# Tails



## Scott Berg (Feb 24, 2008)

Hoppe's no.10 said:


> But of course you qualify your first question with the adverb "almost."
> 
> As to answering your second question: I wouldn't keep a *puppy* that wouldn't "hunt" (my qualifying quotation marks - obviously one doesn't take a little puppy "hunting" _per se_ but puppies do demonstrate "hunting" precursors) and a puppy of mine that doesn't "hunt" would never become a dog of mine that wouldn't hunt.
> 
> ...


Michael, 

 I understand the scenario you are trying to nail down. Should someone get rid of a dog because its not straight up on point. I think I understand where you are coming from ... That is is a very narrow view of what makes a great dog. I agree. A very good bird dog that is a great companion should be appreciated. An owner should be satisfied with a dog that has great functional attributes and is a great companion. However, as a breeder, the answer for me is more complicated than presented. The tail thing is grossly over simplified. It is made out to be of primary importance when in fact it is part of a package demanded by a segment that demands a great deal from their dogs. This segment of pointing dog fanciers tend to demand their dogs be great athletes with a functional build, proper gait, running style, and the kind of fire that is fun to watch. Just getting the bird pointed is not adequate. The folks who demand a dog that looks great on point tend to demand more of every other aspect of the dog as well. Never in the thousands of inquiries I have had has someone said to me I want a poker tail but I am OK with an average bird dog. The trailers and the hunters looking for great style also looking for a superior bird dog and possess the knowledge to break down the various aspects that collectively produce more pointed birds. By this I mean quality of application and manners around birds which as I am sure you know are prerequisites for a dog we could call superior. They are the same folks who demand stamina and heat tolerance and understand the appropriate build and gait have significant influence on stamina. 

The question is not are folks who value style are justified in accepting great style and sacrificing bird finding ability. Thats not an accurate representation of the value proposition at all. The question is actually should pointing dog enthusiasts accept mediocre or poor style and be satisfied if they have a good meat dog and family companion. The answer to that of course is simply YES. If they dont care why should we care? However, lets not twist this into a scenario that guys who care about style are OK with dogs that are mediocre bird dogs. Thats not what is happening. I cut about a 15 dogs last year that were poker straight or very nearly poker straight on point. I sold one last week that looked phenomenal on point but he was a little too soft to use at stud. Some of the dogs we cut did not have the mental make-up we demand for dogs we are going to breed. Others may not have been physically ideal or gaited well enough to breed, etc. The point is that those of us who tend to demand dogs that look great on point tend to me more demanding in other areas too.

SRB


----------



## hehibrits (Mar 10, 2007)

Just a friendly question since we are analogizing:
How many championships has Shaq won?
How many championships has Lebron won?
I don't care for basketball, so I don't watch either one score anything. Mama said, "Pretty is as pretty does."
Just stirring the pot


----------



## Scott Berg (Feb 24, 2008)

hehibrits said:


> Just a friendly question since we are analogizing:
> How many championships has Shaq won?
> How many championships has Lebron won?
> I don't care for basketball, so I don't watch either one score anything. Mama said, "Pretty is as pretty does."
> Just stirring the pot


OK - switch the analogy to Michael Jordan. For that matter Akeem Olajuwan. I find it much more entertaining to watch that type of talent and athleticsm Bryant has and Olajuwan had vs bowling over guys in the lane. I never could figure out why it was within the rules for Shaq to bang people backward until he was next to the basket and toss it in off the glass from 6 feet. The same analogy can be made of European hockey. They don't allow all of the tactics that negate hockey skills in Europe. 

Your position that style does not put more birds in the bag is absolutely correct. In South Dakota many hunting groups line up literally 20 wide march through the field and shoot a limit of 60 birds in an hour or two. Many people measure the quality of the hunt by the number of birds in the bag. I met a local in a sandwich shop in a little town near where I grouse hunt who kills 150 grouse/yr when the population is up by driving a ATV down trains a gound swatting them. His logic was also that it was effective. 

There are many ways to be effective. I don't think any of us who value exception style would argue you can't be just as effective with a dog that has a 9:00 tail. For anyone who finds no value in a dog with exceptional style and athleticism, so be it. BUT ... the positioning I see frequently where people suggest that the guys worried about style are willing to sacrifice bird dog is not in the least bit true. It's simply is an additional requirement and the same guy that will get rid of a dog with a low tail will also get rid of one that is an average or even above average bird dog.

What this is really about is that the folks who don't have dogs with class on point feel slighted when others speak proudly of dogs with class. You will read some pretty harsh comments suggesting the idiocy of those who value this attribute. It really bothers some people because there is a basic suggestion that they have lesser dogs if they don't value these attributes and that creates some animosity.

We all need to be a little more accepting of what others value and do not value in a bird dog. The basis of a good percentage of internet discussion is people defending their definition of a perfect dog or the perfect breed or whatever. There is no such thing! Just be glad if you have the canine companion(s) you have and don't worry if someone else thinks they have something better.

SRB


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

I will throw three points out there and then I'll leave it to you guys.

1. To the best of my knowledge, a high tail is not bred for in trial dogs outside of North America. I don't think that makes them less impressive.

2. Ever watch a border collie work? You'll often see them run around with a low tail that slightly twitches as they think through what their next move is going to be. There is something eerily cool about that and I think the same can be said for a well bred pointing dog that does something similar when it's on point. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the high tail, both my dogs point with an elevated tail to one degree or another but I appreciate a knowing, intense, point with or without that.

