Training FT versus Hunting

[vzkennels]

I started this thread because of the Sit or No Sit thread.Who thinks there is a difference between training for Field Trial & Hunting ? I think the people that Field Trial & hunt require the same for both but hunters,atleast beginning hunters don't care as much about class & style & keeping it as hunters that just want to fill their limits.

[BellaDad]

I started hunting, wanted better hunting in order to find more birds so I got a dog. Now I like watching the dog more than shooting the birds. But you're right, I don't care near as much about style and class as someone who is judged on it. I think my dog can have a lot of style but I don't expect it on each point and don't work on style and prettying them up on point. I work on bird manners and steadiness.

I am starting to care more (16 month old dog) about steadiness and holding through the shot, at a minimum, but that is more so she doesn't get shot on accident when breaking on the flush. I like a dog that retreives and place a lot of value in that. I know that some trialers specifically don't train dogs to retreive so that they can find more birds.

This could stir up some controversy, which always seems to happen, but just what I want in MY dog. In a nutshell, yes I think there is a difference between the competitive professional FTers and the average hunter. Now there are a lot of hunter types that run field trials to extend their season, and I'm sure most FTers hunt their dogs so there is not a clear cut line.

[Gordon Guy]

I believe there is a difference in the way people train for hunting versus Field Trialing.

Generally Trial dogs don't need to retrieve, unless they play in retrieving stakes. Therefore less emphasis is on retrieving.

All trial dogs above the derby level must to be steady to wing and shot. This is not required for hunting, many hunting only folks want their dogs to be under or close the bird when it comes down, especially pheasant hunters.

When I whoa train my dogs I teach them to stand still even with quail, pigeons or chukar walking around in front and under them. Many times in trials or tests when using pen birds that do not fear the dogs you will have birds walking or flying very close to the dogs. So I train for this. Not really required for hunting.

For Trialers the training method used must or should not take any of the style out of the dog. For hunters, you don't need style to kill birds, so you could probably use harsher methods. I guess it doesn't matter if a dogs sits if all you want to do is kill a bird. I believe this is the reason many trialers wait until a dog is older (2 to 3 years old) to break their dogs than hunting folks do.

Generally!!!

[RayGubernat]

+1 on what Gordon Guy said.

RayG

[daniel77]

+1 as well

I am a hunter, and probably would never be a Serious Field Trialer. For me, a dog that doesn't retrieve, or goes so far and fast that I have to be horseback just to keep up with is not going to be enjoyable for my hunting style. From my experience, some FT retrievers are the same way. Those who excel at the field trials aren't always good meat dogs. I have a good friend who is a duck guide and has a high dollar trial winner bitch. He much prefers to use his FT reject male, because the male will continue looking for a downed bird, while the bitch will constantly be looking for direction after a couple minutes.

[Gordon Guy]

I am a hunter, and probably would never be a Serious Field Trialer. For me, a dog that doesn't retrieve, or goes so far and fast that I have to be horseback just to keep up with is not going to be enjoyable for my hunting style. From my experience, some FT retrievers are the same way. Those who excel at the field trials aren't always good meat dogs.

I use to think that field trial dogs needed to be horizon seekers to be competitive, that is until I walked a couple AKC Limited Gundog stakes, Walking events, (Limited events are limited to dogs that have previously placed) I was really surprized... the dogs maybe went 300 yards, maybe ...but spent more time at the distance of 150. That was an epiphany for me. Those that have never been to a trial I'd go and take a look for yourself. I believe that people that have never been to one have the wrong idea about what it takes to make a "trial dog".

I'm not a serious trialer either, and may never be, but that doesn't kill the dream. One day...

[cjuve]

For my purposes no there is not much difference between the dog that I enjoy hunting behind and a dog that runs in AF trials. I like my dogs to fill up the entire country and don't really care if they retrieve,that is what retrievers are for. Nothing excites me more than watching a dog hitting objectives as far away I as can see him. Pointers are covey dogs not retrievers and not versitiles and that is how I like them therefore that is how I train them.

[RayGubernat]

+1 as well

I am a hunter, and probably would never be a Serious Field Trialer. For me, a dog that doesn't retrieve, or goes so far and fast that I have to be horseback just to keep up with is not going to be enjoyable for my hunting style. From my experience, some FT retrievers are the same way. Those who excel at the field trials aren't always good meat dogs. I have a good friend who is a duck guide and has a high dollar trial winner bitch. He much prefers to use his FT reject male, because the male will continue looking for a downed bird, while the bitch will constantly be looking for direction after a couple minutes.

daniel -
Just a few comments if I may -

First off that is a neat picture of you and your future hunting partner. Wonderful to see.

