I want the best books and videos for dog training.

[JonBailey]

I want a DIY step-by-step training manual to make a Labrador retriever productive for doves, pheasants and ducks.

I want to know exactly what to do and when to do it from the time the Lab is taken home as a pup
until he is a grown and finished gun dog. This includes making the dog birdy as the devil and
mastering obedience.

I don't believe in hunt tests, field championships, trials or any of that jazz. Training a dog
for serious collection of game birds should be realistic. Field trials are fake and have nothing
to do with REAL-world hunting.

I don't believe the weekend working-class wing-shooter needs and expensive dog either to bring
home bag limits consistently.

I know one should not be specifically looking for a POINTING Lab.
A good Lab should flush and have the stamina, gait and speed of a racehorse and the strength and endurance of a logging ox.
He should also be clever and innovative without much handling, hollering or whistle-blowing in the field.

A good hunting dog should earn his keep and not loaf, clown around or dilly-dally.

He should sit at the heel position and nicely hand off the bird, feathers unruffled, to his master.
I won't tolerate this jazz where the dog drops the bird on my boot toe.

[displaced_texan]

Anyone who thinks field trials have nothing to do with hunting have never been around one of the two.

I've no use for a retriever, but if that was my interest I'd be looking at Tom Dokken. He knows what he's doing.

[JonBailey]

Anyone who thinks field trials have nothing to do with hunting have never been around one of the two.

I've no use for a retriever, but if that was my interest I'd be looking at Tom Dokken. He knows what he's doing.

Does Tom Dokken put out books, videos or both?

I also like good training videos that demonstrate good training procedure.
I want to save my money from the pockets of expensive professional trainers.
Like building your own PC or houseboat, training your own dog from scratch is
especially rewarding.

I read Mike Gould's book about the Labrador 'Shooting Dog' and he hates
field trials as he feels they are in an artificial environment: they don't consider
the natural habitat or terrain the dogs would be hunting real birds in. They also
require handlers to be working their dogs too closely and the dogs are not allowed
to figure things out on their own.

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1278 ... ooting_Dog

Gould does not give specific step-by-step training procedures, however. His
book does not read like a military training manual.

[Chukar12]

You lack the intellect to understand dogs and therefore are incapable of training one. You should not own a dog, and while I digress from discussing the gun dog forum you should probably give more time to understanding how to be human.

[displaced_texan]

You lack the intellect to understand dogs and therefore are incapable of training one. You should not own a dog, and while I digress from discussing the gun dog forum you should probably give more time to understanding how to be human.

Insert this instead of my original post.

I lost all respect for you with your comment about keeping your money from the pockets of professional trainers.

[shags]

IME usually people who 'hate' field trials either
a) have never attended one and have no idea about them
Or
b) entered what they thought was their world-beater and got their butts handed to them PDQ.

Considering your attitude and what you require from a dog, I pity the one that comes into your hands

[Del Lolo]

On this thread, people have said :
"Considering your attitude and what you require from a dog, I pity the one that comes into your hands."
&
"You lack the intellect to understand dogs and therefore are incapable of training one. You should not own a dog,"

If I were to express my feelings about you, I'd get booted from this site in about 3 seconds.

[EvanG]

Anyone who thinks field trials have nothing to do with hunting have never been around one of the two.

I've no use for a retriever, but if that was my interest I'd be looking at Tom Dokken. He knows what he's doing.

Does Tom Dokken put out books, videos or both?

What there is of Tom's program is good, but limited and incomplete. He would tell you so himself. It's a work in progress.

There are only a few programs that are complete and detailed from puppy to finished. Indeed, only the Smartwork program begins with a complete puppy program. There are 3 books, and a total of 15 DVD's. You decide what you need or care for. But the core of the system is in the 3 books, and is augmented in the Bonus Basics Pack + the Transition Special. That represents about 2 1/2 years of developmental training, and a lifetime of maintenance. How well trained do you want your dog to be? It's your choice. By the way, dog training is FUN!!

I also like good training videos that demonstrate good training procedure.
I want to save my money from the pockets of expensive professional trainers.
Like building your own PC or houseboat, training your own dog from scratch is
especially rewarding.

If you purchased the entire Smartwork program the cost would be around half what a single month of pro training would cost from a quality retriever trainer; $352.66. The books, especially the first one, fully explain the principles and provide diagrams of all drill work. The videos show it all in live action with dogs that are actually at the level of training being shown.