3. My worry, and it may be unfounded, is that people are slowly breeding out superior scenting/pointing abilities in the name of the "perfect package." The dogs available are excellent specimens, no doubt. But are they really truly the best hunting dogs that could be bred? It's not a vitally important question to answer, but I do wonder. How many dogs with superior instincts that could better a breed get culled on the basis of something as simple as a low tail? 

I don't think it's unfair to ask that question no matter how many dogs one has seen or how many years one has or has not hunted over dogs.


----------



## chewy (Mar 27, 2006)

If you have a dog with a long tail it better be high... In my opinion its not only gentics but a sign of confidence.. that red setter looks like a nervous dog to me.. Dogs wagging their tail is genetic or too much pressure put on them,, trust me i own one.. 

i wont be politically correct here... You are asking this question because based on your pictures your pointer has a low lying tail... and it was mentioned in a post because you started making comments on when a breeder should breed or not breed a dog.. I would never buy a pointer or setter from a breeder who has dogs with low lying tails.. with that said it doesnt mean someone else wont.. just my opinion and most others people on what a pointer or setter should look like on point.. 

What a border collie have to do with the price of rice in china?? 

You can get a high tailed dog that is a good hunter from any reputable breeder and it wont break the bank.. 

And many that say style doesnt matter yet they are the ones with the fancy shot gun looking like a walking orvis catalog, with all the electrical gadgets. driving the cadilac escalade to go on a hunting trip, live in a 4000 sq foot house alwaystrying to keep up with the joneses.. and they have the nerve to say style doesnt matter... come on be real. 

i have to go to kmart to get a hunting vest see ya


----------



## chewy (Mar 27, 2006)

.

3. My worry, and it may be unfounded, is that people are slowly breeding out superior scenting/pointing abilities in the name of the "perfect package." The dogs available are excellent specimens, no doubt. But are they really truly the best hunting dogs that could be bred? It's not a vitally important question to answer, but I do wonder. How many dogs with superior instincts that could better a breed get culled on the basis of something as simple as a low tail? 

I don't think it's unfair to ask that question no matter how many dogs one has seen or how many years one has or has not hunted over dogs.[/quote]

to summarize your question....i have a dog who doesnt have great style but is a great bird finder.. how can i convince people i should breed him or justify why i should breed him to make myself feel better??.. 

you just dont get it... to better the breed you have to have superior instincts with the tail and style and gait.. there is more to a bird dog than pointing and finding birds.. 

What good is a dog who can find a million birds if only he could last more than hour because his gate is soo bad that he wears himself out? What good is a dog with awesome style if he cant find birds.. 
Can you breed the high tail into an awesome bird finder, sure you can how many years did it take wehle?


----------



## BIGSP (Sep 16, 2004)

chewy said:


> .
> 
> 3. My worry, and it may be unfounded, is that people are slowly breeding out superior scenting/pointing abilities in the name of the "perfect package." The dogs available are excellent specimens, no doubt. But are they really truly the best hunting dogs that could be bred? It's not a vitally important question to answer, but I do wonder. How many dogs with superior instincts that could better a breed get culled on the basis of something as simple as a low tail?
> 
> I don't think it's unfair to ask that question no matter how many dogs one has seen or how many years one has or has not hunted over dogs.


to summarize your question....i have a dog who doesnt have great style but is a great bird finder.. how can i convince people i should breed him or justify why i should breed him to make myself feel better??.. 

you just dont get it... to better the breed you have to have superior instincts with the tail and style and gait.. there is more to a bird dog than pointing and finding birds.. 

What good is a dog who can find a million birds if only he could last more than hour because his gate is soo bad that he wears himself out? What good is a dog with awesome style if he cant find birds.. 
Can you breed the high tail into an awesome bird finder, sure you can how many years did it take wehle?[/QUOTE]

HUH?


----------



## BIGSP (Sep 16, 2004)

chewy said:


> If you have a dog with a long tail it better be high... In my opinion its not only gentics but a sign of confidence.. that red setter looks like a nervous dog to me.. Dogs wagging their tail is genetic or too much pressure put on them,, trust me i own one..
> 
> i wont be politically correct here... You are asking this question because based on your pictures your pointer has a low lying tail... and it was mentioned in a post because you started making comments on when a breeder should breed or not breed a dog.. I would never buy a pointer or setter from a breeder who has dogs with low lying tails.. with that said it doesnt mean someone else wont.. just my opinion and most others people on what a pointer or setter should look like on point..
> 
> ...


That makes sense. Your quote marks didn't show up right in that last post.

I agree with you totally. I have seen dogs that may not be trial class but, still show intensity on point and I have seen dogs like that Red Setter, No Thanks.

To answer Westcoasthunters question "Are breeders breeding out superior scenting for a high tail?" Come on, are you serious. Not if you are buying from a reputable breeder. It goes back to only the best of the best get bred. They need to be the whole package. Why settle for anything less. Even when breeding the best to the best you are going to get subpar dogs within those litters.

Personally I don't want a trial dog but, I would be willing to bet that those dogs even the bottom half, will out find my dogs almost every day of the week in a 1 hour stake.


----------



## Scott Berg (Feb 24, 2008)

BIGSP said:


> That makes sense. Your quote marks didn't show up right in that last post.
> 
> I agree with you totally. I have seen dogs that may not be trial class but, still show intensity on point and I have seen dogs like that Red Setter, No Thanks.
> 
> ...


Guys,

Just for the record. That photo is of an Irish Red & White Setter not a Red Setter. Very BIG difference! These are Red Setters (sire and two daughters).


