Critiquing The Delmar Smith Method

[jrschultz]

I just finished the Delmar Smith book on dog training. http://www.amazon.com/Best-Way-Train-Yo ... 013&sr=8-1 I enjoyed it thoroughly and I appreciated his wisdom and insights into training gun dogs. I found the book presented well a training method set out by a true master trainer. If I have one critique, it's that of not doing anything with the dog the whole first year. The concept in the book was "let the dog have his fun" then turn him into a worker later on. I can appreciate letting a dog be a puppy, exploring, growing, etc. I'm wondering if there are any further thoughts on this. Additionally, I'm curious about letting a dog do things in this first year that we don't let him do later on in life. For instance, while out happy timing, if pup is running wild, pointing and bumping birds, we essentially have to un-train this behavior out of him later. Any comments about this? Thanks for your time!

[kninebirddog]

since that book as been written there are many things that have changed


Rik Delmars son has carried on the tradition of helping people with thier dogs
but they expose pups to tethers leashes chain gangs slowly do some like command lead and check cord work introduce to birds

that is one thing about books they are stuck in the time they were written not allowing growth of new training equipment which from the time that book was written to todays e collars there is a BIG world of difference which allows somethings to be introduced earlier in a dog progress in training as the e collar can have less stimulation value then a tug of a leash and collar

go to google books and look up a book by Er M Shelly it was written in the early 1900 and Er was running trials in the late 1800's and you will begin to understand why many old time trainers didn't want to waste time with young dogs..first they had to survive being a puppy then they did have to self hunt and have a lot of desire to want birds over some of the methods used to get a dog under control
some of the stuff will have your eyes and jaw on the floor

[ezzy333]

I have no problem at all with a puppy finding bumping and chasing birds. Would be disappointed if it didn't. Those things ca be corrected later if the pup hasn't already corrected them as it gets bigger, smarter and more mature. About the only training I do in the first year is the yard work and teaching manners.

Ezzy

[topher40]

A gun dog and a trial dog are two different things when it comes to the thought of "letting a pup be a pup for the first year". I see nothing wrong with breaking a dog before a year if you are only looking for a gun dog. However if you are wanting a true field trial prospect, which Delmar was, then you need to let them mature mentally and I do with ALL my dogs. The only thing I do with my pups for the first year is stake them out, teach them to go with me, and have a formal intro to birds and the gun. I wait to do any real breaking until after their first derby season. You have a dogs whole life to get them broke and keep them there so why rush it? Do it once and do it right.

[M1Tanker]

A gun dog and a trial dog are two different things when it comes to the thought of "letting a pup be a pup for the first year". I see nothing wrong with breaking a dog before a year if you are only looking for a gun dog. However if you are wanting a true field trial prospect, which Delmar was, then you need to let them mature mentally and I do with ALL my dogs. The only thing I do with my pups for the first year is stake them out, teach them to go with me, and have a formal intro to birds and the gun. I wait to do any real breaking until after their first derby season. You have a dogs whole life to get them broke and keep them there so why rush it? Do it once and do it right.

I agree with that. I do not trial my dogs but use the same theory...in fact, I have been known to reinforce what some would call bad behavior by shooting bumped birds over a pup. IMO, what I am doing is facilitating the bringing out of the full drive and desire that is bred in the dog.

I honestly think that you can run the risk of taking a lot out of a dog in the first year by formal training. For example, many folks will overdo the quartering drill and end up with a dog that looks to you for guidance rather than hunting on it's own. I prefer to let them figure that out on their own. They will learn where to find birds through experience and the next thing you know, it is year two and when you cast them out they hit cover where they have found birds before, etc.

I would also agree that training methods have advanced considerably and we are more humane with dogs than we used to be. With that being said, I still prefer to let them be somewhat self-taught in the field the first year.

Minor yard work to learn their name, how to "come" or "here", and of course...house manners. Throw in introduction to birds, water, and the gun and leave the rest to the genes has worked fine for me.

You can take it out of them, but you cannot put it in them...nothing wrong with letting them have fun the first year.

Just my .02...there are plenty of other methods out there.

[Neil]

Even at the time Bill wrote the book Delmar was backing off the "let them be a puppy for a year thing". Oh, he said it often enough, and meant it, but in the next breath, he would talk about all a puppy can learn.

What I thought he meant at the time, and what I think Rick means now, is do not put too much pressure on the dog at a young age. As already said, you can' put anything in without taking something out. We have had 30 + years of breeding to get better dogs since the book was written, some of them today have plenty that needs to be taken out. The key is knowing which and how much. And Delmar explained "reading the dog".

For a book to be in print for nearly 40 years, and that is the only thing you found to critique says something, doesn't it?

Neil

[M1Tanker]

For a book to be in print for nearly 40 years, and that is the only thing you found to critique says something, doesn't it?

