# dog type for cover type



## 2ESRGR8 (Dec 16, 2004)

Last January on another board steelheadfred wrote this:

*With the new cutting practices taking place in the areas I hunt, and hunt with Jack & Scott, the need for a bigger going dog might change when these covers mature in 15-20 years to their prime (this is a whole nutha thread so please dont take it off topic).*

Is this a concern going forward for you folks as you look into your next dog purchase?
With smaller cuts and fewer wide open homogeneous aspen stands to be found anymore ( and in the future as they mature) will the need for bigger going dogs fade?

I bought my Pointer because I love running those big ol' unbroken stands of aspen in October where a dog can get out and eat up some acreage with each cast but have made the phone call to Fred a few times in November while hunting narrow runs of cover saying, "this place is perfect for a close working flushing dog".

I suppose one of each in the dog box would solve the dilemma.  :lol:


----------



## Double Gun (Feb 22, 2005)

Still seems to be plenty of cuts big enough for a bigger ranging dog where I hunt. On the flip side I hate trying to hunt narrow strips of cover with a pointing dog. Having one of each probably wouldn't be a bad idea but I doubt many hunters will make that choice.


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

The converstations I have had with foresters (and what I have seen on the ground) leads me to believe that a big cut in the future is going to be 100 acres, with many more in the 40-80 range. The information they have shared with me is that they would rather see a 400 acre block of cover with 4 different age classes of trees in a checkerboard type fashion.

I hunt an area that is being intensley managed for Grouse and Deer. This area is about 5 miles North South and 15 miles east west. The current cuts in this area are strips, or 5-40 acre checkerboards. It appears to me that if they have 80 acres of 40 year old aspen, they are cutting two chunks of it now say a 20 and a 10, then in 5 years they are cutting two more chunks of it.

I doubt this will change peoples desires for a certain style of dogs but cutting practices and management of our forests might lead to some styles of dogs having better success then others. I for sure know when I was in the UP a couple weeks ago a nice good going pointing dog would have been a plus.


----------



## lking (Dec 14, 2004)

I have countered this by having one of each. There are several local covers here that I hunt that my pointer would be in and out of by the time I had loaded the gun. Just too small to really maximize what she can do. Perfect spot for the labs to cover.


----------



## Merimac (Jan 17, 2006)

Where I hunt the cuts are huge and they have been cut in the last 3-5 years.

These cuts will be good for my next few dogs.

Ben


----------



## BradU20 (Jan 17, 2005)

I'm in the info gathering state for dog #3. It will be 2+ years until I pull the trigger.

I'm leaning towards as setter (English or red) but I keep falling back towards a springer. It would add a lot of diversity to the current string. I am not sure exactly where I will be in a few years, and that location will make the determining factor. I'm still not sure I could handle owning a dog that doesn't point????


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

2ESRGR8 said:


> Last January on another board steelheadfred wrote this:
> 
> *With the new cutting practices taking place in the areas I hunt, and hunt with Jack & Scott, the need for a bigger going dog might change when these covers mature in 15-20 years to their prime (this is a whole nutha thread so please dont take it off topic).*
> 
> ...


To answer the question, no.

But allow me to make everyone here chuckle and ask why the question is being asked at all? Is the argument here that a big running dog in the woods can't find birds as well as a lab in smaller cuts? Is it that there is no need for a big running dog in smaller cuts? Or is it just to provoke questions such as this?



lking said:


> I have countered this by having one of each. There are several local covers here that I hunt that my pointer would be in and out of by the time I had loaded the gun. Just too small to really maximize what she can do. Perfect spot for the labs to cover.


Are you saying your labs find more birds or are you saying that the hunt ends too quickly as your Pointer finds nothing after tearing up the cover you were planning to hunt in relatively little time?


----------



## lking (Dec 14, 2004)

I'm saying you utilize what is most practical in a given situation. Be kind of like taking the space shuttle down the block to the grocery store....