I read Mike Gould's book about the Labrador 'Shooting Dog' and he hates
field trials as he feels they are in an artificial environment....

Gould does not give specific step-by-step training procedures, however. His
book does not read like a military training manual.

I had a series of discussions with Mike several years back. He dislikes what he's not good at, and that includes field trials. Further, he showed no ability to conceptualize dog work. "If it doesn't look like hunting, it can't work in preparing a dog for hunting." Nonsense! Your dog should, indeed, but trained step by step to have a solid set of core skills to use in any type of hunting. He can be exposed over time to the conditions typical of your style of hunting, and do so constructively if he has a solid foundation.



The 3 most complete programs for retrievers are Smartwork, Total Retriever Training (almost exclusively for field trial retrievers), and Fowl Dawgs. Neither TRT, nor FD have a puppy program. But I suggest looking them up and deciding for yourself. To see the Smartwork System click here http://www.evan-graham.net . Feel free to contact me anytime via email or phone. That information is found on the site.

EvanG

[Trekmoor]

I want to know exactly what to do and when to do it from the time the Lab is taken home as a pup
until he is a grown and finished gun dog. This includes making the dog birdy as the devil and
mastering obedience.

I don't believe in hunt tests, field championships, trials or any of that jazz. Training a dog
for serious collection of game birds should be realistic. Field trials are fake and have nothing
to do with REAL-world hunting.

.

I know nothing about the best American books, videos etc. on training gundogs but I do know that making "the dog as birdy as the devil" is pretty easy if the dog has good breeding behind it. That usually means field trial and field test breeding . I used to trial and test Labradors and I very quickly found that in order to achieve the sort of dog work you admire and want all I had to do was to relax on their training a bit and I soon got it !

My advice to you is to train for the full 100% and then , after you achieve somewhere near it, maybe let the standards of obedience slip a bit.

If you aim for 100% you might achieve 80 to 90% which will slip back to around 60-70 if you allow it to but if you train with only the target of 60-70 % in mind right from the start , that too will slip back and you will end up with a dog that does as it darned well likes !
I'd have a little re-think about training to at least Novice trial standards if I were you.

Bill T.

[Nutmeg247]

...

The 3 most complete programs for retrievers are Smartwork, Total Retriever Training (almost exclusively for field trial retrievers), and Fowl Dawgs. Neither TRT, nor FD have a puppy program. But I suggest looking them up and deciding for yourself. To see the Smartwork System click here http://www.evan-graham.net . Feel free to contact me anytime via email or phone. That information is found on the site.

EvanG

Gems like this always make reading your posts worthwhile -- thanks for the objective listing and for all the contributions to training discussions in general.

[displaced_texan]

Honestly, if he really needs his hand held from day one, he simply doesn't have the understanding of dogs needed to handle and train a high level dog to the flawless levels of performance he clearly demands.

In the words of Delmar Smith "never set a dog up to fail"

A dog in the wrong hands is guaranteed to fail.

[Bluesky2012]

Can I just go ahead and say it for everyone else? This guy is a pompous a$$. I wouldn't even consider helping him with an attitude like that. Sorry I'm not sorry OP but your attitude is terrible and Im surprised anyone is inclined to help you.

Your attitude, you're gimme gimme gimme, no man. No.

[Bluesky2012]

And I love how you know all these attributes of a GREAT hunting dog but have no clue where to start. Nice.

[UplandJim]

[ ... ]

I don't believe in hunt tests, field championships, trials or any of that jazz. Training a dog
for serious collection of game birds should be realistic. Field trials are fake and have nothing
to do with REAL-world hunting.

I don't believe the weekend working-class wing-shooter needs and expensive dog either to bring
home bag limits consistently.
[ ... ]

Woah (or Hup) Doggie!

(no pun intended)

[EvanG]

I don't believe in hunt tests, field championships, trials or any of that jazz. Training a dog
for serious collection of game birds should be realistic. Field trials are fake and have nothing
to do with REAL-world hunting.

It appears your posting here was hit and run. But just in case you may actually be looking for the real world knowledge you speak of, have you ever attended a field trial, or trained around a field champion? Have you attended a hunt test? Or did you just read Gould's book and take a great big drink of the Kool Aid?