Neil

You got that right. I have a friend who is a professional trainer who once told me he would spend a day cleaning Rick and Ronnie's kennels just to hang out with them...they are at a higher level and started learning from Delmar when they were old enough to walk.

[AZ Brittany Guy]

I think I insulted a person by the name of 'Hattrick" on another thread regarding pretty much the same thing. I feel bad about it but...I really wanted to make an impression. The worst thing that can happen to a bird dog pup is getting a "gung ho" first time bird dog owner. I know.....I was one of them. I read everything I could get my hands on and took every bit of advise from everyone who was willing to offer it. I took my first pup and worked him to death and got a boot polisher / blinker for all of my trouble. Finally went to a Rick Smith Seminar and Rick devoted about 1/2 of the first day on the topic of going too fast. He would say things like "you can never go too slow" and " it takes as long as it takes". Seven years later I am finally getting the point. There are a lot of things to keep a new trainer occupied the first year without trying to get a 4 month old pup to be broke on Wing and Shot. Teach it to heel, come, load in a dog crate, house breaking. I think that for a newbie, Delmar's advise still hold true to this day. You want that pup to be crazy about birds. Let the birds teach it about pointing and holding and hunting. After the pup is older, teach it to hunt for you. Non of us, including, Delmar, Rick, Ronnie, George, Bill G and you and me can teach a dog to hunt. You can teach it to hunt for you though.


I feel much better now

[topher40]

I think that for a newbie, Delmar's advise still hold true to this day. You want that pup to be crazy about birds. Let the birds teach it about pointing and holding and hunting. :

Not only good advice for newbies! Delmar's methods worked way before the e-collar, tracking collar and such but the methods still hold TONS of water! Who cares how humane they are? For God's sake where do you draw the line? E-collars are fine but whoa post's aren't? The methods are proven and have been modified to appease the faint of heart but a dog is still a dog, no matter how much "selective breeding" has taken place.


Not Picking on you AZGUY..

[tommyboy72]

If I am not hunting over a dog at a year to a year and a half they go down the road. They do not have to be perfect by any means but attempting to point birds and learning their scent cone and how close they can get to point birds without bumping them, pointing deads, retrieving at least half of the birds, finding downed birds, learning to relocate on their own, knowing the come command, being accustomed to the e collar, learning their range and how far out I allow them to be, being accustomed to gunfire, learning that they don't have to chase missed birds to the next state, these are all things I expect of a young dog. They do not have to be steady to wing and shot but at least hold the point till I get there and then I personally allow my dogs to flush, retrieving every time, slowing down and learning not to overrun their noses these are things we usually work on in the spring and summer after their first year as well as their second hunting season. I also shoot birds that flushed wild over my dogs and have never seen them attempt to flush rather than point the next birds either. I also use the instinctive method so all these are things I expect a young dog to pick up on their own rather than being shown through long rigorous training schedules. It works for me, it may not work for you. I do not trial so this probably would not work for a trial dog but it works well for me on wild bird dogs.

[578SLE]

My critique of the The Delmar Smith Method has nothing to do with Delmar Smith or his training method, but rather has to do with the book written about him by Bill Tarrant. For most of us, Tarrant's book is the way in which we have come to know and love Delmar Smith. I have to admit, I really enjoy reading and re-read the book, but I do not like it as a training manual, as an explanation of how Delmar was training dogs, or how it represented the historical person made of flesh and blood known as Delmar Smith.

First, Tarrant transforms Delmar into a larger than life literary character that only really exists in pages of his book. All the stories about the bowman's knot on the truck bumper, ice cream cones on a hot day, watching the sunsets, imagining Delmar in New York City, driving his broken down pick-up truck and so forth all make for good, fun, reading. But these expressions of color also detract from the book's practical application as a training manual and an honest attempt to explain what this guy was doing with dogs. Moreover, all the hyperbole makes it difficult to follow and focus on Delmar's method in a step by step manner. Remember, Delmar was supposedly illiterate. I have often wondered: how did Delmar review the explanations of his own training system written by Tarrant? Did he read it? Did he have someone else read it to him? Did he stay awake when someone read it to him? Or did he doze off and dream about green pastures, dogs, and birds? How much time did Tarrant spend training with Delmar? A week? A month? A season? Could someone explain what the average pro-trainer does by hanging out for a week? Moreover, since Tarrant was really out to entertain and teach (the true meaning of "decorum") each chapter feels more like a series of disjointed magazine articles, arranged in a haphazard manner and then forced to give the appearance of order as opposed to an actual explanation of the evolution of a great man's training system. And this is leads to the great irony of the book: in some sense by making Delmar into a piece of Hemingway-like fiction, the book is loved by all gun dog trainers and dog enthusiasts alike (myself included). On the other hand, if there are in-congruencies in the explanations in the book, things that do not fit in a particular chapter, silences that make us wonder what was left out, stuff that seems out of order in regards to the overall layout of the book, or tidbits of information or instruction that does not really seem valid or to fit --its Tarrant's fault and not Delmar's. And this lead us to perhaps the real tragedy of the book. Most of us will never really know how Delmar trained --even if we memorize Tarrant's book or attend a Smith Seminar. All we really know is how Tarrant chose to write about Delmar's training method in the relatively short time he spent with him and what the Smith brothers choose to tell us about their father's training method. As a result, this is one of those situations where the myth of the man has become more real than the actual man himself. Now, how do you critique a "myth"?

