![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
Not much fun for hunter or dog. Re-emphasizes the importance of getting a dog whose parents hunted the way you want your dog to hunt.Ryman Gun Dog wrote: Sure you can fight the genetics with discipline but its a constant repetative situation.
Ruffshooter wrote:Quail runner: "A big running dog usually goes through extreme disciplinary training, "
:roll: :roll: :roll:
You make my point if it is 70% genetics anyway so regardless of training the dog will most likely hunt for you regardless of range. Big running and hard to handle rouge dogs are not one in the same. Just like close working does not equal easy to train hunting for the gun etc. It is about INDIVIDUALS. I am no proponent of huge running dogs but all the generalities in this post are ridiculous.Ryman Gun Dog wrote:ACooper,
No sir, a dogs genetics determines 70% of how a dog will instinctively preform, only 30% is actual training. No matter how good the trainer is the dog wants to hunt instinctively in a certain manner, if you train against the genetic instincts (Imprint) you must us some sort of discipline, today its mostly accomplished with mild electrical stimulation, until the dog submits to the masters training. Some people like this kind of training, personally I do not train Grouse dogs in this manner, others do.
I train animals who work for their masters out of love and respect not fear, again this goes back to genetic disposition.
RGD/Dave
Can you show where you gathered this information?No sir, a dogs genetics determines 70% of how a dog will instinctively preform, only 30% is actual training.
Can you show where/how they gathered this information?I gathered my knowledge from my mentor, Adam Fogie who was an old time German dog trainer, he helped get Ames started long ago, and worked closely with Davis
thru his life time. I am proud to say he was my mentor and that few people understood dog genetics & gun dog training as well as Adam, maybe George Ryman who I also spent time with as a boy, was Adams equal. If you would like to know more about Adams training trechniques, read Davis's old book, How to train your own Bird Dog
Lots of good information in that old book.
Exactly!live4point wrote:Like begets Like.
Howie lives in the area known as the "Iron Range" in northern MN. Residents of the "Range" are known as "Iron Rangers" or just "Rangers". You might say Howie is an expert on "range matters". The pun was intentionally made to provide a brief break in the action.snips wrote:Howie's probably like me...Does not look at a thread that says Range in hunting dogs because he knows 10 pgs later it is talking about society and divorceI just now looked at this
I think you just made the point more succinctly than I did.ACooper wrote:I am no proponent of huge running dogs but all the generalities in this thread are ridiculous.
I won't get into how the e-collar is properly used in training, because it has been explained so many times before. But it is true that a correction is seldom needed once they are broke and if it is needed, it is very mild.Dave , I can't believe I have such differing opinions as a fellow grouse hunter. I wish one that trains with the ecollar would please enlighten Dave to their modern method or tried and true method of training their bird dogs. I suspect they need very little correction once they are broke and I suspect it is the same type training we all do, except they use a horse or 4 wheeler to get to the dog once afield.
How else do you adjust range in a dog? This is the only way I have been able to do it, with dogs that like to range too far for my tastes.birddogger wrote:I won't get into how the e-collar is properly used in training, because it has been explained so many times before. But it is true that a correction is seldom needed once they are broke and if it is needed, it is very mild.Dave , I can't believe I have such differing opinions as a fellow grouse hunter. I wish one that trains with the ecollar would please enlighten Dave to their modern method or tried and true method of training their bird dogs. I suspect they need very little correction once they are broke and I suspect it is the same type training we all do, except they use a horse or 4 wheeler to get to the dog once afield.
Dave, the other thing I want to say is that I would never use the e-collar to adjust a dog's range. That would not be doing the dog justice and be very frustrating to the handler. That is just not the purpose of the e-collar.