----------



## BradU20 (Jan 17, 2005)

Scott Berg said:


> Guys,
> 
> Just for the record. That photo is of an Irish Red & White Setter not a Red Setter. Very BIG difference! These are Red Setters (sire and two daughters).


Thanks, I was just going to clarify that.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

i think the high tail is like a trademark, it indicates that the dog has other superior traits as well. there are some pretty nice dogs with high tails being bred today.


----------



## griffondog (Dec 27, 2005)

So should we be culling more dogs to get the traits you want? Or just selling off the one's who don't make the grade with no breeding rights?

Griff


----------



## wirehair (Oct 16, 2007)

I like watching Shaq. :lol:


----------



## Hoppe's no.10 (Sep 16, 2007)

dogwhistle said:


> i think the high tail is like a trademark, it indicates that the dog has other superior traits as well. there are some pretty nice dogs with high tails being bred today.


See, this is precisely what I'm trying to get across in my replies. Why does a dog (in the end a dumb animal) have "superior traits" because it points with its tail straight up. Why is the "superior?" What are these traits and if these traits are important to you - and that's OK if they are - why should they be important to 

*Unregistered4* who posted: 

"I don't hunt to be "stylish" or "vogue". People that hunt for that reason make me sick. 

I hunt, to find birds, period. Not to get my jollies off over a tail."

Have you achieved something that Unregistered4 hasn't or has he achieved something that you haven't?

You unknowingly put forth my contention that the way most of us (including me) oftentimes view and define bird dogs and bird hunting has virtually nothing to do with birds, bird dogs, bird hunting and the like but rather a metaphor for how we view ourselves. What is most important is an understanding of why we use these terms - (high tail vs.low tail/ Dogwhistle vs.Unregistered4) to in part define ourselves. 

For those who want a better understanding of why they in part define themselves as a "hunter" - birds or otherwise my suggestion is for them to read beyond "Pointing Dog Journal," "Upland Almanac," Michael McIntosh, Burton Spiller and the like which are well worth reading but in the end superficial letters of why we hunt. But also read "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber" by Ernest Hemingway (arguably the greatest "hunting" story ever written ) and after you've read it put it aside and read it again a year later and then after that year's hiatus *think *about what "hunting" means to his fictional characters and why they are motivated to hunt and how it relates or doesn't relate to you. And please, Hemingway's short story is neither pro nor anti- hunting - in fact it has little to do with hunting in spite of the fact that much of it's very exciting narrative concerns shooting dangerous animals.

But please keep in mind it's not imperative as to whether or not you agree or disagree with that which motivates Hemingway's characters to hunt. What is important is that it will help you - somewhere down the line in your life's hunting experiences- to come to a better understanding of why *you* call yourself a "hunter" if such things are important to you.

There is no right or wrong (high tails vs. low tails etc. ) to any of this. And in the end what's relevant is not so much what you want but rather an understanding of "WHY" you want it. This is the essence IMO of the difference between a "newbie" bird hunter and a "veteran" bird hunter and age - in spite of what I previously and admittedly superficially wrote - has little to do with it. Some bird hunters will *always* be "Newbies" and others will be, beginning at the moment they first carry a shotgun in pursuit of a bird, veterans - high tails or low tails notwithstanding.

Hoppe's no.10
or since many of you have suddenly gone over to my given name - Michael


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 10, 2006)

Why is it so wrong for a breed to have a desired trait, IE Why is it wrong to expect a English Setter/Pointer in America to have a nice high straight tail? It's obvious it has nothing to do with finding birds, but neither does an over/underbite, neither does a bad coat on a german wirehair, or a short choppy gait in general. There is an awful lot of "why's" well why not, why so wrong for say the breed standard to be a class dog. Lots of things don't define dogs as being good or not, but if you had an ideal, what is so wrong with holding that standard? Not to say these dogs are not good or even great, but for everyone of them, there is one that can do it just as good and have class to boot! If you had two in front would you really choose the one with less style or class?


----------



## chewy (Mar 27, 2006)

wirehair said:


> I like watching Shaq. :lol:


 
LOL how was it ?i missed it yesterday


----------



## Unregistered4 (Dec 11, 2004)

WestCoastHunter said:


> If you do care, why? Would you take a dog with a telephone pole tail that needs significant work to make it an effective gun dog over one that has a level or low tail but is easy to work with and knows its game?


Scott Berg,

This is one of the original question asked, by the original poster.

So, in my opinion. Someone that picks a dog on account of it's tail, over one that has better bird finding abilities while hunting...is a boob.

That was the question. I'm sorry you don't like or understand my answer.

Nowhere, did I see the original poster ask about breeding dogs, trialing dogs (if anything, he mentioned this question *being for those* that *"don't"* and for those *that primarily hunt*), betterment of dogs or determining super qualities through style.

So, when I said it makes me sick to think that someone would pick a dog solely on it's tail...it does. And, many posters here said it was paramount or the means to all ends of bird hunting, in their opinion. There are so many other factors to consider when purchasing a dog that the tail should be the last thing you should look at.

Oh...and thanks for replying in large type to Micheal and I...and nobody else. It says something...

Brian.


----------



## Double Gun (Feb 22, 2005)

For the record I believe the high tail is nothing more than an American thing. Nothing to do with bird finding, just what we think looks nice.