[kylenicholas02]

I just got a shorthair from a trainer who knows Delmar very well. Amazing the things he learned for the guy and says the guy can do with dogs.

[tommyboy72]

578 that is exactly the reason that men like Delmar Smith, George Hickox, Ferrell Miller, and Bob Wehle are legends and myths in the dog training, trialing and breeding circles. I personally like it that way. It adds some mystique and entertainment value to the books about the men and the biographies of the men themselves. If we could all do it as well as them and we all wrote books then there would be no need for a fantastic forum like the one I am posting on this very minute. We all need heroes and mentors to look to for advice, guidance and wisdom when training. If we didn't then that would take half the fun out of it. I understand your point but to use your example of Tarrant's writing on Smith and how we only know what Tarrant and the Smith boys choose to tell us, I say look at a more important book such as the bible, we only know what the apostles and the writers of the bible as well as the church tells us about religion and the man known as Jesus Christ but that is half the allure of the bible just like Tarrant's take on Smith is half the allure of the Smith method and the book. And is it not that way with all non fictional writing? You only know what the author chooses to tell you about a certain subject. Before anyone misconstrues anything I have said, no I am not comparing Delmar Smith to Jesus Christ just comparing 2 books and what the writers of these 2 books choose to tell us about 2 totally different subjects.

[ezzy333]

All we really know is how Tarrant chose to write about Delmar's training method in the relatively short time he spent with him and what the Smith brothers choose to tell us about their father's training method. As a result, this is one of those situations where the myth of the man has become more real than the actual man himself. Now, how do you critique a "myth"?

Just a point so no one gets confused. The Smith Bros. make cough drops while Rick, Delmar's son, and Ronnie Smith, Delmar's nephew, are the cousins who put on the seminars about the training methods they learned from Delmar first hand and not by reading a book.

Ezzy

[AZ Brittany Guy]

I think that for a newbie, Delmar's advise still hold true to this day. You want that pup to be crazy about birds. Let the birds teach it about pointing and holding and hunting. :

Not only good advice for newbies! Delmar's methods worked way before the e-collar, tracking collar and such but the methods still hold TONS of water! Who cares how humane they are? For God's sake where do you draw the line? E-collars are fine but whoa post's aren't? The methods are proven and have been modified to appease the faint of heart but a dog is still a dog, no matter how much "selective breeding" has taken place.


Not Picking on you AZGUY..

No offense taken,,,I agree.

[AZ Brittany Guy]

All we really know is how Tarrant chose to write about Delmar's training method in the relatively short time he spent with him and what the Smith brothers choose to tell us about their father's training method. As a result, this is one of those situations where the myth of the man has become more real than the actual man himself. Now, how do you critique a "myth"?

Just a point so no one gets confused. The Smith Bros. make cough drops while Rick, Delmar's son, and Ronnie Smith, Delmar's nephew, are the cousins who put on the seminars about the training methods they learned from Delmar first hand and not by reading a book.

Ezzy

Just another point to make. Delmar's son, little Rickey is about 63 years old right now. I got a kick out of a 58 year old pro telling me that he was training dogs when Rick was in diapers

[kninebirddog]

AZ Britt Guy That same trainer has told a few other people I know that same BS about that he was training ever since Rick was in Diapers from what I understand every time someone asks him about the SCS method or is using the command lead he gets his panties in a bunch.....guess that trainer can't walk on rippled water and when you mention ricks name it ripples his little pond

[AZ Brittany Guy]

Knine, we both know who it is and we can leave it at that. I was a little dissapointed to hear this comming from him. Many people don't know or understand how long Rick as been doing this and how successful his field trial career was. When Brittany field trial people take a look at the dogs he had and the championships he accumulated (more than his dad) their teeth fall out.

[578SLE]

Just a point so no one gets confused. The Smith Bros. make cough drops while Rick, Delmar's son, and Ronnie Smith, Delmar's nephew, are the cousins who put on the seminars about the training methods they learned from Delmar first hand and not by reading a book.

Ezzy

Too funny and thanks for the genealogical correction. I openly admit that I have never attend a Smith Seminar and do not know the Smith family. For those of you who do, I believe Delmar is dead. Is that true and if so, do you guys know more or less when he passed? Also, I am considering ordering one of the training videos available via the website. Which do you recommend? Which is most up to date?