----------



## Lucky Dog (Jul 4, 2004)

I don't think that many will base their dog choices on the type of cover they hunt. I think what happens is that folks tend to hunt cover that suits their dogs style. I tend to put my bigger running dogs down in bigger cover and run my closer working dogs in smaller covers. 

I think that as long as trialers and other dog game folks are driving the direction that many breeds are going, there will always be the perceived notion that bigger running dogs are better. So I don't think that changing the cover size will do much to waver folks choice in breeds.


----------



## Tecumseh (Aug 13, 2004)

I am very fortunate at the moment that I have large areas of unbroken openness to run my dogs so they are encouraged to run and run and run. However, even here there are lots of spots that a really tight working dog, especially a flusher, would be ideal. Not sure how long I will remain out west but I can see picking up a small flusher, possibly a cocker, in the future. Or, maybe one of my future pups turn out to be close working. 

In Michigan I hunted a lot of areas managed in the small checkerboard fashion and still found the dogs appealing. One big area really showed the importance of diversity throughout the covers. The aspen were of varying ages in different sections and the birds still had the hardwoods, hw/pine, pine, mast bearing parts mixed in and I found birds throughout the areas. I still think that even with the smaller and smaller cuts, bigger running dogs will still be useful. In addition, it seemed that the covers held more broods than some of the big cuts did. With smaller cuts, maybe some people will begin leaning on bigger running dogs even more when bird numbers go down and the importance is back on covering large areas of ground to find the birds.


----------



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

A more important question - if I dare: Is grouse/woodcock/bird hunting just an enjoyable retreat from the daily grind of other parts of our lives or has it become a micro-managed* quest* for a predictable median of bird kills and dog work based on ten year outlooks and averages? 

Or to put it more simply - What the hell ever happened to just going out with your bird dog, walking around in the woods, killing a bird here and there or killing more than a bird here and there or even not killing anything and being content with these experiences and being glad you are able to do them?

Hoppe's no.10


----------



## BIGSP (Sep 16, 2004)

Hoppe's no.10 said:


> A more important question - if I dare: Is grouse/woodcock/bird hunting just an enjoyable retreat from the daily grind of other parts of our lives or has it become a micro-managed* quest* for a predictable median of bird kills and dog work based on ten year outlooks and averages?
> 
> Or to put it more simply - What the hell ever happened to just going out with your bird dog, walking around in the woods, killing a bird here and there or killing more than a bird here and there or even not killing anything and being content with these experiences and being glad you are able to do them?
> 
> Hoppe's no.10


Because this is America. If you have fun killing no birds or one bird wouldn't 2 or 3 birds be even more appealing. 

I think you question is on the right track but, not stated the way I would. If you could go out and have good dog work and not kill a bird would that be more enjoyable than killing a bird or 2 with poor dog work.

I think we all are always in search of a better mousetrap. If not why research a breed?


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

Hoppe's no.10 said:


> Or to put it more simply - What the hell ever happened to just going out with your bird dog, walking around in the woods, killing a bird here and there or killing more than a bird here and there or even not killing anything and being content with these experiences and being glad you are able to do them?
> 
> Hoppe's no.10


 
Mike,

I don't believe anyone is questioning those motives of hunting....this topic is talking about the future of our sport and how it is managed and the effects on the style of dog in order to enjoy the time spent on the ground.


----------



## BIGSP (Sep 16, 2004)

Steelheadfred said:


> Mike,
> 
> I don't believe anyone is questioning those motives of hunting....this topic is talking about the future of our sport and how it is managed and the effects on the style of dog in order to enjoy the time spent on the ground.


Fritz,

I agree and with that I ran some cover tonight with Brookie Freak and it was perfect flushing dog cover. Long linear strips of dogwood and hawthorne. Morgan managed a couple of points but, both of the birds busted way before I got near her. It was perfect cover for a flushing dog. If Morgan hadn't been on the ground I am quite sure the lab we were hunting would have found them and lifted them in gun range. I think this time of the year is a great time for flushing dogs. My pointers were running like crazy with almost all the ground cover gone.


