# Coverdog vs. NSTRA Trials



## Flash01

_This might have been suggested and/or discussed before, but..._

_I think we should do a two trial combo with the coverdog folks/Nstra folks. To sign up, you would have to commit to both trials. limited to 16 "nstra" dogs and 16 "coverdog" dogs. Chapter/regional/club officers could pick participants from their respective sides (sort of like the Ryder Cup in Golf) if there were too many to include everyone.

One with standard Nstra rules/format and one with Coverdog rules/format. Results posted on the coverdog site, mi nstra region site and the Mi sportsman forum. 

It could be a fundraiser/recruiting tool for both groups.

Please discuss._


----------



## GSP Gal

There is a coverdog trial and NSTRA trial in Gladwin Apr 10-11. Amature spots are still open for NSTRA on Sunday. But, I think the Amature coverdog is on Sunday also. I have run both with Schatzie

I think it is a great idea

I nominate Bobby Wheelock and Scott Townsend as trial chairs...

Since any titled dogs can't run in RGS, proceeds go to RGS.


----------



## Bobby

GSP Gal said:


> There is a cover dog trial and NSTRA trial in Gladwin Apr 10-11. Amature spots are still open for NSTRA on Sunday. But, I think the Amature coverdog is on Sunday also. I have run both with Schatzie
> 
> I think it is a great idea
> 
> I nominate Bobby Wheelock and Scott Townsend as trial chairs...
> 
> Since any titled dogs can't run in RGS, proceeds go to RGS.


Please note: these 2 trials are in Gladwin County but not at the same venue. I think the NASTRA venue is close to Meredith but I'm not certain exactly where it is. I understand it's quite nice.

The Amateur Club event that weekend is all Amateur (as are all our stakes except the summer Open Derby) For the Sunday event you are probably referring to the Hunting Dog Stake we run in the spring and summer trials. This a non sanctioned 'fun trial' with awards and kudos run for the hunter, to get new folks to Gladwin and compete in a format like the Coverdog stakes and give a chance for new folks to see what we do, where we do it and have some fun. 

I will respectfully decline my nomination as Co Chair for this inaugural event posed by Flash.

Thank you for the thought.


----------



## kek25

Most of the dogs I've seen run are trained differently for the 2 venues. Don't know if a crossover would produce the results you're looking for. If it did happen I'd go up and take a look, because the dogs competing would be trained to the highest level.


----------



## Steelheadfred

kek25 said:


> Most of the dogs I've seen run are trained differently for the 2 venues. Don't know if a crossover would produce the results you're looking for. If it did happen I'd go up and take a look, because the dogs competing would be trained to the highest level.


I agree with Kek, what happens when you get all NSTRA dogs that win the NSTRA trial, then get all Cover Dogs that win the Cover Dog portion?

Have you learned anything in that situation?


----------



## roughwoods

After running in NSTRA trials for a few years and now running in cover dog trials for several years, that is really a dumb thing to do. The only thing that is the same is they are bird dogs, and alot of the same blood.

The dogs are trained to do different things. In my opinion the only way you could compare the two against each other would be to go wild bird hunting. (2 dogs per brace) The dog who points the most wild birds that hold to flush by the handler wins. All winners run against each other until there is only one winner. Any body want to try this.

The only thing to win or loose is bragging rights, any takers.

TB


----------



## FindTheBird

Steelheadfred said:


> I agree with Kek, what happens when you get all NSTRA dogs that win the NSTRA trial, then get all Cover Dogs that win the Cover Dog portion?
> 
> Have you learned anything in that situation?


I suspect that without some additional training on both sides, that's what might happen.

Many of the coverdogs are not taught to retrieve, and I'm reaching here, but the NSTRA dogs may have a hard time handling grouse to the extreme level that is required to win in coverdog, at least right off the bat with no fine tuning. It may also be a challenge to keep some of the bigger-running coverdogs corraled in a small area with few visible hunting objectives.

That said, a lot of dogs on both sides have got to be out of similar breeding, so I think it's extremely possible for either type of dog to cross-over and be successful at both given the right training/training environment. 

As mentioned in another post, I'm also a bit surprised that nobody has even attempted to test the hotter GSP's in a sanctioned wild bird forum despite their success on hunting grouse and their ability to run--even after it's been proven that other breeds can perform well in coverdog.


----------



## roughwoods

Originally Posted by *kek25*  
_Most of the dogs I've seen run are trained differently for the 2 venues. Don't know if a crossover would produce the results you're looking for. If it did happen I'd go up and take a look, because the dogs competing would be trained to the highest level._

_IF we spent more time reading pedigrees we would find that most of the good NSTRA dogs have a lot of horse back and cover dog blood in them. I personally only know of one person in Coverdog trials that have tried a mostly NSTRA dog in the woods. A One time try is not enough to make a reference to for good or bad results._

_But from my personal experience I've seen several dogs that ran in NSTRA that would have made great coverdogs, and the other way also._

_NOW listen to this I have a 1 year old 100% Horse back dog that I'm training for Coverdog trials that may be better for NSTRA. Hows that for a mess._

_I say all that to say if we are doing our jobs as breeders, our dogs can compete on Horseback, Coverdog, Walking Trials and NSTRA CH out of one litter. ANd Yes I've done it several times. Good breedings are good breedings, we all should be breeding to improve our lines._

_TB_


----------



## kek25

roughwoods said:


> _IF we spent more time reading pedigrees we would find that most of the good NSTRA dogs have a lot of horse back and cover dog blood in them. I personally only know of one person in Coverdog trials that have tried a mostly NSTRA dog in the woods. A One time try is not enough to make a reference to for good or bad results._
> 
> _But from my personal experience I've seen several dogs that ran in NSTRA that would have made great coverdogs, and the other way also._
> 
> _NOW listen to this I have a 1 year old 100% Horse back dog that I'm training for Coverdog trials that may be better for NSTRA. Hows that for a mess._
> 
> _I say all that to say if we are doing our jobs as breeders, our dogs can compete on Horseback, Coverdog, Walking Trials and NSTRA CH out of one litter. ANd Yes I've done it several times. Good breedings are good breedings, we all should be breeding to improve our lines._
> 
> _TB_


No argument from me there, Terry. I wasn't inferring that cover dog bred dogs couldn't run in NSTRA or vice versa; just that the training for the 2 venues is different and probably wouldn't provide the results these guys are looking for. I thought Nick Miller had a setter he ran in both venues with some success. I might be wrong.

You've been around a while, Terry. Have you seen many individual dogs that have succesfully run in both the Cover Dog and NSTRA venues?

Sell that dog to a NSTRA guy and get a CH put on him.


----------



## FindTheBird

roughwoods said:


> After running in NSTRA trials for a few years and now running in cover dog trials for several years, that is really a dumb thing to do. The only thing that is the same is they are bird dogs, and alot of the same blood.
> 
> The dogs are trained to do different things. In my opinion the only way you could compare the two against each other would be to go wild bird hunting. (2 dogs per brace) The dog who points the most wild birds that hold to flush by the handler wins. All winners run against each other until there is only one winner. Any body want to try this.
> 
> The only thing to win or loose is bragging rights, any takers.
> 
> TB


Sounds very reasonable Terry, both coverdog and NSTRA guys hunt grouse and a steady to flush requirement would even the playing field pretty nicely.
--ML


----------



## roughwoods

That Mil-Run Ricky dog that I sold to Nick has wins on both side of the fence. I think at one time Joel Williams had a dog or two that went both ways. NO PUN intended.


----------



## crosswind

FindTheBird said:


> Sounds very reasonable Terry, both coverdog and NSTRA guys hunt grouse and a steady to flush requirement would even the playing field pretty nicely.
> --ML


Hey Terry, I will take you up on that only if we use all your grouse spots, and I get to bring my GPS.:evil::evil::lol:
And you can't blindfold me going to your spots either.:lol:

Mike , I disagree because about the playing field being level due to every time your guys dog would point a bird, the NSTRA guy would have to kill it. It is a well know fact that the cover dog guys can't hit anything.:lol::lol:. And then the cover dogs are gonna just run off to hunt and the NSTRA dog is gonna have to go back and hunt dead (and make the retrieve) on the bird that the coverdog pointed. What a mess that would be.:lol:

Hey somebody had to start it.:rant:


----------



## kek25

crosswind said:


> Hey Terry, I will take you up on that only if we use all your grouse spots . . .


I'm in! 

Does Tom Vanacek run a dog in both venues?


----------



## roughwoods

No Scott we have to hunt your places North of Mio. I have all my birds counted and numbered. If any came up missing I would have to hunt some one. But seriously Scott any time you want to run and train up north I'm in for it. But I will be up grading you to setters and pointers.
You may never run a NSTRA trial after I get you hooked.
TB


----------



## slammer

Wouldn't work but there is a venue that would, I think. Doesn't National Bird Hunters require a fully broke dog that will also retrieve?
That would be a good project for someone to take on, starting a chapter up here.

Terry and Scott...remember Boyd Dillion? He was a lab guy that picked up a couple setter pups from Clary that he ran in Marlette. He had them steady to wing, shot, fall and retrieved. To me there is nothing like watching that.


----------



## roughwoods

No retrieveing in any AF trials any more, thats way NSTRA left the AF.
Cant kill the birds.


----------



## 2ESRGR8

roughwoods said:


> That Mil-Run Ricky dog that I sold to Nick has wins on both side of the fence. I think at one time Joel Williams had a dog or two that went both ways. NO PUN intended.


 Didn't Nick have a female setter named Sally that he placed with in both venues?


----------



## roughwoods

Both Nicks Sally and Gabby dogs are out of my ZEE dog, I don't believe
either has a NSTRA placement, but I could be wrong.


----------



## 2ESRGR8

Gabby, that's the one I was thinking of.


----------



## midwestfisherman

Here's Gabby's placements as listed on Nick's site.

*MIL-RUN GABBY*

Lake States Field Trial Club, Meredith, MI
Spring 2006, Gladwin Field Trial Grounds, Puppy Stakes, 2nd Place
August 2006, Michigan Amateur Field Trial Club, Open Derby, 3rd Place

Amateur Field Trial Clubs of American

Fall 2006, Southwest Michigan Field Trial Club, Amateur Derby Horseback, Allegan MI 1st Place

Southwest Michigan Field Trial Club, Fall 2006, Walking Shooting Dog, Open Derby, 1st Place

US Complete Shooting Dog, Fall 2006, Grand Valley Field Trial Club, Michigan, Open Derby, 2nd Place

Michigan Amateur Field Trial Club, Chester Halley Amateur Derby, 3rd Place, Fall 2006

Gladwin Field Trial Club, Open Shooting Dog, 3rd Place, Spring 2007

Grand Valley Walking Shooting Dog, Open Derby, 3rd Place, Spring 2007

Region 4 (AFTCA), Amateur Walking Shooting Dog Championship, Open Shooting Dog State, 1st Place, Fall 2007

US Complete Shooting Dog, Wayne County Coonhunters Club, 2nd Place, March 2, 2008, Open Shooting Dog

Grand Valley Bird Dog Club, 1st Place, March 22-23, 2008, Open Shooting Dog

Judd Kinne Shooting Dog Classic, Gladwin, Michigan, Winner, September 27, 2008


----------



## GSPJAKE

Can you give commands in these events, In, Fetch,etc...


----------



## Rugergundog

Whew i don't know jack about either but wheew the stuff has got thick in a hurry. Ahh but that is alright, guys are proud of their dogs and confident their dog can do good. I suppose the ego can take the fun out of it at some point.

Maybe ill have to coax my buddy with his little snob dog to run some of these so i can prove the superior nature of the german breeds:evilsmile.

ahahahhahaha.


But on a legit note i see there are some NSTRA events pretty local to me this spring. The one in Gladwin and one in Cass City. Anyone ever been to either to watch?


----------



## GSP Gal

The weekend of April 10 and 11th, there will be a coverdog event (s) on Meridith Grade Rd at the Field trial grounds. 

There also is a NSTRA event on those days at Cedar Creek Farms in Gladwin. Saturday and Sunday.
APRIL 10/11
OPEN/AMATEUR &#8211; AMATEUR ON 11TH ONLY
DBL/DBL
CEDAR CREEK SPORTING DOG
TRIAL GROUND ADDRESS: 5836 TWO MILE RD. GALDWIN, MI. 48624


Here is an opportunity for anyone to come out and visit and learn more. I have run both and enjoy the people in both clubs. There are always great folks that will answer questions on how the dogs are run, and scored. 

Think about it. We have the best bird dogs in NSTRA in the country-right here in this state. We have some of the best coverdogs in the country -right here in our state. Our own birddog dream team.

Here's your opportunity to see them.


----------



## Bobby

crosswind said:


> Hey Terry, I will take you up on that only if we use all your grouse spots, and I get to bring my GPS.:evil::evil::lol:
> And you can't blindfold me going to your spots either.:lol:
> 
> Mike , I disagree because about the playing field being level due to every time your guys dog would point a bird, the NSTRA guy would have to kill it. It is a well know fact that the cover dog guys can't hit anything.:lol::lol:. And then the cover dogs are gonna just run off to hunt and the NSTRA dog is gonna have to go back and hunt dead (and make the retrieve) on the bird that the coverdog pointed. What a mess that would be.:lol:
> 
> Hey somebody had to start it.:rant:


I resemble that description.


----------



## Rugergundog

I really like a steady dog; I can just see myself at the NSTRA events looking over at my buddy, "man my dog sucks" ahahahahahah. 



I agree with Sandy the more i get involved with the Dog people communities the more get sucked in being there are a lot of really good people.


----------



## crosswind

Drifter Saver said:


> Wild birds...yes...my older dogs will move on their own, but not until I approach. I let all of them hunt and learn to hunt. Good genetics, good training and a good amount of exposure will generally produce good results whether it is hunting, testing or trialing.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 No doubt about it, they simple learn to play two different games.I grouse hunt all my trial dogs, they learn to track grouse and they learn just how much pressue to put on them and yet not make them flush.It just takes a couple bumped birds and they should learn from it. The same with phesants, mine move when the bird runs .Yet they are steady in the trials.


----------



## Bobby

roughwoods said:


> Both Nicks Sally and Gabby dogs are out of my ZEE dog, I don't believe
> either has a NSTRA placement, but I could be wrong.


I don't think Nick runs Gabby in NASTRA, CD only. But I'm probaby off some.

Vanechek runs his dogs in both events but I believe he places more in NASTRA trials than CD trials in the woods. His dogs run nice in the woods, they find birds, they just have a hard time not dancing, they get happy feet when the birds fly. It is probably from a strong desire to fetch that bird. That isn't a slam, it's simply an observation.


----------



## roughwoods

Which dog or dogs are best is only a opinion. The bottom line is, a well bred dog should be able to be trained for most of our personal likes. We all must pick a format that agrees with our own personal opinion of what a bird dog should be. I personally don't like the horseback stuff, but I would not own a dog that dose not have a lot of horseback blood. I no longer run NSTRA because I don't like a lot of what happens in those trials, the point system for one. I currently only play in coverdog trials. Does this format have it's issues? YES!! but it's what I like. Which dog or dogs are better is a bunch of crap. They all have a purpose so lets not cut each others format down but start working towards improving the breeds. Is any breed better that others, once again it depends on what you want your bird dog to do. They are all bred to do something different, match your likes and dislikes to the breed that most represents your needs for a bird dog.
TB


----------



## FindTheBird

Drifter Saver said:


> It wasn't a comparison as much as it is an expectation. To be competitive (by that I mean win) in NSTRA your dog has to rock solid on it's birds (no matter what species). If a dog takes a step on a bird, your points get reduced.


Drifter, your expectations are spot on--a good dog should be able to move seamlessly between different birds and environments. 
I'm an admitted NSTRA dummy, but I do see one difference between AF events and NSTRA though: if a dog takes a step in NSTRA, they lose points. In AF events (including coverdog) the dog is eliminated from judgement. On a related note, roughly what is the duration of the average NSTRA point, and is there a minimum in seconds that the dog must remain staunch?



Drifter Saver said:


> Also know that even THE "National Championship" at AMES (currently being ran and last year's winner "Snowatch" was picked up) is ran on released birds. Most of the major championships of any organization are ran on planted birds. It is the most probable way to obtain a measurable result. Just like validation of car parts (except for Toyota). You set the part up in multiple test scenarios to have a 99.9% reliability and repeatability result prior to having to utilize it (fortunately the case with airbags and seatbelts).


Yep, I'm well aware that most of the AF formats are run on planted birds including the big one going on right now in Grand Junction (my HiFive pup's dad is running at the end of the week: go Sinbad!).
Heck, in some instances even coverdog uses planted birds including a couple Summer derbies and some callbacks.
However, your comment that "_Most of the major championships of any organization are ran on planted birds_" doesn't hold true for coverdog.



GSP Gal said:


> Think about it. We have the best bird dogs in NSTRA in the country-right here in this state. We have some of the best coverdogs in the country -right here in our state. Our own birddog dream team.
> Here's your opportunity to see them.


Very good observation Sandy, this state has many of the utmost top-level dogs in both organizations and that's something to be proud of.


----------



## GSP Gal

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&sou...4.135899,-84.491386&spn=0.124185,0.22007&z=12

Here's your map


----------



## k9wernet

Now you've got me considering spending a whole weekend in Gladwin and not just Sunday... my wife and kids say thanks Sandy!

KW


----------



## GSP Gal

k9wernet said:


> Now you've got me considering spending a whole weekend in Gladwin and not just Sunday... my wife and kids say thanks Sandy!
> 
> KW


Your welcome! It will keep the kids off the street....


----------



## fishinlk

To me the thing that makes it the most difficult to jump between an NSTRA trial and the Coverdog/AFTCA type trials is the fact that while the NSTRA dogs do have to be stone broke to flush, most of the time they're off like a rocket on the shot. I know, I can still run my steady to wing and shot dog in this event. Still, it ultimately is indirectly penalized because I lost time on the retrieve. While it's not a points infraction, the style/finished dog will get me no additional points for the advanced level of training. It ultimately can cost me because I've lost valuable time standing instead of quickly retrieving and moving on to find the next bird before my brace mate does.

That same behavior that's rewarded there will doom a dog when it moves to the other formats. Not knocking either format just pointing out another difficulty of flip flopping between them. My intent is to always start with the finished dog trials and drop back to the other if it doesn't work out. In my book it's just easier that way.


----------



## Flash01

fishinlk said:


> To me the thing that makes it the most difficult to jump between an NSTRA trial and the Coverdog/AFTCA type trials is the fact that while the NSTRA dogs do have to be stone broke to flush, most of the time they're off like a rocket on the shot. I know, I can still run my steady to wing and shot dog in this event. Still, it ultimately is indirectly penalized because I lost time on the retrieve. While it's not a points infraction, the style/finished dog will get me no additional points for the advanced level of training. It ultimately can cost me because I've lost valuable time standing instead of quickly retrieving and moving on to find the next bird before my brace mate does.
> 
> That same behavior that's rewarded there will doom a dog when it moves to the other formats. Not knocking either format just pointing out another difficulty of flip flopping between them. My intent is to always start with the finished dog trials and drop back to the other if it doesn't work out. In my book it's just easier that way.