----------



## midwestfisherman (Apr 19, 2001)

Unregistered4 said:


> Not to get my jollies off over a tail.
> 
> Brian (aka - twosetters)


Well then that depends on what kind of tail you're referring to doesn't it? ne_eye:ne_eye:ne_eye:


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

midwestfisherman said:


> Well then that depends on what kind of tail you're referring to doesn't it? ne_eye:ne_eye:ne_eye:


 
Thats what I am talking about Jim....walk nasty fer yer daddy one time!:lol:


----------



## Merimac (Jan 17, 2006)

Brian, 
Scott uses Word and transfers it over. He does it all the time so don't take it personally as I am sure it was not meant that way.

The original question is a loaded one. The answer I would give is, I don't want either one. 

If you are picking a puppy at 8 weeks, do you pick the best bird finder? At 8 weeks you would never know which pup this would be. I would never go buy a puppy out of parents with low hanging tails. Why would I? Should I pick one with an underbite? 

I am not looking to buy an older dog that does not appeal to me. So I am not taking either of the dogs listed. 

Ben


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

chewy said:


> i wont be politically correct here... You are asking this question because based on your pictures your pointer has a low lying tail... and it was mentioned in a post because you started making comments on when a breeder should breed or not breed a dog.. I would never buy a pointer or setter from a breeder who has dogs with low lying tails.. with that said it doesnt mean someone else wont.. just my opinion and most others people on what a pointer or setter should look like on point..


Let me correct you on three points. 

1. Not being politically correct would be more like saying, "Chewy, if I wanted crap from you I would squeeze your head."

2. The dog of mine that you mention as being criticized is actually the world's worst bird hunter and the person talking him down didn't even realize that.

3. Actually I'm asking the question because I think it's legit and I think a smart person always questions what is accepted as gospel truth. 

You are welcome to disagree.



chewy said:


> What a border collie have to do with the price of rice in china??


Do you see many being bred for a high tail?



chewy said:


> What good is a dog who can find a million birds if only he could last more than hour because his gate is soo bad that he wears himself out? What good is a dog with awesome style if he cant find birds..


We agree there.



BIGSP said:


> To answer Westcoasthunters question "Are breeders breeding out superior scenting for a high tail?" Come on, are you serious. Not if you are buying from a reputable breeder.
> 
> Personally I don't want a trial dog but, I would be willing to bet that those dogs even the bottom half, will out find my dogs almost every day of the week in a 1 hour stake.


I'm dead serious.

I don't disagree, but I also think you should question the assumptions that exist out there more. The dogs you speak of are first class, but could they be better? You would do well to ask yourself that. We all would.



Scott Berg said:


> Guys,
> 
> Just for the record. That photo is of an Irish Red & White Setter not a Red Setter. Very BIG difference! These are Red Setters (sire and two daughters).


Glad someone noticed :lol:


----------



## midwestfisherman (Apr 19, 2001)

Steelheadfred said:


> Thats what I am talking about Jim....walk nasty fer yer daddy one time!:lol:


Sorry I don't swing that way......:16suspect


----------



## k9wernet (Oct 15, 2007)

chewy said:


> And many that say style doesnt matter yet they are the ones with the fancy shot gun looking like a walking orvis catalog, with all the electrical gadgets. driving the cadilac escalade to go on a hunting trip, live in a 4000 sq foot house alwaystrying to keep up with the joneses.. and they have the nerve to say style doesnt matter... come on be real.
> 
> i have to go to kmart to get a hunting vest see ya


I think you and I would get along pretty well Chewy.

I shop at Walmart; drive a 2001 vehicle with over 200,000 miles on it; buy second-hand gear and clothing with some regularity; and don't have cable or satellite for my family's one, 19" tv. The computer I'm typing on right now was probably built the same year my car was, but I don't know -- I'm its second owner (bought it a year ago for $100). 

Despite all that, if Ed McMahon showed up at my house with a shiny new Cadillac Escalade "hunting vehicle", I'd first ask how my dead grandpa is doing, and then happily accept the keys.

I'm not going to take food out of my kids' mouths so that I can show the world how "stylish" I am. I'm not going to go out of my way to have exceptionally nice or new things, especially when the old ones are doing their job; however, I'm not going to refuse nice things either if a reasonable opportunity comes along.

My dogs aren't going to find themselves looking for a new home over a lack of style (have you seen my goofy GSP/Brit mix with her crooked tail and limping gait?), or lack of bird finding either. However, all other things being equal, why would you settle for less than the best if there are other, better options out there?

WCH, lets say you have a female you want to breed. There are two studs with similar titles, similar build, similar disposition, but one points with a high tail and the other points like that R&W setter you posted. Same stud fee -- would you even think twice? Really? How much cheaper would that low-tailed pointer have to be before you considered paying for that stud service? 

Again, I'm no snob (at least I don't think I am) and I'm probably the least knowledgeable guy here when it comes to breeding: but I really don't think I'd LET a low-tailed stud breed my pointer. I think there are plenty of dogs out there that fit both requirements -- bird finding machines WITH style -- that you don't have to sacrifice one to have the other.

KW


----------



## Unregistered4 (Dec 11, 2004)

Merimac said:


> The answer I would give is, I don't want either one.


Ben,

I can totally understand that.

My point is...for someone to buy a dog just on account of it's tail, so they can watch it stack-up once in a blue moon, while out in the back yard or woods...is stupid in my opinion. 

And, for someone to think that the tail is the "all end to bird dogs" is well...in my opinion...

I just find it funny, that "westcoaster" ask a simple question...and the twelve o'clock tail guys come out of the woodwork voicing their defense/position...or just spouting off that this is the only tail a bird dog should have.