I don't believe the weekend working-class wing-shooter needs and expensive dog either to bring
home bag limits consistently.

"Expensive" is a relative term. And the term "Well-trained" does not necessarily equal 'expensive'. A well bred dog that is fed a quality ration and that receives appropriate vet care, and is well-trained can seem expensive to some. If that is your view, it may be best for you and your dog if you take up blue gill fishing. If you truly desire to learn and grow, ask civil, well thought out questions, okay?

EvanG

[Bluesky2012]

If that is your view, it may be best for you and your dog if you take up blue gill fishing. If you truly desire to learn and grow, ask civil, well thought out questions, okay?

EvanG

Well put, but if you ask my wife about my bass pro trips, she'd not say nice thing about my fishing expenses either haha.

[EvanG]

If that is your view, it may be best for you and your dog if you take up blue gill fishing. If you truly desire to learn and grow, ask civil, well thought out questions, okay?

EvanG

Well put, but if you ask my wife about my bass pro trips, she'd not say nice thing about my fishing expenses either haha.

Yeah, but that's why I specified "blue gill"! LOL!

EvanG

[buckshot1]

In all seriousness, you might consider forgetting some of your preconceived notions and instead start your new hobby with a clean slate. You need two things: a well-bred puppy (just one for now, not two) and a good training program to follow with your puppy. You've already got some good recommendations on training programs. Your next challenge is to find a puppy. For the types of hunting you want to do, I agree that a lab is a good breed for you. Labs can do many things very well. You may want to rethink your biases against pedigrees and titles. Although field trials and hunt tests may not perfectly replicate hunting conditions, what better criteria do you have in mind for evaluating litters, especially as someone who isn't particularly experienced with labs? I would also caution against trying to save a few hundred bucks on a puppy. It's hard to overpay for a puppy. Much of what you're paying for with an "expensive" puppy is not just titles, but health clearances and a track record of health in the pedigree. In the long run, you'll be paying your vet much more than the few hundred bucks you saved if your pup has something like hip dysplasia. Especially as a novice trainer, you also want to ensure that your pup has as much natural ability as possible, of which a good breeding provides a higher likelihood. I would also caution you against writing off pointing labs. I bought a pointing lab as much for stamina and ability to independently hunt upland game as much as for pointing ability. Most "non-pointing" labs are primarily bred for non-slip retrieving, basically duck hunting. A pointing lab is specifically bred also for upland work and is therefore more likely to be more versatile as a waterfowl and upland dog. If you want a dog that flushes, any "pointing" lab can easily be trained as a flusher. In fact, pointing dogs of all breeds are unintentionally trained to be flushers all the time. Once you find your puppy and decide on a training program, I would also recommend that you join a local training club, such as a retriever or pointing lab club. Hands-on guidance from other experienced trainers is invaluable. Best of luck to you.

[JonBailey]

In all seriousness, you might consider forgetting some of your preconceived notions and instead start your new hobby with a clean slate. You need two things: a well-bred puppy (just one for now, not two) and a good training program to follow with your puppy. You've already got some good recommendations on training programs. Your next challenge is to find a puppy. For the types of hunting you want to do, I agree that a lab is a good breed for you. Labs can do many things very well. You may want to rethink your biases against pedigrees and titles. Although field trials and hunt tests may not perfectly replicate hunting conditions, what better criteria do you have in mind for evaluating litters, especially as someone who isn't particularly experienced with labs? I would also caution against trying to save a few hundred bucks on a puppy. It's hard to overpay for a puppy. Much of what you're paying for with an "expensive" puppy is not just titles, but health clearances and a track record of health in the pedigree. In the long run, you'll be paying your vet much more than the few hundred bucks you saved if your pup has something like hip dysplasia. Especially as a novice trainer, you also want to ensure that your pup has as much natural ability as possible, of which a good breeding provides a higher likelihood. I would also caution you against writing off pointing labs. I bought a pointing lab as much for stamina and ability to independently hunt upland game as much as for pointing ability. Most "non-pointing" labs are primarily bred for non-slip retrieving, basically duck hunting. A pointing lab is specifically bred also for upland work and is therefore more likely to be more versatile as a waterfowl and upland dog. If you want a dog that flushes, any "pointing" lab can easily be trained as a flusher. In fact, pointing dogs of all breeds are unintentionally trained to be flushers all the time. Once you find your puppy and decide on a training program, I would also recommend that you join a local training club, such as a retriever or pointing lab club. Hands-on guidance from other experienced trainers is invaluable. Best of luck to you.

