JH, SH, MH

[ezzy333]

Many of you need to stop to realize there is a much bigger group than we are that own hunting dogs. Many of those people have never heard of a hunt test or a field trial and those that have want nothing to do with a field trial type dog. There are many breeders who breed hunting dogs that show them. There dogs are still good hunting dogs. Just because a dog doesn't run big or work fast does not make it less of a hunting dog. And in most cases they are more desirable to the ordinary hunter than any of our big running dogs.

What I am hearing here is what your standards are from a field trial background. We tend to put range at the top of the list and range is nothing more than how far a dog will get away from you and has little to do with its desire or ability to hunt. Somehow we have become so engrossed in our type of dogs that we have transfered the term hunting ability over to does the dog hunt the way we like it to. If it doesn't run or if the breeders are showing their dogs they are just second class hunting dogs and that just isn't true. Many of these dogs perform exactly as the breed was supposed to hunt when they were first developed. The fact that we have changed much of that is the main reason we are seeing the European imports again since that is where people are finding slow close working very biddable dogs to hunt with. Remember there are a lot of people who have a dog because they love to hunt and not like most of us that hunt because we love our dogs.

With all of this in mind you will find that many people do look for the type dog that will go into the field and hunt within gun range with little training, which is nothing but work to them. The number one fault the average hunter will find in a birddog is too much range. So when you explain what the titles mean and how they are acquired they are often much more impressed with the hunt test dogs and the ways they are graded rather than the field trial dogs. And because of this plus many other venues that require a closer working dog, you do find breeders looking at hunt test titles when deciding how to breed. Personnally I can't think of a title that doesn't carry weight for people who want a dog with the characteristics that the title represents and no matter what title it is, it does show that someone is taking the time to do something with their dogs and that the dogs have the ability to earn the title. This to me can be important when you don't have personal knowledge of the dog in question. But still the best way to pick is to know the dog and forget the titles, as dogs tend to produce who and what they are, especially if there is some linebreeding in their background.

Ezzy

[TrueBlu Shorthairs]

Ezzy, I don't believe anyone has said that a big running dog is best for hunting or for hunting tests. Further, I have never seen it written that a trial bred dog is best for all people and all uses. However, there are far more misconceptions of trials, trial dogs, and what is expected at trials. A dog that ranges 500 yards is not winning most weekend events. The dog that runs off never wins. The dog that has no bird contacts, doesn't win. There is no average hunter. There are dogs that fit the needs of hunters in different areas. ANY person who buys a pointing dog and wants it to hunt within gun range shouldn't be allowed to own a pointing dog, no matter where he lives. Closer working is one thing, underfoot is another. A plodding dog that has no hunting desire surely isn't sought by anyone who is truly a hunter. If you want a brit, or Weim or GSP, purely due to Westminster or because it seems fashionable keep moving, don't call a reputable breeder, and realize you're better off with a poodle. If someone calls me and says he wants a pet and MAY hunt the dog, I tell him to call rescue or Operation Kindness or the SPCA. He is not allowed to look at my pups.

No, range is not the issue. Big running is not the issue. Being effective is the issue. You said, "Many of you need to stop to realize there is a much bigger group than we are that own hunting dogs. Many of those people have never heard of a hunt test or a field trial and those that have want nothing to do with a field trial type dog. There are many breeders who breed hunting dogs that show them. There dogs are still good hunting dogs. Just because a dog doesn't run big or work fast does not make it less of a hunting dog. And in most cases they are more desirable to the ordinary hunter than any of our big running dogs."

Don't assume their dogs are good hunting dogs. It flat doesn't matter if they have heard of trials or tests, it does matter if they HUNT their dogs however. If one rescues a GSP and gives it a great home, that is wonderful. But, if you buy a dog under the premise that you will hunt the dog and only want a pet, then you have lied to that breeder. If you show your GSPs and you don't hunt them, test them, trial them, then you have done a tremendous disservice to the breed, IF you then decide to breed your dog. These dogs were intended to be hunted, not used as fireplace ornaments. My dogs are all house dogs and family pets. But, each of them will see hundreds of coveys of wild birds in their lives. Does a dog know that he isn't being used properly or in a manner the breed was intended? Of course not. But, you won't missuse a dog from my breeding.

Point remains, a show dog with a JH bred to a show dog with a JH should not be advertised as DUAL QUALITY. There is the real crux, not huge running AA dogs sold to homebound hunters.

[Reech]

When I was looking for a dog, I wanted a dog that could hunt and find me birds. I knew very little about gundogs. I still find myself on the beginners end of the learning curve. She became steady to flush after 26 weeks and retrieves to hand . Some of her retrieves are sometimes a little sloppy, but I get all of them back reguardless. I would not be embarrassed to put my dog in a field with other dogs and other hunters. She is now steady to wing shot and fall and honors she will not move untill I realease her. Once on point she will move to mark the fall but does not make an attempt to retrieve the game until released. My pup hunts like her hair is on fire - wonderful desire. Everyone who has hunted over my dog has praised my dog for what she does. that means more than any title to me.