----------



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

BIGSP said:


> Because this is America. If you have fun killing no birds or one bird wouldn't 2 or 3 birds be even more appealing.
> 
> I think you question is on the right track but, not stated the way I would. If you could go out and have good dog work and not kill a bird would that be more enjoyable than killing a bird or 2 with poor dog work.
> 
> I think we all are always in search of a better mousetrap. If not why research a breed?


As bird hunters, we all of course, enjoy a bag limit at the end of the day. Having said that there seems to be more and more focus these days not on the "experience" but rather - to borrow a phrase from the Johnson/Vietnam War days - the "body kill." As a *general* statement it seems to me that the harder one tries to achieve a "high body kill" _via_ hardware, canines, etc. the less pleasure they seem to derive from bird hunting. 

There is much talk on this forum about equipment, dog breeds, chokes, shot size etc. but a dearth of discussion about - for lack of a better phrase - "the experience" and that in the end is what gives meaning to all of this. 

Hooked up for a few moments today with two bird hunters in a close-by covert along a dry gravel road. Typical brief discussion about birds moved and birds missed. For no real reason I looked down at their leather hunting boots and cuffs which were soaked with water and covered with fine yellow seeds of one sort or another. I remarked something like: Your boots look awfully wet. One of the hunters replied: Yeah it's a real mess in there.

Nothing really profound in all of this but it reminded me of a grouse hunter I used to shoot SC with who told me once with a chuckle: If you want to hunt grouse you're going to get your feet wet.

The *image* of the sodden boots on the dry gravel and my long-ago friends remark will stay with me a lot longer and give me more contemplation than the two hunter's talk about that day's birds shot at, birds missed and birds killed.

This is kind of what I'm trying to get across here.

Hoppe's no. 10


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

What makes you think those that kill birds are out just for the taste of grouse? Why in this thread are you making this point? I don't agree with you at all I think the vast majority of the threads on this forum are about the experience the memories the comedy of good shooting and bad dog work the passion for the future of the birds we love. You wanna see body count threads open the waterfowl forum. Not that there is anything wrong with legal limits from time to time.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## wirehair (Oct 16, 2007)

Steelheadfred said:


> Not that there is anything wrong with ...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


the taste of grouse. 

Most here will only have a few dogs in their hunting years. I think it is important to think of all these types of questions when selecting a breed. I thought most about my style of hunting than cover sizes. There are a lot of things to consider.


----------



## I'm with Brandy (Aug 5, 2007)

Fritz, what was it about the cover in the UP that would have made you want a pointing dog over a flusher?

My impression from what I have read is that people are eluding to a big running pointer will pass birds in small cuts but some how not pass up birds in large cuts? And that the large cuts are to big to hunt with a flusher?

Are we adding in the ability of the handler to handle there dog in varying cover, or the training that has been put into the dog?

Now I have to say on a regular bases I do hunt some large areas with extremely heavy cover and can do so with two people and my flusher. The cover is wide enough that birds flush and land and never make it to either side. The dog is out of site most of the time only see her when she comes to the edge. Wide enough to run two flushing dogs at the same time. But if I had a pointer I would need two gunners and I would have to crawl into the heavy brush to flush birds. I would also have to have some way to know that the dog is on point in there as you would not be able to see the dog, but it could be done.


----------



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

Steelheadfred said:


> Mike,
> 
> ...this topic is talking about the future of our sport ...


I couldn't agree with you more on this - the future of our sport. And it many ways it pains me as to where that future is headed. It's been my observation over the decades that there is less emphasis on "hunting" and more emphasis on efficiency and equipment. As in: What is the "...best/most efficient..." gun, dog breed, gauge, shot size, SxS vs. O/U vs. semi-auto etc. This trend - if in fact there is a trend - does not bode well for the future of our sport. Look at the sporting literature. Books by Burton Spiller, John Alden Knight and other "...deans of grouse writers..." make little mention of dog breeds, guns, gauges etc. They wrote about the "experience" of grouse and woodcock hunting. Some chapter headings from Spiller's _Drummer in the Woods_: "Four Mile Grouse," "Last Day," "Ghost Grouse," etc. Pick up any post-1960 book on grouse hunting and it is likely to be a how-to-do-it with a chapter on guns, gauges, shot size, a chapter on clothing, a chapter on versatile pointers vs. classic pointers vs. flushers etc. but little on the "experience."