Brian.

P.S. Fritz and Jim...get a room...you two are weirding me out.


----------



## BIGSP (Sep 16, 2004)

Unregistered4 said:


> Ben,
> 
> I can totally understand that.
> 
> ...


Brian,

Do you really think anyone of the "12o'clock boys" would buy a dog just because of it's tail? I think most guys are buying dogs that have great pedigrees and maybe even some wins/championships themselves. With the wins comes the tail. So, if you're looking for a bird dog, I would assume most of these guys just assume the dog is going to have a nice tail.

Brian, 
I've seen dogs like yours run. They are stylish in their own right and dammed pretty too. I don't think 12 o'clock is the end all be all but if your buying a dog in that caliber it sure as hell better have a nice tail.


----------



## k9wernet (Oct 15, 2007)

Hoppe's no.10 said:


> See, this is precisely what I'm trying to get across in my replies. Why does a dog (in the end a dumb animal) have "superior traits" because it points with its tail straight up. Why is the "superior?" What are these traits and if these traits are important to you - and that's OK if they are - why should they be important to
> 
> *Unregistered4* who posted:
> 
> ...


Michael, I like the depth/philosophy of your thought here. However, lets throw out the term "superior" and replace it with "more aesthetically pleasing". That's really what we're talking about here, right?

Why is an '09 vehicle more aesthetically pleasing than an '08? Why is a Van Gogh more aesthetically pleasing than a comic strip? Why is a sunset more aesthetically pleasing than the noonday sun? Why is my wife more aesthetically pleasing than anybody else's? 

If you want to turn it into the classic art imitating culture/culture imitating art debate: Are people drawn to high-tailed dogs because that's what we see on magazine covers and in paintings; or do high-tailed dogs end up on magazine covers and in paintings because that's what people are drawn to?

Or is it that aesthetic value follows utility? Does my mouth water at the sight of a new SUV because its earlier models have proven their worth? Am I attracted to er, buxom, females because somewhere in the depths of my psyche I know they'll be functional moms? Do we like high-tailed dogs because, at one time, a high tail was the best way to find your dog on point, kill a bird and feed your family? I don't know.

I do know that I like what I like, and I make no apologies for it. I get the best of what I can with what I have, and I really don't worry a whole lot about what other people think. I like my kinky-tailed pointing mutt just as much as my "stylish" EP for a whole variety of reasons -- many of which I couldn't put into words if I tried.

Hope that helps.

KW


----------



## Scott Berg (Feb 24, 2008)

Unregistered4 said:


> Ben,
> 
> I can totally understand that.
> 
> ...


We come out of the woodwork because as several people have pointed out it is way off-base to think that the people who demand more in terms of style are going to be satisified with a mediocre bird dog. As I wrote earlier, in my experience they are likely to be more demanding in terms of the traits that contribute to finding and handling birds. So yes, I would expect a number of people to correct you when you suggest that we are willing to accept marginal bird dogs provided they have style. This is something you have convinced yourself is common when if it exists at all it is a very rare case. 

By the way, I wrote my response to you and Michael in the same Word document at the same time and pasted them over. They were the exact same font so whatever it is you found offensive was completely unintentional.

SRB


----------



## Unregistered4 (Dec 11, 2004)

Scott Berg said:


> We come out of the woodwork because as several people have pointed out it is way off-base to think that the people who demand more in terms of style are going to be satisified with a mediocre bird dog.


[/COLOR] 
First off...I never said "twelve o'clock dogs" were inferior or that that's the only reason the twelve o'clock tail guys choose their dog(s). 

The original posters asked a question (which I re-posted earlier) that asks a specific question. I answered it. And, I'll answer it again. If someone chooses a marginal bird dog with a poker tail, just because of the style of the tail, over a better bird finding/handling low tailed dog...I find that sad. 



> So yes, I would expect a number of people to correct you when you suggest that we are willing to accept marginal bird dogs provided they have style.


Secondly...I never said anything about anyone...I said, "If" someone were to choose a dog for a certain reason, as in tail position or hunts with a certain dog too be in "style". It would make me sick. That's all, period. If you read into that and came up with something else...I don't know what else I can say. 




> This is something you have convinced yourself is common when if it exists at all it is a very rare case.


Thirdly...I never said it was "common"...if I did please show me. 

Fourthly...since this "tail thing" has become the standard for acquiring a "great bird dog". I'm going to do a little experiment...or lets make it interesting and call it a wager. 

If Scott (2ESRGR8) would be interested, I'll put up my numbers/stats from last season, from my dog Deputy. Who's been trained (and I use that term loosely) and handled only by me, against his dog Kate this season. Last season Deputy was one year and one month old when the season began. And, Kate will be one year and nine months when this season begins this year, and has been to a trainer a few times, out west last spring - for a month or so, trialed, etc. With all of that being said. I'm willing to wager that Deputy's number on birds pointed - will be more; birds shot over him - will be more; unproductive - will be less and bumped birds - will be less. 

The reason I picked Scott and his dog Kate is...I know him and hunt with him often (unfortunately...lol), and know that he keeps/takes stats exactly the same way I do, hunts very similar to me, hunts more than one dog, hunts my spots half the time (the bast***...lol), hunts around the same amount of hours, prides himself on being able to put his dogs into birds...and he's honest...Oh, and most importantly Kate has a pretty straight, twelve o'clock tail.