I have come to realize there are some faults (atleast in my opinion) in the testing. I have seen where my dog has out hunted the other dog and not passed because of an error on her part or mine. I do not like AKC hunt test that incorporate a "Backcourse." Honestly who amoung us hunts with a blank pistol. After a while I could swear my dog looks at me and wonders when I am going to put the cap gun away so she can go retrieve the game she found. As far as Navhda is concerned I do not care for the "Dragging of Game or the Tracking." I really do not want a dog that hunts with its nose down on the ground. I have heard the arguement that a SH titled dog is a very well trained Dog and a MH titled dog is an over trained dog.

Most of the things my dog does it got from its Mother. I have only trained her for obiedience, Manners and Swimming, the rest came natural. At one time the title meant alot to me, but in truth the dog doesn't know it has a title, or is or isn't a champion.

She only knows that I am her master and when we hunt we are a team. I can't wait for the season to start again!

Me

[GNS Shorthairs]

All,
To me the real question is this:
If you were going out bird hunting with a buddy, and you had to pick between two dogs, a FC dog and a MH dog, which would you pick if you had first choice? Why?

To me the answer is simple. Give me the FC dog. Why? I think a FC dog, on average, shows more desire, covers more ground, and searches objectives better than a MH dog, and they both, pretty much, demand the same in bird work. Now I'm not saying that there aren't any nice MH dogs, because I've seen some. I'm also not saying that every FC is a dog that I want (some just like to hear the wind whistle through their ears). But with all else being equal, I'll take a FC dog because I feel, on average, they show more "desire" for birds, and tend to cover more ground.

As far as big running dogs. It's much easier to take a bold dog and shorten 'em up, than to take a dependent dog and have them reach out a little more. Plus, FC dogs are trained to run big, it's the difference between running "lines" and "zig-zag".

My philosopy is simple: I would rather have my buddy shooting all the birds over my dog, than I shooting all the birds over his.

[Dave Quindt]

Ezzy,

I am perfectly OK with a breeder who wants to breed for 50 yard dogs, or dogs that point with a dead tail, or dogs that work at a lope. I am perfectly OK with putting a MH title on this kind of dog. It's not "my kind of dog" but I can see the value in all styles & breeds of dogs that I wouldn't want to own. We're not talking about what kind of dogs make good hunting dogs; we're talking about what kind of performances are worthy of a MH title.

What I won't accept is the idea that we should be putting MH titles on dogs that are not capable of giving FUNDAMENTALLY CORRECT PERFORMANCES. This has NOTHING to do with range. Dogs that consistently flag on birds, circle game, lay down on point, can't be trained not to delay chase, won't dig cover, lack of independence that interferes with an effective hunting pattern, can't stay broke, etc are fundamental flaws.

Remember there are a lot of people who have a dog because they love to hunt and not like most of us that hunt because we love our dogs.

That's all fine and good, but it doesn't change the rules that have been established. The hunt test rule book still says:

A Master hunting dog must give a finished performance and demonstrate clearly that it deserves to be qualified as such.

I don't expect the same kind of performance in a MH test as I would in a horseback Gundog stake nor do I think the standards should. I think hunt tests should be the venue for hunters to test their dogs. But this doesn't change what I call the "generally accepted definition of a finished dog" regardless of AKC or AF venue. To me, this is a fundamentally correct dog who doesn't display extreme flaws like flagging or laying down on point or unwilling to dig cover. I've seen some 50 yard dogs that fly all over the place with a ton of flash and spunk, and swap ends when they come across a bird. I've seen some Spinonis and Griffons that move at a painfully slow pace, but do cover some ground and will get out and hunt.

All of these dogs can be worthy of a MH title if they give a finished performance; without dumbing down the standard of what a "finished performance is".

Many of these dogs perform exactly as the breed was supposed to hunt when they were first developed. The fact that we have changed much of that is the main reason we are seeing the European imports again since that is where people are finding slow close working very biddable dogs to hunt with.

Ezzy, with all due respect much of this is more "urban myth" that anything else. I don't know enough about how the Brittany in France, but I do know a fair amount about DKs in Europe. First, the standards that DKs are judged to now in Europe have "evolved" from when the breed was first developed; it's why their rulebooks get updated every few years. Second, if you look at the minimum testing requirements to be approved for breeding (much less the more advanced tests) you 'll see these are not very "slow, close working dogs". These dogs that must complete a 150 meter track, out of sight of the hander; I doubt these are dogs that don't have the drive or independence to range out in the field. As to bidability over independence and drive; well, it's obvious that you've not had much experience with DKs imported to the US! As a friend of mine who has traveled to Germany for their Solms test was told over and over “we breed for toughness; we can train a dog to do anything but we can’t train them to be tough and strong.”


I believe we are fully capable of breeding and training well mannered, highly polished foot dogs that can prove not only their obedience in the field but their superior hunting abilities as an upland dog. To me, that’s what an AKC MH dog should be about, and the rules and standards should demand.