I used to be a fairly serious upland hunter who never thought about field trials. Now I don't hunt all that much...

I have been involved in horseback field trials for about ten years now. I have never heard that field trial dogs cannot retrieve...from field trialers. What I have seen and done myself, is to refuse to allow my field trial dogs to retrieve. There is a HUGE difference. Most field trial dogs that are worth a hoot have all the desire and drive that is necessary to make a good upland retriever. It is just much less complicated to train a dog to be steady to wing and shot and not worry about the retrieve, since it is not required for trials where birds are not killed.

The fact of the matter is that retrieving is the last magic bullet in the trainer's gun. When it occasionally happens that after several years of continuous training and trialing a dog becomes bored with it all and is losing interest in the trial game, shooting birds for the dog can rekindle the spark. Allowing that dog to retrieve the shot birds will almost certainly fire the dog up again.

The reason why a dog often will go so far and so fast when being followed on horseback...is simply because they CAN. The handler on horseback is not six feet tall, he is ten feet tall. You can see a dog much, much farther than when you are on foot and, more importantly, the dog can see and hear you from even farther.

It is not a big deal at all to take a dog that was trialed on horseback on a Friday and who ran to the limits on that day, and come Saturday morning, cut that same dog loose in a 50 acre preserve field with the handler how turned hunter, carrying a shotgun and have a great hunt.
The dog often knows the difference and makes the adjustment.

I can and have run a dog in an AKC all age stake on one weekend, a horseback Gun dog stake the next weekend and hunted the dog on a preserve the following weekend. So I know first hand that it can be done.

I will agree that every field trial dog may not make a good meat dog. But a lot of them would and a lot of them do. I would say that, very often, you may have to hunt them a little differently and perhaps pay more attention to some things that, if it were a pure meat dog, would be quite unimportant.

There are some things that field trial dogs are trained to do that can cause you grief when hunting them. Chief among these things are the requirements to lock up at first scent and be absolutely steady to wing and shot. If a dog locks up at first scent,and stands there until the hunter comes up to flush, some gamebirds will have done the 'ol "exit...stage left" and be gone. Many meat dogs will know how to stay with moving birds and not bump them. This is a skill that field trial dogs are definitely not encouraged to develop.

As long as we find ways to enjoy our dogs, that is what is really important.

RayG

[vzkennels]

Ray is correct a dog with any brains knows the difference between hunting off HB & hunting on foot & will adjust accordingly.Retrieving is not required in AF trials but is required of some AKC breeds to finish a FC.My avatar dog runs a big SD race bordering on AA at times or a so called tweener.I can put her in a five acre field on foot & she will never leave that field untill I do,she is in Ga now for winter camp & Chris has been using her to guide on a few plantations,she is a natural retriever that has never seen the first day of FF.Sometimes less is more & she loves every minute of it.

[pinefall]

For my purposes no there is not much difference between the dog that I enjoy hunting behind and a dog that runs in AF trials. I like my dogs to fill up the entire country and don't really care if they retrieve,that is what retrievers are for. Nothing excites me more than watching a dog hitting objectives as far away I as can see him. Pointers are covey dogs not retrievers and not versitiles and that is how I like them therefore that is how I train them.

Ditto. The pleasure I get watching a good dog hunt is the same----whether at a trial or in the field.

[daniel77]

Ray,
Good post. Thanks and I agree. BTW, I didn't say can't retrieve, I said doesn't retrieve. Certainly the FT dogs have their place, and I'm not downing them. I think the difference in the way they're handled is the main thing. I'd dang sure rather have a pup with champs on paper than take a chance on a pup that the breeder claims to come from "good hunting stock".

[Busterb]

Ray great post

Would you mind going into more detail on how you train you trial dogs to keep their intensity without letting them retrieve please? I am not sure, I understand what is the reward for a dog that only gets to point the bird.

Thanks,

Jesse

[RayGubernat]

BusterB -

For me it is a process. I start in the yard, styling the dog up on the bench and on the ground. The dogs kinda get in a zone, if you stroke them up enough. They get to really like standing and posing.

When I get the dog in the field, on point, I let the dog stand there and drink in the scent for a good long time. if the dog starts to lose focus or intensity, I will pop the trap. That usually gets the dog back up on its toes. I also plant multiple birds in a given location, or carry a pigeon in a bag. If the dog lets down after the first bird is flushed, I would go to the dog, style it back up and resume flushing, tossing a pigeon or popping another trap.