578

PS: The analogy between the Bible and Tarrant's book makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways.

[AZ Brittany Guy]

Too funny and thanks for the genealogical correction. I openly admit that I have never attend a Smith Seminar and do not know the Smith family. For those of you who do, I believe Delmar is dead. Is that true and if so, do you guys know more or less when he passed? Also, I am considering ordering one of the training videos available via the website. Which do you recommend? Which is most up to date?

578

PS: The analogy between the Bible and Tarrant's book makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways.

Delmar is alive and well and has his own website.

[Duane M]

First, Tarrant transforms Delmar into a larger than life literary character that only really exists in pages of his book. All the stories about the bowman's knot on the truck bumper, ice cream cones on a hot day, watching the sunsets, imagining Delmar in New York City, driving his broken down pick-up truck and so forth all make for good, fun, reading. But these expressions of color also detract from the book's practical application as a training manual and an honest attempt to explain what this guy was doing with dogs. Moreover, all the hyperbole makes it difficult to follow and focus on Delmar's method in a step by step manner. Remember, Delmar was supposedly illiterate. I have often wondered: how did Delmar review the explanations of his own training system written by Tarrant? Did he read it? Did he have someone else read it to him? Did he stay awake when someone read it to him? Or did he doze off and dream about green pastures, dogs, and birds? How much time did Tarrant spend training with Delmar? A week? A month? A season? Could someone explain what the average pro-trainer does by hanging out for a week? Moreover, since Tarrant was really out to entertain and teach (the true meaning of "decorum") each chapter feels more like a series of disjointed magazine articles, arranged in a haphazard manner and then forced to give the appearance of order as opposed to an actual explanation of the evolution of a great man's training system. And this is leads to the great irony of the book: in some sense by making Delmar into a piece of Hemingway-like fiction, the book is loved by all gun dog trainers and dog enthusiasts alike (myself included). On the other hand, if there are in-congruencies in the explanations in the book, things that do not fit in a particular chapter, silences that make us wonder what was left out, stuff that seems out of order in regards to the overall layout of the book, or tidbits of information or instruction that does not really seem valid or to fit --its Tarrant's fault and not Delmar's. And this lead us to perhaps the real tragedy of the book. Most of us will never really know how Delmar trained --even if we memorize Tarrant's book or attend a Smith Seminar. All we really know is how Tarrant chose to write about Delmar's training method in the relatively short time he spent with him and what the Smith brothers choose to tell us about their father's training method. As a result, this is one of those situations where the myth of the man has become more real than the actual man himself. Now, how do you critique a "myth"?

Man all I have to ask have you ever met the man to base your opinion of the book on anything involved with reality. I have and can tell you from first hand experience what was written is the truth, all of it. Tarrant wrote the book after spending months with Delmar, far more than anyone who uses the SCS ever does, yet no one ever calls thier experiences into question like you do Tarrant. The Delmar in the book was not like Hemmingway a glorified version, it was the real man. I don't know about the illiterate thing you mention as he sure knows how to read nowdays, as well as any of you and even was a guest trainer on the old AO forum and he wrote evry well on there. Seems someone has a burr under their blanket.

[Duane M]

Just a point so no one gets confused. The Smith Bros. make cough drops while Rick, Delmar's son, and Ronnie Smith, Delmar's nephew, are the cousins who put on the seminars about the training methods they learned from Delmar first hand and not by reading a book.

Ezzy

Too funny and thanks for the genealogical correction. I openly admit that I have never attend a Smith Seminar and do not know the Smith family. For those of you who do, I believe Delmar is dead. Is that true and if so, do you guys know more or less when he passed? Also, I am considering ordering one of the training videos available via the website. Which do you recommend? Which is most up to date?

578

PS: The analogy between the Bible and Tarrant's book makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways.

LOL no Delmar is far from dead, not at the kennels much as Tommy does all the training, but he is far from dead and just as sharp witted as ever.

[kninebirddog]

Last I heard Delmar was still doing trips over seas to do just the command lead seminars where Rick and Ronnie do the full seminars

and from some people who I know that have traveled or have had the pleasure of being with delmar many will tell you straight up the book was very limiting to all that delmar has to offer. Last person I was speaking with was Ed Radar he has some hilarious stories about delmar and his sleeping habits had us in tears laughing.

But when you see the method people that go in skeptical walk away believers as the nice thing is Rick and Ronnie do not bring already trained dog that take your dog and like to pick problem dogs to show it can and does work
when you work with the the dog and do what the dog is ready for not what your ready for the dog to do
take them smaller steps and get to what your wanting actually a little faster

[578SLE]

Duane wrote,

Man all I have to ask have you ever met the man to base your opinion of the book on anything involved with reality. I have and can tell you from first hand experience what was written is the truth, all of it. Tarrant wrote the book after spending months with Delmar, far more than anyone who uses the SCS ever does, yet no one ever calls thier experiences into question like you do Tarrant. The Delmar in the book was not like Hemmingway a glorified version, it was the real man. I don't know about the illiterate thing you mention as he sure knows how to read nowdays, as well as any of you and even was a guest trainer on the old AO forum and he wrote evry well on there. Seems someone has a burr under their blanket.