*Oh, the wager will be*...the owner of whoever's dog does the best...doesn't have to do dishes at the cabin and gets his cigar lit for him...and has his beer retrieved from the fridge for him...all season long.

Oh and by the way...the dish soap is under the sink...

Brian.


----------



## 2ESRGR8 (Dec 16, 2004)

Dude, you only killed like 4 birds all year, that's a good day for me. 
Kater will take that challenge!


----------



## Back woods (Jul 30, 2003)

I'd take that wager if I was Scott. But I'd raise, you would have to clean and cook all the birds shot as well pour that beer into a nice frosty mug.


----------



## BradU20 (Jan 17, 2005)

Now this thread just got interesting. :evil:


----------



## Dave Medema (Jan 18, 2005)

I want in.


----------



## JTC (Jun 22, 2006)

I agree with Brian that this conversation is way off from what was originally asked but, with that said let's see if I can throw in my 2cents.

I believe that wanting a dog with a high tail is nothing more than personal preferance or a requirement for field trialing their particular breed.

I personally own Ryman type setters, by choice, that don't have high tails. I chose this type of dog for it's beauty, grace, bird handling ability and personality. If I went to purchase another one and had a choice between one with a high tail or a low tail, i would pick the low tail because a Ryman with a high tail is odd and was probable cross bred to a field setter to get that tail, which is not what I want to buy.

If I was buying a Pointer or Field Setter for trialing I would buy the one with the high tail because that is what I'm looking for.

If I'm buying a GSP, GWP, Brittany..... I obviously don't give a s..t about the tail angle.

So, to say that a *dog* with a high tail is a better dog, or more stylish dog is an over-generalized statement that needs to be more specific as to what breed and the intended use of the dog to be correct.

*Originally Posted by chewy ***
_*And many that say style doesnt matter yet they are the ones with the fancy shot gun looking like a walking orvis catalog, with all the electrical gadgets. driving the cadilac escalade to go on a hunting trip, live in a 4000 sq foot house alwaystrying to keep up with the joneses.. and they have the nerve to say style doesnt matter... come on be real.* _

_This is about as intelligent as saying that "anyone that has a dog with a twelve o'clock tail but lives is some ramshakel old house with a broken down pickup and dresses on holey old hunting clothes and acutally believe that style matters........come on be real._



_Jim_


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

Dave Medema said:


> I want in.



Who is the bookie on this action?


----------



## Hoppe's no.10 (Sep 16, 2007)

k9wernet said:


> Michael, I like the depth/philosophy of your thought here. However, lets throw out the term "superior" and replace it with "more aesthetically pleasing". That's really what we're talking about here, right?
> KW



Great post,  

Hoppe's no.10


----------



## crosswind (Sep 1, 2004)

WestCoastHunter said:


> Just how many people out there really care about whether their dog's tail sticks straight up into the sky like the empire state building when it's on point?
> 
> Trial dog people with long tailed dogs are obsessed with it. But my question is for the hunters in the crowd, or rather, those of us who don't compete with our dogs. How many of you really care if your dog's tail stands on end as opposed to sitting at 7 o'clock or turned into a cork screw when on point?
> 
> ...


 Hey aren't you the same guy that does not believe in teaching a pointing dog whoa ??????? Now your back trying to convince all that there is nothing wrong with a low tail. Man you just don't get this stuff do ya.
Hey if you don't mind lookng at it then so what.The questions you pose above is rediculous.
You try to make it out as if the people that have or want a high tail only want that, and are not concerned with anything else such as bird finding ability.
Someone else asked you the question of, giving all other abilities being equal would you buy the dog with a 12 oclock or the one with a low tail.
I see you never answered the question, why?????????


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

crosswind said:


> Hey aren't you the same guy that does not believe in teaching a pointing dog whoa ??????? Now your back trying to convince all that there is nothing wrong with a low tail. Man you just don't get this stuff do ya.
> Hey if you don't mind lookng at it then so what.The questions you pose above is rediculous.
> You try to make it out as if the people that have or want a high tail only want that, and are not concerned with anything else such as bird finding ability.
> Someone else asked you the question of, giving all other abilities being equal would you buy the dog with a 12 oclock or the one with a low tail.
> I see you never answered the question, why?????????


So much for this thread.

.........

Crosswind, you crack me up. But I'm tiring of you.

You should go back and read what I posted in that thread. I said I find the command useless without associating it with birds eventually and, get this, I even said I had taught it to the dog I used as an example. I never said to not teach "whoa" and to say otherwise, which you've done a lot, is well, just wrong. Go back and read it a little more carefully, find where I said not to teach it, then come back to me with questions or comments.

I will admit that I said I think the pointing instincts should be so strong in a dog that it will point without me needing to say "whoa" however and I stand by that. But that shouldn't be construed to mean I said "whoa" shouldn't be trained or that such a dog won't need some work to keep it pointing like that.

But that's another thread.

So I'll indulge you here on the purchasing question. The simple answer is I'd take either. I'm not picky. But I'm just a hunter. 

The questions I asked aren't ridiculous, they should be asked. In any given year I'm sure you cull several dogs for this or that reason (I chose to pick on tails here). But do you ever bother to think that you might just have taken out some one in a million genes that would make your line of dogs better instinctual pointers (small p)? All because of something like a tail? The way you write about my questions being ridiculous, it sounds like you might not. Maybe that's an unfair worry/accusation, but I don't think it's unreasonable to bring up such questions and I don't think they're ridiculous. You as a breeder should be thinking about that kind of stuff, and who knows, maybe you do. Additionally, people who purcahse hunting dogs should think about the consequences of what they purchase. Yes, we can all buy high tailed dogs with superb pointing instincts and they look great. But are we perpetuating a practice that may ultimately lead to dogs that, well, could be better but aren't due to our selective purchasing which in turns leads to more of the same selective breeding?