If the dog does not know when, where and how many birds are going to be flushed, it will tend to maintain its focus and intensity.

RayG

[Busterb]

Ray,

Thanks for your insight into how you train your pointers. I too use the barrel to style up my dogs and am at a crossroad of should I shot a bird for my trial dog and let him retrieve or should I stay away from that and not have to correct a bad habit later. The only problem or dilema that I am facing is that I would like to take him chukar hunting. In doing so It would be great to have retrieve a few when needed.

Any advise?

Thanks for you help

[Ruffshooter]

I train my dogs to be able to do what ever I want to do. Foot trials, hunting, hunt tests. My hunting is more important to me, but the whole dog thing is the funnest part. I like playing games. I like a finished dog in the grouse woods. The only part I like my dogs to do that some trials may frown upon (not sure is relocating) I want my dogs to relocate on their own on wild birds.

Rick

[MTO4Life]

... Pointers are covey dogs not retrievers and not versitiles and that is how I like them therefore that is how I train them.

Excuse my ignorance, but I don't understand what it means by pointers being covey dogs. I know what a covey is, and can guess, but don't know if there is another meaning. Perhaps someone can shed some light on this for me.

[birddogger]

I train my dogs to be able to do what ever I want to do. Foot trials, hunting, hunt tests. My hunting is more important to me, but the whole dog thing is the funnest part. I like playing games. I like a finished dog in the grouse woods. The only part I like my dogs to do that some trials may frown upon (not sure is relocating) I want my dogs to relocate on their own on wild birds.

Rick

Ditto, I have a comment on this very thing on another thread. It is on Greg Jennings polling thread, concerning how many people on this site are interested in trialing vs. people who only hunt. After I posted it, I realized it probably should have been posted on this thread. If you care to, please read it.

Charlie

[gonehuntin']

I have been involved in horseback field trials for about ten years now. I have never heard that field trial dogs cannot retrieve...from field trialers. What I have seen and done myself, is to refuse to allow my field trial dogs to retrieve. There is a HUGE difference. Most field trial dogs that are worth a hoot have all the desire and drive that is necessary to make a good upland retriever. It is just much less complicated to train a dog to be steady to wing and shot and not worry about the retrieve, since it is not required for trials where birds are not killed. RayG

This "de-emphasis" on a sporting dog retrieving has always confounded me. How can anyone develop a test of a dog's abilities, without fully testing the dog on a simple retrieve? I will never understand that about the pointing dog world. To me, since trials supposedly should mirror hunts, and coveted Champions are the fountainhead of most breeding programs, it makes no sense to NOT test a dog on every facet of that dog's ability.

That to me, is like at a retriever trial shooting a quad for the dogs and letting them run out and mark the birds, but not require the dogs to pick them up and return them to hand.

I know, I know, trying to explain it to me is like drilling into rock. No matter what explanations are offered, I've never heard a one that makes sense to me.

To say a dog is not made to retrieve because it's training is easier, is to say that people are not competent enough to do the whole job without taking the style out of the dog.

[slistoe]

This "de-emphasis" on a sporting dog retrieving has always confounded me. How can anyone develop a test of a dog's abilities, without fully testing the dog on a simple retrieve? I will never understand that about the pointing dog world. To me, since trials supposedly should mirror hunts, and coveted Champions are the fountainhead of most breeding programs, it makes no sense to NOT test a dog on every facet of that dog's ability.

That to me, is like at a retriever trial shooting a quad for the dogs and letting them run out and mark the birds, but not require the dogs to pick them up and return them to hand.

I know, I know, trying to explain it to me is like drilling into rock. No matter what explanations are offered, I've never heard a one that makes sense to me.

To say a dog is not made to retrieve because it's training is easier, is to say that people are not competent enough to do the whole job without taking the style out of the dog.

No, not having an upland dog retrieve in an upland trial is the equivalent of not having a retriever in a retriever trial find and flush the bird before it is shot for the mark and retrieve. Kind of ridiculous to be testing those retrievers on only half the job isn't it? Must be because retriever trainers are too incompetent to get their dogs to search for birds.

[gonehuntin']

No, not having an upland dog retrieve in an upland trial is the equivalent of not having a retriever in a retriever trial find and flush the bird before it is shot for the mark and retrieve. Kind of ridiculous to be testing those retrievers on only half the job isn't it? Must be because retriever trainers are too incompetent to get their dogs to search for birds.