Whoa, whoa, hold on there cowboy. Who's a little defensive? First...keep in mind what I wrote:

My critique of the The Delmar Smith Method has nothing to do with Delmar Smith or his training method, but rather has to do with the book written about him by Bill Tarrant. For most of us, Tarrant's book is the way in which we have come to know and love Delmar Smith. I have to admit, I really enjoy reading and re-read the book, but I do not like it as a training manual, as an explanation of how Delmar was training dogs, or how it represented the historical person made of flesh and blood known as Delmar Smith.

Now, Duane, for those of us who were given the book without any direct contact to the Smiths, part of the "myth" of Delmar was that at the time of the book's writing he was illiterate. I believe that this is actually stated in the forward of the book (could be wrong), I seem to remember a passage where Tarrant states that "Delmar had no use for letters," and more importantly I have heard it repeated many times by older generations of trainers (this I am certain). I am not saying it is true , only that it is part of the "myth." Moreover, this was "supposedly" the "reason" why Bill Tarrant wrote the book and Delmar Smith did not. And, to answer your question, I have already stated that I have never met Delmar or any of the Smiths. While I don't doubt your first hand knowledge of Delmar, I do doubt that "what was written is the truth, all of it." Writing, even in a training manual, is art and art allows for, no it requires, distortion. Which brings me to another point. I actually like Bill Tarrant's writing . I just don't like the way in which he wrote Delmar's training manual. Call me traditional or whatever--I don't care--but when I read a training manual I don't want to read about a cowboy standing on a street corner of New York City saying "good morning" to every single stranger who passes by. It may be true, but what does it have to do with training dogs? For me, it's a question of "style" and "not content". And just so we are clear, even after reading Tarrant's book, I have the highest respect and regard for Delmar Smith and his training method. I think he was, and still is apparently (since he is still alive), truly revolutionary in his approach to dog training. Delmar was the first to see training from the dog's point of view and to try and figure out why dogs do what they do. He also thought about, and trained in accordance with, a dog's motivation. All of this is great stuff! I just feel that great lines by Delmar like "to train a dog, you have to think like a dog," get passed over by Tarrant without explanation or examples and then get lost in all the ice cream cones and sunsets. So, if I have a burr under my blanket (which I don't --after all the topic of the thread was "Critiquing the Delmar Smith Method"), it has absolutely nothing to do with Delmar Smith or his training method or even really Bill Tarrant. I just don't like the way in which (read "style") Tarrant wrote about Delmar's training method.

I am glad to hear that Delmar is still alive and doing well. Does anyone know how old he is? Also, for those of you who are more familiar with the Smith's SCS, my understanding is that this system was developed long "after" Delmar retired. Is that true? If not, how much of SCS is Delmar and how much of this system is Rick? Those who I have spoken with after attending a recent Smith Seminar said that there are significant differences between the SCS and Delmar's Method. On a final note, Delmar was one of the first to realize some of the problems that can occur when using the word "whoa" around birds and started looking for a new term "whoop." Just a guess, but I bet this led to the development of the Silent Command System. Again, testament to Delmar as a visionary.

And ohhh.... if you guys haven't seen this, here is a great resource: http://www.huntsmith.com/
PS: I like the writing style!

[midwestfisherman]

A gun dog and a trial dog are two different things when it comes to the thought of "letting a pup be a pup for the first year". I see nothing wrong with breaking a dog before a year if you are only looking for a gun dog. However if you are wanting a true field trial prospect, which Delmar was, then you need to let them mature mentally and I do with ALL my dogs. The only thing I do with my pups for the first year is stake them out, teach them to go with me, and have a formal intro to birds and the gun. I wait to do any real breaking until after their first derby season. You have a dogs whole life to get them broke and keep them there so why rush it? Do it once and do it right.

Chris, excellent post. You and I are on the same page on this subject.

[AZ Brittany Guy]

578SLE,

I am a Big Time Smith fan and I don't take offense to what you are saying. I never read the book but I would guess it would be way too dry for me if it was just technical information. I remember stuff better when it is presented in a entertaining fashion. That's why I like Rick's approach. He is self deprecating and gets people to laugh. The SCS system may not have been officially called that back in Delmar's day but you can rest assured that the foundation and fundamentals of the SCS are steeped in Delmar's approach. Knine says that Delmar's recent DVD reflects the SCS.

BTW, Would you consider getting a different handle? It sounds too much like R2D2...Just kidding

[kninebirddog]

I can say that Delmar is a Great grandpa ..

