foot hunt with her during the hunting season. I grew up hunting wild birds and just got into trialing a few years ago. So like many others who have done both, I can say with confidence that until you see what everyone is tryin to explain to you, you don't know what your talking about. Btw. My dog is one of those dogs that supposedly don't exist. She's easily a 400-600 yard dog off a horse, with the occasional 600-800 yard cast in the right environment. She rarely breaks 200 when hunting GA quail, yet I've seen her nail a covey of sharptail at 450 yards in the Praries of SD. She would have never found the sharptail if she stayed within 200 yards. Sometimes you need the range, sometimes you don't. It's better to have it and not need it, then need it and not have it.

[Neil]

It is not I need them out of sight, it is just I don't have to have them in sight. I trust them to find and hold birds, they trust me to find them.

The reason All-Age dogs are so rare if they are too independent and run too big, they won't win. If they don't show class, style, speed, endurance, independence, intelligence, and handle birds they can't win.

[RCB]

Sporting dogs do not need excess weight, feathers of hair, they should be trim like athletes meant to perform in the field for sporting purpose, show them, but show them to a field standard. If legitimate Brittany breeding through attrition, nutrition, or happenstance brings larger dogs (in the same in arguable manner that people are larger) then by all means allow the breed clubs to change the standard.

When you breed hunting dogs, you need to first breed for a predator.

One thing that I find interesting is that many people on this board, and the show people that I have talked to, assume that if a dog has a lot of white, taller than the standard, run "too big", etc they must be crossed with a pointer or a setter. That if you bred "true britts" these "abnormalities" would not exist or be so rare that we would not be talking about it today. IMO they are not factoring in that over time the selective breeding of performance animals has proven that animals typically get bigger and stronger, to a maximum point where additional size and strength becomes a hinderance. I believe the current parameters of the dual dog concept limits some of the best performance and true britts from ever taking part in the show ring and this is detrimental to the concept in the long run.

I completely agree with the above quote from Chukar12 that sporting breed standards should be based upon what the dog was designed to do best and should evolve in time just like our dogs do. To keep that standards static to the point of eliminating some of the best dogs from the dual gene pool does not make sense to me. IMO if the standards do not take into account the maximum potential of the breeds gene pool there will eventually be a split that does nothing but harm the breed, and this will hurt the bench side of things a lot more than the field. Changing the standards is not a negative to the current dual dog concept, it just expands the "eligible dogs" allowing for the growth of the breed. A current dual dog will still be a dual dog even if the standards change slightly.

[trueblu]

I certainly misspoke when I inadvertently said there were no brits who could complete in GSP gun dog stakes. So, I will be clear in my opinion since my opinion seems to worry you Neil, 99% of the so called all age brits I have seen in 15 years of trialing, couldn't compete. Meaning, wouldn't win on their best days against a decent field of shorthairs. In our part of the US, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma mainly, they can't compete IMHO. Other than the very few nationally.

One thing that will always strike me as funny, why are 99.9% of all GSP trial all age stakes open to all breeds and again, in our part of the US, 99.9% of all brit all age stakes are not only closed to other breeds but run on grounds that are far far from all age grounds. Oh well, another subject where there is no defense! The "we need placements" excuse doesn't hold water. GSPs need placements also!! So, forget that argument.

OK, so you want resumes? Now, this is NOT considering the hundreds and hundreds of weekend AKC trials, AFTCA pointer stakes, hour championships of many breeds, etc. for either of us. But, you seem to believe my OPINION is not valid and yours outweighs the opinion of most, so I did a quick count to compare you and me...

Here it is...

You judged from 2000 to 2009 and haven't judged in 5 years. You judged a total of 30 AKC stakes during that time. 100% of those brittany trials. SO, your actual knowledge of the GSP trial scene and the GSP seems limited, at best.

I judged from 2001-2013. 68 total stakes and 11 hunting tests. 33 GSP stakes, 11 brit stakes(16%), 9 Weimaraner, 13 pointer club stakes, and 2 Irish Setter stakes. So, 35 non GSP trial stakes.

Since I attended many hour championships, multiple breed nationals, pointer AF hour championships, weekend trials where I didn't judged, etc. and typically rode darn near all of the braces, the thousand number I'm sure is very true. So, I tend to believe my OPINION is just as valid as yours, with more actual trial experience from the numbers.

The hour championship was at Ardmore, OK on Feb. 10-17. Actually, the winner was Tsunami, run by Scott Johnson, a very nice all age dog. I do remember Jayhawk run by Jimmy John was a darn nice dog also though. That hour championship was dual sanctioned American Field and AKC. Sorry I got the two dogs confused. I will say BOTH were nice dogs. I can't name the nice shorthairs I have seen. Far far too many!

Now, I understand facts mean little on these boards!! So, I'm sure I am wrong on all accounts.

Go ahead and rip my data, I just got it from the AKC site. What do they know!!?

[JKP]

I certainly misspoke when I inadvertently said there were no brits who could complete in GSP gun dog stakes. So, I will be clear in my opinion since my opinion seems to worry you Neil, 99% of the so called all age brits I have seen in 15 years of trialing, couldn't compete. Meaning, wouldn't win on their best days against a decent field of shorthairs. In our part of the US, Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma mainly, they can't compete IMHO. Other than the very few nationally.

One thing that will always strike me as funny, why are 99.9% of all GSP trial all age stakes open to all breeds and again, in our part of the US, 99.9% of all brit all age stakes are not only closed to other breeds but run on grounds that are far far from all age grounds. Oh well, another subject where there is no defense! The "we need placements" excuse doesn't hold water. GSPs need placements also!! So, forget that argument.

Do you think the Thoroughbred horse owners spend a lot of time telling the Arabian owners that there horses couldn't compete at the Derby?? or the Quarter horse owners telling the Percheron owners that there horses couldn't compete around the barrels???

This discussion proves to me how the extremes have become the standard and why sensible folks need to "de-couple" from the AA mentality....nothing but faster, farther and more on the edge will do. Trust me folks...ignore the rocket jockeys
and concentrate on making your breed the best it can be.

[Chukar12]

[quote="JKP"]concentrate on making your breed the best it can be.
[quote]

Sage advice you should heed first..I have been judging some trials recently and fell asleep trying to chukar hunt with a couple of "dogs" clients brought; "traditional" shorthairs and some wirehairs and if this is where your passion is keep your nose in it. There are far more dogs in your own wheel house that could use your expert opinions, guidance and made up arbitrary percentages of what people want than dogs you clearly know nothing about. The upper end dogs of that ilk are superior versatile dogs, by that standard, and inferior for the hard core upland hunter. Quit making excuses and whining because a type of dog you don't choose to own gets greater attention and accolade than yours, improve your communication and presentation and people may care what your experience tells you it is a terribly transparent agenda you carry.