 
Retrieves are not timed. Any penalty would be assessed after the retrieve command was given, not due to being steady to shot. 

The time issue is a somewhat valid point, but if you consider that at most the time it takes to shoot a bird after flush is (on the outside) 10 seconds. Lets say you wait another 20 seconds to give the command thats 30 seconds. ON a great run you will find 5 birds lets say (that is all that are put out for each brace but the first one)... your steady to shot dog cost you 2.5 minutes of a 30 min brace. (not even really cause the first 10 seconds would have been lost in this example any way, so your steady dog cost you 100 seconds.. less than two minutes.) 

You might not gain a recognizable advantage, but I would not think that that would be a deal breaker or even a significant factor in the long run. I bet I could make up more time than that by walking faster to get to my dog when is pointing.


----------



## fishinlk

To a point that's true but I'm betting that the overall time it takes to retrieve increases slightly more that that due to the fact the dog is not already halfway to the bird when it hits the ground, so you can add a little more search time to it. So while I've only given up maybe 4 minutes that's still better than 10 percent of my 30 minutes. I went to one of the NSTRA trials up at Nick Miller's place this fall, and with the size of those fields hoofing it faster to my dog on point is only going to help so much if I've got a dog with a real motor under it. Now if I could hop on the back of the judges quad.....


----------



## birdhuntingbtch

All I know is that NSTRA is a blast to do and the people are nice. Our dogs are steady to wing, shot and fall, steady to wild flush. BUT they know the difference when we're at a NSTRA event. Yes the points are nice to get but, NSTRA is a great game to play, the average person who want to go 3-4 times a year tend to worry about the points too much. I guess you should care about the points if you are campaging a dog, but then you would pick one event over the other. We take our training seriously but it gets boring - once in a while you have to turn your dog loose and have enough confidence, that they can run with the big dogs.

One of our most prized pictures is that of a score board at Nick Miller's place with our dogs name and a #2 by her score, in her 2nd open event and she ran against some pretty big boys that day. It just doesn't get any better then that.


----------



## crosswind

If I could just win the lotto, so I didn't have to work . I honestly would run in several different venues. I would have dogs broke for each one.
I can respect anybody that goes out and competes in any of the venues. I think it says something about the individual. They are confident in their dogs abilities, and their own, to the point of testing it up against other dogs and other handlers. There is something to be said for that.There are people out here that just can't face the fact that they got beat. And these formats aren't for them.But what fun it is to take your dogs and put them and yourself to the test. Even if that test is to prove nothing but something to yourself.
That's probably what I like about NSTRA the most, it is the toughest format out as far as input/involvement/decisions from the handler. It is kinda tough to describe but you can have an outstanding dog but if you are lacking as a handler you will not advance.
You and your dog have to really play the chess match.You have to operate as a team. You don't see it as much at your weekend type trials, but when you go to those national events, some of the dog and handler maneuvers are impressive.Your dog needs to handle instantly. You need to be able to handle him into areas from across the field, you need to be able to cut your opponent off, you need to tie him up with a back. The list goes on and on and on. All those things come into play in the NSTRA format.And then you also need to be able to shoot. There are so many split second decisions you make out there on the field that can either win the trial for you and your dog, or put you back on the truck headed home.To me its the ultimate chess match of you and your dog, heads up, against your opponent and his dog. 
Some people like it, some don't. The ones that don't usually go over to the, aah forget it. :lol::lol::lol:. Just kiddin.


----------



## FindTheBird

GSP Gal said:


> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&sou...4.135899,-84.491386&spn=0.124185,0.22007&z=12
> 
> Here's your map


Wow, I didn't realize the NSTRA grounds were so close to the coverdog grounds! 
Despite my coverdog addiction, I'm gonna stop by and catch a few NSTRA braces (as long as guys like me are allowed onto to the grounds:lol.


----------



## crosswind

FindTheBird said:


> Wow, I didn't realize the NSTRA grounds were so close to the coverdog grounds!
> Despite my coverdog addiction, I'm gonna stop by and catch a few NSTRA braces (as long as guys like me are allowed onto to the grounds:lol.


 Did they mention there is a spectator fee.(Just for the Coverdog guys):lol:. 200 dollars


----------



## Firemedic

crosswind said:


> you can have an outstanding dog but if you are lacking as a handler


Perfect example, see Firemedic's profile....:lol:


----------



## timbergsp

Steelheadfred said:


> Scott,
> 
> I believe you are into labs now correct?
> 
> Your argument above is like saying you would not want a retriever puppy out of a FC/AFC Sire bred to a FC/AFC dam, let say these dogs have never hunted ducks a day in they're lives.
> 
> Your reasoning for not wanting a pup out of the above litter is that in order to win those trials the sire and dam had to make retrieves that might come up once in the life time of a hunting dog. That the distances were to far, the marking to challenging, the retired guns and diversion birds to un-realistic, the 400 yard blinds and quad marks just over the top. Just for the reason of pushing the envelope and finding the best eyes, most steady, best brains, best confirmation, most trainable.


YOu are correct I am in to Labs now....


I may not understand the point you are trying to make here

I never once said I would not own a dog out of Cover dog lines... I have not even knocked the dogs them selfs...

I dont agree with the training and how the trials are Judged thats the issue I have 

Scott


----------



## Steelheadfred

timbergsp said:


> YOu are correct I am in to Labs now....
> 
> 
> I may not understand the point you are trying to make here
> 
> I never once said I would not own a dog out of Cover dog lines... I have not even knocked the dogs them selfs...
> 
> I dont agree with the training and how the trials are Judged thats the issue I have
> 
> Scott


Fair enough do you agree with the training and judgement of all age retriever trials?


----------



## timbergsp

Steelheadfred said:


> Fair enough do you agree with the training and judgement of all age retriever trials?


cant answer the question honestly I am still too new with retrievers sorry have not been to one yet

pointers i know and done along time

labs I am new too and still learning

let me ask this question to the Football fans out there, what if we said from now on football is Judged on who someone thinks plays the best. even though the goal is to still get as many touchdowns as possible the team with the least touchdowns can still win. if we they did the better job

a proper bird find could be considered a touchdown my dog finds and points 5 birds and dont win but he is the only dog that pointed his limit in birds that day (lets assume he handled his find correctly) The dog that made 1 proper bird contact wins.

Man the colts would of Loved these new rules

Scott


----------



## 2ESRGR8

timbergsp said:


> let me ask this question to the Football fans out there, what if we said from now on football is Judged on who someone thinks plays the best. even though the goal is to still get as many touchdowns as possible the team with the least touchdowns can still win. if we they did the better job
> 
> a proper bird find could be considered a touchdown my dog finds and points 5 birds and dont win but he is the only dog that pointed his limit in birds that day (lets assume he handled his find correctly) The dog that made 1 proper bird contact wins.
> 
> Man the colts would of Loved these new rules
> 
> Scott


I'd be perfectly fine with that as long as I knew the rules prior to paying my entry fee.
It's not that big a deal, just different is all.


----------



## crosswind

timbergsp said:


> cant answer the question honestly I am still too new with retrievers sorry have not been to one yet
> 
> pointers i know and done along time
> 
> labs I am new too and still learning
> 
> let me ask this question to the Football fans out there, what if we said from now on football is Judged on who someone thinks plays the best. even though the goal is to still get as many touchdowns as possible the team with the least touchdowns can still win. if we they did the better job
> 
> a proper bird find could be considered a touchdown my dog finds and points 5 birds and dont win but he is the only dog that pointed his limit in birds that day (lets assume he handled his find correctly) The dog that made 1 proper bird contact wins.
> 
> Man the colts would of Loved these new rules
> 
> Scott


 :lol::lol: The Lions would still lose.


----------



## 2ESRGR8

crosswind said:


> :lol::lol: The Lions would still lose.


 Finally!!! The one thing in this thread everyone can agree upon. :lol:


----------



## Bobby

Flash01 said:


> How often does it happen that no one finds a bird? (i am assuming that if that happens a planted bird is used... if so, what kind do you primarily use?)


Not often in shooting dog stakes. When there isn't sufficient bird work to place the requisit number of dogs there are 3 ways to handle the situation:
1. With hold the remaining placements (not a normal way in a general weekend trial) Normally, if placements were to be with held, this decision would follow a call back.
2. Call back to a bird field
3. Call back to the woods. In this case we would go to an area that we know holds birds. The only object now is to find a bird and display proper manners. Run is no longer an issue. The dog was called back becuase it exihibited an acceptable race, style, application. 

Choice 3 is the preferred choice. In some cases the choice is up to the judges, in others the choice is made by a written rule or the club officials.
The Amateur Club Judd Kinne Memorial Amateur Shooting Dog Classic has a set of running rules. To be named winner the dog(s) must have acceptable work on wild birds. A call back to the woods can be used. If, following a call back, no bird work is acceptable or no bird work has been accomplished the judges can go to a bird field. If dogs are placed on planted birds the trial reverts to a Shooting Dog win, not a Classic win (Classic wins count for more points in end of the year awards and for the Grand National Invitational)
This 'rule' applies to most CD Classics and CH (maybe all)

Lately, based on the high grouse cycle we have not had to go back to a bird field for many stakes. Call backs have been successful and quick for a call back in the woods. Most judges want to see and place dogs on wild birds. It's the exception, in Michigan, not to.


----------



## Induna

timbergsp said:


> This I know for a fact
> 
> 
> NSTRA Trial the dog with the most birds and highest Score wins and that is a fact.
> 
> I have heard a grouse Trial guy tell me that he needs to start running a different bell on his dog so it seems as if the dog is running bigger.
> 
> Why would the bell matter? Why wouldn't the dog with the most bird finds win? '' if the dog did them right'' I know if I am hunting I want to shoot my limit so why would I want a dog that runs at 300 yards out that finds only 1 bird in a 1 hour time frame? They dont even want them to handle or talk to their dogs? Just what I want in a hunting partner!!
> 
> why do grouse dogs win its not score based and its not based on the most bird finds that are properly handled. Whats left RUN RUN RUN
> 
> Maybe its because a friend is judging or its the same line the judge runs
> 
> Induna have you ran in NSTRA or been to a trial
> 
> Thats just my 2 Cents worth
> 
> I am done here
> 
> Scott


 No sir I have not ran a dog in NSTRA that is why I HAVE NOT said anything about how they run or are judged. You on the other hand said coverdogs are placed as to who the judge is friends with. Then you start this reply with " I have heard a grouse trial guy" I'm still waiting for you to shock me with all of your first hand knowledge about how cover dog trials are ran and judged. Go ahead I'm sitting down, I can take the shock.


----------



## WestCoastHunter

My rescue Pointers will usually find and point every planted bird put in a field for them. Somehow I doubt that would be enough for them to win an NSTRA trial. I would suppose that what you define as a point and how you choose to score the rest, or be scored, is more a matter of preference.

I don't trial for a reason.

Carry on gentlemen.


----------



## Drifter Saver

timbergsp said:


> I am done here
> 
> Scott


You didn't keep your word 



2ESRGR8 said:


> I'd be perfectly fine with that as long as I knew the rules prior to paying my entry fee.
> It's not that big a deal, just different is all.


Could you imagine the subjective arguements that would exist after a Super Bowl where the team that won only scored 17 points and the loser scored 31 points. How could you determine definitively that the right team won if the winner had more total yards from scrimmage, the most fantastic catch of the game and a 100 yard rusher but only scored half as many points? Point systems are created to have a measurable and definitive result.



2ESRGR8 said:


> Finally!!! The one thing in this thread everyone can agree upon. :lol:


and that timbergsp was supposed to be done here


----------



## Drifter Saver

WestCoastHunter said:


> My rescue Pointers will usually find and point every planted bird put in a field for them. Somehow I doubt that would be enough for them to win an NSTRA trial. I would suppose that what you define as a point and how you choose to score the rest, or be scored, is more a matter of preference.


Bingo! Not if my dog and I have anything to do with it. My goal as your bracemate is to take my dog (which I hope is faster, handles better and is in better condition) and find "every" planted bird in the field. You are obviously trying to do the same thing. The next step is where the cream rise to the top. Even if you find all 5 birds...chances are, someone else and their dog found 5 as well. That is when you have to have the better animal to win (based on ground coverage, obedience, birdwork (point, retrieve and honoring). I don't know if the juding guidelines are on the website or not...good to read if they are.

The scoring actually isn't a preference. There are defined scoring elements identified in the juding handbook for every evaluated variable which is reviewed and tested against every two years (to maintain your judging card). In fact, we have a Michigan judging seminar this weekend.


----------



## Flash01

WestCoastHunter said:


> My rescue Pointers will usually find and point every planted bird put in a field for them. Somehow I doubt that would be enough for them to win an NSTRA trial.


 
Man, you need a hug!


----------



## WestCoastHunter

Flash01 said:


> Man, you need a hug!


Whoa, hey, none of that now. :lol:

I was really just trying to point out that a lot of dogs can find and point pen raised birds or even wild birds for that matter (mine do that too) and do so well, at least in the eyes of their owners. 

Bickering over how many birds a dog finds, or rather, how much weight that has in the overall evaluation of a dog in competition gets away from what you guys are trying to judge, the total package. No?

From the sounds of it both formats have their own way of going about it. Nothing wrong with that. Your end goals are the same, you guys just have differing ways of approaching it.

Knowing the difference is, however, a very handy thing to keep in mind when searching for a pup that comes out of a line of dogs run in one or the other format.

I have a question, how many people here run dogs in both formats these days?


----------



## [email protected]

> Come on Terry, I realize there is certainly handling involved but I know it is not to the extent that goes on in a NSTRA trial. I ain't buying that.
> As an example, I would estimate that during a 30 min braces I will give my dog a command to change directions somewhere in the 150 to 200 times range.
> And that is but one command. As I said that list commands goes on and on. Called off a safety bird, called off a bumped bird , even called off point on occasion etc. I want you to back this time but the next time you don't. All commands that taught and utilized during a brace.


Just an observation, but in the CD trials, and especially the walking/HB quail trials, winning and losing usually comes down to soley handling. From what you are saying at a NSTRA event, you may use more actual commands and do more shouting/handling, and trying to keep a dog in bounds or in birdy areas, but a AF trial comes down to how well a handler can make his/her dog look. No dogs are perfect, but the best handlers can make the most average dog show in ways that most normal guys would never think of. Its not always that their dogs are unbeatable or "the best dog ever" but the fact that they know that dog, they know its holes, and they know how to cover them up, as every dog has something that you need to work with. Its not by mear luck that guys like Bruce Minard, the Formans,Scott Chaffee, Dave Hughes, the Tracy's, Luke E, win every week, yes they have good dogs and larger strings of them, but they can put that dog anywhere they want on a course and make it look good. The grouse dog guys know the likely bird spots and can pull a dog out of one cut and send it to another with a bellow, and the HB guys can usually put that dog on just about any line they want and get them to the front from over a 1/4 to 1/2 mile with a simple song and the direction they turn their horse. If you want to really see handling, its awesome to see the HB guys keep a dog on a string at about a 1/2 mile.


----------



## roughwoods

Scott

I will agree with you that it takes skill to complete on your level in a NSTRA field. 

BUT in my opinion it takes a lot better dog, and handler to walk a cover dog course and win than it does a NSTRA field.

First off in a NSTRA field all you have to do is keep a dog in a 30 acre field
and teach it to run 4 wheeler tracks. NOW TELL ME I"M Lying!!!! 
been there done that. With some handling skill needed.

In cover dog trials your dogs run farther, faster, in cover where they can't see the handler most of the time. Down courses that twist and turn, up and down hills, through swamps, etc.. The dogs need to go to the right places to find birds with as little handling as possible. But yet
they must continually handle to the front and turn when told to do so. The handler need to know when to call a dog in and send him out. Put him in birdy areas and pull him out of unlikely area when needed. A lot more handling that a NSTRA trial.

Oh and they are wild birds, not ones planted on a 4 wheeler.

Now to change the subject:

ALL THIS CRAP OF WHICH SCORING SYSTEM IS BETTER OR WORSE IS GETTING OLD. ALL SCORING SYSTEMS ARE FLAWED I'VE SEEN DOGS WIN ON BOTH SYSTEMS, THAT HAVE NO BUSINESS EVER WINNING OR BEING USED FOR BREEDING PURPOSES. WE CAN NEVER DO AWAY WITH CHEATS. JUST PUT OUR TRUST IN THE 95% OF JUDGES THAT ARE HONEST. NEITHER SYSTEM IS BETTER OR WORSE.


----------



## Flash01

roughwoods said:


> First off in a NSTRA field all you have to do is keep a dog in a 30 acre field
> and teach it to run 4 wheeler tracks. NOW TELL ME I"M Lying!!!!
> been there done that. With some handling skill needed.


Thats silly. How many tracks do you think there are on a course by 2pm with two judges and a bird handler driving all over all day? If that were true, the frist braces would win every time. I dont like to argue on the internets, but that is the statement of an idiot. I am assuming its a private joke or something and not something you are seriously purposing.



roughwoods said:


> Now to change the subject:
> 
> ALL THIS CRAP OF WHICH SCORING SYSTEM IS BETTER OR WORSE IS GETTING OLD. ALL SCORING SYSTEMS ARE FLAWED I'VE SEEN DOGS WIN ON BOTH SYSTEMS, THAT HAVE NO BUSINESS EVER WINNING OR BEING USED FOR BREEDING PURPOSES. WE CAN NEVER DO AWAY WITH CHEATS. JUST PUT OUR TRUST IN THE 95% OF JUDGES THAT ARE HONEST. NEITHER SYSTEM IS BETTER OR WORSE.


He said it in all caps, so the arguement is clearly over. After making such an idiotic statement in the same message, i am not sure how you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously.

The subjective nature of the cover dog judging lends itself to controversy and conspiracy. I think most folks are honest and that the people who are serious about this business do it because they love it and would put the dogs ahead of thier personal issues. That being said, the system lends itself to questioning by its very nature. That is why I like the NSTRA scoring. If you find five birds and I find two, I have no one to blame by myself. (and my four wheeler manufacturer for putting off a different scent than the ones used in the trial, apparently).


----------



## Steelheadfred

For those questioning the Cover Dog Judges in terms of Nepotism, I can't speak directly to that format, what I can speak too though is that a few die hard cover dog guys, a couple of them very active in this discussion, are generous enough to judge the RGS Fun Trials, and were kind enough before the divisions were split to place labs ahead of more traditional pointing/grouse dogs, even when they had trained, bred some of these dogs. So IMO if they can do that, they can give a fair shak under a more formal trial setting.

I have learned a lot from this thread about both sides thanks to those like Crosswind, Charlie, Terry, Joe for sharing opinions. A bunch of good pro's and serious am's contributing.