JMO,
Dave

[ezzy333]

Dave,

I can't argue with a thing you said. That is almost exactly what I was saying. There is more than one type of dog and if the dog fulfills its owners desires it is a good dog and range and many other qualities we sometimes think are important just aren't. I want to see some range, independence, style and desire. These are all important to me. I also insist that my dogs meet the standard of the breed. Because of my desires, my idea of what should be the qualifications of a MH may be slightly different than someone elses. But I think we do agree on most of the qualities we want in a finished dog. I hope we are right.

Ezzy

[CherrystoneWeims]

Excellent post, Dave.

I have judged or run with some MH's that I wonder how the heck the dog has EVER passed any of its tests. Dogs who have no drive, potter around, don't seek likely objectives, don't use the wind. I have seen others whom I would gladly take home with me.

I have watched or run with some FC's that I stare at in bewilderment wondering how the heck the dog has EVER become a FC. Dogs who run right past game (I know because I was the bird planter), dogs who have to be hacked around the course (I want to be out relaxing when I take my dog hunting), dogs who cannot complete a retrieve, etc. I have seen others whom I would take home in a heartbeat.

I run my dogs in both hunt tests and field trials. IMHO I think that a TRUE Master dog is more finished/polished than a FC. What FC has to stand through another dog's retrieve???? What FC cannot be whoa'd into a back???? What FC has to be heeled off after a missed shot???? What FC has to retrieve completely and tenderly to hand??? A FC is much more like a SH dog. Many FC's and SH's CANNOT make it through MH! They just can't step it up to that next level.

Now remember what I said in my second sentence - a TRUE Master dog. That's a dog that can be used for pretty much anyone to hunt over. Steady, reliable, great drive, smart in using the wind, etc.

I've also been known to fail dogs in HT's because they lack drive no matter what level they are running in.

I'm going to add something about laying down on point. I have seen some dogs who do this. The two breeds that I have seen are Setters and Weims. My thoughts are that with these two breeds it could possibly go back to an inherent trait which was used in Europe. These breeds were setting dogs. They "set" when the hunters cast their nets.

Also the running of lines and straight out to objectives is another issue. Dogs in many other countries are prized for a "windshield wiper" pattern. Depending upon where you hunt that windshield pattern can be very valuable. I have dogs who do both. I'd love to get my windshield wiper bitch in some FT's in Europe but that ain't going to happen.

I don't like that the rules have slackened for a MH title. If others don't like it then contact your AKC breed rep. Tell them. If enough people do something then AKC will tighten the rules back up. I run my dogs in hunt tests to TEST them for myself. If they pass the test then so be it. If I think a judge is too lenient then I don't put any stock in the pass of the test. I've judged a couple of times with some whom I didn't think knew what the heck they were doing.

[zzweims]

Dave:

I agreed with everything you said, except this statement:

"I am perfectly OK with a breeder who wants to breed for 50 yard dogs, or dogs that point with a dead tail, or dogs that work at a lope."

Owning and hunting over such a dog is one thing (a good thing), but breeding such a dog is another. No matter what, this is the best the puppies will be. But any breeder knows that some of the pups will fall short of their parents ability. So instead of hunting at 50 yards, they'll do 20; instead of a dead tail, they'll lie down or blink; instead of a lope, they'll trot or walk. If I wanted a 50 yard dog, I'd look to parents that did, at a minimum, 100 yards. Better yet, I'd go to field trial lines and teach the pup to stay close and/or ask the breeder to select a pup that was a little more clingy and people oriented than the rest.

Aline
http://sitekreator.com/zzfarms

[zzweims]

Pam:

I have never seen a Weimaraner go down on point (not yet anyway). I've seen them do alot of other annoying things, but the creators of the breed would roll in their graves to see such submissive behavior in what is supposed to be an extremely bold dog. They were never meant to be 'setters.' And in Germany the 'windshield wiper' pattern is prefered only if the terrain warrants it. Granted, they do a lot of testing in forests where it makes sense, but most tests do have an open field section where the dog is expected to run the edges. In fact, at the annual Zuchtschau in Weimar, all of the show dogs are expected to lap a field off lead at a high rate of speed. Those who run the edge are scored higher.

Aline
http://sitekreator.com/zzfarms

p.s. My German imports are much bigger running dogs and are better at taking edges than my American field bred dog.

[CherrystoneWeims]

Aline, I have seen several go down on point. One is Bill H's Ziggy- no lack of drive in him nor is he a submissive or soft dog in fact he's quite the opposite. They'll do it when the handler goes in to flush. Almost like they're waiting to pounce upon game. You can tell it isn't being submissive. Just more like a ready to leap position. Medieval bird dogs were setters which flushed the birds into nets on command. (Weimaraner Ways pg. 23)

Perhaps in Gemany they want the straight out dogs. I spoke with some folks from Ireland (they trial both GSP's and Weims and definitely are not show people), the UK, and the Netherlands a few weeks ago and they all told me about the windshield wiper pattern being looked for in trials.

[zzweims]

I have seen dogs go down on point. A friend had an otherwise marvelous gsp that would do it and she couldn't train it out of her. She sold the dog, as would I. The trait is either genetic or due to poor training. In either case, it is undesireable, and has been since the invention of gun powder. Even setters aren't supposed to 'set' anymore.