I disagree with your comparison. What is the difference between a pointing dog finding and pointing a bird, and a retriever marking, and finding a bird, but not picking it up? To me, both have done half a job. Incidentally, in a gun dog training kennel, every retriever is trained to search within range and work to the double whistle blast. At least at the ones I worked at. They were not all trained to handle and run blinds.

[Ruffshooter]

Retriever trials were primarily designed for the original purpose of the retriever breeds, which was for water fowl, which the dogs did not go out to search for the ducks, except the Nova Scotia Duck tollers. (neat little dogs). Is this not right. so the analogy is not correct, I think. I could be wrong but that would be a first, which by my saying I maybe wrong would make me right so I quess I am still perfect.

[slistoe]

No, not having an upland dog retrieve in an upland trial is the equivalent of not having a retriever in a retriever trial find and flush the bird before it is shot for the mark and retrieve. Kind of ridiculous to be testing those retrievers on only half the job isn't it? Must be because retriever trainers are too incompetent to get their dogs to search for birds.

I disagree with your comparison.

Of course you will disagree because it doesn't fit with your preconceived conclusion for which you want to cook a scenario. A pointing dogs main work is before the shot, a retrievers main function is after the shot. The pointing dogs compete on before the shot scenarios, the retrievers compete on after the shot scenarios. Neither competes in the others realm, but that does not make either incapable of going there.

[ezzy333]

A pointing dogs main work is before the shot, a retrievers main function is after the shot. The pointing dogs compete on before the shot scenarios, the retrievers compete on after the shot scenarios. Neither competes in the others realm, but that does not make either incapable of going there.

I an actual hunting situation the retrieve is just as importany and maybe even more from an ethical stand point. I agree the fun part is finding the bird and pointing but from a conservation stand point it is extremely important to put any and every bird shot in the bag.

Kind of silly to argue a subject where both have to be performed for the hunt to be successful.

Ezzy

[gonehuntin']

Of course you will disagree because it doesn't fit with your preconceived conclusion for which you want to cook a scenario. A pointing dogs main work is before the shot, a retrievers main function is after the shot. The pointing dogs compete on before the shot scenarios, the retrievers compete on after the shot scenarios. Neither competes in the others realm, but that does not make either incapable of going there.

You seem to take the view that pointing dogs shouldn't retrieve. That will rally piss the German's off. You should perhaps preach that logic to the thousands of GSP's, DK's, DD's, PP,s etc., out there merrily retrieving birds in the field. Virtually every lab I've ever seen will quarter in the field with no training. It's natural to the breed.

Virtually all of the pointing dogs I've seen will retrieve if it's nourished from a pup. Someone please explain to me why, when a dog has been developed as a brilliant, multi purpose animal, they should not perform all of the tasks they're capable of? Seems like a waste of a good dog to me.

I also believe that trials should test for all of the attributes a dog genetically posesses. Maybe it's just my thing, but it's one reason pointing dog trials hold no interest to me.

[RayGubernat]

MTO4LIFE -

The term "covey dog" is to differentiate the dog from a "singles" dog.


Yeah, yeah, I know that don't help much.

As I understand it, the "covey dog" is expected to course the country, running wide and far in seach of coveys of (typically) quail. When the dog finds a covey and locks it down, the shooters come in, shoot the covey rise, then collar the dog and let it ramble on to find another covey. The downed birds are the province of a retriever or spaniel.

The singles dog, by way of comparison, is expected to more thoroughly hunt out the location of a recent covey rise, to find and point single birds for the gunners untril the hunters have shot the covey down to the level they feel appropriate.

I wonder of the terms really have much significance these days.

BusterB -

As I said previously, I don't hunt to awful much anymore so the retrieve is not that big a deal for me. If the bird is killed dead, I am perfectly willing and capable of walking over to the bird, bending down and picking it up myself. If the bird is wounded, I have no problem with ordering the dog to "hunt dead", which is a behavior and a skill that I want all my dogs to have. When the dog points the downed bird again, which is quite often what happens, and I reach in and grab it with the dog still pointing....that works for me and it really tests the steadiness of the dog. The bird is in the bag and the dog is still dead broke.

I would suggest that if you want your dog to retrieve downed game that you train for it and allow it...when YOU say... and not every bird. I would suggest that you insist that the dog remain standing and not move and inch for the bird until physically released for the retrieve.

There is nothing wrong with training and allowing a pointing dog to retrieve. In fact, there is a lot right with it. A dog that is dead steady to wing shot AND fall will be almost certainly steady to wing and shot at a trial.