Respectfully,
Charlie
What you are saying is true but where you are wrong is thinking those of us that run our dogs with collars are using them. I can count on one hand the times the collar have been used in the field on my three in the past three years. But they are there for the time when I need to insure compliance such as near a road or chasing a deer or whatever. And of course your assumption of e-collar use is completely baseless in any field trial and yet those dogs do handle and hunt just like yours but much faster and at greater distances.Ryman Gun Dog wrote:Birddogger,
I do think you have a misunderstanding of stimulation training, we do use the e-collar here but on a limited basis, we use the beeper here instead of different voice commands, there is a difference between full stimulation training, and using the beeper as a recall tool, that is all I was trying to point out. No one ever said the e-collar is not a good training tool. The end result or all the gun dog training should be the ability to use your hunting dog without your e-collar, except maybe as a locator in thick habitat. The dog should be biddable enough to work with his master when fully trained, not need to be disciplined repeatedly to force companion workage while hunting. I believe you misunderstood what my point was, maybe intentionally so. Also you and I both may not agree with using the e-collar to keep a dog from breaking point (Setting a manditory range on Point) but other trainers do train in this method.
As far as the genetic percentage and training percentage goes, you will find they hold true, arguing about the exact percentage was not the point. However this is how I was taught by some people who worked with dogs all their lives. You can disagree if you like. People who think all dog breeds work in the same mannner are blind to the actual genetic difference in hunting animals.
RGD/Dave
Simple question.Ryman Gun Dog wrote:Birddogger,
People who think all dog breeds work in the same mannner are blind to the actual genetic difference in hunting animals.
RGD/Dave
Setters genetically had longer fur.Wyndancer wrote:Simple question.Ryman Gun Dog wrote:Birddogger,
People who think all dog breeds work in the same mannner are blind to the actual genetic difference in hunting animals.
RGD/Dave
Back in the day, say the dates range of 1870-1900. Could you explain the genetic difference is the setter breeds, and the genetic difference between setters and pointers?
Thanks in advance....Dan
Dave,Ryman Gun Dog wrote: Ezzy,
I do believe we are saying the same thing in different words, however if the natural instinctive range of a dog varries greatly inside a single litter either the breeding program is not refined enough, or the breeder is trying to produce a single outstanding dog instead of a uniform quality litter.
Dave,Ryman Gun Dog wrote:Wydancer,
This is real simple, way back all Setters fell under one universal breed standard, the dogs were then refined by different men, these Setters still met accepted breed standard. Today the "Field Setter" does not most time meet breed standard, and in reality should have been forced to take on another name. Genetics assure breed standard. The English Pointer genetically has changed little, because of the their repetative breeding programs, their breed standard remains the same.
RGD/Dave
Could you then explain the genetic differences in the setters of today, in terms of range? And further more, seeing as you have a Gordon, could you explain to ME the genetic difference, of the method of hunt and or range of the English and Irish? I hear all the time a Gordon should hunt differently than the other setters....and I'm always curious at how they should be different and why they should be different.way back all Setters fell under one universal breed standard,
I own 8 Gordons right now, and over the years have had a few more. In fact have a litter of 9 right now. The bride and I have had two Dual Champion/Amateur Field Champions and one of those was a Master hunter as well.Ryman Gun Dog wrote:WynDancer,
George Ryman based his breeding progam on the Breed standard of the English Setter, so I probably do not need to go and review it. However I think I understand what you are trying to point out. The breed standard for Setters was what we now call Dual Setter Type dogs. As far as the Gorden Setter dogs go, I own two of them and the female barely meets breed standard, she is almost to small, in fact even with her fantastic talent for hunting Grouse, I questioned breeding her. Even Norm Sorby has several differnt families of Gordon Setters that work and hunt differently. Actually when looking at the breed standard the Irish and English Setters are not all that different, its not until you start looking at "Field stock" smaller dogs, that the dogs differ. That is why when talking about Setters its so important to get the genetic package you want to own. The AKC & FDSB did owners no favors when they allowed these different smaller dogs, registration when they did not meet breed standard.