I have never attended field events in Scandanavia or Ireland, so I don't know what they look for over there. But at the field events I have attended in Germany and the United States, the prefered pattern is the one that suits the terrain, be it quartering or casting. A good dog should be able to do both.

Aline
http://sitekreator.com/zzfarms

[CherrystoneWeims]

I have seen dogs go down on point. A friend had an otherwise marvelous gsp that would do it and she couldn't train it out of her. She sold the dog, as would I. The trait is either genetic or due to poor training. In either case, it is undesireable, and has been since the invention of gun powder. Even setters aren't supposed to 'set' anymore.

I have never attended field events in Scandanavia or Ireland, so I don't know what they look for over there. But at the field events I have attended in Germany and the United States, the prefered pattern is the one that suits the terrain, be it quartering or casting. A good dog should be able to do both.

Aline
http://sitekreator.com/zzfarms

Oh I agree. I'm just saying that I have often wondered if it is genetic but really isn't a "fault" that many people attribute to submissiveness or softness. I wonder if it is a throwback to times when dogs were required to "set". Quite a few of us have had this discussion and we have never really come to a conclusion. I'm not sure if I would get rid of a dog because of this trait though since we can't really be sure if it isn't a genetic throwback and the rest of the dog is quite good in performance.

I also like a dog that can adapt to the terrain. But I have seen many dogs who cannot do so and even in tighter cover just run straight out like they are out for the races.

[Dave Quindt]

Perhaps in Gemany they want the straight out dogs. I spoke with some folks from Ireland (they trial both GSP's and Weims and definitely are not show people), the UK, and the Netherlands a few weeks ago and they all told me about the windshield wiper pattern being looked for in trials.

I don't know about the UK, but the "windshield wiper pattern" in much of Europe can consist of casts in excess of 200 meters each direction. The dogs are allowed little forward seperation from the handler, but the lateral seperation can be substantial. It may be a windshield wiper pattern, but it's a HUGE windshield.

Aline wrote:

[Owning and hunting over such a dog is one thing (a good thing), but breeding such a dog is another. No matter what, this is the best the puppies will be. But any breeder knows that some of the pups will fall short of their parents’ ability. So instead of hunting at 50 yards, they'll do 20; instead of a dead tail, they'll lie down or blink; instead of a lope, they'll trot or walk. If I wanted a 50 yard dog, I'd look to parents that did, at a minimum, 100 yards.

In theory, you are correct. In reality, I can think of a ton of dogs that don't "follow the rules". The hottest all age GSP female in the nation right now is the product of a moderate shooting dog male bred to a hunting dog female. She's the product of an outcross, and was her dam so no line breeding to strengthen traits either. And she was AA from the first day she was turned loose off of horseback - a complete natural.

My point was that I don't care what specifics, in terms of range or drive or style or ground speed folks breed for as long as they breed for functionally sound birddogs.

Regarding what you posted yesterday on delayed chase:

This is one of the reasons I stopped running my dogs in Master. We hunt coveys. Only coveys. If 20 birds get up and only one or two are shot (or none ), you better believe I want my dogs to do a 'delayed chase' to pick off some singles. Even if I encounter and miss a single, I want my dog to re-point it. Expecting my dogs to heel away from known birds, then asking them to find fresh birds, knowing full well that we might go all day without another find, was just ridiculous.

With all due respect, you do not understand what a delayed chase is truly about. Let's say your dog finds a covey up against a fence line, and when the covey gets up none are killed but they fly over the fence. What if the other side of the fence is private property? Or there's a steep ditch just over the fence that the dogs can't see? Or the rancher has asked you to not go into that pasture because his cattle will get worked up? What if it's a hen pheasant? Or a woodcock when only grouse season is open?

Delayed chase is about the dog ignoring the handler and going after the bird. It's really no different than the dog breaking at the shot. Polished hunting dogs should have the self control, both through training and breeding, to hunt in the direction commanded and not be chasing game the hander does not want to pursue. If you, the handler, want to send your dog after those singles your dog marked down then it's at your discretion. But the dog doesn't get to ignore you; and that's what a delayed chase is.

When working a broke dog at a hunt test or trial, you work the bird and then send the dog down the course. If you send the dog away from the direction the bird flew, and the dog wheels around and goes in that direction, your dog delay chased and you are done.


JMO,
Dave

[zzweims]

[quote="CherrystoneWeims"]. Medieval bird dogs were setters which flushed the birds into nets on command. (Weimaraner Ways pg. 23)

This is mostly correct. In medieval times there were only two types of bird dogs: pointers, that stood, and setters, that set. The setters being prefered. BUT, at that time, the German ancesters of the Weimaraner (gsp, gwp, etc) were NOT bird dogs. They were hounds. It was not until the 18th century, when hunting with guns became common, that the Germans decided to infuse these breeds with some bird dog blood. And they went to the pointer (standing game), not the setter (lying down). There is no historical reason for a weim, gsp or gwp to go down on game.