----------



## crosswind

roughwoods said:


> Scott
> 
> 
> 
> ALL THIS CRAP OF WHICH SCORING SYSTEM IS BETTER OR WORSE IS GETTING OLD. ALL SCORING SYSTEMS ARE FLAWED I'VE SEEN DOGS WIN ON BOTH SYSTEMS, THAT HAVE NO BUSINESS EVER WINNING OR BEING USED FOR BREEDING PURPOSES. WE CAN NEVER DO AWAY WITH CHEATS. JUST PUT OUR TRUST IN THE 95% OF JUDGES THAT ARE HONEST. NEITHER SYSTEM IS BETTER OR WORSE.


 Terry, I won't debate the CD scoring system, never have. I really don't know how it could be done to much differently, often times the judges are not there to see the dog make the actual find. 
It is subjective though, and subjectiveness opens the door for politicking. How does a format go about policing a persons/judges poor integrity, how would you even know he has poor integrity? But again how else could that format be judged???? Especially in that type of cover.
You are right there is not a format out there that doesn't have a certain percentage of judges with poor integrity, that try to manipulate for their advantage. I am sure every format battles this issue.
I think it is more difficult for that to be pulled off in NSTRA due to scoring system and the fact that the work often happens where there are lots of other certified judges and handlers see it. Also those scores are posted immediately after the brace, so everyone sees them. It is certainly not a bullet proof system but it does work well for the format.


----------



## chewy

I think the biggest difference between the two venues is your dog doesnt need a long tail or a 12 o clock tail to win in nstra..




And before anyone says you dont need the tail stuff.. prove it to me with past winnerss of both national championships and regular trials.. 

The rues specifically say your dog must point with a high tail... Short tail dogs typically carry a tail above horizontal..


----------



## Worm Dunker

You guys keep saying 5 birds have they changed the rules in shoot to retrieve? Back years ago when I tried that game with only 5 birds finds you wouldn't win. You would set up on the hill watch were the birds for the brace before you were planted then you would send your dog to get those before you would try to get the ones planted for your brace because you set in a shed so you can't see were they are planted.



Chewy the 2000 something (can't remember the exact date) Wambli a Brittney won the Mi. Woodcock Ch. I seen it point lots of times and not once in it many championships has it pointed with a 12 o'clock tail. In cover dog championships the best dog always wins. And they win because they beat all the other dogs not because they had more points.


----------



## roughwoods

Flash01

If your playing NSTRA and your not teaching your dog to trail exhaust fumes your not placing in near as many trials as you could. When I was 
doing NSTRA one of the first things you would teach a dog was to follow
4 wheeler exhaust. And yes I still have friends that do NSTRA and I still train and hunt with them. AND YES when I help them train their dogs 4 wheeler training is part of it.

A smart dog will learn very quickly to pick up the fresh exhaust from the bird planter and follow it. I can teach you if you like. NO charge of course
just the satisfaction of telling you I told you so.

AND I"M AN IDIOT


----------



## crosswind

roughwoods said:


> Scott
> 
> I will agree with you that it takes skill to complete on your level in a NSTRA field.
> 
> BUT in my opinion it takes a lot better dog, and handler to walk a cover dog course and win than it does a NSTRA field.
> 
> This seems to be so many of the coverdog guys attitude. But what is funny the ones that are playing at the upper levels of the CD format don't seem to share that attitude. What in the hell makes you guys think that you have the only dogs that can find and point and hold a wild bird/ grouse?????.
> Terry I have broke/owned/trailed/campaigned more setters in a year then you will over your lifetime. Do you think that I don't have a decent idea of the kind of talent that is out there in that breed. I know the kind of talent you are working with. If it was better then the rest I would have a whole kennel full of them.
> The idea of an english setter being the premier grouse dog is BS. The idea of it takes alot better dog to compete in ANY format is BS. There are none of them that is heads ands tails above the rest.
> If it takes that much of a better dog to play the CD game ( and most of those dogs are setters) then why do I not see all that exceptional talent come through my training facilities. Lots of them have come out of the CD lines. As near as I can tell your odds of getting an exceptional dog will come in an EP package more then anything else.That is coming from a shorthair breeder, but also realistic enough to call it like it is.
> 
> As far as NSTRA and CD being compared to one another it is impossible, you can't. But to think you have to have a better dog or be a better handler to compete in the Cover Dog trials is BS.
> 
> Terry , I really thought you had learned more about NSTRA when you participated, I guess I was wrong. If you walked away with no more knowledge of the game then that you didn't pick much up.
> I realize that 99 percent of your NSTRA experience came from trialing up at the grounds in Marlette 10 years ago. I can somewhat understand why you didn't learn much. Trust me the rest of the NSTRA did not operate under those same principles. It goes right back to the integrity issue I was discussing. Had you got out of that part of the country and competed elsewhere, likely you would have formed a different opinion of things and seen what it was really all about.
> To give you a short story of Marlette after you left NSTRA and I was elected Mi region president, that integrity issue up there was put to an immediate stop.It should have been handled before that. But that is off the subject.
> 
> NOW TELL ME I"M Lying!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> I won't tell you you are lying. What I will tell you I will wait until I looking you in the face.
> 
> This bike tracking and keeping a dog in a 30 acre field idea of yours is a laugh. To think that thats all your dog needs to know to play the game pretty much proves my point that you didn't learn much while you were here. In fact if it was that easy why didn't you win all of those trails up there.
Click to expand...


----------



## shorthair guy

Rules have changed. It is harder to see birds being planted, no binocs allowed, also most people are to busy b.s'ing to watch the bird planter. Also the fields in gladwin are very tough to see the planter unless he is at the start line. Coldwater is easier to see the fields but the planters are very experienced and very tricky(Those SOB's).

And just so everyone understands what ever the format you are in the GSP'S are the best dogs around :evil:.


----------



## roughwoods

DA!!!! Scott 

I did not mean to yank your chain that bad, I was just messing a round a little. If you go back to my first posts you will see I was defending good dogs on both sides of the fence. I even stated at one time on a different post that there were dogs in NSTRA that were more than talented enough to win in CD. BUT I will hold my ground on the fact I believe there is more handling in CD trials than NSTRA. ( My opinion right or wrong) AND you half to admit some do teach dogs to chase exhaust fumes. Also if you go back
you will see that I never said any format was better or worse. No mater
what format we choose it is the 5 % of the dishonest people that make the rest of us look bad. And YES a lot of the people that were active back then were far from honest. You know that as well as I do. I judged several times with a person that would over inflate his friends score while way under scoring the rest. And I still stand by opinion that 95% of all 
people on all formats are honest. We will never be able to get rid of all the bad seeds. And with out yanking your chain any more I still would like to get together and kill some birds up north. I will not make to much fun of your no tailed dogs if you do not make to much fun of my out of control setters.

And I am sorry if I pi!! you off I was just trying to have a little fun.
Hopefully no hard feelings.


----------



## FindTheBird

chewy said:


> I think the biggest difference between the two venues is your dog doesnt need a long tail or a 12 o clock tail to win in nstra..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And before anyone says you dont need the tail stuff.. prove it to me with past winnerss of both national championships and regular trials..
> 
> The rues specifically say your dog must point with a high tail... Short tail dogs typically carry a tail above horizontal..


Chewy, put down the kool aid for a second and observe the picture below. The winning dog who looks somewhat like a crop-tailed chunky setter is actually a coverdog brit with a number of wins and placements named Wambli and owned by the avid coverdogger, Ken Delong (I'm not sure who the other guys are who are bespoiling the photograph:lol: --hint, they're all MS'rs). Ken has not only been winning at the shooting dog level with Wambli for several years, but has also had success this year with a new young brit derby.

Now that the previous excuse for the short-tail owners is completely defunct, what's next one gonna be? Anybody want to prove that the German shortails can or can't hack it or do you guys know something about your dogs that I don't?

BTW, where's the high tail rule? I've seen some pretty mediocre looking tails on dogs out there who win.


----------



## BradU20

Crosswind, 

Thanks for taking the time to post on here. 
I've been meaning to get down to Nick's place and I am going to make a point to get there this summer.


----------



## Worm Dunker

I'll be the first CD guy to admit at least at Coldwater you shoot to retrieve guys should beat us woods guys. Because at the break way on the A field my latest project would just blow right through the field jump the fence and start working those tree if there still there. We don't even train our dogs in that kind of low cover let alone hunt it. So what your excuse why you don't run the woods? You can't use the short tail bias anymore because britts, gsp, gwp, and even a pointer with a bobbed tail(I think) has placed at Gladwin.


----------



## WestCoastHunter

crosswind said:


> If it takes that much of a better dog to play the CD game ( and most of those dogs are setters) then why do I not see all that exceptional talent come through my training facilities. Lots of them have come out of the CD lines.


I have a question for you Crosswind, and you're welcome to PM me a response if you'd rather take that route. Are these dogs that you're seeing eventually used as trial dogs, dogs that Joe Hunter bought and decided he wanted someone else to train, or dogs that someone tried to train and failed somewhere along the line before calling you?

For a change, we're not going to disagree here, especially since I have NO bone in this. I'm just curious as to what you're seeing given your thought on the matter.


----------



## Drifter Saver

Worm Dunker said:


> We don't even train our dogs in that kind of low cover let alone hunt it. So what your excuse why you don't run the woods? You can't use the short tail bias anymore because britts, gsp, gwp, and even a pointer with a bobbed tail(I think) has placed at Gladwin.


Then you must not challenge your dogs to hunt various species of birds around the country. I hunt quail and prairie chickens in the sandhills of the Southwest in cover than isn't even 12 inches high (thousands of acres of it). That is some of the best cover to hunt out there.

As to why I don't run in it (and you asked the question so you must be looking for our personal answers)...the venue isn't as big locally or nationally, it isn't as competitive from the top to the bottom, the various pointing dog breeds clearly aren't equally represented, there aren't as many grounds to run on or nearly the number of trials to participate in, it isn't a year-round organization, the judging is too subjective, most (not all) of the dogs wouldn't be a pleasure to walk behind when hunting (and I will say it again...yes I have seen plenty of them as I grew up down the road from the Meredith grounds) and I expect my dogs to retrieve 100%, so I put my training toward a trained retrieve versus steady to shot. For the amount of hunting that I do, steady to shot and fall isn't even a desire. I do quite a bit of pheasant hunting (a lot of bird hunting in general) and that would result in a lot of lost birds.

If NSTRA didn't exist in Michigan (or Ohio or Indiana), I might run Cover Dog just because I like to compete. However, my gut tells me I would run AKC or US Complete because I like more open cover where I can admire the dog work almost 100% of the time.

I love this...I think this thread could make double-digit pages!


----------



## chewy

koolade.. ok what place was that brittany? 3rd? 

what about the national trials??

I am ok with the fact a short tail cant win a national trial.. I just wish cd guys would just admit it.. 

I have talked to a *significant* memeber of the cd game. when i asked him face to face if a short tailed dog could in a national his response was it wont happen anytime soon.. 

By where i live you can probably make some assumptions who it was

If I am wrong.. the perception shared by many is that its a long tail dogs game.... Maybe your trial format should work on correcting the perception.. 

I have always said all trials serve their purpose and i support all trials to a point.. 


Worm dunker... 

Your memory must be failing you... 5 birds are placed in a field the handler of the next brace cannot watch the planter plant birds... You do not have to find 5 birds to win... its the highest score... 

I dont know what you were watching but your way off on your statements... 

Finding 5 birds sure does help... but you dont have to find that many to win... 

Maybe you ran the trial and your dog got whooped on and the dog running agaisnt you found all five before you could figure out that you cant handle your dog and it hunts for itself not the handler... not the kind of dog i would want to own... 

In the next 5 years i will get a shorttail ready to run in your trials...


----------



## WestCoastHunter

Drifter Saver said:


> I love this...I think this thread could make double-digit pages!


It's also spilling out good information for the rest of us.


----------



## [email protected]

Chewy, Wambli has multiple first's in open trials along with the Michigan Woodcock CH title in an open field of 42 dogs I believe being the only short tailed dog in the group. People say a shorthair will never win or a V or whatever yet no one shows up and enters?? The same thing can be said about setters at the National Championship, where one hasn't won in nearly 40 years, but at least a few enter and try and make it happen instead of just say that they won't get a fair look from the pointer guys!


----------



## chewy

they dont show up because of the perception....... 

and i have heard it out of the mouth of a significant member of coverdog trials that they will not win a national anytime soon... 

Why would i run in something that i am at a disadvantage before the thing even starts... 

Perception....... 

Maybe you should try to align with the shorthair association or something and host a shorthair trial like you do the brittany ones.. I would think you need to get a larger number of breeds other than setters and pointers... 

If the cd trials are ok with their size and dont want to grow then dont change a thing...


----------



## [email protected]

It's perceived that Setters don't win in pointer country down south, yet they still show up and win now and then, a setter won the quail ch. invitational for the first time in the trials existence last year. These owners spent a LOT more money to get these dogs that title than probably all of the people who participated on this thread spend on dogs a year to give their dog a shot at it. Not trying to turn this into a tail debate thread, that has been beat over and over, but since you guys all say how its unfair, what would your solution be if you were going to judge these animals equally in an AF trial?


----------



## WestCoastHunter

[email protected] said:


> It's perceived that Setters don't win in pointer country down south, yet they still show up and win now and then, a setter won the quail ch. invitational for the first time in the trials existence last year. These owners spent a LOT more money to get these dogs that title than probably all of the people who participated on this thread spend on dogs a year to give their dog a shot at it. Not trying to turn this into a tail debate thread, that has been beat over and over, but since you guys all say how its unfair, what would your solution be if you were going to judge these animals equally in an AF trial?


If it's such an issue, stop lopping off their tails and run them in the trials. It's still the same breed. :lol:


----------



## Bobby

chewy said:


> ....
> 
> The *rules specifically *say your dog must point with a high tail... Short tail dogs typically carry a tail above horizontal..


They are not rules, they are guidelines. It's a significant point (pun intended.)


----------



## FindTheBird

chewy said:


> they dont show up because of the perception.......


Hmm. I show you a short tail who's doing a bunch of winning including a CH and you come back with the same response. I'm starting to think that I have more confidence in your style of dog than you do. What's the worse that can happen? Getting beat? There are tons of pointers and setters who go down in flames too. The upside? Wouldn't be cool to be the first to win with a German dog? _The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself_!:lol:


----------



## WestCoastHunter

FindTheBird said:


> Hmm. I show you a short tail who's doing a bunch of winning including a CH and you come back with the same response. I'm starting to think that I have more confidence in your style of dog than you do. What's the worse that can happen? Getting beat? There are tons of pointers and setters who go down in flames too. The upside? Wouldn't be cool to be the first to win with a German dog? _The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself_!:lol:


Besides, if you lose to a Pointer that's not all that uncommon in the field trial world no matter what format you're talking about. :evil:


----------



## crosswind

roughwoods said:


> Flash01
> 
> If your playing NSTRA and your not teaching your dog to trail exhaust fumes your not placing in near as many trials as you could. When I was
> doing NSTRA one of the first things you would teach a dog was to follow
> 4 wheeler exhaust. And yes I still have friends that do NSTRA and I still train and hunt with them. AND YES when I help them train their dogs 4 wheeler training is part of it.
> 
> A smart dog will learn very quickly to pick up the fresh exhaust from the bird planter and follow it. I can teach you if you like. NO charge of course
> just the satisfaction of telling you I told you so.
> 
> AND I"M AN IDIOT


Terry you really should have stuck it out longer then you did.
For one you would have seen this Mi region transform from the laughing stock of the NSTRA (10 years ago) to what is today one of the most dominant regions in the country.
You also would have learned that the theory of the dog being able to track the exhaust fumes of the ATV is an absolute laughable misconception.
If that dog of mine can run out onto that field and discyphor between 3 different ATV's which one they planted birds off of. I am gonna quit trialing him and get him a collage degree.Those guys in Marlette filled your head with, well with their knowledge:lol:.
I am schocked that you didn't figure out why those dogs are able to track. And yes I do agree that they figure that out. But it has ZERO/ZILCH to do with exhaust.


----------



## jake6413

Does crosswind own or run the lucky puppy day care in Maybee?


----------



## shorthair guy

Merimac said:


> So then it is a quail trial? Should we do it in the open too? Why not just let the trials stay the way they are and participate in the trials that suit your needs?
> 
> Ben



The point of the post was if the organization wanted to make sure the dogs retrieve they could use pen raised birds and not the wild birds.


----------



## timbergsp

Because bird dogs fetch birds thats what they do...

They should have to do so to be a champion period this is after all for hunting dogs is that not correct. 

if your dogs do fetch why not show they can... my bet is because most dont or atleast dont do it correctly 

what does a double double and points have to do with a hunting dog doing its job. 

I dont care if they shoot a pigeon over the dog it is my feeling they should have to bring the dead bird back 

I have seen many beagles that had been championships and even national titles and they where so gun shy that they where no good as a hunting dog. whats the point of owning the animal if it cant do its job

same with CD they should show they can do there job and fetch me that bird dead bird on command

SCott


----------



## 2ESRGR8

shorthair guy said:


> The point of the post was if the organization wanted to make sure the dogs retrieve they could use pen raised birds and not the wild birds.


 That's Merimac's point.
Retrieving dead birds hasn't been a part of coverdog for 50 years so why now? If killing birds is such a big deal than those participants should stick with NSTRA, it's not to the CD players.


----------



## FindTheBird

timbergsp said:


> if your dogs do fetch why not show they can... my bet is because most dont or atleast dont do it correctly


I know it doesn't really seem to count for much but they can find and handle pressured wild birds in a natural environment under judgement conditions. Who would ever want to hunt over a loser of a beast such as that?:lol:



timbergsp said:


> I dont care if they shoot a pigeon over the dog it is my feeling they should have to bring the dead bird back


Fair enough.



timbergsp said:


> I have seen many beagles that had been championships and even national titles and they where so gun shy that they where no good as a hunting dog. whats the point of owning the animal if it cant do its job


Coverdog requires that the dog be steady to shot. Most of the coverdogs that I've hunted over have been steady to shot, fall and release (and yes, some fetch like labs too).
I think it's really difficult to pigeon hole a dog from either venue. As I said, some coverdogs are fetching machines, and some NASTRA dogs are heavily hunted on wild birds and very successful.


----------



## Merimac

timbergsp said:


> Because bird dogs fetch birds thats what they do...
> 
> They should have to do so to be a champion period this is after all for hunting dogs is that not correct.
> 
> if your dogs do fetch why not show they can... my bet is because most dont or atleast dont do it correctly
> 
> what does a double double and points have to do with a hunting dog doing its job.
> 
> I dont care if they shoot a pigeon over the dog it is my feeling they should have to bring the dead bird back
> 
> I have seen many beagles that had been championships and even national titles and they where so gun shy that they where no good as a hunting dog. whats the point of owning the animal if it cant do its job
> 
> same with CD they should show they can do there job and fetch me that bird dead bird on command
> 
> SCott


I have seen plenty of labs point but I don't expect it.