I most likely won't need a 'pointing' Lab for passing doves or doves over decoys. "Standard-instinct" Labs are used right and left in the pheasant field. From what I read by Gould, the non-pointing Lab will generally flush and retrieve. Gould said if you happen to end up with a pointing Lab, good. If you end up with an "ordinary" Lab, that is just as well. He said don't go out of your way to specifically choose a Lab puppy as a 'pointing" Lab. Do I absolutely need a POINTING Lab for JUST dove, pheasant and duck?

Actually, I am experienced with Labs since I have owned four in my life time. I have just never had Labs for hunting or trained for hunting. They were only outdoor/indoor companion dogs who liked to retrieve tennis balls, go boating, go swimming and retrieve boat bumpers and the large black male I had was a great Nylabone frisbee catcher though he collapsed a couple times from heat exhaustion since I was working him hard at frisbee catching during hot, summer weather on mown, humid grass . I have ever since learned that Labs, for all their athleticism, are sensitive to warm weather. This breed was developed to retrieve fish nets from arctic waters of Canada originally. I will have to be careful when hunting my next Lab during the warm weather of early dove season. My Labs have all passed on and I am now dog-less. I am age 50. I am considering taking up wing-shooting for the first time in my life and will also be taking up serious gun dogs for the first time. For the sporting breeds, I am most attracted to the Labrador retriever since this is a breed I know and love.

[Mountaineer]

The consistency of the OP is .....interesting.

[Bluesky2012]

In all seriousness, you might consider forgetting some of your preconceived notions and instead start your new hobby with a clean slate. You need two things: a well-bred puppy (just one for now, not two) and a good training program to follow with your puppy. You've already got some good recommendations on training programs. Your next challenge is to find a puppy. For the types of hunting you want to do, I agree that a lab is a good breed for you. Labs can do many things very well. You may want to rethink your biases against pedigrees and titles. Although field trials and hunt tests may not perfectly replicate hunting conditions, what better criteria do you have in mind for evaluating litters, especially as someone who isn't particularly experienced with labs? I would also caution against trying to save a few hundred bucks on a puppy. It's hard to overpay for a puppy. Much of what you're paying for with an "expensive" puppy is not just titles, but health clearances and a track record of health in the pedigree. In the long run, you'll be paying your vet much more than the few hundred bucks you saved if your pup has something like hip dysplasia. Especially as a novice trainer, you also want to ensure that your pup has as much natural ability as possible, of which a good breeding provides a higher likelihood. I would also caution you against writing off pointing labs. I bought a pointing lab as much for stamina and ability to independently hunt upland game as much as for pointing ability. Most "non-pointing" labs are primarily bred for non-slip retrieving, basically duck hunting. A pointing lab is specifically bred also for upland work and is therefore more likely to be more versatile as a waterfowl and upland dog. If you want a dog that flushes, any "pointing" lab can easily be trained as a flusher. In fact, pointing dogs of all breeds are unintentionally trained to be flushers all the time. Once you find your puppy and decide on a training program, I would also recommend that you join a local training club, such as a retriever or pointing lab club. Hands-on guidance from other experienced trainers is invaluable. Best of luck to you.

I most likely won't need a 'pointing' Lab for passing doves or doves over decoys. "Standard-instinct" Labs are used right and left in the pheasant field. From what I read by Gould, the non-pointing Lab will generally flush and retrieve. Gould said if you happen to end up with a pointing Lab, good. If you end up with an "ordinary" Lab, that is just as well. He said don't go out of your way to specifically choose a Lab puppy as a 'pointing" Lab. Do I absolutely need a POINTING Lab for JUST dove, pheasant and duck?

Dude the fact that the little researche I could pull up said Mike Gould got pushed out of the retriever training world might suggest you chill out, drink some better kool aide and start learning from real pros before getting in over your head. Heck you already annoyed Evan graham who is a major leader in producing modern retriever training methods. Might wanna cool your jets buddy.