And even if there were...even *if* a setter got into the woodpile 500 years ago...there is no reason for a pointing breed to go down on game today. Even in the setters, it's consider a serious fault and an automatic DQ in the field games we play.

Aline

[TrueBlu Shorthairs]

Nowadays, 95% of the time, if a dog goes down on its belly, it's due to pressure, not genetics.

[NE Vizsla]

Nowadays, 95% of the time, if a dog goes down on its belly, it's due to pressure, not genetics.

i agree

[phillipsgsp]

I also agree.

[slistoe]

With all due respect, you do not understand what a delayed chase is truly about.

Good call Dave. Delayed chase has nothing to do with birds of a covey remaining in the area - it is all about the birds that have already left.

[zzweims]

Nowadays, 95% of the time, if a dog goes down on its belly, it's due to pressure, not genetics.

I agree.

Aline

[CherrystoneWeims]

I think that you would have to see this dog do it. He looks like a cat waiting to pounce.

[Elkhunter]

I was a gunner for a MH hunt test here in UT a few months ago. Those dogs were far from just plodding along. There were a bunch of dogs out of Tonelli's Rising Son that are far from "foot hunting" dogs. Yet they were passing MH tests. Also a very good GWP and a few Britts. I did not see one dog that I would not hunt over. All very aggressively looking and hunting for birds. I guess in some areas where showing is popular you would see less energetic dogs. I never saw any.

As for what dog would be better to hunt behind a MH or a FC. It all depends. For all the dogs that I have seen I would be happy hunting over any of them. All really good dogs. I dont see why a breeder could not breed for 50 yard pointing dogs. Why would that be such a bad thing? There are lots of people that like those type of pointing dogs. When I hunt with some people they freak when my dogs get past 50 yards which is usually the first 10 seconds. To each their own in my opinion. I purposely got my friend a pup that did not have alot of FC type dogs in its pedigree. There is no way he could control her, and he is completely happy with his 50 yard pointing dog.

[phillipsgsp]

85% of the people that contact me about puppies want just that, a 50 to 75 yrd dog(to them that is extreme range). I have to explain that a pointing dog is and should be alowed to range farther, they will point and hold the birds for you. If they want a dog that is going to stay within gun range all the time, I have suggested that they migh be better off with a flushing breed, if they are to nervouse to let the dog do what it was bred for.

Chad

[TrueBlu Shorthairs]

90% of people who call about pups are new to pointing dogs. Many haven't hunted over one. It's amazing how many actually THINK they want a 50 yard dog. Then, you take them to the training grounds, let the bigger going dogs loose and they do flip out some not understanding why I'm not losing my mind over a dog that has been "gone" for 5 minutes. Then, the dog shows to the front a couple of hundred yards, slams point, holds until we get there, flush bird, shoot gun, then, they understand somewhat. Real lesson is when you take a new person hunting in west Texas, climb on the Ranger, dog is out of sight for 10 minutes, come up over a hill, dog is pointing. Stop the Ranger, get out, load guns, walk in, big old covey blows up. THEN, they really understand the phrase "effective" hunting dog. Same scenario occurs on foot, so yes, trial dogs are effective foot dogs. In Utah, it may be very different, but around here, only 10% of the dogs being run are truly effective hunting dogs for this area. But, 50% or so pass JH, 25% pass SH, and few pass MH. Many of the dogs run in MH are just now worth much, and only sometimes are they truly broke. We have far fewer good 'uns than Utah apparently. Maybe hunters are smart enough to understand that a dog like Sonny can actually produce HUNTING DOGS!! Amazing!! Maybe the residents of Utah should educate residents of many other states. The world might be a better place.

Elk, you'd be amazed at just how many hunting dogs were produced by Sonny, Clown, Slick, Sanjo, etc.

[wems2371]

Not all of us are nervous about not seeing or knowing where there dog is. But I would actually enjoy watching my dog/hunting buddy in the process of hunting, lock up, etc..............that is the joy of hunting for me. I'm not looking for flushing range (already have a lab if I wanted that), but I am not wanting a dog that requires an atv, horse, or Ranger to keep up with it. To each their own. Somehow, a thread that started out asking about testing levels has turned yet again into field vs hunt test and which dogs are "better"--which is awfully darn subjective depending on what you want. Why can't people just let others be happy with what they've got/want out of a dog.........and leave it at that? Denise

[mountaindogs]

Real lesson is when you take a new person hunting in west Texas, climb on the Ranger, dog is out of sight for 10 minutes, come up over a hill, dog is pointing. Stop the Ranger, get out, load guns, walk in, big old covey blows up. THEN, they really understand the phrase "effective" hunting dog. Same scenario occurs on foot, so yes, trial dogs are effective foot dogs. In Utah, it may be very different, but around here, only 10% of the dogs being run are truly effective hunting dogs for this area. ......