It is just that, for the type of trials that I do, a retrieve is not required, so it is something that I do not need to train for. I can concentrate on the other aspects and(hopefully) refine them to a higher level of finsih in the time it would take to train a reliable retrieve.... and (again hopefully) with less pressure on the dog and more retained style.

To each their own. You gotta do what works for you.

RayG

[vzkennels]

Very good post Ray.Hunters also think they are more in contorl because they have the dog in sight when the fact of the matter is that dogs in field trials are more in control by necsssesity.If they are not totally broke & stand birds when not in sight till the handler finds them & works the bird they might as well stay on the stake out.If a hunting dog makes a mistake you may or may not correct him & go on hunting.When a dog makes a mistake in a Field Trial he is DONE,DQUED for that stake.Field Trial competition is tough & the difference can be style & class & over training & handling can take that out of a dog.


Some how I posted this under the wrong topic,should have been under "Daniel's Educate Me" in response to Ray's post there.If one of the mods could move it there I would appreciate that.
Thanks
Ted

[vzkennels]

:roll: at myself above!

[Dave Quindt]

No, not having an upland dog retrieve in an upland trial is the equivalent of not having a retriever in a retriever trial find and flush the bird before it is shot for the mark and retrieve. Kind of ridiculous to be testing those retrievers on only half the job isn't it? Must be because retriever trainers are too incompetent to get their dogs to search for birds.

I disagree with your comparison. What is the difference between a pointing dog finding and pointing a bird, and a retriever marking, and finding a bird, but not picking it up? To me, both have done half a job. Incidentally, in a gun dog training kennel, every retriever is trained to search within range and work to the double whistle blast. At least at the ones I worked at. They were not all trained to handle and run blinds.

C'mon, you can't be that breed blind! There is a sizable percentage of hunting Labs out there that are NEVER used as non-slip retrievers and used solely as upland flushing dogs; basically oversized spaniels. And an even bigger percentage who use their retrievers as both non-slip retrievers and upland flushers. Yet the largest field trial and hunt test retriever organization in the the US doesn't test for those aptitudes and abilities in any way, shape or form. It's as if the AKC field trial/hunt test contingent wants to believe that no one uses their Labs like Spaniels, so there's no reason to test for those skills. The spaniel people have figured out that they need to test for those skills, but the retriever folks have concluded that every dog whelped quarters perfectly naturally, understands how to use the wind, can be steadied in the field, etc?

If we're going to talk about inconsistencies between how dogs are used and how they are tested, BY FAR this is the biggest inconsistency we have here in the US.

JMO,
Dave

[slistoe]

Of course you will disagree because it doesn't fit with your preconceived conclusion for which you want to cook a scenario. A pointing dogs main work is before the shot, a retrievers main function is after the shot. The pointing dogs compete on before the shot scenarios, the retrievers compete on after the shot scenarios. Neither competes in the others realm, but that does not make either incapable of going there.

You seem to take the view that pointing dogs shouldn't retrieve.

Instead of fabricating things to try and bolster yourself, why not try sticking with what was said. Just as there is nothing wrong with using a retriever to flush upland birds for you, there is nothing wrong with having your pointing dog retrieve birds for you - but neither of them are tested on it in their respective competitive venues. The lack of testing does not make a pointing dog less capable of being used as a retriever than the lack of testing makes a retriever incapable of finding birds to flush.

[gonehuntin']

]
Instead of fabricating things to try and bolster yourself, why not try sticking with what was said. Just as there is nothing wrong with using a retriever to flush upland birds for you, there is nothing wrong with having your pointing dog retrieve birds for you - but neither of them are tested on it in their respective competitive venues. The lack of testing does not make a pointing dog less capable of being used as a retriever than the lack of testing makes a retriever incapable of finding birds to flush.

Some of the pointing dog trials DO test pointers on the retrieve and in my mind, that is the correct thing to do. None of the retriever trials of tests, test a retriever on quartering ability. That's because it would be impossible to test for it and to grade it effectively. Quartering is a trait that virtually every dog has. Turn a mutt loose in a field and he'll bounce out in front of you and, though it may be accidental, flush birds.

Not so the retrieve. When a trait is ignored and neither bred for nor perpetuated for generations, it can become recessive. To make a difficult retrieve, it takes a dog that WANTS to make that retrieve to dig a tough bird out. Sure, we can force break them and make them pick up easy birds, but give a dog with little desire a tough bird, and he may well quit that bird or blink it.