[displaced_texan]

I most likely won't need a 'pointing' Lab for passing doves or doves over decoys. "Standard-instinct" Labs are used right and left in the pheasant field. From what I read by Gould, the non-pointing Lab will generally flush and retrieve. Gould said if you happen to end up with a pointing Lab, good. If you end up with an "ordinary" Lab, that is just as well. He said don't go out of your way to specifically choose a Lab puppy as a 'pointing" Lab. Do I absolutely need a POINTING Lab for JUST dove, pheasant and duck?

I do that with an English Pointer. As do several of my friends. I've watched Pointers chase wing tipped geese a quarter mile. A non pointing lab is far from the only dog that would work for you. But your mind is already made up, no need to confuse you with facts and experience.

[buckshot1]

In all seriousness, you might consider forgetting some of your preconceived notions and instead start your new hobby with a clean slate. You need two things: a well-bred puppy (just one for now, not two) and a good training program to follow with your puppy. You've already got some good recommendations on training programs. Your next challenge is to find a puppy. For the types of hunting you want to do, I agree that a lab is a good breed for you. Labs can do many things very well. You may want to rethink your biases against pedigrees and titles. Although field trials and hunt tests may not perfectly replicate hunting conditions, what better criteria do you have in mind for evaluating litters, especially as someone who isn't particularly experienced with labs? I would also caution against trying to save a few hundred bucks on a puppy. It's hard to overpay for a puppy. Much of what you're paying for with an "expensive" puppy is not just titles, but health clearances and a track record of health in the pedigree. In the long run, you'll be paying your vet much more than the few hundred bucks you saved if your pup has something like hip dysplasia. Especially as a novice trainer, you also want to ensure that your pup has as much natural ability as possible, of which a good breeding provides a higher likelihood. I would also caution you against writing off pointing labs. I bought a pointing lab as much for stamina and ability to independently hunt upland game as much as for pointing ability. Most "non-pointing" labs are primarily bred for non-slip retrieving, basically duck hunting. A pointing lab is specifically bred also for upland work and is therefore more likely to be more versatile as a waterfowl and upland dog. If you want a dog that flushes, any "pointing" lab can easily be trained as a flusher. In fact, pointing dogs of all breeds are unintentionally trained to be flushers all the time. Once you find your puppy and decide on a training program, I would also recommend that you join a local training club, such as a retriever or pointing lab club. Hands-on guidance from other experienced trainers is invaluable. Best of luck to you.

I most likely won't need a 'pointing' Lab for passing doves or doves over decoys. "Standard-instinct" Labs are used right and left in the pheasant field. From what I read by Gould, the non-pointing Lab will generally flush and retrieve. Gould said if you happen to end up with a pointing Lab, good. If you end up with an "ordinary" Lab, that is just as well. He said don't go out of your way to specifically choose a Lab puppy as a 'pointing" Lab. Do I absolutely need a POINTING Lab for JUST dove, pheasant and duck?

Actually, I am experienced with Labs since I have owned four in my life time. I have just never had Labs for hunting or trained for hunting. They were only outdoor/indoor companion dogs who liked to retrieve tennis balls, go boating, go swimming and retrieve boat bumpers and the large black male I had was a great Nylabone frisbee catcher though he collapsed a couple times from heat exhaustion since I was working him hard at frisbee catching during hot, summer weather on mown, humid grass . I have ever since learned that Labs, for all their athleticism, are sensitive to warm weather. This breed was developed to retrieve fish nets from arctic waters of Canada originally. I will have to be careful when hunting my next Lab during the warm weather of early dove season. My Labs have all passed on and I am now dog-less. I am age 50. I am considering taking up wing-shooting for the first time in my life and will also be taking up serious gun dogs for the first time. For the sporting breeds, I am most attracted to the Labrador retriever since this is a breed I know and love.

To answer your question, you don't "need" a pointing lab for ducks, doves, and pheasants, but the likelihood that your lab will be a good on pheasants, in addition to ducks and doves, is better with a pointing lab, in my opinion. Although many normal labs make good flushers, labs technically aren't a flushing breed, such as cocker or springer spaniels. Labs are a retrieving breed that often make good flushers anyway through proper exposure to upland birds and due to their intelligence and trainability. Pointing labs are like any other lab except that they will naturally point if properly introduced to birds. Just like any other lab, pointing labs should retrieve doves and waterfowl. My pointing lab happens to be a better retriever than the three non-pointing labs (duck dogs) I've owned. You should make sure the parents are good retrievers whether you're looking at pointing labs or regular labs. One advantage of a pointing lab for upland work is that the dog is more likely to independently work a field than a regular lab because pointing labs are bred for upland work to some degree. With a normal lab, you could get a good flusher, but you also run a greater risk that the dog will want to walk by your side instead of independently search for birds. For upland work, labs were historically bred to walk at heel and retrieve birds shot over the pointers. Hope that makes sense.