RGD/Dave
Dave, I may have misunderstood your point, but It was not intentional. That is not my style. Additionally, I do not have a misunderstanding of stimulation training. I think we are in agreement that after being fully trained the e-collar is rarely needed. That was my point. The fact that some misuse the e-collar is a fact, but I was only referring to the proper use of it.Ryman Gun Dog wrote:Birddogger,
I do think you have a misunderstanding of stimulation training, we do use the e-collar here but on a limited basis, we use the beeper here instead of different voice commands, there is a difference between full stimulation training, and using the beeper as a recall tool, that is all I was trying to point out. No one ever said the e-collar is not a good training tool. The end result or all the gun dog training should be the ability to use your hunting dog without your e-collar, except maybe as a locator in thick habitat. The dog should be biddable enough to work with his master when fully trained, not need to be disciplined repeatedly to force companion workage while hunting. I believe you misunderstood what my point was, maybe intentionally so. Also you and I both may not agree with using the e-collar to keep a dog from breaking point (Setting a manditory range on Point) but other trainers do train in this method.
As far as the genetic percentage and training percentage goes, you will find they hold true, arguing about the exact percentage was not the point. However this is how I was taught by some people who worked with dogs all their lives. You can disagree if you like. People who think all dog breeds work in the same mannner are blind to the actual genetic difference in hunting animals.
RGD/Dave
I am only speaking for myself, but if I am truly unhappy with a dog's range, I will try to find him/her a new home. I want my hunts to be as enjoyable and stress free as possible without constantly hacking or stimulating my dog.How else do you adjust range in a dog? This is the only way I have been able to do it, with dogs that like to range too far for my tastes.
Where might I find the breed standard for a EP?The English Pointer genetically has changed little, because of the their repetative breeding programs, their breed standard remains the same.
RGD/Dave
now this actually makes sense to meI own 8 Gordons right now, and over the years have had a few more. In fact have a litter of 9 right now. The bride and I have had two Dual Champion/Amateur Field Champions and one of those was a Master hunter as well.
So you state that one of your females barely meets the breed standard. What breed standard Dave? The current one adopted in 2002, which is nearly the same as the 1992 version, which is nearly the same as the 1962 version? But I'd wager that the female you describe as barely meeting the breed standard would fall squarely in the 1924 standard. Which by the way is the standard that Norm and Sue Sorby espouse.
I don't know George Ryman from Adam, but I'll go out on the limb the King perches on and state, George Ryman developed a line of dogs that pleased him, regardless of what any breed standard had to say. Breed standards change. The function has stayed nearly the same for 150 years.
I'll gonna leave with the following thought. Breed standards are put in place for conformation people to have something to be judged against.
Dave,Ryman Gun Dog wrote:WynDancer,
Further our Gorden Penny is a almost to small in height to meet breed standard. Breed standards for most dog breeds seldom change, in fact most have changed very little thru the years, and yes the Gordon is one that has changed, but not all that much and Norm is definitely credited for most of the changes here in the USA. However to say breed standards are for show type judging only, is to miss the real reason for breed standards. Breed standards are to assure the purchaser, that he is investing in a Pedigreed animal that meets the accepted definition of the dog breed he is purchasing.
RGD/Dave
And then a similar portion of the 1962 standard:The 1939 standard is as follows:
General Impression: A stylish, rather racy built, medium size, muscular dog of clean setter type, usual length legs
and of symmetrical conformation throughout. Strong fairly short back and short tail, a fine head, clearly lined,
intelligent expression, clear colors and straight or slightly wavy coat.
Size: Shoulder height for males 22 inches to 25 inches; for females, 21 inches to 24 inches.