The only thing I'm saying is that if a dog has the ability and is bred to perform a task, it should be a part of the training and of the testing. I'm not going to argue the point any further, because I could care less about it. If you don't want your dog to retrieve, don't teach it. Me? I want mine roaroing out to every bird I shoot.

[gonehuntin']

The spaniel people have figured out that they need to test for those skills, but the retriever folks have concluded that every dog whelped quarters perfectly naturally, understands how to use the wind, can be steadied in the field, etc?
Dave

Perhaps, because they all do. One way to put me to sleep, would be to go to a FIELD TRIAL that test labs quartering and flushing abilities. Yep. That'd be a barn burner all right.

Fact is Dave, to my knowledge, nowhere in the AKC retriever breed standard is it written that any retrieving breed should quarter. The fact that most retrievers do quarter, is simply a bonus to the breed.

[MTO4Life]

MTO4LIFE -

The term "covey dog" is to differentiate the dog from a "singles" dog.


Yeah, yeah, I know that don't help much.

As I understand it, the "covey dog" is expected to course the country, running wide and far in seach of coveys of (typically) quail. When the dog finds a covey and locks it down, the shooters come in, shoot the covey rise, then collar the dog and let it ramble on to find another covey. The downed birds are the province of a retriever or spaniel.

The singles dog, by way of comparison, is expected to more thoroughly hunt out the location of a recent covey rise, to find and point single birds for the gunners untril the hunters have shot the covey down to the level they feel appropriate.

I wonder of the terms really have much significance these days.

Thanks Ray, that makes sense now that you explain it that way. I should've probably known that, but being in Canada, we are pretty much limited to the singles, with the odd double grouse thrown in for good measure! I'd love the day where I had to worry about a covey dog and a singles dog when hunting grouse. Having 10 or 15 grouse boil up from a flush would be SPECTACULAR!

[RayGubernat]

Guys -

I am a pointer guy, so bear with me on this one. I am a bit perplexed. I do not understand why one would want to test a retrieving dog for field work. Retrievers are supposed to retrieve. At least that is what I thought the breed was designed for. pointers point, spaniels flush and retrievers retrieve. Am I wrong?

Can anyone explain to this 'ol pointer guy why a retriever field trial should include upland hunting as part of the judging criterion?

Next thing you know someone will be wanting to judge the retriever on how it points. oh....never mind.

RayG

[Dave Quindt]

Guys -

I am a pointer guy, so bear with me on this one. I am a bit perplexed. I do not understand why one would want to test a retrieving dog for field work. Retrievers are supposed to retrieve. At least that is what I thought the breed was designed for. pointers point, spaniels flush and retrievers retrieve. Am I wrong?

Can anyone explain to this 'ol pointer guy why a retriever field trial should include upland hunting as part of the judging criterion?

Ray,

What alternate universe you been living in?

There are probably more retrievers being used as upland dogs in the US than spaniels. The idea that "pointers point, spaniels flush and retrievers retrieve" is a 19th century British standard that even the British don't follow anymore. You're likely to see a Lab used to flush birds at an English driven-bird shoot and a spaniel used as a non-slip "picker-upper". Upland work has always been part of a retriever's duties as a hunting dog, just as non-slip retrieving has always been part of a spaniel's duties.

When the GSP breed was first submitted to the AKC, it was submitted as the "German Shorthaired Pointer Retriever", as that was the best definition of the breed. The hope was that the GSP would be allowed to compete in both pointing and retrieving trials. The AKC rejected it; saying that a dog could either be pointer or retriever, but not both. Given the fact the AKC uses the Pointer as their symbolic mascot, their ignorance is understandable.

The pheasant is one of the most popular upland birds we hunt every year in the US, if not the most popular bird. If the only dog you have is a pointer (who according to you doesn't retrieve) or a retriever (who according to you doesn't flush) than you are just out of luck? I've spent a fair amount of time chasing wild pheasants, seen a lot of Pointers being used and have yet to see someone hunting over one with a retriever walking at heel, waiting to retrieve.

To me, the idea that "pointers point, spaniels flush and retrievers retrieve" exists only in the minds of those who don't hunt very much.

JMO,
Dave

[RayGubernat]

Dave- -

Thank you for rising so nicely to the bait. Hook, line and sinker. Gotcha.

Field trials for retreivers should foucs on retrieving. Field trials for spaniels should focus on hunting and flushing. Field trials for pointers should foucs on huynting and pointing.

I believe that field trials for the different breeds should focus on and showcase the breed's strengths and theri principal reason for existence. For the most part, I believe that they do.