Reading, talking, and arguing about grouse guns etc. is of course great fun and most certainly part of the sport but in the end there is a *profound* difference between "bird hunting" (as many on this forum like to think of it) and killing birds. 

Hoppe's no.10


----------



## Double Gun (Feb 22, 2005)

Hoppe's no.10 said:


> I couldn't agree with you more on this - the future of our sport. And it many ways it pains me as to where that future is headed. It's been my observation over the decades that there is less emphasis on "hunting" and more emphasis on efficiency and equipment. As in: What is the "...best/most efficient..." gun, dog breed, gauge, shot size, SxS vs. O/U vs. semi-auto etc. This trend - if in fact there is a trend - does not bode well for the future of our sport. Look at the sporting literature. Books by Burton Spiller, John Alden Knight and other "...deans of grouse writers..." make little mention of dog breeds, guns, gauges etc. They wrote about the "experience" of grouse and woodcock hunting. Some chapter headings from Spiller's _Drummer in the Woods_: "Four Mile Grouse," "Last Day," "Ghost Grouse," etc. Pick up any post-1960 book on grouse hunting and it is likely to be a how-to-do-it with a chapter on guns, gauges, shot size, a chapter on clothing, a chapter on versatile pointers vs. classic pointers vs. flushers etc. but little on the "experience."
> 
> Reading, talking, and arguing about grouse guns etc. is of course great fun and most certainly part of the sport but in the end there is a *profound* difference between "bird hunting" (as many on this forum like to think of it) and killing birds.
> 
> Hoppe's no.10


I think grouse hunters have probably always talked and thought about how to become a better hunter. The only difference today is with the use of technology we get to talk to many more people. It's really no different that the hand wringing about young people in general, really not as different as older generations seem to think.


----------



## 2ESRGR8 (Dec 16, 2004)

For the record no one mentions killing in this thread until you did Hoppes.


----------



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

2ESRGR8 said:


> For the record no one mentions killing in this thread until you did Hoppes.


But "killing" of course is what winds through and gives meaning to all threads having anything to do with hunting be the "killing" explicit, implicit, hidden or ethereal.

Hoppe's no.10


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

> Fritz, what was it about the cover in the UP that would have made you want a pointing dog over a flusher?


I spent the majority of my time in the Yoop with three hunters, two flushing dogs. When the weather was good we did just fine, espeically for being in an area we had never been before.

The topography is different up there, a good going honest pointing dog has a place in those woods as it has a place in every place I have hunted in the LP. Some areas had a lot more hills, up and down up and down, with a pointing dog you could walk the two track or a ridge line and let the dog work those hills. Flushing dogs pushing birds up hill in my experience results in more wild flushes. If you had a point on a side hill you could cut that bird off high.



> Now I have to say on a regular bases I do hunt some large areas with extremely heavy cover and can do so with two people and my flusher. The cover is wide enough that birds flush and land and never make it to either side. The dog is out of site most of the time only see her when she comes to the edge. Wide enough to run two flushing dogs at the same time. But if I had a pointer I would need two gunners and I would have to crawl into the heavy brush to flush birds. I would also have to have some way to know that the dog is on point in there as you would not be able to see the dog, but it could be done.


Doug, I think you might be surprised by the efficiency of a good pointing dog in those covers compared to our flushing dogs. Handling and training does have an impact in how you hunt your dog sure we agree on that. 

Mike,



> It's been my observation over the decades that there is less emphasis on "hunting" and more emphasis on efficiency and equipment.