The DVDs of Delmars method have been edited with the newer version of the whoa post which even there is delmars version of what Rick does. Rick and Ronnie though they watch and learn and have grown from what they learned with delmar the base is what they grew up on..technology helped the grow further.

[bossman]

Having bought and read the book in 1977 and attended a Smith training seminar conducted by Delmar...I just think Tarrant wrote the book as if Delmar was talking to us. I believe we can credit Delmar from taking Brittany's from primarily a gun dog to a dog that can compete nationally in horseback trials if one wanted too ( Pacolet Cheyenne Sam..winner of all breed 3 hour endurance championship..). Delmar's book was the first I read regarding training, and I credit it's non intemidating syle in keeping my interest and enthusiasm as a "rookie" 30 some odd years ago. Having re-read it many times after reading more recent publications, I consider it a classic. Over the years I have developed the opinion to try to acquire as much knowledge as I can through books, videos, friends and pros and take away what I think is the best from each. Last saw Delmar in 2005 when I attended the induction of a friend into the Field Trial Hall of Fame in Grand Junction..He looked great at that time. Gosh...to be referred to as a " legend and myth"..I think that says it all....Thanks for listening.

[Duane M]

On the training issue, yeah the SCS was started after Delmar retired 30 years back or so, last I talked to him he told me around 80 was the last time he broke a dog from start to end. Tommy who took over the Edmond kennel and trained most all the great Ch associated with the family after Delmar retired, not just conditioned and handled(handlers get so much credit they don't deserve), still trains much like Delmar did, with a few tweaks of his own. Tommy also trains many of Judge Lee Wests dogs which speaks volumes as judge West is a stickler for greatness in his Barshoe dogs.

[snips]

It was a great book. I read it over and over, bout the only one I HAVE read. Bill Tarrant was here once and told me about a trip him and Delmar made to Eng to do something for the Queen. He said Delmar brought one pair of pants, the ones he wore. Said Delmar had to wait in the room while he took them to the laundrymat....I got a bang out of his stories...

[gonehuntin']

I would think that Delmar's record and the success of his methods stand on their own merit.

[AZ Brittany Guy]

Now I gotta get the book for sheer entertainment value! A trip to England with one pair of pants? A trip to NY and greeting all the passer bys? Ice cream, sunsets? Does he mention beer?

By the way, Rick trained and handled Sam to the three hours endurance win.

[Neil]

All the stories I have heard so far are true, Delmar is one of a kind.

He does not do anything by accident, like many great men, he is very aware of his image, and takes care to keep it polished, much as Davey Crocket, Babe Ruth, Hemingway, and Teddy did. Not saying the homespun, aw shucks, I don't have much book learning stuff is an affectation exactly, just he does gild it somewhat.

Delmar is a bright, educated, articulate man of many accomplishments; that has been visited by great tragedy without it getting him down.

Up to nearly 80 he had never spent the night in a hospital, has still never had a serious health concern. Not only does he travel extensively with bird dogs, but also is very involved with the National Finals Rodeo, continuing after it left OKC.

If Delmar drinks it is not much or often, I do not recall him every having a beer, while he has watched my down several gallons. Perhaps that is more telling than I want to admit.

Delmar is a great man, the only person to be in both the American Field Hall of Fame and the Brittany Field Trial Hall of Fame, and the only one ever likely to be. I also think he is in the Rodeo Cowboys Hall of Fame or some such. He has succeeded at the highest levels at every pursuit, but according to him, he takes the greatest pride in his children and grandchildren.

Neil

[gonehuntin']

Amen Neil. Very nice post.

[Duane M]

Ditto that!! Of all the people I have met in the dog world he is without a doubt the best. While many in this game want something from you all he does is give, be it advice, friendship or just talking BS for a few hours no on has been as approachable and open as he is. Want some funny storys ask about Tiny Wahoo or a few horse stories, he has tons of horse tails.

[AZ Brittany Guy]

I always was told the measure of a man can be judged by his children. Rick is a great representative of Delmar and I am sure Tommy is the same way. I have a friend that trains with Tom every week and he speaks highly of him.

[Keny Glasscock]

He wasn't dead when this was taken about a month ago!!

[tommyboy72]

Looks pretty healthy to me, guess you can't believe everything you hear huh.

[AZ Brittany Guy]

Well Keny, I guess that takes care of that Myth!

[578SLE]

A couple of corrections. After doing a little research:

1. As far as a myth, it seems that the notion that Delmar Smith was illiterate (as I had stated) is part of the myth and lore of the man. Bill Tarrant wrote that "Delmar speaks Oklahoma Sanskrit" and that he "never makes a good sentence, but always makes good sense." Moreover, Tarrant states that Delmar would "rather scoop kennels that write" and when he asked Delmar to team up with him to write the book, Delmar confided "I can't put words on paper..." Since some of you have met Delmar and others have stated that he actually used to post on some forums --it seems to me now that the "stories" I have heard that Delmar was illiterate from various local pro-trainers in conjunction with what Tarrant wrote about him seems like total B.S. Thanks for setting me straight and I'll make sure a few "others" I know don't continue to propagate this myth.