Well, I am sure that would be nice to see, but MOST folks here in the east just don't have that kind of land to hunt on. You maybe get a farm or buddy that has a couple of hundred acres. Your dog could run out of it in 10 minutes, and it scares people to think their dog could be off the farm or preserve while you can't even see them. 10 minutes is a long time when you know a road borders one side of the farm, even if it is fence with barbed wire - lots can happen. Maybe their is a cat that they run across, or jump a rabbit, or catch scent of birds over the fence... Did you explain to your dog about the property lines before you set out? I don't know. I don't think we need to change the breeds to meet the reduced hunting availabilty, but rather fix the hunting availablity. BUT I do think what most owners here in the east, unless they can really travel out west alot, want a dog they can take to weekend preserves or hunt on small farms or even the little bit of WMA land that we have left. IT's really all we've got unless you can pay the big money. They want the dog to hunt hard adjust to cover and terrain and stay within sight mostly and if they do leave it, to check back alot or range in and out of sight so frequently that they don't stress too much. A bouncy running dog can be seen moving through cover further than 50 yards of course, but 300 yards would be on the next ridge or maybe in the hollow beyond it... How would I see that?

We used to hunt with a setter that would hunt VERY big. In our cover, he'd be gone for 30 minutes sometimes. He may have taken off to the right but way out he must have quartered back left because after we walked up and down hills and around the creeks and rocks going right for 20 minutes, we'd get to the top of a hill and see his tail sticking up out of the cover locked up on point at least a 15 minute beeline walk back left. He'd hold for darn near forever, but it just wasn't as fun walking all through the cover endlessly looking for him and not even knowing if we were going the right way. We had a big area and not much to worry with him leaving the hunting grounds, but we spent a HUGE majority of the time looking for him and walking back and forth, and very little time actually seeing him work. I almost never saw him actually hit a point...

[adogslife]

Can you breed for range or is it a gamble?

[Dave Quindt]

Mountaindog wrote:

We used to hunt with a setter that would hunt VERY big. In our cover, he'd be gone for 30 minutes sometimes. He may have taken off to the right but way out he must have quartered back left because after we walked up and down hills and around the creeks and rocks going right for 20 minutes, we'd get to the top of a hill and see his tail sticking up out of the cover locked up on point at least a 15 minute beeline walk back left. He'd hold for darn near forever, but it just wasn't as fun walking all through the cover endlessly looking for him and not even knowing if we were going the right way. We had a big area and not much to worry with him leaving the hunting grounds, but we spent a HUGE majority of the time looking for him and walking back and forth, and very little time actually seeing him work. I almost never saw him actually hit a point...

I'm sorry, but this wasn't a "big running dog". This was an out of control dog that would run off! Range and control are two different things; there are dogs that range 75 yards that are completely out of control and dogs that range 500 yards that will handle like a Cadillac.

Someone earlier in this thread stated that range is the biggest problem the average hunter has with their pointing dogs. That's an incorrect statement, and your post is a perfect example. Range may be the symptom, but the biggest problem is a lack of obedience in the field and around birds. They struggle with range because they need to keep their dogs close enough to be able to shoot at flash pointed birds, because the dogs are not staunch much less broke.

Range is the biggest symptom, but it is not the problem in an overwhelming majority of cases.

JMO,
Dave

[Elkhunter]

Trublu,
I agree with you. In different areas of UT a big ranging pointer is what I want. I have a 6 month old GSP out of Sonny another GSP out of City Slicker and then an Attitude pointer. I hunt chukars and quail mostly so I do like my dogs ranging farther. But you make a really good point about people wanting dogs are usually their first ones. They want a close working dog, then they figure it out and want an effective ranging dog.

[ezzy333]

We used to hunt with a setter that would hunt VERY big. In our cover, he'd be gone for 30 minutes sometimes. He may have taken off to the right but way out he must have quartered back left because after we walked up and down hills and around the creeks and rocks going right for 20 minutes, we'd get to the top of a hill and see his tail sticking up out of the cover locked up on point at least a 15 minute beeline walk back left. He'd hold for darn near forever, but it just wasn't as fun walking all through the cover endlessly looking for him and not even knowing if we were going the right way. We had a big area and not much to worry with him leaving the hunting grounds, but we spent a HUGE majority of the time looking for him and walking back and forth, and very little time actually seeing him work. I almost never saw him actually hit a point...

I've been there and done that maqny times. You get in heavy cover and my two dogs will disappear for several minutes and many times longer only to be found on point somewhere other than where we thought they were. They do not even come close to being a run-off type dog and they aren't out of control since I do not try to keep them as close as they would need to be in heavy cover for you to be able to see them. There are times when it is better to just put them away and walk the cover without having to look for them all of the time.

Someone earlier in this thread stated that range is the biggest problem the average hunter has with their pointing dogs. That's an incorrect statement, and your post is a perfect example. Range may be the symptom, but the biggest problem is a lack of obedience in the field and around birds. They struggle with range because they need to keep their dogs close enough to be able to shoot at flash pointed birds, because the dogs are not staunch much less broke.