Mike is it the arrow or the indian? No matter the advances in equipment and cartridges it comes down to the guy blowing the whistle and pulling the trigger.



> Look at the sporting literature. Books by Burton Spiller, John Alden Knight and other "...deans of grouse writers..." make little mention of dog breeds, guns, gauges etc. They wrote about the "experience" of grouse and woodcock hunting.Pick up any post-1960 book on grouse hunting and it is likely to be a how-to-do-it with a chapter on guns, gauges, shot size, a chapter on clothing, a chapter on versatile pointers vs. classic pointers vs. flushers etc. but little on the "experience."


Have you read Chuck Fergus books? Jim Fergus? Tom Huggler's a Fall of Woodcock? Some of Chad Mason's works? Bare November Days, and a Dog for all Seasons? All these are stories not "how to's" from more current modern day writers.



> Reading, talking, and arguing about grouse guns etc. is of course great fun and most certainly part of the sport


DoubleGun's responce is dead on on this subject. You and I would have no idea who each other was if it were not for technology.



> but in the end there is a *profound* difference between "bird hunting" (as many on this forum like to think of it) and killing birds.


Really? Honestly? Killing birds is potting them off tree limbs and ground pounding them out of car windows. Hunting IMO is the legal and ethical pursuit of game, in our case busting brushing, crossing creeks, training dogs, practicing our shooting, taking game on the wing.

Mike, you brought Killing into a discussion about the future of our habitat and how it might or might not influence a choice in hounds. You are starting to sound like someone who has to justify your experiences hunting vs. others experiences hunting via generational differences in success.


Mike,

Tell me about this photo below? Tell me about the experience? The guy in the photo who shot is first two grouse that morning? The fantastic cripple retrieve one of the dogs made, the pine line with birds popping out like popcorn, the laughing, the joking, the razing about missed shots and ones made. This was a nice morning earlier this season with good friends, a few birds, please tell me what is wrong with this photo?










The truth is I can tell you where and what I had for breakfast that morning but I would have to look up on a log where we hunted and how many kills I had....


----------



## All TIME ANGLER (Mar 14, 2008)

As I don't own a dog yet, I have to say that although there is alot discusseed(and argued) here about breeds, tech, and the like, it has been most helpful to someone who is fairly new to brid hunting. 
And as far as the old time writers and the nostalga involved I couldn't agree more. In fact one of my favorite chapters is from Cecil Heacox entitled "One on One" where he talks about leaving the dogs a home and going out like he used to when he was a child. The way he put it, if you can go out and work your favorite covers without any "help" and still enjoy the experience, you truly are a grouse hunter. 
Now, I'm not saying everybody needs to do this to get what he was saying, but it is worth thinking about. Would you still do it without your canine friends?


----------



## Scott Berg (Feb 24, 2008)

Double Gun said:


> Still seems to be plenty of cuts big enough for a bigger ranging dog where I hunt. On the flip side I hate trying to hunt narrow strips of cover with a pointing dog. Having one of each probably wouldn't be a bad idea but I doubt many hunters will make that choice.


Double Gun,

You hit this one dead center. I get hundreds of calls per year from would be owners. Almost everyone talks about performance but a significant portion of their selection is based on non-performance criteria. Frankly, it drives me a little crazy sometimes when the #1 criteria for alot of people in our breed is a specific color and type of markings. I definitley understand and very much subscribe to placing considerable emphasis on the non-performance trait of disposition. They are companions 365 days/yr. However, the hang-up on specific markings really throws me. 

It's a small percentage of people that assess the type of cover, game bird, and other environmental factors and then break down the relative strength and weaknesses of a breed. We have a test environment where those attributes are judged for grouse dogs. It's called a cover dog trial. 70% of the entries are Setters and 30% of the entries are pointers. That's not exact and there is also 1% associated with all other breeds. There is a reason for this disparity. Their physical make-up, gait, pattern, and bird handling tendancies favor this application. This no doubt not be accepted by owners of a number of breeds. 