However, it is always well to remember that just because a particular breed is a retriever, flusher, pointer, hound...whatever... that ain't all that they can do.

It is snowing here like there is no end to it. Currently about 2 feet on the ground and it is still coming. I think a record is in the making for snowfall on the Delmarva. I'm so excited I could just puke.

RayG

[adogslife]

English Pointers were not bred to retrieve.
That would make them sorta versatile. They were bred to be specialists.

adogslife

[birddogger]

English Pointers were not bred to retrieve.
That would make them sorta versatile. They were bred to be specialists.

adogslife

I agree with this, but something has happened in the breeding of the EP's. I am seeing alot of them that are natural retrievers. MY good friend and hunting partner, known as Ron R on here, has a couple of pointers that retrieve to hand and do it with style. They have had no training on retrieving, they are naturals. He has one that also loves the water. I really believe that he would do well in the NAVHDA venue if that is what Ron wanted to do with him. They just seem to me to be more versatile than they were years ago.

Charlie

[vzkennels]

That could be from some of GSP cross breeding !! I'm only joking but everytime we turn around some one is talking about all the Pointer that has been crossed into the GSPS.Which means if that is true then just the opposite has ocurred aswell, cross breeding is cross breeding.

[birddogger]

That could be from some of GSP cross breeding !! I'm only joking but everytime we turn around some one is talking about all the Pointer that has been crossed into the GSPS.Which means if that is true then just the opposite has ocurred aswell, cross breeding is cross breeding.

Charlie

[RayGubernat]

Guys -

The fact of the matter is that most breeds of upland dogs retrieve birds for their hunter. It matters not whether they be versatiles or specialists, pointers, or flushers or anything in between. Most dogs have it in them to go get the bird and bring it back.

Most dogs are sold to hunters and hunters generally want a dog that can fnd and retrieve downed game, both the dead kind and especially the not quite dead kind. Breeders are quite well aware of this and since they have to sell most of their dogs to hunters... the dogs had better be at least decent at retrieving.

I personally have always had pointers, and fairly heavily trial bred ones, at that. Every dog I raised myself, retrieved downed game as well as I needed them to. The only dog I ever had that would not retrieve was a field trial reject that was actively and strenuously discouraged from having a quail in her mouth by her pro trainer before I got her.

Although she never retrieved a quail for me, after some time and encouragement, she would retrieve pheasants pretty reliably and, more spottily, a chuckar now and then. I didn't spend a lot of time with her because she would point dead and that was fine most of the time. Also, her bracemate, also a pointer, would retrieve just about anything, and loved it, so if she did not bring it back, her partner was more than happy to.

I have always wondered why pointers seemed to keep the retrieving "gene", even though it is generally not bred or tested for in trial bred dogs. I can only assume that it comes in the package with some of the other genes that are selectively bred for in a trial dog.

RayG

[birddogger]

Good points, Ray

Charlie

[slistoe]

I have always wondered why pointers seemed to keep the retrieving "gene", even though it is generally not bred or tested for in trial bred dogs. I can only assume that it comes in the package with some of the other genes that are selectively bred for in a trial dog.

RayG

If there is such a thing as a "retrieve" gene, pointing dogs do not need it. That is because in order to do the job for which they were intended they have an extraordinarily strong dose of "bird" gene and "subservience/cooperation" gene. So, when given the opportunity they will be strongly inclined to "get the bird" and once they have it they will happily bring it to the "master" hunter and give it over. In my world I call that retrieving, and the way to keep it is to keep testing for those dogs with lots of "bird" and lots of "subservient hunt".

[gonehuntin']

I have always wondered why pointers seemed to keep the retrieving "gene", even though it is generally not bred or tested for in trial bred dogs. I can only assume that it comes in the package with some of the other genes that are selectively bred for in a trial dog.

RayG

If there is such a thing as a "retrieve" gene, pointing dogs do not need it. That is because in order to do the job for which they were intended they have an extraordinarily strong dose of "bird" gene and "subservience/cooperation" gene. So, when given the opportunity they will be strongly inclined to "get the bird" and once they have it they will happily bring it to the "master" hunter and give it over. In my world I call that retrieving, and the way to keep it is to keep testing for those dogs with lots of "bird" and lots of "subservient hunt".

Good Grief!!!