Coverdog would really be a different sport if they had to point a wild bird than flush it and fire. Now pull a bird out of a bird bag, Throw it into the woods, Draw your gun, Have to hit it before it goes behind a tree, Release the dog for a retrieve.


----------



## shorthair guy

2ESRGR8 said:


> That's Merimac's point.
> Retrieving dead birds hasn't been a part of coverdog for 50 years so why now? If killing birds is such a big deal than those participants should stick with NSTRA, it's not to the CD players.



Did I say they should change? No......... I offered a suggestion on how the organization could make sure the dogs retrieved IF they wanted to. Sure wish you guys would read before jumping on folks. No mention was made by me of killing anything, they could use frozen birds if they want. Not my concern.


----------



## WestCoastHunter

timbergsp said:


> Because bird dogs fetch birds thats what they do...


What exactly is this supposed to measure? The dogs natural retrieving ability or the ability of the trainer to properly force fetch a dog? For all intents and purposes any dog can be force fetched, but what does that really show other than the abilities of the trainer in competitions such as these?


----------



## Drifter Saver




----------



## FindTheBird

Drifter Saver said:


>


:lol::lol::lol:
Aw, c'mon let's try for 20 pages!:lol:


----------



## shorthair guy

WestCoastHunter said:


> What exactly is this supposed to measure? The dogs natural retrieving ability or the ability of the trainer to properly force fetch a dog? For all intents and purposes any dog can be force fetched, but what does that really show other than the abilities of the trainer in competitions such as these?



by this way of thinking why do they force steady to wing and shot? this is not natural and is trained. So is most backing, staying to the front and only hunting likely locations? 
Seems like a lot of training so *IF* the org wanted to they could add retrieving of some type.


----------



## 2ESRGR8

shorthair guy said:


> Did I say they should change? No......... I offered a suggestion on how the organization could make sure the dogs retrieved IF they wanted to. Sure wish you guys would read before jumping on folks. No mention was made by me of killing anything, they could use frozen birds if they want. Not my concern.


I see what you are saying, I guess they don't want to.
Not a concern for the CD governing body either.


----------



## FindTheBird

shorthair guy said:


> by this way of thinking why do they force steady to wing and shot? this is not natural and is trained. So is most backing, staying to the front and only hunting likely locations?
> Seems like a lot of training so *IF* the org wanted to they could add retrieving of some type.


Training to hunt to likely locations? Absolutely and utterly not: you can train a dog to go where you direct them, but you cannot teach a dog to naturally hunt to objectives without you whistling or yelling at them. I challenge you to find any experienced (wild bird) dog guy who will contradict this. On a related note, I don't think that you can teach a dog to naturally work the wind direction relative to likely cover.


----------



## shorthair guy

FindTheBird said:


> Training to hunt to likely locations? Absolutely and utterly not: you can train a dog to go where you direct them, but you cannot teach a dog to naturally hunt to objectives without you whistling or yelling at them. I challenge you to find any experienced (wild bird) dog guy who will contradict this. On a related note, I don't think that you can teach a dog to naturally work the wind direction relative to likely cover.


You can teach a dog to hunt likely covers by TRAINING in/to those covers, Planting birds in those types of covers, if you want a dog to check fence rows, Train by putting birds in those fence rows. If they find birds in area they will generally try to hunt those type of areas. My dogs dont hunt 2 tracks they hunt in the woods, if we are in fields they will always check edges and structure if there is any. why do they do this? because in their Training I would plant birds in these areas. Try it, put a bird in your yard in a bush a few times, the dog will learn to check that bush when they go out.


----------



## FindTheBird

shorthair guy said:


> You can teach a dog to hunt likely covers by TRAINING in/to those covers, Planting birds in those types of covers, if you want a dog to check fence rows, Train by putting birds in those fence rows. If they find birds in area they will generally try to hunt those type of areas. My dogs dont hunt 2 tracks they hunt in the woods, if we are in fields they will always check edges and structure if there is any. why do they do this? because in their Training I would plant birds in these areas. Try it, put a bird in your yard in a bush a few times, the dog will learn to check that bush when they go out.


Shorthair, I cannot disagree (at least in field training) because I've seen the same thing with my dogs. The Problem with this type of training is that it's awfully synthetic, and in my experience, I'm not sure that the training transfers all that well to other locations/situations/species. Are you going to train the dog for every species/cover/location that they encounter? I believe that first and foremost, a dog with reasonable natural ability requires zero objective training and will adjust to the situation without the trainer having to lift a finger.


----------



## Bobby

195 posts and it's still fairly civil.
That might be a record for this yearly "Whose game is best or more real or proves some such thing or another."

Again, my plans this year are to go down to Mil-Run and take in a NASTRA event. Just watch, not enter. Maybe I'll make it.

Carry on.


----------



## BradU20

Bobby said:


> 195 posts and it's still fairly civil.
> That might be a record for this yearly "Whose game is best or more real or proves some such thing or another."
> 
> Again, my plans this year are to go down to Mil-Run and take in a NASTRA event. Just watch, not enter. Maybe I'll make it.
> 
> Carry on.


Call me when you do...we can carpool.
Continue carrying on.


----------



## Bobby

BradU20 said:


> Call me when you do...we can carpool.
> Continue carrying on.




I will Brad.


----------



## Bobby

The real reason Shoot to Retrieve is more popular.


----------



## Merimac

uh, Bobby those are WI coverdog girls and the retouching phototoshop job was a bit heavy.


----------



## Drifter Saver

Bobby said:


> 195 posts and it's still fairly civil.
> That might be a record for this yearly "Whose game is best or more real or proves some such thing or another."
> 
> Again, my plans this year are to go down to Mil-Run and take in a NASTRA event. Just watch, not enter. Maybe I'll make it.
> 
> Carry on.


There will be a few that are closer than Coldwater. One is in the thumb (around Caro) and the other is in Gladwin. Also, for someone wanting to see more competition, the Regional elimination trial (this year will be close to Coldwater) is a format where only the dogs with placements that year can enter. Everyone wants to win that (more than a typical weekend trial).
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Bobby

Merimac said:


> uh, Bobby those are WI coverdog girls and the retouching phototoshop job was a bit heavy.


Ben, I'm just an engineer, that's a sketch and the best I can do. You are the artist. It was Paint, not Photoshop and it needed to be heavy. I wanted to avoid the Moderator spanking me for inappropriate content.


----------



## FindTheBird

Merimac said:


> uh, Bobby those are WI coverdog girls and the retouching phototoshop job was a bit heavy.


I finally see the birds in the picture!:corkysm55 Ben, aren't those Mearn's quail? I was unaware that Wisconsin had a population?



Drifter Saver said:


> There will be a few that are closer than Coldwater. One is in the thumb (around Caro) and the other is in Gladwin. Also, for someone wanting to see more competition, the Regional elimination trial (this year will be close to Coldwater) is a format where only the dogs with placements that year can enter. Everyone wants to win that (more than a typical weekend trial).
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'll be spending a bunch of time at Gladwin this Spring, I'd like to hit one at the "other" Gladwin field trial area during that time--looks like it'll be April 10-11. I've got two dogs running that weekend, but I'm going to try to make it.


----------



## Merimac

funny< I did not notice what kind of birds they were.


----------



## Scott Berg

2ESRGR8 said:


> I would not consider Scott Berg a coverdog guy.
> Don't really know what corner I would paint him into and I bet that's the way he wants it.
> Berg is a Setter breeder that pulls dogs from all throughout the gene pool regardless of what venue they are tested in.


Scott,

You are absolutely correct. I am just a guy trying to produce class hunting dogs and I have evaluated and bred to dogs from every format. However, that has little to do with why I find faults in all of the formats. My real job is to evaluate the financial impact of operational models in the largest organizations in the world. Unfortunately, that skill set tends to point out deficiencies in all of the formats. I also tend to completely disagree with how many people assess scoring systems. Of course, I also recognize any of the formats will identify the right dog most of the time but its impossible for me to accept what I am very sure are fundamental flaws. Let me reiterate. I am not saying any of the formats are terrible. I applaud anyone who goes out and proves it in public and I believe breeders absolutely should put their dogs to the test in the venue of their choosing. I am saying none of them are perfect and none of the groups should be too haughty about their chosen format, especially if you don't have the benefit on considerable experience with the others.

My first couple trials were NSTRA. I even competed in a handful of tournament hunting events. I have competed in and judged every form of sanctioned FDSB trial. ABHA, NBHA, USCSDA, HB shooting dog and AA. None of them are anywhere near perfect. I still take pride in the placements we have received and Champions we have produced. And, so should everyone else.

My problem, and this is because of what I do for a living, is that everyone tends to puff up and defend their format instead of looking for ways to improve.

My primary problem with NSTRA is how much weight is put on # of finds. The argument that there is rarely a case when there is not a dog with an equivalent number of finds is partially relevant at best. To begin with this test environment does not closely proximate wild bird hunting which diminishes the ability to predict bird finding ability. Its 30 minutes which is statistically insignificant. The quality of brace mate will significantly impact # of finds, and weather conditions have a very large effect. Therefore, such significant weight on # of finds is very fundamentally flawed and substantively misleading.

I also believe the retrieve receives too heavy weight. WCH said What exactly is this supposed to measure? The dogs natural retrieving ability or the ability of the trainer to properly force fetch a dog? For all intents and purposes any dog can be force fetched, but what does that really show other than the abilities of the trainer in competitions such as these?

I once attended an NBA game where rescue dogs (mutts) were the half-time entertainment. They ran relay retrieving races and did other retrieving stunts that we far more demanding then what we expect of our dogs. While I liked it when we retrieved in NBHA and ABHA trials I cant even remotely support the theory presented in this thread that a dog should have to retrieve to be named a Champion when any dog can be taught to retrieve. 

Just one adjustment could greatly improve this model in my opinion. Average the retrieves and gave them 100 point total weight the model would be much better. That way the score for retrieving would be based on quality of retrieves not the number of retrieves, and you would only get 100 points for an additional find instead of 200. If you believe retrieving should be weighted higher I could accept 200 total points. Under this new system retrieving would receives 11% of the total possible score. If you want it to be 20%, give it 200 points. 20% is still very heavy weight for any one attribute but it would be much better than the current system. 

Some also have put forth the theory that points accumulation is superior to winning a Championship. I could not disagree more. Of course, NSTRA has regional and national trials and people like Scott who have been successful at that level will tell you there is absolutely no comparison in the level of competition and difficulty of winning when you compete against the best from a much larger geography. Any FDSB sanctioned trial will draw the best from a very substantial distance. It is common for trailers to travel 6-10 hours to participate in a Championship. Accumulating wins in a weekend stake does not even come close to identify a dog that should bear the title of Champion. Not to mention I added up the number of opportunities in Michigan last year. If I recall there were over 60 trials. Thats in one state. There are three walking Championships and one HB Championship per year in Michigan. In our five state area, we have four walking Championships. We dont even have a HB Championship in Minnesota. Two regional Championships normally draw 40-50 top competitors for several states. We have The US Prairie Chicken Championship in WI that literally pulls in people from across the country. There are a couple of pros that come from Georgia. Others stop in on the way back from summer training on the prairie. And, there are three in the Dakota which draw the top pros from all over the country that are in the area for summer training. In the area for these pros means within 8 hours. The point is if you are diligent an attend frequently you can put a Championship on a decent dog because of the number of opportunities. I dont care how many times you attend, you are not going to win the Michigan grouse Championship with a decent dog. There is a provision to withhold a CH because when birds are down and/or conditions are bad a Championship performance may not be rendered.

My belief is that these arguments would have an ENTIRELY different tone if people actually had experience in all of these environments. It is very difficult to understand a venue in which you have not participated.

SRB


----------



## milrun

Bobby said:


> The real reason Shoot to Retrieve is more popular.


 Hey Townsend, why did you give Bobby our picture of our wives? Man I am in trouble now!!. Nick


----------



## crosswind

milrun said:


> Hey Townsend, why did you give Bobby our picture of our wives? Man I am in trouble now!!. Nick


 I didn't know yours had a white skirt, when did she get that.


----------



## crosswind

Scott Berg said:


> Scott,
> 
> You are absolutely correct. I am just a guy trying to produce class hunting dogs and I have evaluated and bred to dogs from every format. However, that has little to do with why I find faults in all of the formats. My real job is to evaluate the financial impact of operational models in the largest organizations in the world. Unfortunately, that skill set tends to point out deficiencies in all of the formats. I also tend to completely disagree with how many people assess scoring systems. Of course, I also recognize any of the formats will identify the right dog most of the time but it&#8217;s impossible for me to accept what I am very sure are fundamental flaws. Let me reiterate. I am not saying any of the formats are terrible. I applaud anyone who goes out and proves it in public and I believe breeders absolutely should put their dogs to the test in the venue of their choosing. I am saying none of them are perfect and none of the groups should be too haughty about their chosen format, especially if you don't have the benefit on considerable experience with the others.
> 
> My first couple trials were NSTRA. I even competed in a handful of tournament hunting events. I have competed in and judged every form of sanctioned FDSB trial. ABHA, NBHA, USCSDA, HB shooting dog and AA. None of them are anywhere near perfect. I still take pride in the placements we have received and Champions we have produced. And, so should everyone else.
> 
> My problem, and this is because of what I do for a living, is that everyone tends to puff up and defend their format instead of looking for ways to improve.
> 
> My primary problem with NSTRA is how much weight is put on # of finds. The argument that there is rarely a case when there is not a dog with an equivalent number of finds is partially relevant at best. To begin with this &#8220;test environment&#8221; does not closely proximate wild bird hunting which diminishes the ability to predict bird finding ability. Its 30 minutes which is statistically insignificant. The quality of brace mate will significantly impact # of finds, and weather conditions have a very large effect. Therefore, such significant weight on # of finds is very fundamentally flawed and substantively misleading.
> 
> I also believe the retrieve receives too heavy weight. WCH said &#8220;What exactly is this supposed to measure? The dogs natural retrieving ability or the ability of the trainer to properly force fetch a dog? For all intents and purposes any dog can be force fetched, but what does that really show other than the abilities of the trainer in competitions such as these?&#8221;
> 
> I once attended an NBA game where rescue dogs (mutts) were the half-time entertainment. They ran relay retrieving races and did other retrieving stunts that we far more demanding then what we expect of our dogs. While I liked it when we retrieved in NBHA and ABHA trials I can&#8217;t even remotely support the theory presented in this thread that a dog should have to retrieve to be named a Champion when any dog can be taught to retrieve.
> 
> Just one adjustment could greatly improve this model in my opinion. Average the retrieves and gave them 100 point total weight the model would be much better. That way the score for retrieving would be based on quality of retrieves not the number of retrieves, and you would only get 100 points for an additional find instead of 200. If you believe retrieving should be weighted higher I could accept 200 total points. Under this new system retrieving would receives 11% of the total possible score. If you want it to be 20%, give it 200 points. 20% is still very heavy weight for any one attribute but it would be much better than the current system.
> 
> Some also have put forth the theory that points accumulation is superior to winning a Championship. I could not disagree more. Of course, NSTRA has regional and national trials and people like Scott who have been successful at that level will tell you there is absolutely no comparison in the level of competition and difficulty of winning when you compete against the best from a much larger geography. Any FDSB sanctioned trial will draw the best from a very substantial distance. It is common for trailers to travel 6-10 hours to participate in a Championship. Accumulating wins in a weekend stake does not even come close to identify a dog that should bear the title of Champion. Not to mention I added up the number of opportunities in Michigan last year. If I recall there were over 60 trials. That&#8217;s in one state. There are three walking Championships and one HB Championship per year in Michigan. In our five state area, we have four walking Championships. We don&#8217;t even have a HB Championship in Minnesota. Two regional Championships normally draw 40-50 top competitors for several states. We have The US Prairie Chicken Championship in WI that literally pulls in people from across the country. There are a couple of pros that come from Georgia. Others stop in on the way back from summer training on the prairie. And, there are three in the Dakota which draw the top pros from all over the country that are in the area for summer training. In the area for these pros means within 8 hours. The point is if you are diligent an attend frequently you can put a Championship on a decent dog because of the number of opportunities. I don&#8217;t care how many times you attend, you are not going to win the Michigan grouse Championship with a &#8220;decent dog&#8221;. There is a provision to withhold a CH because when birds are down and/or conditions are bad a Championship performance may not be rendered.
> 
> My belief is that these arguments would have an ENTIRELY different tone if people actually had experience in all of these environments. It is very difficult to understand a venue in which you have not participated.
> 
> SRB


 Scott, I addressed almost every issue you discussed here in my other post.
If you think that the National Championship NSTRA trials don't draw people from all over the country , the next one I will stroll through the parking lot and camping area and take pics of lic. plates. They come from one end of the country to the other.
I and many others travel all over this country attending these Nat. trials. Just went to Georgia, 13 hours. and there were people there from Iowa, Texas. Kansas, just to name a few.
192 dogs entered at the Oct.2009, Dog of the year National Championships.


----------



## milrun

crosswind said:


> I didn't know yours had a white skirt, when did she get that.


 I don't see a skirt.