This may br true sometimes but it'is not what we are talking about. Range is how far the dog ranges from you. Many times that should be 50 ft or less if you want to keep them in sight. Other times it could be 500 yds and it would be fine. I have no problem with the dogs flushing birds as they will hold their points and back for a long long time and its good that they do since it may take you 15 mins to find them and that may be only a hundred feet otr so from where you are. So there is no set rule as to what range you like or is needed. The range you like is a presonal preference and one is as good as another. The range that is needed is also varible and much of it may depend on how thick the birds are and how heavy the cover. Mountain dog did not describe a dog out of control. She described a dog that was dependable but was hard to find since he worked far enough away that you seldom saw him. But he was always there and always held the bird till you got there. Some people may like that and other don't and there is no problem with either position.

I may have been the person who said range is the biggest concern of people who arew buying a puppy but if I was not I will agree with it wholeheartedly. And its true whether you are a first time owner of a hunting dog or an experienced field trialer. Each have their needs and each are concerned. And again to each his own.

Ezzy

[CherrystoneWeims]

They struggle with range because they need to keep their dogs close enough to be able to shoot at flash pointed birds, because the dogs are not staunch much less broke.

I'm not in agreement with this. I've hunted behind some big runners. When you are on foot it's not fun to have to search for a dog on point. Wondering where the heck the dog is and knowing that the dog is COMPLETELY broke and staunch. We don't have open plains to hunt on. It's either woods or high, thick broomstraw. The dog gets lost in this broomstraw even when you are on horseback! Add to this by taking a grey dog and they are VERY hard to see in cover.

Now on the flip side I was talking with a girl from the UK who has a son of my stud. I am encouraging her to get out and try doing some field work. She told me that a few months ago the dog had her all panicked when he took off out of sight after he spotted a fox. I told her it was a GOOD thing that the dog had that independence to get out of sight. It was also good that he has drive for fur. She said that she was so worried that he was gone. LOL I told her if he didn't come back after a while that was a dog that she didn't want in the first place. He came back after a while. Another of my puppy buyers has a half-sister to this dog. The owner took her out in the woods running a couple of falls back. The pup spotted some deer and took off after them. He thought he had lost her and panicked. She came back after about an hour. LOL She was only about 6 mos. old. So I do understand about new owners afraid of losing their dogs. But I encourage them to not worry. If the dog truly loves the owner and has some bond they will come back.

[mountaindogs]

Well I had this long post and I made one wrong click and it went away !! Fortunately, you guys are saying basically the same thing. This setter was a nice boy for a different situation. He would return if you called, and handle directionals when he could see you, but it takes him awhile to get through the stuff and he had to find us and he may have changed direction after bird scent and we had been walking away from him even more, not knowing it. If he didn;t com back right away we knew he was on point BUT still had to find him. He would hold and many times DID hold for more than 30 minutes while we tromped through this:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3030/229 ... 598bc3.jpg

or this:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2277/173 ... 798132.jpg

to find him. ON foot it takes a while and just really loses the fun when you never get to see them go on point or work the bird scent, but only get to see the finish.

He was just doing what he was bred and trained to do, he just had the wrong situation for his needs. And ours. We did not have a scout to help us keep up with him, but if you put him on open ground with a scout and a handle on horse back you would have enjoyed him. At least I always thought so. His PROBPLEM was not that he was out of control. He would listen, well, but you would have had to hack and hack to work him in this... Where is the fun in that? His PROBLEM was that he couldn't adjust to changing cover.

Hunt him in open areas and high cut fields and he was a fun dog... wish I had an actual picture of HIM to show... but it was long ago and someone elses dog, who was in the wrong place and situation...

[TrueBlu Shorthairs]

Yes, the thread has taken a side street. But, Mountaindog, I think you've hit the crux, and Dave really made the perfect point. In the realm of hunting tests we are looking for an effective hunting dog. If the test is in Texas, we have to look for an effective hunting dog for this area, for the birds we hunt, for the country we hunt. We cannot look at a 25 yard plodder and say, "well, that dog is worthless for hunting quail in west Texas, but boy would he make a nice grouse dog". Although, in theory, maybe that is exactly how we should judge, we must judge from our own experience and personal knowledge of what makes a dog an effective hunting dog. A dog might make an effective hunting dog for someone somewhere, but we can't give our judging that much latitude in who passes and fails. Further, I wouldn't know an effective grouse dog if my life depended on it.

Don't know if I agree about the setter either. A dog that requires constant hacking is not working for the hunter, but doing it for himself. One should have the confidence to know that a little singing will keep his dog going the right direction, he should maintain his range, hunting all along, and show on occasion unless he's on point. If you have to hack 'em, that's not independence but giving you the bird. If the dog is working for you, his range is not a factor, he needs little hacking, but can be counted on to go find birds for the hunter, without screaming.

[zzweims]

Yes, the thread has taken a side street. But, Mountaindog, I think you've hit the crux, and Dave really made the perfect point. In the realm of hunting tests we are looking for an effective hunting dog. If the test is in Texas, we have to look for an effective hunting dog for this area, for the birds we hunt, for the country we hunt. We cannot look at a 25 yard plodder and say, "well, that dog is worthless for hunting quail in west Texas, but boy would he make a nice grouse dog". Although, in theory, maybe that is exactly how we should judge, we must judge from our own experience and personal knowledge of what makes a dog an effective hunting dog. A dog might make an effective hunting dog for someone somewhere, but we can't give our judging that much latitude in who passes and fails. Further, I wouldn't know an effective grouse dog if my life depended on it..