[dan v]

The pheasant is one of the most popular upland birds we hunt every year in the US, if not the most popular bird. If the only dog you have is a pointer (who according to you doesn't retrieve) or a retriever (who according to you doesn't flush) than you are just out of luck? I've spent a fair amount of time chasing wild pheasants, seen a lot of Pointers being used and have yet to see someone hunting over one with a retriever walking at heel, waiting to retrieve.

Dave,

Well and good points, but really, and you allude to it, is that Setters/Pointers historically haven't been bred for the task of retrieving. Is the task asked of them today, yes. Should it be? Probably.

But what people advocate for, when they say pointy bird dog games MUST test for retrieve skillz.....is that they wish to see historical breed specialization changed.

GWP/GSP, by your own admission, they were not developed as a pointy specialist. Maybe others are different......but I like the specialists.

Dan

[ezzy333]

All of your thought are interesting. I still think bird dogs were bred for hunting and hunters dogs either pointed or flushed and they all retrieved. Since that time there have been a lot of different influences on all of our breeds. Some were bred strictly for beautiful house dogs like the Irish and those dogs were carried on as show dogs in this country by the people only interested in color and looks. All of the breeds have that faction today. Then there were the people who bred hunting dog but got hooked on the field trials as a way to keep the dogs competent in the field but as time went on they kind of forgot that hunting dogs need to retrieve and spent their time and effort on the bird finding and pointing abilities of the breeds that pointed. This opened up the arena for the continental breeds that billed themselves as the versatile or complete hunting dog. They not only pointed but retrieved and could be used for other types of hunting also. Like everything else, if there is a market for something it will survive and prosper and the versatile breeds became a major part of our sporting dog world.

Now all of that said, the plain old hunting dogs were still being bred in all of the breeds to serve whatever was needed by the hunter and they all filled that job quite well. And even though we still had the show only people and the trial only people we still had the large majority of people wanting and using there show, trial, house pet, and plain old hunting dogs to hunt with and that meant find the game and retrieve it for the hunter. That's still true today. We call some dogs specialist and some versatile but in truth all have been bred by the bunting community to fill all aspects of what the owners really wanted the dogs to do. And all will do it quite well if that is what you train them to do. The dogs we call specialist are just that because that is the way they were trained but it doesn't mean they can't perform all of the duties a hunting dog should perform to help put the birds or whatever in your bag.

Lets pray and hope it continues. and if that isn't enough then we better help it along with some responsible breeding that will keep all of our sporting dogs true to form and true to the complete job of being a hunting dog.

Ezzy

[gonehuntin']

A great, common sense post Ezzy and I agree with it 100%.

[Hattrick]

Ezzy333

right on point

[RayGubernat]

Guys -

I do not think we need to worry about pointers and setters losing their ability and willngness to retrieve.

Pointers and setters have been trialed for over a hundred years in a format that does not include retrieving in any sanctioned trial that I am aware of. As I said previously, my pointers come from trial blood, pretty close up an I have never had one that would not retrieve adequate for my needs. I have had on that was an awesome retriever. I could actually play the baseball game with him, he loved it so much.

I have seen more than a few trial bred setters that also did quite the acceptable job of retrieving in the uplands.

Several years back I did an evaluation of NSTRA placements with regard to breed placement. For two years running, the four major breeds... pointer, setter, GSP and Brittany... each placed in essentially the same percentage as they were entered. As far as retrieving is concerned, it is an integral part of NSTRA scoring and I doubt a dog could place without a retrieve. So I conclude that the four breeds mentioned above can all get it done equally well.

Bottom line, if the current trial scene remains unchanged, I don't see the need to worry about pointers and setters being suitale for hunters as regards retrieving. With a well bred field dog, if you need it, it will be there for you.

RayG

[north country guy]

Great Post EZZY... 100% Right On

[Ron R]

English Pointers were not bred to retrieve.
That would make them sorta versatile. They were bred to be specialists.

adogslife

I agree with this, but something has happened in the breeding of the EP's. I am seeing alot of them that are natural retrievers. MY good friend and hunting partner, known as Ron R on here, has a couple of pointers that retrieve to hand and do it with style. They have had no training on retrieving, they are naturals. He has one that also loves the water. I really believe that he would do well in the NAVHDA venue if that is what Ron wanted to do with him. They just seem to me to be more versatile than they were years ago.

Charlie

Thanks Charlie, Chopper made another real nice blind water retrieve yesterday. I almost ran out of shell hulls to throw at the down bird until he finally seen the bird move his head. It was a cripple that was caught in the current and pulled down stream until it hung up in some drift wood. I sure wish he moved in the water like your GPS's. Thier is nothing uglier that my EP trying to swim.

Ron