That's rather deep, and I'm not sure you understand that kind of stuff Crosswind, but I've made my attempt.

But I have one thing to add...

Since you're in the game of reading things into my posts Crosswind, I'll read into yours from here and the one you referenced. I think you don't like online forums because you see them as a threat to your business (I'd argue otherwise, but I think this is how you feel about them). I also don't think you like people questioning breeding practices, yours or anyone else's, because you see that as a threat to your business as well. So, in an effort to stem that, you start pounding on the keyboard as someone put it in regards to me, and do your best to tear the person(s) and the questions they ask down. 

Your posts haven't been rational at times, they definately haven't been pleasant, and to make it all worse, you've misread what was said in one case recently (it's actually not the first time) and stuffed words into my mouth.

Really guy? This is how you want to represent yourself and your business?


----------



## chewy (Mar 27, 2006)

I would say there isnt anyone who likes someone questioning breeding practices whent he person questioning is a complete moron and very ignorant and already has his mind made up and just starts threads fishing for a bite to prove a point he thinks is correct..... 

Based on your expertise.. how many one in a million gene dogs do you have? sounds like you have this all figured out?

I dont think scott ever said that his dogs doing instinctly point.. he said he has people send him dogs that dont.. 

I also dont think scott culls german shirt hair pointers because the tail isnt 12 oclock... they have short tails for a reason... 

sounds like maybe your parents should have culled you for a lot of empty space between your ears.


----------



## BradU20 (Jan 17, 2005)

chewy said:


> ........


Joel, can you just delete Chewy's post so we can continue to discuss this maturely?


----------



## Scott Berg (Feb 24, 2008)

Flash01 said:


> /giggle
> 
> You obviously dont know "Crosswind". Those that do will giggle too.


Flash,

I have only spoke to Scott once on the phone and he probably does not need me to stick up for him. However, when a novice finds their opinion differs substantially from someone with Crosswinds experience and track record I would suggest they take a step back and not assume he is the one that does not understand. Scott is not worried about the effect on his business. He proves his dogs and his ability as a trainer over and over. His dogs and training ability is on display constantly. The value of his opinion is supported by the hundreds of placements he has achieved. There is little worry about getting dogs in for training or selling pups when you have Scott&#8217;s track record.

On the whoa debate, I can tell you I have observed, trained with or discussed training with about two-thirds of the pros who run American Filed sanctioned trials and I have probably seen 25-30 AKC pro. I do not recall a single one of them who does not teach the whoa command. I Don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s Scott and the top professionals I referenced who do not understand? It is the most basic of foundation training.

Scott could be more politically correct and subtle with his comments but he elects to shoot straight up. Personally, I have no problem with people who say what they have on their mind. I always know where those folks are coming from. Had WCH asked the question in a form something like &#8220;do breeders sacrifice bird finding and bird handling ability for the sake of style, I would guess Scott would have responded differently.

WCH&#8217;s original post is as follows. &#8220;*Just how many people out there really care about whether their dog's tail sticks straight up into the sky like the empire state building when it's on point?

Trial dog people with long tailed dogs are obsessed with it. But my question is for the hunters in the crowd, or rather, those of us who don't compete with our dogs. How many of you really care if your dog's tail stands on end as opposed to sitting at 7 o'clock or turned into a cork screw when on point?

If you do care, why? Would you take a dog with a telephone pole tail that needs significant work to make it an effective gun dog over one that has a level or low tail but is easy to work with and knows its game?

I know my opinion and I'm sure several of the rest of you do as well so I'll stop there. But I'm curious what the general consensus in the crowd is on this.&#8221;**[/COLOR]*
 
I can tell you from hundreds of conversations with hunters (not trailers) that many hunters absolutely demand style. I had a conversation 30 minutes ago with a would be buyer.

Scott may have also taken exception to the &#8220;trial people are obsessed with it&#8221; comment. That comment clearly illustrates a lack of experience and understanding. Trial people are obsessed with every element of the dog. They are fanatical about dogs. That segment of bird dog owners is by far the most particular of any group and Scott knows this very well. It was not a ridiculous question because I am sure WCH is not the only hunter who does not how much time, effort, and money trailers are willing to invest to get a dog with all of the tools. Scott could have given a softer response and might had that original message not clearly indicated WCH&#8217;s disgust in this segment of dog owners and also indicated they did not understand which end of the dog counts. 

Anyone can take an expert position on a forum but Scott has earned that status. I don&#8217;t agree with him on occasion but if I had a fraction of his experience I would not be telling him it was he who does not understand. 

SRB


----------



## k9wernet (Oct 15, 2007)

FWIW, I'd pay extra for a dog with a long straight tail that corkscrews when he points...

KW


----------



## GNS Shorthairs (Aug 6, 2008)

Well stated Mr. Berg.


----------



## Unregistered4 (Dec 11, 2004)

Induna said:


> Hmmm. When someone puts up a wager and then starts adding in dos and don'ts they're usually getting a little worried.


Not worried one bit...

I'm just saying, he has to play by the same rules as me. Especially, since I'm posting numbers from "last season". If I were going head to head with him, this year, dog against dog, it would be "game on". And, it would be totally different. I'd be pounding coverts into the ground, getting Deputy on as many grouse as possible, find every family unit of grouse I could and keep following them up until each and every one of them was dead, run my best covers over and over again (and his) until not a feather could be found, etc.