----------



## milrun

Scott Berg said:


> Scott,
> 
> You are absolutely correct. I am just a guy trying to produce class hunting dogs and I have evaluated and bred to dogs from every format. However, that has little to do with why I find faults in all of the formats. My real job is to evaluate the financial impact of operational models in the largest organizations in the world. Unfortunately, that skill set tends to point out deficiencies in all of the formats. I also tend to completely disagree with how many people assess scoring systems. Of course, I also recognize any of the formats will identify the right dog most of the time but its impossible for me to accept what I am very sure are fundamental flaws. Let me reiterate. I am not saying any of the formats are terrible. I applaud anyone who goes out and proves it in public and I believe breeders absolutely should put their dogs to the test in the venue of their choosing. I am saying none of them are perfect and none of the groups should be too haughty about their chosen format, especially if you don't have the benefit on considerable experience with the others.
> 
> My first couple trials were NSTRA. I even competed in a handful of tournament hunting events. I have competed in and judged every form of sanctioned FDSB trial. ABHA, NBHA, USCSDA, HB shooting dog and AA. None of them are anywhere near perfect. I still take pride in the placements we have received and Champions we have produced. And, so should everyone else.
> 
> My problem, and this is because of what I do for a living, is that everyone tends to puff up and defend their format instead of looking for ways to improve.
> 
> My primary problem with NSTRA is how much weight is put on # of finds. The argument that there is rarely a case when there is not a dog with an equivalent number of finds is partially relevant at best. To begin with this test environment does not closely proximate wild bird hunting which diminishes the ability to predict bird finding ability. Its 30 minutes which is statistically insignificant. The quality of brace mate will significantly impact # of finds, and weather conditions have a very large effect. Therefore, such significant weight on # of finds is very fundamentally flawed and substantively misleading.
> 
> I also believe the retrieve receives too heavy weight. WCH said What exactly is this supposed to measure? The dogs natural retrieving ability or the ability of the trainer to properly force fetch a dog? For all intents and purposes any dog can be force fetched, but what does that really show other than the abilities of the trainer in competitions such as these?
> 
> I once attended an NBA game where rescue dogs (mutts) were the half-time entertainment. They ran relay retrieving races and did other retrieving stunts that we far more demanding then what we expect of our dogs. While I liked it when we retrieved in NBHA and ABHA trials I cant even remotely support the theory presented in this thread that a dog should have to retrieve to be named a Champion when any dog can be taught to retrieve.
> 
> Just one adjustment could greatly improve this model in my opinion. Average the retrieves and gave them 100 point total weight the model would be much better. That way the score for retrieving would be based on quality of retrieves not the number of retrieves, and you would only get 100 points for an additional find instead of 200. If you believe retrieving should be weighted higher I could accept 200 total points. Under this new system retrieving would receives 11% of the total possible score. If you want it to be 20%, give it 200 points. 20% is still very heavy weight for any one attribute but it would be much better than the current system.
> 
> Some also have put forth the theory that points accumulation is superior to winning a Championship. I could not disagree more. Of course, NSTRA has regional and national trials and people like Scott who have been successful at that level will tell you there is absolutely no comparison in the level of competition and difficulty of winning when you compete against the best from a much larger geography. Any FDSB sanctioned trial will draw the best from a very substantial distance. It is common for trailers to travel 6-10 hours to participate in a Championship. Accumulating wins in a weekend stake does not even come close to identify a dog that should bear the title of Champion. Not to mention I added up the number of opportunities in Michigan last year. If I recall there were over 60 trials. Thats in one state. There are three walking Championships and one HB Championship per year in Michigan. In our five state area, we have four walking Championships. We dont even have a HB Championship in Minnesota. Two regional Championships normally draw 40-50 top competitors for several states. We have The US Prairie Chicken Championship in WI that literally pulls in people from across the country. There are a couple of pros that come from Georgia. Others stop in on the way back from summer training on the prairie. And, there are three in the Dakota which draw the top pros from all over the country that are in the area for summer training. In the area for these pros means within 8 hours. The point is if you are diligent an attend frequently you can put a Championship on a decent dog because of the number of opportunities. I dont care how many times you attend, you are not going to win the Michigan grouse Championship with a decent dog. There is a provision to withhold a CH because when birds are down and/or conditions are bad a Championship performance may not be rendered.
> 
> My belief is that these arguments would have an ENTIRELY different tone if people actually had experience in all of these environments. It is very difficult to understand a venue in which you have not participated.
> 
> SRB


 SRB. 
I have compete in CD,US Complete, and host , compete in NSTRA and I can tell you their are only 5 National NSTRA trials a year and as high of 250 dogs competing. To make your dog a NSTRA National Champion you have to make at least 5 and sometimes 6 cuts to win and the last day your dog will run at least a total of 2.5 hours in which the final brace is the hour run. IN the National Walking stakes it is a hour run only. WE demand more from the NSTRA dogs then the Walking shooting dogs. Don't get me wrong I love to compete in all venues. My 2 cents worth. Nick


----------



## shorthair guy

In these other formats why is there such an emphasis put on steady to wing and shot?


----------



## Scott Berg

Scott and Nick,

I am not sure from your responses if you noticed the following section from my previous post. I wrote ...

*Some also have put forth the theory that points accumulation is superior to winning a Championship. I could not disagree more. Of course, NSTRA has regional and national trials and people like Scott who have been successful at that level will tell you there is absolutely no comparison in the level of competition and difficulty of winning when you compete against the best from a much larger geography. *

I was attempting to point out that these regional and national events whether they be NSTRA or a FDSB Championship are brutal. My point was *not suggesting *a difference between NSTRA and FDSB events but the vast difference between accumulating points and winning one of these top events. It simply can't be done without a truly exceptional animal. 

I made this reference because someone had (in a very bold way) suggested that anyone could get lucky once and a points accumulated title was more meaningful. As I said, I strongly disagree and so do 99.5% of the people who run in FDSB sanctioned events. However, you mightbe surprised to know that I am a big proponent of a points accumulated title. I just would just distinquish it from a title earned by winning a CH event. I have suggested to Mr. Mathys on more than one occassion that the FDSB should have a points acummulated title. Points accumulated titles offer a degree of certainty of certainty as points are accumulated that has very positive effect on driving participation. Bernie has acutally approved this through American Bird Hunters (ABHA) and I am now working with the other walking organizations to offer a non-broke stake where the standard for range is reduced and a points accumulated title would be offered. I want their to be a consistent standard across all walking organizations so I have presented this to the presidents of the other two organizations and they are very much agree in theory. Now we just need to make it happen. I think you guys would love this format. Maybe you even want to start an ABHA chapter and hold one or two events/yr.

SRB


----------



## FindTheBird

shorthair guy said:


> In these other formats why is there such an emphasis put on steady to wing and shot?


I'll take stab. 
In coverdog, where the course is effectively thousands of acres and the dogs are running enencumbered with only bells and the birds are wild, W & S becomes a pretty big deal under those wild west circumstances.

Combine this with the fact that the dog cannot see the handler much of the time and you can see that W & S is a good test for the dog.


----------



## fishinlk

I know I'm probably going to regret using the word classy but here it goes.

 In my opnion the Coverdog and other AFTCA type trials are wanting the polished, classy dog aka the complete package. A dog that's finds a points birds but not steady to wing and shot is not a polished dog. It may well be a good hunting dog. If all you hunt is the slightly rolling flat lands of MI you may not see this value beyond the showing off of training ability. I hunt a lot in very hilly terrain (Ohio and PA) and a dog that's not steady is going to cost me game or put the dog in harms way. A low flying grouse that drops down over the steep hillside combined with a dog that's not steady and comes flying up out of nowhere could make for bad results with an inexperienced gunner.


----------



## Flash01

fishinlk said:


> I know I'm probably going to regret using the word classy but here it goes.
> 
> In my opnion the Coverdog and other AFTCA type trials are wanting the polished, classy dog aka the complete package. A dog that's finds a points birds but not steady to wing and shot is not a polished dog. It may well be a good hunting dog. If all you hunt is the slightly rolling flat lands of MI you may not see this value beyond the showing off of training ability. I hunt a lot in very hilly terrain (Ohio and PA) and a dog that's not steady is going to cost me game or put the dog in harms way. A low flying grouse that drops down over the steep hillside combined with a dog that's not steady and comes flying up out of nowhere could make for bad results with an inexperienced gunner.


 
A dog that will not retrieve might cost you game too. Your so called complete package leaves out a component and therefore is hardly complete.

Any dog can be taught to retrieve is the arguement, so why bother showing that off, it just takes time, but a dog is not complete unless it is steady to wing and shot? Am I missing something. I admit I am not a pro trainer, but couldnt you say virtually the same thing about steadiness.

If safety is the concern, steady to wing should take care of most of it.


----------



## fishinlk

True, lack of retrieve could. I had a gsp that would not retrieve for squat but would hunt dead and stand there and pin a bird rather than retreive it. She had a serious block about picking up birds. Funny part is that she got over it out of the blue one day when she was nine! lol

The walking shooting dog trials our club used to run used a call back to retrieve as a tie breaker for first place in close stakes. I felt that kept the whole blanking over the birds thing honest on that front. Dogs HAD to be able to to do that if needed. While I've not attended that many coverdog stakes yet, I don't know how often that actually would come into play if they chose to to do that. From the reading of results post trial it sounds that more often than not the #1 dog usually manages to seperate itself from the competition pretty well. Those with more experience in the venue could probably speak to that with more accuracy.


----------



## chewy

Scott Berg said:


> Guys,
> 
> All of the various events have strengths and weaknesses. I think both types of events are just great and cover dog trials are not getting a fair evaluation or comparison here.
> 
> The premise put forth by the poster named Coverdog is eluding to that in any 30-60 minute period, especially where the conditions and even the course can vary substantially, Its very difficult to assess relative bird finding ability.
> 
> Now that you have calmed down  My opinion is that none of us who participate in a given venue should get too carried away in terms of how great the venue is as a test environment. One of the primary functions of trials is supposed to be to identify the best individuals for breeding. I would concede that the best dogs often do rise to the top. Thats to be expected if there is any relevance in the test. However, both environments have significant conceptual flaws. I look upon field trial wins in my own dogs as only modestly significant in terms of my decision to breed them or not.
> 
> The first thing that should be pointed out is that the fact a score is written down does not make that form of judgment more relevant. It is still a measure based on opinion. It is subject to the same degree of inconsistency. However, I would have to say that the variance in what the standard should be is less in NSTRA.
> 
> The primary deficiency in wild bird trials is they have a very significant random component. Anyone doing research would look upon this environment as highly suspect. For starters, the courses no doubt provide significantly different relative opportunity to find birds. Also, with wild birds, anyone who hunts know that their movement during the day makes certain times of the day significantly better in terms of having an opportunity to get birds pointed.
> 
> The crucial element is having enough birds to make for a reasonable test. I can cut to the chase. If this were an ideal test environment we would not have Championship with 70 dogs where 15 or less get birds pointed. What this proves is an inadequate test environment or that the entrants are incapable. I am quite sure it is NOT the latter.
> 
> NSTRA has the following deficiencies in my estimation. Again, the standard is identifying individuals to breed.
> 
> 1) The fields are much smaller than the places we hunt and most do not contain natural objectives. Application is a crucial element in terms of producing wild birds. This should be heavily weighted in any form of trial. So, what I am saying is that with NSTRA our test environment does not accurately represent wild bird objectives and necessary hunting application.
> 2) Retrieving is roughly 40% of the score. Obedience and ground coverage combined are 13%. Stamina is not even considered. No trait should be this heavily weighted. Again, given we are talking about identify individuals for breeding, a dog with no natural retrieving instinct could be force broke to be a superior retriever.
> 3) Two dogs that score identical, for example lets say they get 80 on every retrieve. The dog with four finds is scored 320 and the dog with 5 finds 400. This is a retrieving score. I know someone will argue this but this is VERY flawed.
> 4) Bracemate and conditions have a very significant impact on number of birds found. Four finds could be far more impressive than five based on conditions and bracmate. Yet, five finds beats four finds almost without exception.
> 
> In conclusion extreme weight is put on number of finds when in fact the measurement of number of finds is very inaccurate. 30 minutes is statistically insignificant no matter what. We have a test environment that does not assimilate wild bird habitat and objectives. And, conditions and bracemate will without a doubt significantly impact the number of birds found.
> 
> Ironically, many people argue that scoring based on number of finds is the primary strength of this system. It is the primary weakness. Again, I say this in the context or evaluating dogs for breeding purposes. In the example below, I take a dog with four finds and very impressive scores. Lets take another with 5 finds and very poor scores. I equalized the retrieving scores. We will assume the same guy force broke them to retrieve.
> 
> 4 finds * 90 = 360
> 4 retrieves at 80 = 320
> 90% of Ground coverage = 90
> 90% of Obedience = 67.5
> 90% on a back = 67.5
> 905 points.
> 
> 5 Finds * 70 - 350
> 5 Retrieves * 80 = 400
> 70% of Ground coverage = 70
> 70% of Obedience = 52.5
> 70% on a back = 52.5
> 925 Points
> 
> The dog that is grossly inferior in every measure wins if it has one additional find. If the measurement period was 4 or 5 days, the bracemates were the same, and the conditions were the same, you could make an argument that the only thing that mattered was the number of finds. Again, from a breeding wild bird dog perspective, all aspects must be balanced so I would not agree. The dog that scored poorly in the categories would not excel in an actual hunting environment.
> 
> SRB


I dont understand your last point.. the dog would not excel in a hunting situation... It found more birds, retreived more birds... Isnt hunting about finding birds? so he is a little rough on certain aspects. I dont understand the point you are making


----------



## chewy

FindTheBird said:


> Good points Flash;
> 
> Regarding the retrieve, you're right, there is no retrieving in coverdog. Because the DNR would frown on it, we just can't kill wild birds in a competitive environment--it's a legal/logistical impossibility. If competitive retrieving is of critical importance to you, then coverdog would be the first trial venue that you would rule out.
> 
> The fact that points are earned to acheive CH status in NSTRA but not coverdog is a good point. It's not as squeaky-clean as NSTRA, but a dog must qualify in other trials to compete in coverdog CH's.
> 
> Spot-on with your breeding observation. Because of the enormous number of variables that wild birds present, you definately want to look at a coverdog's performance over the long-term, and you also need to physically see the dogs run too, and talking to those who have judged/observed the dog wouldn't hurt either.
> 
> Succeeding in NSTRA but not succeeding in a wild bird environment? That completely depends on what the dog has been exposed to: A NSTRA dog who is also heavily-hunted on grouse has a shot at being a great grouse dog--maybe even a great coverdog competitor. A NSTRA dog (or any dog) who spends most of its life in a 50 acre field handling pen raised quail will probably be mediocre at best in the grouse woods without some additional training/experience (except possibly for opening weekend when the birds are still young-&-dumb).
> 
> Snobby?:lol: I think even competitors in other AF (planted bird) formats sometimes look at coverdog that way. By the very nature of the fact that it's run on wild birds it cannot be a squeaky-clean, synthetic environment, but when it comes to wild birds and dogs, I don't think it's supposed to be.
> 
> That said, I have a bunch of respect for anyone who has the guts to enter a big ball of variables like a dog into a graded competition--of any format!


 
I think you forgot a dog that has run CD trials all his life would not make a great nstra dog.... 

:lol::lol:


----------



## Scott Berg

chewy said:


> I dont understand your last point.. the dog would not excel in a hunting situation... It found more birds, retreived more birds... Isnt hunting about finding birds? so he is a little rough on certain aspects. I dont understand the point you are making


_No. I would concede that this system will identify the best dog most of the time. However, I am 100% against a scoring system that promotes the mindset that the only thing that counts is the number of finds. If we were counting finds over the course of a total of 10 or 15 hours on wild bird hunting I could accept this thinking because it would be a meaningful measure. However, we are talking about a 30 minute period in an environment that is not in many cases not a good representation of a wild bird environment. These two reasons (test environment and very small sample size) alone mitigate the validity of number of finds in terms of accurately identifying the best wild bird dog by the difference of one find. However, in this test environment you also have two other KEY considerations that even further reduce the validity of the concept that 4 finds should beat 5. Changing conditions and quality of bracemate could easily make a four find performance more impressive than 5 finds. To place so much importance on number of finds is a flawed measurement system in this environment. This is why number of finds is only of modest importance in an FDSB sanctioned stake._

_Keep in mind that what I said was _
_The dog that is grossly inferior in every measure wins if it has one additional find. If the measurement period was 4 or 5 days, the bracemates were the same, and the conditions were the same, you could make an argument that the only thing that mattered was the number of finds. Again, from a breeding wild bird dog perspective, all aspects must be balanced so I would not agree. The dog that scored poorly in the categories would not excel in an actual hunting environment._

_What I was getting at is that finding birds in a wild bird environment is a significantly different task then producing birds on a STR field. Wild birds are found in key objectives in areas that are much MUCH bigger than a STR field. My point was primarily that a dog that produced superior scores on how they handled birds and ground coverage will produce productive points on wild birds. Also, intelligence of application, obedience or biddability, and stamina are principal attributes in producing wild birds where I hunt and those factors are not even measured. That was the reference I made to balancing all attributes of the dog. _

_If I had to choose a dog to take home after watching one brace and a scenario presented itself where a dog scored 90% on every attribute and another dog scored 80% on every attribute I would take the dog with four finds at scores of 90% because 4 finds vs 5 is not a meaningful measurement in this environment. However, the dog with 5 finds wins 1,000 to 945 in the scenario above. In NSTRA system if two dogs are equivalent retrievers, it is nearly impossible to overcome a one find difference. With two equal retrievers, a dog with four finds that scores 95% of the possible score on all elements beside retrieving would score 933 (*assumes 80 on retrieving for both dogs*) This would be an absolutely phenomenal score. However, if the other dog had five finds it would win as long as its score was above 72% of the total points which is exceptionally low. Given the variability of conditions making 4 vs 5 only modestly significant in my estimation the scoring system simply does not weigh quality of work high enough. _

_I would without a doubt bet on the dog score 95% producing more wild birds and without a doubt would breed the dog scoring 95% over a dog scoring 75%. By producing I mean a productive point where I walk to the dog and flush the bird. _

By the way, while I concede that the current system identifies the best dog most of the time. I believe a system more heavily weighted on quality would concentrate placements on a smaller group of dogs. Thats what happens in FDSB trials. A high percentage of dogs simply cant win, especially at the CH level. Field trials are suppose to identify the elite.