In the end ... the overwelhming differentiator will always be range. Only a very small percentage of hunters with pointing dogs shoot only pointed birds. By far the majority of hunters with pointing dogs shoot birds that are not pointed and handled properly by the dog and that necessitates a closer working dog. A big running dog, even a medium range dog, requires good bird handling ability and polished manners manners around game. That requires more development and training effort and better natural ability. I prefer a medium range dog myself. (100-200 yards) Big enough going to take me to alot of birds but easy enough to handle too.

SRB


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

Going back to the original topic, I still don't understand why the question is being asked.

I'll preface this by saying my Pointers are both rescues of unknown lineage, but if I were paying money for a good pedigree then I would want a dog that could find birds in any size cover. If the argument is that it's nicer to hunt at a slower pace with a flushing dog, or at least a closer working dog, through smaller cuts then everyone is entitled to that opinion. But I don't agree with the notion that a hot rod Pointer isn't going to do well in those smaller cuts or not be practical in there.

Is a big running animal a lot of dog for not much space? I suppose. But if the dog is getting the job done, well, who cares? This is just personal preference, but I'd rather have too much dog in the woods than too little in a wide open field.

It may be simplistic, but as long as the dog can find birds in both, I'm satisfied.


----------



## Dave Medema (Jan 18, 2005)

I spoke with Grush earlier this week and we discussed some of this topic. I happen to like the mid-range setters and seem to do well with them overall. But.....I have some covers that aren't well suited to give them the best chance to succeed. I have some narrow runs, small plots, berry stashes that ideally suit a different style or breed of dog. As I enter a cover, especially with a few different dogs on the truck, I have to decide which dog would be most successful in this cover. It's not that my dog couldn't or wouldn't find the birds, it's just that another dog would find them better or provide a more enjoyable hunt overall. I hate hacking a dog. I hate hunting with others that hack their dogs. If I have a small tight run, why would I run a 200 yard dog thru it vs a dual type or flusher? A closer dog would require less handling. It would allow the dog to do it's thing well without interference. THe opposite is also true. As I'm heading into larger pieces or more open or whatever, the bigger running pointy dog is in his element able to do his thing - naturally. In my mind, this is a horses for courses topic. 

I save several covers each year for my annual hunt with a bud. He owns several springers and they are wonderful dogs. These covers are absolutely perfectly suited to these dogs and we have one of the most memorable hunts each year with his dogs in these specific covers. He saves some of his covers for my setter in return - ideally suited for that type/style/range of dog.

Grush's question is simply this: if we can agree on a "horses for courses" approach AND we can anticipate the methods the DNR will use for habitat cuts, will it alter how we approach dog decisions in the future?


----------



## Merimac (Jan 17, 2006)

BIGSP said:


> If you could go out and have good dog work and not kill a bird would that be more enjoyable than killing a bird or 2 with poor dog work.


Like this? This was monday. 13 pointed Grouse in 1.5 hours. 0 Birds killed. One huge ass smile. I even brought my Lab for the walk while the Setter did all the work.:lol:


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

I've hunted more than a few plots out in Washington while going after pheasant that contained giant blackberry stands that no one in their wildest dreams could crawl into and flush a bird from. A cocker, springer, or possibly even a Lab would do very well in there while a Pointing dog of any sort would not be practical.

I think the question would be better phrased if it included the notion of thick cover and at what point does it become impossible or more of a hassle than it's worth for the hunter to get to the bird. At what point do you the hunter throw up your hands and say, "ok, my dog looks good on point, but I can't get in to flush what he's pointing, wish I had a Springer here"?


----------



## BradU20 (Jan 17, 2005)

WestCoastHunter said:


> Is a big running animal a lot of dog for not much space? I suppose. But if the dog is getting the job done, well, who cares? This is just personal preference, but I'd rather have too much dog in the woods than too little in a wide open field.