2. As far as the Smith brothers, they were more than just a coffee company. Tarannt writes that Delmar "trained two sons and a brother to trade." :gib: :gib:

3. As far as "bigger than life," Tarrant opens his book with the statement that Delmar "belongs to neither this second (as in "time") nor this speck of universe. Like truth, he's a simple, eternal force." How's that for bigger than life?

4. As far as a legend, Delmar was responsible for 12 US open Brittany championships (5 run by him, 6 by his son, and 1 run the dog's owner). That sure seems like the accomplishments legends are made of.

5. As far a revolutionary, Delmar was the first pro-trainer to both win and teach other trainers that their dogs could win without being whipped, kicked, shot, tuned up, stomped, shouted down, or hung. For many, he is still a revolutionary.

Wow, you guys have motivated me to re-read the book for a 3rd time.

and AZ Britt --As a Brittany guy, I think it might be a sin to not have read the book! You better look out! Seriously, read the book--I think you will love it.

Best,

[AZ Brittany Guy]

SLE thanks! Its on my list along with Snakefoot. We gotta do something with your name

[slistoe]

What is wrong with his call name?

[AZ Brittany Guy]

What is wrong with his call name?

This is a learning experience! I had no Idea it was an expensive SS. I'm just a dog guy that could barely afford my used Rugar.

[Wagonmaster]

I sorta wasn't watching this one and probably should have been. I see Duane and several others have stood up for Mr. Smith and done a heck of a job of it as usual. I want to say just two things. For those who weren't around or don't remember dog training techniques prior to the Tarrant/Smith book, you probably don't then understand how truly accurate this statement is:

5. As far a revolutionary, Delmar was the first pro-trainer to both win and teach other trainers that their dogs could win without being whipped, kicked, shot, tuned up, stomped, shouted down, or hung. For many, he is still a revolutionary.

Prior to this book, there really was not much guidance on dog training and what there was, was the "scare your dog" quality. There certainly were good dog trainers who understood that to make a really good dog, you had to coax and allow the dog to figure out birds by itself, and learn the canine joy of it. But they were dog trainers, not writers, and it probably never occurred to them to share it with the rest of us. Mr. Smith did that. I am sure that since the book came out, Mr. Smith has modified some of his methods, in fact I know he has. That book was over thirty years ago, and better tools have come along. But his was the first book to give us all a clue about how a dog should be allowed and led to grow up to be a bird dog, and not kicked or stomped or shot or obedience trained from day one to get there. That makes him a pretty good man.

Number two is to respond to this statement, the premise of the very first post in this thread: "If I have one critique, it's that of not doing anything with the dog the whole first year. " Now, the fella that wrote it may have understood what Mr. Smith meant. But I have seen others on this forum over the years interpret the book to mean just lay the dog up for the first year, then take him off the shelf, obedience train him, and he will be a bird dog. And Mr. Smith never said that, and I sure don't think he ever practiced that.

As an example, early in his book he has a tip about putting little leads on pups when they are weeks old, and letting pups break each other to the lead in the litter. Now, why would he make such a suggestion if he was also meaning to say that a pup should not be on a lead for the first year? Here is what he actually says, talking about raising pups: "And this old sayin, 'Don't make a pet out of your bird dog'? It won't hold water. More handling you do to your dogs the smarter and better off they'll be. Now that don't mean let 'em richochet off the walls. Make 'em obey. Just like lettin' your children run wild." Well, duh!

If you read his book and understand what he is saying, it is that you need to give pup a year of running on birds every chance you can get. Did I say that loud enough? Making pup bold and confident around birds. Maybe a little wild and crazy. But you wait to put obedience around birds on the dog, until the dog has a ton of confidence built into it.

The most common mistake I think beginning trainers and first owners make is that they don't understand the importance of bird work early and often. They don't feel they have the time, or the facilities, or access to grounds or to birds, to run the pup. They live in the city or suburb, the biggest piece of open ground is the dog park. So they put the pup through regular obedience classes, teach it sit and stay, thinking that will be useful when hunting season comes. Then they can't understand why pup does not know what a bird is, or gets confused and slinks off point when it starts to get obedience commanded while standing its first birds. Its because it has no confidence. That was what Smith was talking about, build bird confidence first, the rest later.