SRB


----------



## birdhuntingbtch

Scott Berg said:


> Guys,
> 
> All of the various events have strengths and weaknesses. I think both types of events are just great and cover dog trials are not getting a fair evaluation or comparison here.
> 
> The premise put forth by the poster named Coverdog is eluding to that in any 30-60 minute period, especially where the conditions and even the course can vary substantially, Its very difficult to assess relative bird finding ability.
> 
> Now that you have calmed down  My opinion is that none of us who participate in a given venue should get too carried away in terms of how great the venue is as a test environment. One of the primary functions of trials is supposed to be to identify the best individuals for breeding. I would concede that the best dogs often do rise to the top. Thats to be expected if there is any relevance in the test. However, both environments have significant conceptual flaws. I look upon field trial wins in my own dogs as only modestly significant in terms of my decision to breed them or not.
> 
> The first thing that should be pointed out is that the fact a score is written down does not make that form of judgment more relevant. It is still a measure based on opinion. It is subject to the same degree of inconsistency. However, I would have to say that the variance in what the standard should be is less in NSTRA.
> 
> The primary deficiency in wild bird trials is they have a very significant random component. Anyone doing research would look upon this environment as highly suspect. For starters, the courses no doubt provide significantly different relative opportunity to find birds. Also, with wild birds, anyone who hunts know that their movement during the day makes certain times of the day significantly better in terms of having an opportunity to get birds pointed.
> 
> The crucial element is having enough birds to make for a reasonable test. I can cut to the chase. If this were an ideal test environment we would not have Championship with 70 dogs where 15 or less get birds pointed. What this proves is an inadequate test environment or that the entrants are incapable. I am quite sure it is NOT the latter.
> 
> NSTRA has the following deficiencies in my estimation. Again, the standard is identifying individuals to breed.
> 
> 1) The fields are much smaller than the places we hunt and most do not contain natural objectives. Application is a crucial element in terms of producing wild birds. This should be heavily weighted in any form of trial. So, what I am saying is that with NSTRA our test environment does not accurately represent wild bird objectives and necessary hunting application.
> 2) Retrieving is roughly 40% of the score. Obedience and ground coverage combined are 13%. Stamina is not even considered. No trait should be this heavily weighted. Again, given we are talking about identify individuals for breeding, a dog with no natural retrieving instinct could be force broke to be a superior retriever.
> 3) Two dogs that score identical, for example lets say they get 80 on every retrieve. The dog with four finds is scored 320 and the dog with 5 finds 400. This is a retrieving score. I know someone will argue this but this is VERY flawed.
> 4) Bracemate and conditions have a very significant impact on number of birds found. Four finds could be far more impressive than five based on conditions and bracmate. Yet, five finds beats four finds almost without exception.
> 
> In conclusion extreme weight is put on number of finds when in fact the measurement of number of finds is very inaccurate. 30 minutes is statistically insignificant no matter what. We have a test environment that does not assimilate wild bird habitat and objectives. And, conditions and bracemate will without a doubt significantly impact the number of birds found.
> 
> Ironically, many people argue that scoring based on number of finds is the primary strength of this system. It is the primary weakness. Again, I say this in the context or evaluating dogs for breeding purposes. In the example below, I take a dog with four finds and very impressive scores. Lets take another with 5 finds and very poor scores. I equalized the retrieving scores. We will assume the same guy force broke them to retrieve.
> 
> 4 finds * 90 = 360
> 4 retrieves at 80 = 320
> 90% of Ground coverage = 90
> 90% of Obedience = 67.5
> 90% on a back = 67.5
> 905 points.
> 
> 5 Finds * 70 - 350
> 5 Retrieves * 80 = 400
> 70% of Ground coverage = 70
> 70% of Obedience = 52.5
> 70% on a back = 52.5
> 925 Points
> 
> The dog that is grossly inferior in every measure wins if it has one additional find. If the measurement period was 4 or 5 days, the bracemates were the same, and the conditions were the same, you could make an argument that the only thing that mattered was the number of finds. Again, from a breeding wild bird dog perspective, all aspects must be balanced so I would not agree. The dog that scored poorly in the categories would not excel in an actual hunting environment.
> 
> SRB


I am assuming the scoring written is the actual running order of the dogs. Lets assume it is, ok so Nick has the 10th brace and runs his dog, walks out of the field with a 905 and puts him in 1st place.

Then Scott is running the 14th brace with Fritz, pulls off a the 925. Bottom line is he did what he had to do to win the game.

Neither of these dogs should be considered in anyway grossly inferior, the handlers did what they needed to do. Checkmate to Scott.


----------



## birdhuntingbtch

Drifter Saver said:


>


So True!


----------



## fishinlk

> When I look at that I steer clear because all I see proof of is planted bird work.
> Thats the point I am trying to make, if you see that one of those dogs is a multi time champion he didn't get them by accident, that dog has proven himself as birdfinder. If it can rise to that level, trust me it can dam sure find wild birds too.
> Until a person has really run that NSTRA circuit, it is hard to understand just how tough it is produce birds in allot of those trials. If you don't believe that. Try it out.


 Yep and I get that. No disagreement that they can definitely find birds, the question then becomes can they handle the wild birds? Like I said my dogs(gsp's) could find birds with the best of them, consistently handling a grouse was a whole other story. If I see a pedigree that has great NSTRA dogs in it but has other dogs that are wild bird dogs I have ZERO concerns. Heck, I'm downright EXCITED about my new prospect for the next fall season, it's got a VERY GOOD NSTRA dog right up front but it's got an excellent mix of other stuff in there too, including horseback and cover dogs.


----------



## Bobby

I'm not certain this is the place for this but it goes back to some of the posts regarding birds pointed during trials, or 'counting birds.' It's well written, it's appears well researched or the author had some idea what he was watching. It was posted at the CD Message Board by our friend Midwestfisherman (who doesn't fish much)

SI Article - December 13, 1965 

Everything was well set up for the national grouse championship. Eager handlers and dogs were there, the trial courses had been carefully manicured and the weather was ideal. Only one thing was missingbirds 
Duncan Barnes 

Any upland hunter will readily admit that there is no wilder or more elusive game bird in the U.S. than the ruffed grouse. Pointing dogs would admit this, tooif they could bark out a few wordsespecially those dogs which competed in this year's Grand National Grouse Championship held in Allegheny National Forest near Marienville, Pa. 

Despite clean, crisp air that made for ideal scenting conditions, only two of the 27 pointers and setters who searched some 1,500 acres of carefully manicured field-trial courses in two and a half days had any acceptable work on grouse. The reason was obviousgrouse on this championship course were as rare as smogless days in Los Angeles. 

Says Dr. H. E. Beckmeyer, president of the Grand National: "The good grouse dog should go quietly but quickly and directly to the bird, and pin it down before it makes up its mind to run or fly out. Once pinned, the grouse is paralyzed with fear, and it will usually hold position until the handler comes in to flush it." 

If the dogs in this year's stake were capable of paralyzing grouse, few got the chance to prove it. Even the classic woods-wise dogs that quartered the course in front of the handlers, hunting every little likely patch of cover with heads held high and tails merrily flagging in the approved fashion, were left with little more to show for their hour-long heats than a good race. The only birds that were paralyzed were those pointed by the new Grand National champion, Brenda Wahoo, a 7-year-old black-and-white pointer b###h owned and handled by Alan Bartholomew of Rochester, N.Y. Brenda Wahoo, better known as Sue, simply happened to be on the right course at the right time. She got the scent of a flock of grouse feeding in the open on red partridgeberries and pinned them down until Bartholomew came in to flush. Five grouse flew out on all sides of Sue, a nerve-racking experience even for a proven field-trial dog. But Sue remained steady to the flush and to the report of Bartholomew's .38-caliber blank pistol. 

Only one other dog, Sam L's Nabob, the runner-up, a setter owned by Sam Light, a coal magnate from Punxsutawney, Pa., was credited with a find. But by the time Handler Rich Tuttle reached Nabob the grouse had moved away down a hillside, and before the dog could relocate them and point again the birds flushed. Thus, on the strength of one point, Sue became the 19th Grand National Grouse champion. But Sue's modicum of bird work was anything but unusual in this trial10 of the previous 18 champions have won with only one find. 

If anyone had kept an accurate tally sheet during this year's championship stake, he would have counted 10 deer to every grouse seen. Not a few of the dogs found the deer too tempting to pass up, much to the embarrassment of the handlers. Allegheny National Forest is also prime turkey country. In past Grand Nationals several handlers have walked in proudly to their dogs on point and flushed not a grouse but a big gobbler (a dog is not faulted for pointing turkey, but they do not count as grouse). At least three dogs tangled with porcupines, which seem to exude an odor that many a good bird dog just can't resist, and several others got so carried away with the sport of coursing through the woods that when they did catch the scent of birds they did not have time to point before the grouse flushed. 

Considering the available cover on most of the two-mile courses, it was hardly surprising that grouse were at a premium. The courses twisted through the kind of open rolling timber that encourages a spirited field-trial dog to run but offers little opportunity to find birds. The only available grouse feed consisted of scattered patches of partridgeberries, blackberries and haw (thorn apple). A few stands of hemlock and some man-made brush piles provided cover, but few birds were found in them. Said one disgruntled handler whose setter had turned in a commendable but typically grouse-less race: "What this is is a grouse trial held in a deeryard. Any respectable grouse hunter and most any bird dog who knows his birds and his cover would just pass this country by." 

The Grand National has not always suffered from such a dearth. Says Wilbur A. Hugus, an investment company salesman from Ridgway, Pa. who has handled several grouse champions and who judged at this year's trial: "When these field-trial grounds were first laid out there were plenty of grouse around. Lumbering kept the land relatively open and allowed ground cover and feed to develop. Even forest fires helped. The burned-over areas quickly grew up in blackberries, wild grape and fireweed, all ideal grouse foods. But today there is less lumbering and fires are quickly controlled. Now we have tall timber again, and even with selective cutting and making brush piles with bulldozers there is not enough feed or natural cover. As a result, the grouse population has been steadily declining on all three Grand National trial areas [the other two are at Gladwin, Mich. and Pharsalia, N.Y.]. Even when there is an unusually good nesting season right at the peak of the grouse cycle, it makes little difference. The sad truth is that grouse are just not attracted to our field-trial grounds." 

The Grand National must be held on a course where the cover is open enough so that the judges and the handlers can watch the dog's race and follow the dog into a point. The better the cover is for grouse the worse it is for a trial. 

The frustrations of running a good grouse dog over a birdless course have encouraged several handlers over the years to produce their own birds. There are tales of handlers who followed their dogs into thick covers, yelled, "Point!" and then quickly imitated the whirring sound of a grouse bursting out of cover. The trick rarely was successful. A number of years ago a Michigan handler brought his own live grouse to trials in Pennsylvania. Several weeks before a trial he would hire farm kids to trap grouse, a difficult feat at best, and feed them on apples and corn until trial time. Just before his dog was scheduled to run, the handler would stuff several birds into his voluminous shirt and send his dog out on the course. Directing the dog into a particularly thick cover, he would make sure the judges were watching. He would coax the dog into a staunch point, move out in front of it, beat the brush convincingly with his flushing whip and then, turning his back on the judges, he would furtively unbutton his shirt and let a grouse fly out. Just how many times he got away with it is not known, but he was finally caught with his shirt open and banned from the trial. 

For years grouse hunters have insisted that field-trial grouse dogs are no better at finding birds than many ordinary pointers, setters, German shorthairs or Brittany spaniels which are used strictly as gun dogs in the fall. 

"That is ridiculous," says Harry Townshend, a longtime grouse hunter and field-trialer from New Haven, Conn. who judged at this year's Grand National. "That's like trying to equate a saddle horse with a Thoroughbred. A good field-trial grouse dog is actually a hopped-up shooting dog that must do everything better. He must run a harder and more spectacular race, and exhibit more class, style and responsiveness to the handler. He must not be a mechanical doghe does not simply swing back and forth through whatever cover happens to lie ahead of his handler. The dog moves directly to the likely grouse covers with a minimum of direction from the handler." 

Considering the money involved in having a dog professionally trained and trialed until it qualifies for the Grand National, it seems a high price to pay just for the privilege of running a dog in what comes awfully close to being a grouseless grouse trial. 





Link: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1078009/1/index.htm


----------



## chewy

what it sounds like here is we need a new trial orginization... One that combines field trials doesnt matter if its horseback or nstra. with cd.. a 2 day trial doing both..

Hmmm sounds like the winner would be the ultimate dog... gods gift to man kind.


----------



## milrun

Where do I sign up !!! Nick


----------



## FindTheBird

Looking at Bobby's post, it brings up a good point on running dogs on thinly-dispersed birds. It seems to me it would really make the dogs with a lot of heart (and hunt) stand-out. For example, I've seen some dogs just potter around when there are few birds to be had, but others hunt like their life depended on it.


----------



## crosswind

FindTheBird said:


> Looking at Bobby's post, it brings up a good point on running dogs on thinly-dispersed birds. It seems to me it would really make the dogs with a lot of heart (and hunt) stand-out. For example, I've seen some dogs just potter around when there are few birds to be had, but others hunt like their life depended on it.


 Im guessing the birds were there the whole time. They just couldnt find them.:lol:
Actually it sounds like they need to do some habitate restoration. Do they do that at the Gladwin grounds?


----------



## FindTheBird

crosswind said:


> Im guessing the birds were there the whole time. They just couldnt find them.:lol:
> Scott, I was referring to NSTRA dogs!:lol:
> 
> 
> crosswind said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it sounds like they need to do some habitate restoration. Do they do that at the Gladwin grounds?
> 
> 
> 
> Wasn't speaking specifically about any one location, but areas with a sparse bird populations in general.
> There is actually a good amount of habitat work done at Gladwin and a good bird population to go with it as you might expect--every course will hold at least some birds, but as in any uncontrolled situation, the number of birds can vary greatly depending on a slew of uncontrollable (and maybe even unknown) conditions--kind of like actual hunting I guess...
Click to expand...


----------



## Scott Berg

FindTheBird said:


> Looking at Bobby's post, *it brings up a good point on running dogs on thinly-dispersed birds. It seems to me it would really make the dogs with a lot of heart (and hunt) stand-out.* For example, I've seen some dogs just potter around when there are few birds to be had, but others hunt like their life depended on it.


Anyone who has done any research or statistical analysis will tell you just the opposite, at least in any one hour event. Measuring over a dogs career would be a different situation because the much larger sample size would greatly increase the accuracy of measure. Thats why test environments are set-up to test the subjects on as equal of terms as possible, the higher the degree of variability the lower the probability of an accurate assessment. Luck becomes a major component. When 70 dogs run in a trial and 20% or less have bird work what you have proven is that the dogs were poor bird dogs or the test environment did not have an adequate number of birds to measure their ability. In the trials with 70 entries where 6 or 8 have bird work its still possible that the best dog wins but what you are down to is choosing among 6 or 8 dogs not 70. This is not ideal. Adequate bird numbers increases the likelihood of the best dog being identified.

SRB


----------



## crosswind

Scott Berg said:


> Anyone who has done any research or statistical analysis will tell you just the opposite, at least in any one hour event. Measuring over a dogs career would be a different situation because the much larger sample size would greatly increase the accuracy of measure. Thats why test environments are set-up to test the subjects on as equal of terms as possible, the higher the degree of variability the lower the probability of an accurate assessment. Luck becomes a major component. When 70 dogs run in a trial and 20% or less have bird work what you have proven is that the dogs were poor bird dogs or the test environment did not have an adequate number of birds to measure their ability. In the trials with 70 entries where 6 or 8 have bird work its still possible that the best dog wins but what you are down to is choosing among 6 or 8 dogs not 70. This is not ideal. Adequate bird numbers increases the likelihood of the best dog being identified.
> 
> SRB


 I agree 100 percent. 

I actually could not get over the fact that out of the 70 some dogs , I thought it read only 2 found birds, so those were the winner and the runner up. You got to be kidding me ?????????
The runner up was actually unproductive, on an attempt to relocate it said he went over the hill and the birds flushed. Does that count as a find??????


----------



## coverdog




----------



## 2ESRGR8

crosswind said:


> I agree 100 percent.
> 
> I actually could not get over the fact that out of the 70 some dogs , I thought it read only 2 found birds, so those were the winner and the runner up. You got to be kidding me ?????????
> The runner up was actually unproductive, on an attempt to relocate it said he went over the hill and the birds flushed. Does that count as a find??????


 So much for "those were the days" eh? 
I always heard about great bird numbers way back when I guess 1965 must have been a down year.


----------



## FindTheBird

Scott Berg said:


> Anyone who has done any research or statistical analysis will tell you just the opposite, at least in any one hour event. Measuring over a dogs career would be a different situation because the much larger sample size would greatly increase the accuracy of measure. Thats why test environments are set-up to test the subjects on as equal of terms as possible, the higher the degree of variability the lower the probability of an accurate assessment. Luck becomes a major component. When 70 dogs run in a trial and 20% or less have bird work what you have proven is that the dogs were poor bird dogs or the test environment did not have an adequate number of birds to measure their ability. In the trials with 70 entries where 6 or 8 have bird work its still possible that the best dog wins but what you are down to is choosing among 6 or 8 dogs not 70. This is not ideal. Adequate bird numbers increases the likelihood of the best dog being identified.
> 
> SRB





crosswind said:


> I agree 100 percent.
> 
> I actually could not get over the fact that out of the 70 some dogs , I thought it read only 2 found birds, so those were the winner and the runner up. You got to be kidding me ?????????
> The runner up was actually unproductive, on an attempt to relocate it said he went over the hill and the birds flushed. Does that count as a find??????


Scott(s):lol: I think that you missed the intention of the question. Obviously, with few birds, it's darn tough or impossible to judge dogs solely on their bird work/bird finding ability (we're on exactly the same page there). 
The fact of the matter is that there's more to judging a trial or hunting dog than simply counting birds, because in real life hunting/wild bird trials, there may be lots of birds or there may be zero. 
My question is that in a sparse bird situation, will the cream-off the crop dogs rise to the top with regard to the drive to find birds/hit objectives where lesser dogs begin to get bored, act uninspired and start to potter around? If a bird is behind every bush does it really test this kind of determination?


----------



## crosswind

FindTheBird said:


> Scott(s):lol: I think that you missed the intention of the question. Obviously, with few birds, it's darn tough or impossible to judge dogs solely on their bird work/bird finding ability (we're on exactly the same page there).
> The fact of the matter is that there's more to judging a trial or hunting dog than simply counting birds, because in real life hunting/wild bird trials, there may be lots of birds or there may be zero.
> [/COLOR]
> Tell me just how much hunting would you do, if there was zero birds??
> 
> My question is that in a sparse bird situation, will the cream-off the crop dogs rise to the top with regard to the drive to find birds/hit objectives where lesser dogs begin to get bored, act uninspired and start to potter around? If a bird is behind every bush does it really test this kind of determination?


 The way I see it, when you have that few of birds it didn't have a dam thing to do with determination. When you have that many dogs in a trial, do you suppose that only two tried hard enough to find a bird. Please.


----------



## Induna

crosswind said:


> I agree 100 percent.
> 
> I actually could not get over the fact that out of the 70 some dogs , I thought it read only 2 found birds, so those were the winner and the runner up. You got to be kidding me ?????????
> The runner up was actually unproductive, on an attempt to relocate it said he went over the hill and the birds flushed. Does that count as a find??????


 There were only 27 dogs entered and according to the write up in the Field 3 other dogs had bird work besides the 2 mentioned in the SI article.


----------



## Grange

Scott Berg said:


> I made this reference because someone had (in a very bold way) suggested that anyone could get lucky once and a points accumulated title was more meaningful. As I said, I strongly disagree and so do 99.5% of the people who run in FDSB sanctioned events. However, you mightbe surprised to know that I am a big proponent of a points accumulated title. I just would just distinquish it from a title earned by winning a CH event. I have suggested to Mr. Mathys on more than one occassion that the FDSB should have a points acummulated title. Points accumulated titles offer a degree of certainty of certainty as points are accumulated that has very positive effect on driving participation. Bernie has acutally approved this through American Bird Hunters (ABHA) and I am now working with the other walking organizations to offer a non-broke stake where the standard for range is reduced and a points accumulated title would be offered. I want their to be a consistent standard across all walking organizations so I have presented this to the presidents of the other two organizations and they are very much agree in theory. Now we just need to make it happen. I think you guys would love this format. Maybe you even want to start an ABHA chapter and hold one or two events/yr.
> 
> SRB


I have watched both cover dog trials and NSTRA trial and will offer my perspective. I see merits to both ways for a dog to be named a champion. With the NSTRA trials, at least in WI, there are at least 28 dogs and usually 32 dogs for each trial. To be named a champion the dog not only has to gain enough points (18), but it also has to have the right type of placements (2 or 3 first place). That means the dog has to beat at least 27 to 31 dogs in a given trial at least 6 times to become a NSTRA Champion. With the quality of dogs week in and week out placing in these trials it can be tough.