Note the 1939 version contains no mention of weight.1962 Standard and description of The Gordon Setter
General Impression: The Gordon Setter is a good sized, sturdily built, black and tan dog, well muscled,
with plenty of bone and substance, but active, upstanding and stylish, appearing capable of doing a full
day’s work in the field. He has a strong, rather short back, with well-sprung ribs and a short tail. The
head is fairly heavy and finely chiseled. His bearing is intelligent, noble, and dignified, showing no signs
of shyness or viciousness. Clear colors and straight or slightly waved coat are correct. He suggests
strength and stamina rather than extreme speed. Symmetry and quality are most essential. A dog wellbalanced
in all points is preferable to one with outstanding good qualities and defects. A smooth, free
movement, with high head carriage, is typical.
Size: Shoulder height for males, 24 to 27 inches. For females, 23 to 26 inches.
Weight: Males, 55 to 80 pounds: females, 45 to 70 pounds. Animals that appear to be over or under the
prescribed weight limits are to be judged on the basis of conformation and condition. Extremely thin or fat
dogs should be discouraged on the basis that under or overweight hampers the true working ability of the
Gordon Setter. The weight-to-height ratio makes him heavier than other Setters.
He had in his mind the vision of the English Setter....and then he bred for it.one of his big qualilfications for running his kennel was that all his dogs had to meet breed standard,
I totally agree. It is a battle that I never want to battle again. Isn't fair to the dog or the owner.birddogger wrote:I am only speaking for myself, but if I am truly unhappy with a dog's range, I will try to find him/her a new home. I want my hunts to be as enjoyable and stress free as possible without constantly hacking or stimulating my dog.How else do you adjust range in a dog? This is the only way I have been able to do it, with dogs that like to range too far for my tastes.
Charlie
I probably went a little over top on Dave. But he says that he has a female that was too small according "the standard"....the standard moved away from a capable sporting dog...IMO of course. The field breeder gets accused of "changing the breed" when historical size says otherwise.fuzznut wrote:WOW!!!!!!!! That change in the Gordon standard is amazing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How does one go from "rather racy built, medium size" to "good sized, sturdily built, with plenty of bone and substance" in less than 30 yrs? Those two descriptions are worlds apart.
No wonder that breed has such a split in breed type!
Fuzz
Note the reference to "largest Setters in England of any breed"....25 1/2". Tell ya what, roll into any Gordon conformation show, and tell me if 25 1/2" is the tallest dog you see. But remember, the field people changed the breed. :roll:An American authority wrote that Gordon Setters at this period were ‘of immense size ... entirely too heavy in make to please the majority of English sportsmen’. It is surprising in view of this comment, together with the Rev Pearce’s statement that it was Kent’s ‘large stature’ which impressed the judges and his earlier remark in the original edition of ‘Stonehenge’s’ book (it is not found in later editions) that ‘Kent is one of the largest Setters in England of any breed’, to see from the measurements given in this same book that he was 25½ inches in height, since this would not be regarded as exceptional by present-day standards.
I can agree in part with this but if we were to breed all dogs to maximize their ability in the field, they would gravitate to all looking alike. The best of many breeds are interchangeable as far as function.....the only thing that separates them is appearance. Sounds like we have some folks that want to drop the whole "breed thing" and just breed "dogs"...which may be why a lot of GSPs look like they belong in longtail stakesBreed standards are put in place for conformation people to have something to be judged against.
JKP wrote:I can agree in part with this but if we were to breed all dogs to maximize their ability in the field, they would gravitate to all looking alike. The best of many breeds are interchangeable as far as function.....the only thing that separates them is appearance. Sounds like we have some folks that want to drop the whole "breed thing" and just breed "dogs"...which may be why a lot of GSPs look like they belong in longtail stakesBreed standards are put in place for conformation people to have something to be judged against.![]()
![]()
We forget that having some confidence in the pedigree, that it is accurate, represents the performance and type of dog we want. To tat end, having breeds and sme kind of standard is helpful.
If only I could say it as well, been nearly 60 years since he penned those words, as true now as then,A shooting dog should be something more than just a machine to go out to kill birds over. He must possess style and a certain amount of class, and while I will not tolerate a dog I must continually hunt for, I demand one wide enough to find birds I would not walk up myself.