But, that's not what I want to happen. That's just not sporting for the bird...or ethical, in my opinion. And, that's "why" I decided to use last years numbers. 

And, if you go back and "read" my challenge...I said, "the reason I picked Scott is because he hunts like me." So, in essence the ground rules were already set when I said "he hunts like me".

But, I'll tell you what...if he feels the need to "not comply with the rules" for Kate to out do the Deputy's numbers from last year...he can if he wishes.

You guys are probably right...I mean heck, that was Deputy's first season in the grouse woods and this will be Kate's second complete season in the woods, with months of professional handling/training, a trip out west, being trialed in the off-season, etc. 

Yep, why should I expect him and her to play by my/the same rules. It's plan to see...both dog are equal in their opportunities... 

If he feels I'm making it to tough on her and him...with these four messily rules...I'll gladly withdraw them.

Brian. (aka - twosetters)


----------



## Merimac (Jan 17, 2006)

Brian,
Go Head to head this year and stop making excuses. 



Ben


----------



## Unregistered4 (Dec 11, 2004)

Merimac said:


> Brian,
> Go Head to head this year and stop making excuses.
> 
> 
> ...


And, just how would you propose I do that Ben...(go head to head with him)

He hunts three dogs. (possible two, if he retires Grace)

And, I hunt four dogs.

(Not making excuses...just stating facts here)

The only way I could do it...is if I use all four weeks of my vacation time to hunt (which I do already) and call in sick fifty some days this year.

After re-reading that last statement...that sounds good to me...lol

But, seriously...there's no way the Kater and his master could go head to head with the Deputy Dawg and I. And, he knows it...

Now, him and Jack on the otherhand. That would be a whole different story. But, what fun would there be in putting two low tailed dogs against one another?

Brian.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

at the end of nine innings; no runs, no hits, no errors, no men left on base.


----------



## Dave Medema (Jan 18, 2005)

dogwhistle said:


> at the end of nine innings; no runs, no hits, no errors, no men left on base.


Who won the game?


----------



## Tecumseh (Aug 13, 2004)

With my Vizslas, my male has a crooked tail probably because it was cut wrong. I still like it when those last few joints that flare up are jacked up as far as they can go. I would love it if he had a straight tail at about 11 oclock where it sets now but I don't love him any less. 

My female has a completely straight 9 o'clock tail. I knew it when it was like that before I got her. I wanted the best possible bitch I could find and conformationally she is a national class Vizsla so I was ok with her tail because that is how it is supposed to be and wanted that for her future potential.

In a perfect world I like high tails, even for Vizslas because I think they look more sure and athletic. For long tailed dogs I love high tails, absolutely love them. I must have asked Jonesy a dozen times about the tail. The tail wasn't the reason for buying but I wanted the highest possible chance to have a certain hunting style, clean body, and a straight tail [high preferably]. For me, there is just something about a ripped Pointer or Setter standing tall with a high straight tail. In that sense, I can see why tail sets are so important for the coverdog guys. I like Vizslas for a lot of different reasons but for Pointers I like style.


----------



## Unregistered4 (Dec 11, 2004)

Dave Medema said:


> Who won the game?


 
stay in your seat folks...it looks like were going into extra innings.

On a side note...

After the RGS shoot yesterday, Kater Pater looked me straight in the eye and said with her eyes..."You and that Deputy Dawg are toast butt wipe."...then she licked my face.

*_butt wipe_ is a little pet name Kater likes to call me...I don't know where she came up with it or _why_...but she likes to call me that.

She's a funny dog...

Brian.


----------



## 2ESRGR8 (Dec 16, 2004)

Unregistered4 said:


> then she licked my face.
> 
> Brian.


After she licked her butt so you could get a "taste" of things to come. :yikes:


----------



## Flash01 (Jun 12, 2008)

Scott Berg said:


> Flash,
> 
> I have only spoke to Scott once on the phone and he probably does not need me to stick up for him. However, when a novice finds their opinion differs substantially from someone with Crosswinds experience and track record I would suggest they take a step back and not assume he is the one that does not understand.
> 
> SRB


 
That was my point, or at least it was supposed to be my point.


----------



## midwestfisherman (Apr 19, 2001)

Well I just have to throw in my .02. See the pics below, there you will find how a dog should look on point!! :chillin:

If you need further examples, just let me know.....


----------



## Buddwiser (Dec 14, 2003)

Good grief.....8 pages on "whoa" and 8 pages on "tails"....tell me people ain't getting ansty. :lol:


----------



## midwestfisherman (Apr 19, 2001)

Buddwiser said:


> Good grief.....8 pages on "whoa" and 8 pages on "tails"....tell me people ain't getting ansty. :lol:


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Unregistered4 (Dec 11, 2004)

The challenge is over...and things went just as expected. 










Next year we go head to head.

Brian.


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

Unregistered4 said:


> The challenge is over...and things went just as expected.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Whoa! :lol:


----------



## GSP Gal (Nov 12, 2005)

Thanks for the entertainment fellas. :lol:

Nice picture Scott- nuthin' sexier than a man doing dishes.......


----------



## Bobby (Dec 21, 2002)

wirehair said:


> Pretty easy to pick out the empire state building in this photo.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It took me a few minutes to get it, that's funny:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## oilcan (Feb 10, 2007)

Looks like some nice dish pan hands going on there.:evil:


----------