In the coverdog trials I seen there less than 20 dogs and many of the draws I've seen have less than 16 dogs. If the dog has to place in an open shooting dog trial (at least once or is it more?) before it can even get to a championship trial then one should ask how hard is it to get to a championship trial? A second question would be how much harder it is win a championship trial than a regular weekend trial? Considering the number of entries is usually at least double if not triple or even quadruple a regular weekend trial I would guess it's much harder.

I think another difference to think about and that is that on most weekends the dog can have 4 chances to get a NSTRA placement where in cover dog trials there is generally one or possibly two per weekend that I'm aware of. Maybe one could turn to the number of dogs per NSTRA trial vs an open shooting dog trial argument and counter with the smaller number of opportunities argument. 

Personally I'd like to think a better comparison would be to compare a cover dog championship trial like the WI or MN Chamipionship to a NSTRA Regional Championship. To get to the NSTRA Regional the dog first has to either have a placement or win a point (4th place is a placement, but doesn't get points and I don't know if a 4th place will qualify the dog for Regionals), which is similar to a cover dog championship. But here is where a flaw in my thinking shows itself, because for a dog to advance to the NSTRA championship run it first has to make it past the preliminary rounds much like a playoff system.

After writing all that I think owning a dog with CH in front of the name, whether it is NSTRA or AF is still an accomplishment. My pup is too young for one of those, but this spring she'll hopefully be going for a chance to be called Grand National Puppy Classic winner and eventually a cover dog champion. But if the cover dog trial venue doesn't work out I can at least put a SH suffix on her name.


----------



## crosswind

Induna said:


> There were only 27 dogs entered and according to the write up in the Field 3 other dogs had bird work besides the 2 mentioned in the SI article.


 Your right twenty seven.


----------



## Grange

I am talking about weekend trials when I was talking about the number of entries. The entries of the cover dog weekend trials have not been very high compared to a NSTRA weekend trial. I haven't been to a championship trial so I can't speak from personal experience, but from the draws I've seen there are, as you noted, a lot of dogs entered. The same can be said for a NSTRA championship type trial (i.e. Regional Elimination) where there are more dogs than the standard 32 dogs field. Go to one of the big trials like the Grand National and they have close 100 dogs or more.


----------



## Bobby

Grange said:


> ................ but this spring she'll hopefully be going for a chance to be called Grand National Puppy Classic winner and eventually a cover dog champion. ............


Thanks for the reminder. I have to get my money in.

Grange, is your real name Brad H?

Take care


----------



## FindTheBird

Grange said:


> I am talking about weekend trials when I was talking about the number of entries. The entries of the cover dog weekend trials have not been very high compared to a NSTRA weekend trial. I haven't been to a championship trial so I can't speak from personal experience, but from the draws I've seen there are, as you noted, a lot of dogs entered. The same can be said for a NSTRA championship type trial (i.e. Regional Elimination) where there are more dogs than the standard 32 dogs field. Go to one of the big trials like the Grand National and they have close 100 dogs or more.


Grange, from what I've seen in this thread, the two venues are so radically different in nearly every aspect that I think it's very difficult to compare the two (how about they both run pointing dogs and there's some breed overlap?:lol. Further, because they're so different, I don't think that you can say that the dogs from one are any better overall dogs than those of the other.

Low dog counts in WI? Didn't realize that. I've only paid attention to the CH's, which I think get good draws. A lot of the non-CH Michigan trials get some very good draws, check-out the Fruchey Classic if you get a chance.

In the overall scheme, Coverdog trials are definately not for everyone and probably cannot realistically attract the huge draws that the small course, planted bird venues do. I think the reason is that you really need to train your dogs on wild birds to get very far, and that's just plain difficult for many people to do nowdays whereas almost every other format just requires a field and some easily purchased quail, generally no problem.

Good luck in the puppy!


----------



## Merimac

In MN and WI there are 5 CD spring trials. The weather and time has a lot to do with the number of entries. There is also ASD and OSD at these trials so it gets to be a lot of work and money to enter all of the events. I would guess there are 25 dogs in each OSD event and 1/2 that in the ASD. Some really good dogs at that. 

Ch. Electric Belle
RU Ch. Lucy
Ch. Satin from Silk
Ch. Houstons Belle
Ch. Magic Rocky Belle boa
RU Ch. Magic Climbing Katoo
Ch. Wintergreen Max
RU Ch. Wintergreen Cody
Ch. I'm Blue Gert


These are a few of the names that ran last spring. 

I think it is pretty hard to win in the spring.

Championships in WI draw similar numbers to the rest of the country.

Ben


----------



## dquindt

FindTheBird said:


> Grange, from what I've seen in this thread, the two venues are so radically different in nearly every aspect that I think it's very difficult to compare the two (how about they both run pointing dogs and there's some breed overlap?). Further, because they're so different, I don't think that you can say that the dogs from one are any better overall dogs than those of the other.


Thank you for finally stating the obvious! To bad it took 18 pages to get to that point.

Comparing NSTRA to CD trials is like comparing stock car racing to a demolition derby just because both involve motor vehicles. While it's tough to compare apples to oranges, you guys want to compare apples to schezwan chinese stir-fry.

You can compare CD trials to open country AF trials to AKC trials to ABHA trials, because they all trace back to the traditional field trial format. NSTRA doesn't; NSTRA is more a "contest" than a subjectively-judged field trial. If you look at NSTRA's roots, NSTRA was born out of a desire for something that WAS NOT a field trial. Their entire promotional campaign was about "more birds per acre" and "have more fun with your bird dog". It was never about "this is a better way to evaluate breeding stock"; it was about how to have more fun with your dog in a competitive format. 

This does not make NSTRA better or worse than CD, or any other subjectively-judged field trial; just VERY different. Both organizations exist to serve different purposes, which defines how the events they offer are executed. 

They both serve their purposes, but they are fundamentally different to make comparing them impossible. They both fit a niche within the world of bird dog games; accept that and move on.

JMO,
Dave


----------



## chewy

dquindt said:


> Thank you for finally stating the obvious! To bad it took 18 pages to get to that point.
> 
> Comparing NSTRA to CD trials is like comparing stock car racing to a demolition derby just because both involve motor vehicles. While it's tough to compare apples to oranges, you guys want to compare apples to schezwan chinese stir-fry.
> 
> You can compare CD trials to open country AF trials to AKC trials to ABHA trials, because they all trace back to the traditional field trial format. NSTRA doesn't; NSTRA is more a "contest" than a subjectively-judged field trial. If you look at NSTRA's roots, NSTRA was born out of a desire for something that WAS NOT a field trial. Their entire promotional campaign was about "more birds per acre" and "have more fun with your bird dog". It was never about "this is a better way to evaluate breeding stock"; it was about how to have more fun with your dog in a competitive format.
> 
> This does not make NSTRA better or worse than CD, or any other subjectively-judged field trial; just VERY different. Both organizations exist to serve different purposes, which defines how the events they offer are executed.
> 
> They both serve their purposes, but they are fundamentally different to make comparing them impossible. They both fit a niche within the world of bird dog games; accept that and move on.
> 
> JMO,
> Dave


 
but we dont want to move on.. the whole point of this thread is to get to 100 pages..... :lol::lol::lol::lol:

And do you really think that runnning a dog in a horseback trial is a good way to determine breeding stock? I suppose if you want a dog that ranges a mile away from you.... 

coverdog and nstra are actually very similar.... They both reflect hunting situations.. Grouse hunting for the cover dog.. Field hunting for nstra.. WHo really hunts 3,000 acres of land from horseback with their dog a mile away? Having taken many trips to iowa i think the largest crp field i hunted in was maybe 100 acres.. the average 40.... Find a 1000 acre of crp land to hunt birds in michigan... 

perhaps nstra is field trial evolution to select a dog that can hunt for the foot hunter.... Which is 98 percent of the people that hunt birds.. 

And as for planted birds.. How many people hunt at preserves?? tons.. those birds didnt get there by themselves.. 

If you want this thread to end dont post lol:lol:


----------



## Merimac

chewy said:


> but we dont want to move on.. the whole point of this thread is to get to 100 pages..... :lol::lol::lol::lol:
> 
> And do you really think that runnning a dog in a horseback trial is a good way to determine breeding stock? I suppose if you want a dog that ranges a mile away from you....
> 
> coverdog and nstra are actually very similar.... They both reflect hunting situations.. Grouse hunting for the cover dog.. Field hunting for nstra.. WHo really hunts 3,000 acres of land from horseback with their dog a mile away? Having taken many trips to iowa i think the largest crp field i hunted in was maybe 100 acres.. the average 40.... Find a 1000 acre of crp land to hunt birds in michigan...
> 
> perhaps nstra is field trial evolution to select a dog that can hunt for the foot hunter.... Which is 98 percent of the people that hunt birds..
> 
> And as for planted birds.. How many people hunt at preserves?? tons.. those birds didnt get there by themselves..
> 
> If you want this thread to end dont post lol:lol:


Chewy ,

Sometime go to North or South Dakota, Montana, Kansas, Oklahoma Texas, Arizona, Utah, Eastern Washington. 100 acres seems pretty small.

Foot hunting takes on a new meaning. I can only guess that several of the guys on this board have foot hunting dogs that would do pretty well off of a horse too. I guess it is about what you are used too.

Ben


----------



## chewy

Again... its not practical for people to drive ll the way out west to hunt... The majority of the US poplulation does not live in these states... So if they want to hunt in their home states they are hunting small parcels... (not talking about grouse) 

Sure if you live in texas or out west you need a big running dog... Dont disagree... 

But if you are hunting small parcls like majority of the us population or hunting pheasants that run, or wont hold you dont want a dog that runs miles... 

Im not saying horsback trials are bad. all i am saying is perhaps the field trials have evolved so that the common person can participate in them. and the dogs used represent wwhat the majority of hunters would want. 

where as a traditional horseback trial represent what the minority wants.. 

this of course is all my opinion . i could be way off ....


----------



## FindTheBird

chewy said:


> Again... its not practical for people to drive ll the way out west to hunt... The majority of the US poplulation does not live in these states... So if they want to hunt in their home states they are hunting small parcels... (not talking about grouse)
> 
> Sure if you live in texas or out west you need a big running dog... Dont disagree...
> 
> But if you are hunting small parcls like majority of the us population or hunting pheasants that run, or wont hold you dont want a dog that runs miles...
> 
> Im not saying horsback trials are bad. all i am saying is perhaps the field trials have evolved so that the common person can participate in them. and the dogs used represent wwhat the majority of hunters would want.
> 
> where as a traditional horseback trial represent what the minority wants..
> 
> this of course is all my opinion . i could be way off ....


Ah, a completely new direction to this thread--horseback stakes! I don't think it'll keep it alive since I don't think there are any horseback trialers on this forum but who knows?


----------



## Merimac

chewy said:


> Again... its not practical for people to drive ll the way out west to hunt... The majority of the US poplulation does not live in these states... So if they want to hunt in their home states they are hunting small parcels... (not talking about grouse)
> 
> Sure if you live in texas or out west you need a big running dog... Dont disagree...
> 
> But if you are hunting small parcls like majority of the us population or hunting pheasants that run, or wont hold you dont want a dog that runs miles...
> 
> Im not saying horsback trials are bad. all i am saying is perhaps the field trials have evolved so that the common person can participate in them. and the dogs used represent wwhat the majority of hunters would want.
> 
> where as a traditional horseback trial represent what the minority wants..
> 
> this of course is all my opinion . i could be way off ....



Chewy,

I guess I would not buy a trained horseback dog for hunting a 100 acre field either. I probably would own a flushing dog of some sort. 

Ben


----------



## Mike McDonald

I've hunted behind several Texas horse back quail dogs in N MI for Grouse and they were some of the best dogs I've hunted with. Usually within beeper range and very staunch. I also hunt my N MI grouse dogs in the prarie every fall and they stretch out and do fine as well. All these dogs seem to adjust there range to the cover we hunt. I guess my point is that good wild bird dogs are just that. They are careful with there birds and adjust there range to there prey's habitat. If I was picking I'd always go with a wild bird dog first. macvet


----------



## crosswind

Mike McDonald said:


> I've hunted behind several Texas horse back quail dogs in N MI for Grouse and they were some of the best dogs I've hunted with. Usually within beeper range and very staunch. I also hunt my N MI grouse dogs in the prarie every fall and they stretch out and do fine as well. All these dogs seem to adjust there range to the cover we hunt. I guess my point is that good wild bird dogs are just that. They are careful with there birds and adjust there range to there prey's habitat. If I was picking I'd always go with a wild bird dog first. macvet


 Mike you got to be kidding me. How did those quail dogs find any grouse.:lol:
It seems to be the general concensus on this forum that you have to have a CD to find a grouse.
It is my understanding that you have to have some kind of kind of super dog, or be in some secret society to be able to find the mysterious ruffed grouse ????? How did you get in the club.


----------



## fishinlk

Scott, 

Big difference between wild quail and what we shoot at our trials!  Key is dogs that are proven on wild birds. Dogs with proven grouse lines are better though.  Might was well be shooting pigeons as compared to the quail at most trials.


----------



## crosswind

fishinlk said:


> Scott,
> 
> Big difference between wild quail and what we shoot at our trials!  Key is dogs that are proven on wild birds. Dogs with proven grouse lines are better though.  Might was well be shooting pigeons as compared to the quail at most trials.


 No the key is exposure to wild birds, if it is a good dog ( I don't care what lines it's out of) it will figure out how to find and handle grouse.
If it can't figure it out then I guess you need to shop for another prospect.


----------



## kek25

Hey Crosswind. Mail me a money order for $10,000.00 and I'll get you into the secret society.:lol: $20,000.00 and they'll let your short tail dogs in too.:lol:


----------



## Dave Medema

Page 19. I can't believe I've read all 19 pages.

I propose:

1)$10,000 to enter. Money goes to charity.
2)2 day hunt on wild grouse. Second day is at a new location. 
3)No scouting allowed. You will be dropped into unknown territory and have 8 hours on the ground. 
4)if the point of dogs is to produce shootable birds I propose a point system:
4 points for a pointed grouse, 4 additional points if it is shot, 2 additional points if the dog retrieves or points dead. Points for WC are 50% (2-2-1). All game laws apply. All birds must be airborne. 2 shells allowed in the gun at a time. 
5) use whatever tactics and dog you believe will produce the most birds.
6) time until limits and/or shells fired are to be used as tiebreaker. 
7) You may have 1 partner/shooter with you.
8)You may use unlimited number of dogs during the day but only one is allowed to be down at a time. Rotate dogs (or not) as you deem appropriate. 

Winner gets a dumb $10 trophy and bragging rights for 12 months. 

Interested?


----------



## 2ESRGR8

Dave Medema said:


> Page 19. I can't believe I've read all 19 pages.
> 
> I propose:
> 
> 1)$10,000 to enter. Money goes to charity.
> 2)2 day hunt on wild grouse. Second day is at a new location.
> 3)No scouting allowed. You will be dropped into unknown territory and have 8 hours on the ground.
> 4)if the point of dogs is to produce shootable birds I propose a point system:
> 4 points for a pointed grouse, 4 additional points if it is shot, 2 additional points if the dog retrieves or points dead. Points for WC are 50% (2-2-1). All game laws apply. All birds must be airborne. 2 shells allowed in the gun at a time.
> 5) use whatever tactics and dog you believe will produce the most birds.
> 6) time until limits and/or shells fired are to be used as tiebreaker.
> 7) You may have 1 partner/shooter with you.
> 8)You may use unlimited number of dogs during the day but only one is allowed to be down at a time. Rotate dogs (or not) as you deem appropriate.
> 
> Winner gets a dumb $10 trophy and bragging rights for 12 months.
> 
> Interested?


Can't quite put my finger on it but this format sounds familiar........ :evilsmile


----------



## crosswind

kek25 said:


> Hey Crosswind. Mail me a money order for $10,000.00 and I'll get you into the secret society.:lol: $20,000.00 and they'll let your short tail dogs in too.:lol:


 Oh, thats the secret, both me and my dog, have to be members.
Thats a lot of money, can't you like seek me in, in the truck or something like that.
Tell me is that a one membership or do I get to stay in forever if I opt to pay the money????
Please tell me I don't have to buy a setter to get in. I just couldn't take that.


----------



## Flash01

chewy said:


> perhaps nstra is field trial evolution to select a dog that can hunt for the foot hunter.... Which is 98 percent of the people that hunt birds..


 
I think you are giving way more than the benefit of the doubt here. 2% of bird hunters hunt from horseback? I have been hunting all my life and never met one... or even heard of one. Seen pictures though, every time I go to the museum. :lol:


----------



## FieldWalker

kek25 said:


> Most of the dogs I've seen run are trained differently for the 2 venues. Don't know if a crossover would produce the results you're looking for. If it did happen I'd go up and take a look, because the dogs competing would be trained to the highest level.


Didn't the gentlemen you were running with this past year run both coverdog and NSTRA? (This was the day that you guys ended up both scratching due to conditions)


----------



## kek25

Scott:

That was Tom Vanecek, who I think was mentioned earlier in this thread.


----------



## fishinlk

Heck , big running dogs aren't just a western thing. Go south, on th eplantation quail hunts where they put the dogs down and you ride along on an open bed truck with seats in the back and a big dog box to keep swapping out for fresh dogs.


----------



## chewy

fishinlk said:


> Heck , big running dogs aren't just a western thing. Go south, on th eplantation quail hunts where they put the dogs down and you ride along on an open bed truck with seats in the back and a big dog box to keep swapping out for fresh dogs.


 
LOL yeah we do that all the time around here... come on... thats the 2 percent im talking about... How many oppurtunities do you have to run your dog like that? If your dad was a slave owner down south maybe.. or if youpay 5 grand to shoot behind someone elses dogs...


----------



## Steelheadfred

chewy said:


> LOL yeah we do that all the time around here... come on... thats the 2 percent im talking about... How many oppurtunities do you have to run your dog like that? If your dad was a slave owner down south maybe.. or if youpay 5 grand to shoot behind someone elses dogs...


 
I don't think you are giving some of these dogs the credit they deserve...Did you read what Dr. McDonald said about the quail dogs he hunted over in the grouse woods? Mac would know he is pretty connected in this bird dog world and I would estimate has killed wild birs in a dozen plus states across our country.


----------



## Lucky Dog

chewy said:


> LOL yeah we do that all the time around here... come on... thats the 2 percent im talking about... How many oppurtunities do you have to run your dog like that? If your dad was a slave owner down south maybe.. or if youpay 5 grand to shoot behind someone elses dogs...


Heck it aint that hard, just find a friend with 15-20 thousand acres, 100+K for one of these bad boys,











10 or 12 long tailed dogs,










A few coveys,










You don't even need horses any more, just horse power.

$369.00 round trip and I can go any weekend from Thanks Giving till the first of March.