I'm glad you have some experience with labs and warm weather. You REALLY have to watch them when it's hot out and make sure they have plenty of water. I'm not saying this is what happened to your dog, but labs are also genetically predisposed to Exercise Induced Collapse (EIC), which normally occurs after 15 minutes of exercise. The parents in any lab breeding should be tested for EIC. Yet another reason to buy an "expensive" puppy . . .

[nikegundog]

Going on the cheap, Fowl Dogs is the best you'll find in terms of video tapes.

[displaced_texan]

Bird dogs are not a hobby/passion that goes with cheap.

Dogs are expensive. Performance dogs are more expensive.

[Del Lolo]

Dude the fact that the little researcher could pull up said mike Gould got pushed out of the retriever training world might suggest you chill out, drink some better kool aide and start learning from real pros before getting in over your head. Heck you already annoyed Evan graham who is a major leader in producing modern retriever training methods. Might wanna cool your jets buddy.

A few years ago, Doc E challenged Mr. Gould to run a dog or two in a Field Test. Doc E would run his dog in the same Test and would let the gallery (and judges) determine which dog did the best.
Mr. Gould agreed ----- but then came up with a dozen excuses why he wouldn't/couldn't show up.

[EvanG]

Dude the fact that the little researcher could pull up said mike Gould got pushed out of the retriever training world might suggest you chill out, drink some better kool aide and start learning from real pros before getting in over your head. Heck you already annoyed Evan graham who is a major leader in producing modern retriever training methods. Might wanna cool your jets buddy.

A few years ago, Doc E challenged Mr. Gould to run a dog or two in a Field Test. Doc E would run his dog in the same Test and would let the gallery (and judges) determine which dog did the best.
Mr. Gould agreed ----- but then came up with a dozen excuses why he wouldn't/couldn't show up.

I had the same experience.

EvanG

[aulrich]

I have not been to a field trial, but I do participate in hunt tests. And as a rookie trainer/dog owner I have found it very useful. I have a versatile and participate in local NAVHDA club. I don’t know the retriever world equivalent , NARA maybe? But what preparing for test has done for me, was give me a framework of skill and attributes that I needed to develop in my dog at various age brackets. Tests are also graduated in difficulty but essentially the same thing just a higher level required of the dog. But by preparing and training to a level to pass these tests has left me with a very huntable dog.

There is a certain level of “theatre” in the test, but the drills themselves are fairly realistic simulations of hunting. The theatre comes in the handling of your dog. Lots of folks don’t run pointing dogs that are steady to shot and fall but that is what is required for the test. And once I give a retrieve command I cannot give another command to the dog until the give command and I only have one step to get to the dog or else I lose points. When I am hunting do I care if I take two steps, sort of when 2 turns into 5 .

Don’t forget the other expense , TIME, lots and lots of time. From a time is money perspective a pro trainer is cheap, dirt cheap. If I worked for money instead of working the dog I would come out way ahead in the terms of straight dollars. But life would not be nearly so much fun as working the dog.

[QuillGordon]

The original post describes a hound I had. When purchased he was more peso's than most. We were both bold, confident and head strong. We clashed on many subjects but in the end what happened was he!!, fire and brimstone. He lit it up and was everything your post describes & more. I've only had one like em in twenty five years of flushing Labradors. The only way I can describe it is he came along at the perfect time in my life & man o man did we make some fine memories together.

Point being; Is your lucky to only get one of these hounds in a lifetime... Good luck with your search

The mighty "Oak"

[Tooling]

Forget the "best"

"best" is what clicks with and makes sense to YOU - learn to read your dog as he/she matures while setting basic guidelines and enforcing/fostering absolutes (whoa,come,etc) Your dog will show you his or her nature if you give him/her the opportunity to do so..once you know what you're working with, build on it.

[EvanG]

Terrific photo!