Shouldn't the effective hunting dog be able to hunt both quail in west Texas and grouse in Maine?

Aline
http://sitekreator.com/zzfarms

[Dave Quindt]

His PROBLEM was not that he was out of control. He would listen, well, but you would have had to hack and hack to work him in this... Where is the fun in that? His PROBLEM was that he couldn't adjust to changing cover.

OK, then it's an intelligence issue along with being out of control. Probably a training and patterning issue as well. But if the dog can't adjust to the cover it's irrelevant if he's a moderate ranging dog or a huge ranging dog; he's useless either way.

ON foot it takes a while and just really loses the fun when you never get to see them go on point or work the bird scent, but only get to see the finish.

Welcome to my world! 90% of my hunting is done in the Wisconsin grouse woods; I'd love to be able to hunt in places as open as the photos you posted. My older GSP is all-age sired as is the pup on the way. I know guys running Miller-bred pointers and linebred Tekoa Mountain Sunrise setters in the grouse woods, and a lot of these guys have horseback trialed these dogs. These dogs boogie around much more than even my GSPs, but they don't get lost for 30 minutes either. You can't handle a dog in deep cover like you in mixed or open cover; you need to keep talking to the dog and not let them get out of pocket. When the dog is working with you, and is under control and obedient, it's nothing close to "hacking". And if you want a dog to get out past 40 yards or so, you better have a beeper and/or bell on the dog.

Here's where I hunt:




Can you see the dog here?

[original mngsp]

Can you see the dog here?

Get yourself a white dog.... I couldnt resist! Hope all is treating you well Dave.

[mountaindogs]

Well, it sounds like your dogs adjust to the cover which this setter did not. He like most dogs was not perfect and had faults and one of them was that he could not adjust; he ran the way he ran. He was bought as a finished dog and he was well trained for another purpose. He was not the right dog for his owners but they loved him and so did we. He has since crossed the rainbow bridge, so please don't insult his intelligence. He was what he was. He was not perfect and that was my point.
That not all dogs who run big can run small and not all dogs who run small can run big. And some can do both quite well. He was nuetered and loved and hunted, and he was what he was. If all dogs handle from their owner at 500 yards and always stay "with the handler" why do trialers need tracking collars and scout to "find" their dogs? If it is just hunting with judges watching those dogs should be keeping contact with the handlers on their own right? That is a rhetorical question of course, and as I am sad for this boy, sad that rather than being remebered with a laugh and a sigh, he is being put through the wringer. So I am going to take a hiatus from this thread and let this drop for his sake and that of his memory.

And I agree to be effective at getting birds a dog should be able to adjust, and that is a wonderful trait that many of my dogs now have.
I was making a seperate point. Not bragging him up but pointing out how his hunting style DIDN'T work for us, and that there are situations where close working but hard hunting dogs are very helpful. All the better of they can do both. But the basic point was a lot of folks need dogs that can work closer. And not all dogs can...

I respect a MH dog, a FC dog, and a darn good hunting dog, they all have tough jobs, though they may be different.
Bye for now, best wishes, and sorry for side tracking the thread. I meant to be supporting it, instead.

[ezzy333]

Mountaindogs,

Don't be so easy to give up. What you popsted was a great tribute to a dog covering his good and bad points. Of course those points are different in peoples eyes but we all have dogs that hunt like the setter as that is what is normal with most dogs. Dogs do not shorten their range for the hunters sake but rather most will shorten in heavy cover since there is more ground to hunt close that will hold birds. They also will hunt closer when you are on foot since you are moving much slower and the dog can't see you as well when you are on the ground so many will stay closer and have to come back to check in with you more often. I think we are sometimes guilty of giving a dog reasoning powers like a human has and dogs just are not capable of thinking like that. The dogs brain is capable of remembering what it needs to do after repetion type training. The dog sees a gun and gets excited because in the past everytime the gun comes out he gets to go in the truck and try to find birds. He doesn't get up in the morning and thinks this would be a good day to get the gun out and go hunting. And he doesn't think if you are walking today he will stay close but rather notices when you are walking he has to stay closer to tell where you are. Some dogs do that better than others but in no way is it just a matter of training. If range was a matter of training it would be just as easy to train a dog to range as it would be to teach it to stay close and that just is not the way it works.

Ezzy

[TrueBlu Shorthairs]

ZZ, I hear all the time about the New England grouse dog that was brough to Texas and all of a sudden became a 300 to 500 yard screamer, finding and pointing wild quail, limits killed over the dog, etc. etc. I have yet to see anything close in person. I can't imagine running one of my Shooting Dogs in thick cover as was shown in the last post. It's easy for those to say their dogs do it all, but reality says it ain't so. Of the hundreds and hundreds of dogs I've owned, seen run, judged, and hunted over, I would say not one will ever see the grouse woods. We judge dogs in areas similar to where we hunt.

[bean1031]

Retriever breeds: JH 6-1year months SH 2 years MH 3-5years