Just to keep the thread on track, I'm pretty sure that most of those southern "grade" dogs will run the northern cover dogs dizzy.....:evilsmile


----------



## [email protected]

> No the key is exposure to wild birds, if it is a good dog ( I don't care what lines it's out of) it will figure out how to find and handle grouse.
> If it can't figure it out then I guess you need to shop for another prospect./QUOTE]
> 
> Agree with the exposure, do you guys think that no matter what the exposure, their are certain lines within the breed that have a much better tendency to succeed in a given venue than another?


----------



## FindTheBird

Two of my dogs have CH horseback sires and I'm extremely happy with both of them. One is out of Elhew Sinbad, who ran last week in the big one at the Ames Plantation, the other out of Pepsi Generator, a Michigan Horseback Dog of the Year...


----------



## slammer

Does Ed Hart run Pepsi Generator?


----------



## Merimac

[email protected] said:


> No the key is exposure to wild birds, if it is a good dog ( I don't care what lines it's out of) it will figure out how to find and handle grouse.
> If it can't figure it out then I guess you need to shop for another prospect./QUOTE]
> 
> Agree with the exposure, do you guys think that no matter what the exposure, their are certain lines within the breed that have a much better tendency to succeed in a given venue than another?
> 
> 
> 
> Yep
> 
> And some times it just works out.
Click to expand...


----------



## Merimac

Lucky Dog said:


> Heck it aint that hard, just find a friend with 15-20 thousand acres, 100+K for one of these bad boys,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 or 12 long tailed dogs,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few coveys,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even need horses any more, just horse power.
> 
> $369.00 round trip and I can go any weekend from Thanks Giving till the first of March.
> 
> Just to keep the thread on track, I'm pretty sure that most of those southern "grade" dogs will run the northern cover dogs dizzy.....:evilsmile


Funny,

Looks like that black and white pointer is sucking wind not only by his wide open mouth but his tail set. 
touche

ben


----------



## FindTheBird

Lucky Dog said:


> $369.00 round trip and I can go any weekend from Thanks Giving till the first of March.
> 
> Just to keep the thread on track, I'm pretty sure that most of those southern "grade" dogs will run the northern cover dogs dizzy.....:evilsmile


Them lazy Southern grade dawgs haven't seen my Sinbad/Wrangler pup!:cheeky-sm



slammer said:


> Does Ed Hart run Pepsi Generator?


Yep, in fact that's who I purchased him from.

Holy crap, 20 pages, good thing Chewy changed this into a horseback dog thread! :lol:


----------



## WestCoastHunter

chewy said:


> but we dont want to move on.. the whole point of this thread is to get to 100 pages..... :lol::lol::lol::lol:


Good point! Let me help. :evil:



chewy said:


> perhaps nstra is field trial evolution to select a dog that can hunt for the foot hunter.... Which is 98 percent of the people that hunt birds..


Since I'm known for inflammatory statements here, I think the whole debate on horseback trials and dogs is kind of silly. 

I would assume that NSTRA trials are timed, or rather a dog has a limited amount of time to run and find birds. If this is so, that either means birds are planted in a small area (maybe five acres) for the dogs to find or they are running like horseback dogs trying to cover the 27-50 acres the event can cover as fast as they possibly can. Either that or they have an extraordinary amount of time to hunt 27-50 acres.

There, this should extend the thread by at least a page. :evil:


----------



## Dave Medema

No takers on the 2 day grouse hunt?


----------



## Merimac

Dave Medema said:


> No takers on the 2 day grouse hunt?



Sure but can you have Brian Lengling hold it on his grounds? I would like to find his secret haunts!


----------



## 2ESRGR8

Merimac said:


> Sure but can you have Brian Lengling hold it on his grounds? I would like to find his secret haunts!


 I believe its held every year in Grand Rapids, Minnesota.


----------



## crosswind

Dave Medema said:


> No takers on the 2 day grouse hunt?


 Dave that is actually a pretty good test. The only thing I would like to see changed is

One , the money. Come on man, ten grand??? ( I am trying to save up twenty grand just so KEK can get me into the secret society without having to buy a setter.) I take it he has some connections.
Two. Since there is a question on the stamina issue, run the same dog 8 hours two days.Or two dogs over two days.
Three why limit a person to how and what they can shoot?? (How about we have to use rocks for the first kill and then bird heads for the rest????)


----------



## fishinlk

I'd have to have a hired gun as I'd never get a retrieve!  The other thing is we'll have to delay it till my new pup is older as my gsp's are too old, unless of course we have an old dog contest! 

As far as horseback dogs and NSTRA goes, I've seen some dogs at the NSTRA trials that will range almost that far.


----------



## milrun

fishinlk said:


> I'd have to have a hired gun as I'd never get a retrieve!  The other thing is we'll have to delay it till my new pup is older as my gsp's are too old, unless of course we have an old dog contest!
> 
> As far as horseback dogs and NSTRA goes, I've seen some dogs at the NSTRA trials that will range almost that far.


 
No problem I will gun for you. Nick


----------



## crosswind

milrun said:


> No problem I will gun for you. Nick


 Hey, now theres an offer.
Nick once asked me if I knew why he used a 12 guage to shoot with in his trial braces. I answered no, why?
His answer, because they would not let him shoot a ten guage.

After that fine display of marksmenship down in Ga. I think he needs that ten. 
Oh thats right, I forgot, I wasn't gonna tell anyone about that.:lol:
Nick you know what they say about old age, your gun is the first thing to go.:lol:
Or was it gunning ???
Anyway, I forgot I wasn't gonna tell anyone else about that bird you missed,you know, that one that would have put you in the final four dogs. 
I swear I won't say any more about it.


----------



## milrun

crosswind said:


> Hey, now theres an offer.
> Nick once asked me if I knew why he used a 12 guage to shoot with in his trial braces. I answered no, why?
> His answer, because they would not let him shoot a ten guage.
> 
> After that fine display of marksmenship down in Ga. I think he needs that ten.
> Oh thats right, I forgot, I wasn't gonna tell anyone about that.:lol:
> Nick you know what they say about old age, your gun is the first thing to go.:lol:


Thank God that is the first thing that does go !!!!


----------



## Bobby

fishinlk said:


> .............
> ..............., I've seen some dogs at the NSTRA trials that will range almost that far.


I would think a NSTRA dog, at a NSTRA trial, running at horseback range would be a few hundred acres out of bounds.

Unless I just missed the point of your statement.


----------



## 2ESRGR8

Do they make spreader loads for a ten gauge? :evilsmile


----------



## k9wernet

crosswind said:


> Three why limit a person to how and what they can shoot?? (How about we have to use rocks for the first kill and then bird heads for the rest????)


I do see your point... I mean after all it's called a "dog trial" not a "people trial". That said, killing a bird with a bird's head would be the single coolest thing I've ever seen!

Seriously though, autoloaders make me sick. I think there ought to be an "early season" for double barrels (Sept 15-Oct 14), a "regular season" for your uzi of a shotgun (Oct 15-Nov 14), and a "late season" for primitive weaponry like slingshots firing bird heads... and double guns (Dec 1-Jan 1). eh?

KW


----------



## crosswind

k9wernet said:


> I do see your point... I mean after all it's called a "dog trial" not a "people trial". That said, killing a bird with a bird's head would be the single coolest thing I've ever seen!
> 
> Seriously though, autoloaders make me sick. I think there ought to be an "early season" for double barrels (Sept 15-Oct 14), a "regular season" for your uzi of a shotgun (Oct 15-Nov 14), and a "late season" for primitive weaponry like slingshots firing bird heads... and double guns (Dec 1-Jan 1). eh?
> 
> KW


Double barrels are only for people that don't wanna kill birds and for people that used to live in San Francisco or possibly AA.:lol:


----------



## k9wernet

crosswind said:


> Double barrels are only for people that don't wanna kill birds and for people that used to live in San Francisco or possibly AA.:lol:


If you wanna kill birds there's about 3000 sparrows in the bush behind my house.

Most often I hunt with a 12 gauge Ruger Red Label. If I carried a duck gun if I would probably kill more birds but to each his own. Next year it's a sling shot full of bird heads all the way!

KW


----------



## Dave Medema

crosswind said:


> Dave that is actually a pretty good test. The only thing I would like to see changed is
> 
> One , the money. Come on man, ten grand???


The money goes to charity. You can do $2k a year for 5 years too. 



> Two. Since there is a question on the stamina issue, run the same dog 8 hours two days.Or two dogs over two days.


Run as many dogs as you want. Bring 20 dogs if you wish but you may only have one down at a time. Rotate every 20 minutes, I don't care. Run the same dog the whole time if you wish. 



> Three why limit a person to how and what they can shoot?? (How about we have to use rocks for the first kill and then bird heads for the rest????)


You may shoot whatever gun you wish but only 2 shells loaded at a time. This is for safety for the dogs and the judges. This is a wild grouse and WC hunt. All game laws apply.


----------



## Scott Berg

Flash01 said:


> I think you are giving way more than the benefit of the doubt here. 2% of bird hunters hunt from horseback? I have been hunting all my life and never met one... or even heard of one. Seen pictures though, every time I go to the museum. :lol:


Wow, I have not checked for a couple days and I see this thing still has life.

Flash, while I 100% in agreement with you that hunters are not looking for a dog they need a horse to keep up with, I can assure you after owning many dogs from every type of breeding that you have a perception of AA dogs that is a LONG way from reality. Are they 75 yard dogs? No. But the vast majority of AA dogs, all breeds included, are sold to hunters. AA trial dogs are developed to perform in a very extreme manner. Now take a dog from AA breeding that hopefully has the physical and mental attributes need to be an AA and train it to run at moderate range and you have the potential for something special.

NSTRA folks might be interested to know that Bill Moore (Tricky Dick Setters) who is one of the best know NSTRA guys in the country has bred to AA CH Hytest Skyhawk about five times in the past 2-3 years. I have not talked to Bill but I understand he is thrilled with the offspring. Apparently he is pretty happy with the results given the number of times he has gone back to Skyhawk.

I can't resist my favorite story on this topic. A friend of mine (name witheld to protect the guilty) posted on another board that he did not like AA dogs. He is a NSTRA trialer and had thee dogs that had really won a bunch. I had to remind him that two of his Setters could not have been better examples of AA breeding. They were top and bottom AA bred. As I recall one was directly out of Tekoa Mountain Sunrise and I am sure the other was out of Tekoa Mountain Patriot.

SRB


----------



## fishinlk

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by fishinlk
> .............
> ..............., I've seen some dogs at the NSTRA trials that will range almost that far.
> 
> *I would think a NSTRA dog, at a NSTRA trial, running at horseback range would be a few hundred acres out of bounds.
> 
> Unless I just missed the point of your statement. *
> __________________
> *


Bobby, 

I guess it depends on the venue, I've watched horseback dogs that were only running about 2-300 yards out dependent on the course. I've seen NSTRA dogs that easily motored that far out. True some of the horseback trials will range much farther but the course can dictate a slightly tighter dog. Coldwater is easily that far from the breakaway to the far back end. 


Nick, that works! Then I don't have to worry about blaming myself for once! :lol:


----------



## Worm Dunker

I looked at my latest setter papers and there is a 13 or 14x NSTRC. in his breeding Tricky Dick. Lucky it's far enough back it wont hurt him!


----------



## Steelheadfred

worm dunker said:


> i looked at my latest setter papers and there is a 13 or 14x nstrc. In his breeding tricky dick. Lucky it's far enough back it wont hurt him!



wwwdsn?


----------



## crosswind

Worm Dunker said:


> I looked at my latest setter papers and there is a 13 or 14x NSTRC. in his breeding Tricky Dick. Lucky it's far enough back it wont hurt him!


 Please ,WD you will do well to accomplish half as much as that guy did with those Tricky Dick dogs. Do you think he reduced the breed because of what he chose to do with his dogs, as in running NSTRA, get over it man.


----------



## kek25

Some of the dogs in our kennel go back to Tricky Dick. All of them are bird dogs. I know a guy out west who has repeated breedings between a Tricky Dick male and a Reroy female with very good results.


----------



## Scott Berg

Worm Dunker said:


> I looked at my latest setter papers and there is a 13 or 14x NSTRC. in his breeding Tricky Dick. Lucky it's far enough back it wont hurt him!


If the dog you are talking about was 13X CH Tricky Dick Jim, he was a gorgeous dog out of Tomoka's Tricky Dick who was directly out of Tomoka. Jim's dam was directly out of Pinnacle. Of course, Tomoka was a 4X CH and 7X RU CH and one of the top producers in the history of the breed. Pinnacle produced 65 winners ans was out of a tremendous producer, I'M Oscar who produced 114 winners. The ancestors you belittle here are among the greatest Setters ever. 

SRB


----------



## Induna

Way back when I had the good fortune to hunt quail over Tomoka's Tricky Dick and Mail Order Escort and a littermate to The Performer, Paragon. Classy no holds barred bird finding machines!


----------



## Bobby

Induna said:


> Way back when I had the good fortune to hunt quail over Tomoka's Tricky Dick and Mail Order Escort and a littermate to The Performer, Paragon. Classy no holds barred bird finding machines!


Sure Charley. You also hunt with a poodle :evil:


----------



## Induna

Bobby said:


> Sure Charley. You also hunt with a poodle :evil:


 2 Poodles


----------



## Bobby

All this smack about trial venues started me Googling. I Googled CH Tricky Dick and came across this photo of the winners of some such stake at another message board. If this is why NSTRA is so popular I'm not coming down to Coldwater..........................ever. 

In Cover Dog we stack the dogs up on a picnic table when we photograph the winners.


----------



## Fruit of the Forest

Wow. This trial stuff looks like a lot of fun. Where do they run NSTRA? How would a French Brittany compete?


----------



## Worm Dunker

Crosswind it was suppose to be a joke. Like there isn't enough pointer in shorthairs to hurt them.


----------



## GSP Gal

Fruit of the Forest said:


> Wow. This trial stuff looks like a lot of fun. Where do they run NSTRA? How would a French Brittany compete?


http://www.nstra.org/michigan.htm

Not sure about a French Brittney, or your Brittney specific, but we ran against a Brittney named Paris that cleaned up the field......

Go to a trial and watch. Ask questions. That's the best way to decide if its something you want to try.


----------



## chewy

Steelheadfred said:


> I don't think you are giving some of these dogs the credit they deserve...Did you read what Dr. McDonald said about the quail dogs he hunted over in the grouse woods? Mac would know he is pretty connected in this bird dog world and I would estimate has killed wild birs in a dozen plus states across our country.


 
Refresh my memory what did i say that didnt give dogs credit... I said that maybe field trials are eveolving into more practical events.. The *AVERAGE *person does not hunt with dogs while riding on a horse or car and their dogs two miles away.... 

I dont have no clue who dr macdonald is... related to ronald???


----------



## chewy

FindTheBird said:


> Them lazy Southern grade dawgs haven't seen my Sinbad/Wrangler pup!:cheeky-sm
> 
> 
> Yep, in fact that's who I purchased him from.
> 
> Holy crap, 20 pages, good thing Chewy changed this into a horseback dog thread! :lol:


 
LOL yeah i was hoping for 100 but looks like we are running out of steammm


----------



## chewy

fishinlk said:


> I'd have to have a hired gun as I'd never get a retrieve!  The other thing is we'll have to delay it till my new pup is older as my gsp's are too old, unless of course we have an old dog contest!
> 
> As far as horseback dogs and NSTRA goes, I've seen some dogs at the NSTRA trials that will range almost that far.


 
LOL i own one


----------



## chewy

WestCoastHunter said:


> Good point! Let me help. :evil:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I'm known for inflammatory statements here, I think the whole debate on horseback trials and dogs is kind of silly.
> 
> I would assume that NSTRA trials are timed, or rather a dog has a limited amount of time to run and find birds. If this is so, that either means birds are planted in a small area (maybe five acres) for the dogs to find or they are running like horseback dogs trying to cover the 27-50 acres the event can cover as fast as they possibly can. Either that or they have an extraordinary amount of time to hunt 27-50 acres.
> 
> There, this should extend the thread by at least a page. :evil:


LOL its not 5 acres.... its like 40 maybe??? i dont remember that exact acreage... 5 acres i could do in 3 minutes... 

So to set the record straight... its way more than 5 acres.... 

THere are several different styles of dogs.. Yes there are really biig runners but there are ones that arent.. Both do good in the trials.. but the close worker typically doesnt do good in national trials...


----------



## chewy

Scott Berg said:


> Wow, I have not checked for a couple days and I see this thing still has life.
> 
> Flash, while I 100% in agreement with you that hunters are not looking for a dog they need a horse to keep up with, I can assure you after owning many dogs from every type of breeding that you have a perception of AA dogs that is a LONG way from reality. Are they 75 yard dogs? No. But the vast majority of AA dogs, all breeds included, are sold to hunters. AA trial dogs are developed to perform in a very extreme manner. Now take a dog from AA breeding that hopefully has the physical and mental attributes need to be an AA and train it to run at moderate range and you have the potential for something special.
> 
> NSTRA folks might be interested to know that Bill Moore (Tricky Dick Setters) who is one of the best know NSTRA guys in the country has bred to AA CH Hytest Skyhawk about five times in the past 2-3 years. I have not talked to Bill but I understand he is thrilled with the offspring. Apparently he is pretty happy with the results given the number of times he has gone back to Skyhawk.
> 
> I can't resist my favorite story on this topic. A friend of mine (name witheld to protect the guilty) posted on another board that he did not like AA dogs. He is a NSTRA trialer and had thee dogs that had really won a bunch. I had to remind him that two of his Setters could not have been better examples of AA breeding. They were top and bottom AA bred. As I recall one was directly out of Tekoa Mountain Sunrise and I am sure the other was out of Tekoa Mountain Patriot.
> 
> SRB


 
I love aa dogs but i prefer gundog winners. ANd if i didnt start talking about horseback dogs the post would have died.....


----------



## chewy

Worm Dunker said:


> Crosswind it was suppose to be a joke. Like there isn't enough pointer in shorthairs to hurt them.


 
Worm dunker you silly rabbit There is a ton of german shorthair in english pointers...... 

come on everyone knows that


----------



## FieldWalker

You almost have your own page... maybe go troll a different forum?


----------



## FindTheBird

chewy said:


> Worm dunker you silly rabbit There is a ton of german shorthair in english pointers......
> 
> come on everyone knows that


Chewy, you're either very _under_-medicated, very _over_-medicated, or have an outstanding sense of humor :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## fishinlk

> Originally Posted by chewy
> Worm dunker you silly rabbit There is a ton of german shorthair in english pointers......
> 
> come on everyone knows that



I think you have that backwards! :lol::evilsmile


----------



## chewy

FieldWalker said:


> You almost have your own page... maybe go troll a different forum?


 
AWWWWW do you need a hug?????


----------



## chewy

FindTheBird said:


> Chewy, you're either very _under_-medicated, very _over_-medicated, or have an outstanding sense of humor :lol::lol::lol:


 
I think its all 3 lol


----------