EvanG

[EvanG]

Forget the "best"

"best" is what clicks with and makes sense to YOU - learn to read your dog as he/she matures while setting basic guidelines and enforcing/fostering absolutes (whoa,come,etc) Your dog will show you his or her nature if you give him/her the opportunity to do so..once you know what you're working with, build on it.

Opinions obviously will vary. But the "best", in my logical mind, is what most consistently produces a successful, standard set of working skills for the most dogs and most newer trainers, most often. It's less a matter of what one trainer produced with his method, and more about what those who followed that method have been able to accomplish by using it. You decide.

http://www.evan-graham.net/Blank.html

EvanG

[Tooling]

Forget the "best"

"best" is what clicks with and makes sense to YOU - learn to read your dog as he/she matures while setting basic guidelines and enforcing/fostering absolutes (whoa,come,etc) Your dog will show you his or her nature if you give him/her the opportunity to do so..once you know what you're working with, build on it.

Opinions obviously will vary. But the "best", in my logical mind, is what most consistently produces a successful, standard set of working skills for the most dogs and most newer trainers, most often. It's less a matter of what one trainer produced with his method, and more about what those who followed that method have been able to accomplish by using it. You decide.

http://www.evan-graham.net/Blank.html

EvanG

Absolutely - and you are right, opinions vary and that's the point. For me the primary goal is to produce a very well rounded, bold, confident and very stable dog above all things. I want a dog who can certainly hold his own and has proven himself rather capable in the field - but this is not the only thing he is. I am fortunate because my pup has displayed amazing natural talent in the field and has now come full circle with every other aspect of his existence where he is a very sound and confident animal completely at ease across the board (mostly)..for a Shorthair, this is a very good thing IMO. Shorthairs can be ez to ruin yet they can handle a lot which can be a very challenging notion to a true novice, unfortunately in most cases at the expense of the dogs overall well being. The social aspect of their existence is in my humble opinion just as, if not more important than his or her manners in the field..these things I believe most would agree go hand in hand.

Some people may want a fire-breathing pure hunting machine so there goals may differ from mine - and that's a very good thing because the collective knowledge going into the seemingly never ending debate about this or that while frustrating at times, is a very positive thing. I have had Shorthairs for years - I now have virtually the same blood that I have always had but he is not direct. He is removed from the line I've always had in the sense that he is the result of virtually the same breeding going back a good number of generations yet carried forward. I'm a believer - I have the same exact dog as all of the dogs I've had in the past regarding personality, build, and just overall makeup - only he's better. He is more stable, field capable like nobodies business, and just overall more complete w/gobs of boldness once you cut him loose - it's hard to explain. This tells me that there are some very serious breeders out there that know precisely what they are doing...that is awesome. For a guy like me that lives and breathes this stuff but have not quite yet found the true time in there life to this point to "do this...REALLY do this, it is incredible to basically pop in and out of generations of Shorthairs only to see the evolution over time in such contrast. This can be difficult for some who have been in this game on a continuous basis to see the dramatic changes...but maybe not..I dunno' - bottom line - to all breeders out there diligintely working toward the breeding of quality Shorthairs - you are doing an amazing job!! I am so grateful to have this perspective, I love Shorthairs.


Sorry for the tangent..

Evan, I wholeheartedly agree with you - the methods that are tried and true from the past are true today - it appears to me that what has evolved has been the method of delivery. It has become much gentler while maintaining the firmness required and the tools have gotten very good toward that end. How any "method" differs from one to the other is merely the utilization, execution, and of course philosophy (which can be a lot). It also seems to me that no matter what program you choose - all of the seemingly good ones, but more importantly successful ones have very similar basic fundamentals to them.

[Tooling]

I should have added this..

It should be clear that I'm rather proud of how I've raised my dog to this stage having a good starting point with his breeding. Part of that upbringing included Evans FF program along w/some advice from this message board - I can undoubtedly say that following that program which is a well established one was one of the keys to bringing my dog to where he is right now, one of the pcs - that should speak volumes about following a good program but I believe knowing when to do this or that is the key - timing is everything. Balanced development at the individual dogs pace is important but you can't be a sap about it either..

ALL OPINION - NOT LOOKING FOR DEBATE!!!

[QuillGordon]

Terrific photo!

Gracie, Señor Graham...