It has been my observation that since the publication of his book, the really good full time trainers who see and train alot of dogs have learned that the training of a pointing dog can proceed on a little more accelerated pace than what is in the Smith book. Many pups can be steady a little after one year old, and definitely broke shortly thereafter, and it can be done without putting alot of pressure on the dog. They can do this accelerated training because they have learned to accelerate the most important part, the early part where pup gets on birds, can bump and chase, and just learn the joy of it. Pup spends a summer on the prairies, a fall being hunted, and a winter in a training camp in TX or similar, seeing birds all the time. Only after accelerating the Happy Timing part, is it possible with some dogs to move the rest of the training along a little faster.

Smith didn't say don't do anything with dogs for a year, and he didn't say don't make them mind for that first year either. He did give us the secret to life when it comes to bird dogs. Run them on birds (preferably wild birds) early and often, until they just can't conceive of spending their lives doing anything else. Then you can make alot of mistakes in your training, and they will overlook those mistakes and be a bird dog anyway. It is because, by then, it is what they are, not what someone is trying to make them into.

[bossman]

Hey Wagonmaster...Not just well said...But very well said!!

[AZ Brittany Guy]

Way to go John! That is stated as well as it can be said.

[Rick Hall]

If I have one critique, it's that of not doing anything with the dog the whole first year. The concept in the book was "let the dog have his fun" then turn him into a worker later on. I can appreciate letting a dog be a puppy, exploring, growing, etc. I'm wondering if there are any further thoughts on this. Additionally, I'm curious about letting a dog do things in this first year that we don't let him do later on in life. For instance, while out happy timing, if pup is running wild, pointing and bumping birds, we essentially have to un-train this behavior out of him later. Any comments about this?

At risk of being perceived as tromping on the sacred toes of both Smith and pros in general, I'll admit that I didn't read Smith and Tarrant's book until the '90s, some twenty years after I trained my first "all mine" pointing dog. And while I enjoyed the read and appreciated Smith's hand with dogs, my overriding criticism was that by the time in a pup's life that Smith is really getting started with training (as opposed to exposure), we have a pretty durn solid training framework in place and are finishing Pup's education with experience. And no one who's ever seen one of my dogs work thought it lacking in independent search, much less the spiritless robot some fear from early puppy training.

The "problem" with Smith's method and that of most available training media, from this amateur's perspective, is that it has evolved from the professional trainer's perspective, rather than the amateur's potentially quite different one. Professionals are, to a large extent, breakers of bad habits tasked with handling whatever baggage their charges bring through the gate as expediently as possible. And their methods have evolved from a time when folks not only wanted to wait to see what potential a young dog displayed before investing in its training but whether it would even survive the raft of puppy perils there were yet to be vaccines for. So it's only natural that the pro's focus was largely on breaking tactics best suited to dogs that showed strong drive and had survived to young adulthood.

Amateurs, on the other hand, often begin with the clean slate of a young puppy that can be gently developed to engender good habits from the start and avoid bad ones that require breaking. And that affords them the opportunity to take a much different approach than most pros - if they so choose.

[AZ Brittany Guy]

[/quote]
Amateurs, on the other hand, often begin with the clean slate of a young puppy that can be gently developed to engender good habits from the start and avoid bad ones that require breaking. And that affords them the opportunity to take a much different approach than most pros - if they so choose.[/quote]

Rick, I can agree with just about everything you said but I think this book was maybe trying to hold back the newbie amateur who can't wait to do everything at one time. I can't count the number of times I have seen a rookie comment on things he is doing with a 4 month old dog. Those are the people that leave their problems at the gate of a Mr. Fix-it Pro. I know I screwed up as a rookie. You know the Doctors credo " do no harm" well I think bird dog trainers credo should be "you can't go too slow".

[Rick Hall]

I suspect most such problems arise when folks try to use tactics developed for older dogs on young pups, instead of puppy-oriented tactics. Smith's methods for older dogs may have been gentler than some others, but some of them might still crush or traumatize a young pup.

[Wagonmaster]

No I don't think that is exactly right - that the cause is using old dog training on young dogs. The biggest problem is just lack of trainer experience. A beginning trainer just does not have the ability to read a situation and read a dog the way a good experienced trainer does. He/she follows what they read in a book rote, to the letter, because they read it in the book. And it may or may not work for the particular dog.

Training can definitely proceed faster than what Mr. Smith recommends in his book, but you have to know just exactly what outcome you are after in the finished dog, what tactics work to get there, and most of all, you have to understand exactly what effect you are having on the dog. You don't learn that from a book, you might get a clue about it from a good book like Smith's, but you learn it with your own time and experience.

And I am going to guess that if we had Mr. Smith in this conversation, and actually listened to how he likes to see dogs progress, we would learn that he trains faster than what many think they read in his book. It is a matter of definition of "train." There is coaxing, mentoring, developing, showing a young dog to do things you are going to want it to do. At some level, you should be doing that as soon as pup can walk and you should never stop. And then at some point you have to apply pressure to achieve compliance. That is the point in time that Mr. Smith advocates putting off until the dog is a little older. Before that, dog can and should learn an awful lot.