I think you are missing the point here. Why would I want to run by bigger running pointing dog in narrow strips of cover? The dog is going to take the edge and move to the front. I'm going to have to whistle/yell/hack the dog back the entire time. Or I can drop a flusher in there and work it w/o a sound (ideally). Why fight it?

I just spent a week in S. Dakota and I think this topic is very easy to grasp out there. Fence rows, tree lines, creek bottoms and ditches are made for flushing dogs. Big CRP fields need a ground-eating pointing dog.


----------



## BIGSP (Sep 16, 2004)

BradU20 said:


> I think you are missing the point here. Why would I want to run by bigger running pointing dog in narrow strips of cover? The dog is going to take the edge and move to the front. I'm going to have to whistle/yell/hack the dog back the entire time. Or I can drop a flusher in there and work it w/o a sound (ideally). Why fight it?
> 
> I just spent a week in S. Dakota and I think this topic is very easy to grasp out there. Fence rows, tree lines, creek bottoms and ditches are made for flushing dogs. Big CRP fields need a ground-eating pointing dog.


Brad,

My thoughts exactly. I had my pointer puppy down last night in some big strips of dogwood. She just took the edge and followed it, sometimes ranging out to 300 yards. She pointed a couple of birds but, they just didn't hold long enough for the shot. This would have been ideal cover for a flusher with 2 guys.


----------



## NATTY BUMPO (May 12, 2001)

BradU20 said:


> ).
> 
> I just spent a week in S. Dakota and I think this topic is very easy to grasp out there. Fence rows, tree lines, creek bottoms and ditches are made for flushing dogs. Big CRP fields need a ground-eating pointing dog.



Egggzzzactly, Brad.

And dont forget those big shelterbelts around farmsteads and strips of standing corn that friendly farmers leave standing for hunters. Some of those places are simply jamed up with birds once most of the crops are in the bins.

When we were out there a couple weeks ago, we hunted behind some big ground eating pointers at times and Team Pocket Rocket in other places. 

I think 'ya really need one (or more) of each! "Horses for Courses"

NB


----------



## k9wernet (Oct 15, 2007)

BIGSP said:


> She just took the edge and followed it, sometimes ranging out to 300 yards. She pointed a couple of birds but, they just didn't hold long enough for the shot. This would have been ideal cover for a flusher with 2 guys.


See now, I see that as a function of how your dog works the cover and effective quartering, as opposed to the natural tendency (close-working or far-ranging) of that dog.

When my pointer is "on" (and frequently she's not) she'll range far, quartering wide. I don't mind a dog punching out 100 yards, but I'd much prefer her 100 yards to my left or right for the most part. 100 yards straight out is of little use: I'd jump those birds if I'd just kept walking.

I think Jarl (WCH) is on the right track in this conversation. Yeah, a big running dog that's going to punch out 100 yards might be overkill in a small, tight cover. However, a big running dog that will dive into those dogwood tangles and complete an effective search on it's way out to 100 yards covers all your bases and is an ideal dog IMO, regardless of cover type. A good big runner can deal with big or little cover. A close worker is more limited, IMO.

Edit: FWIW, I agree with Mike (Hoppes). I stayed out of this conversation for the first few pages for a reason. I don't believe it's possible to be perfectly set up to handle any situation you might encounter while hunting. It's great to explore possibilities and strategies -- to reflect on past experiences and think about what you'll do differently. But when you get to the point of kenneling several extra dogs year round so that you hand handle any variety of hunting situations... I think you're stressing too much over a simple recreational pastime! That said, if I stressed a bit more, I'd probably have killed a lot more birds this year... 

KW


----------



## Socks (Jan 8, 2007)

All TIME ANGLER said:


> As I don't own a dog yet,
> 
> Would you still do it without your canine friends?


Not only NO, but HELL NO! For me most of my joy/fun comes from watching my dog work and spending time with him. I just went duck hunting for the 3rd time in my life on Tues. at Pt. Moullie(sp?). I laugh my butt off knowing that JD had more fun running down the dikes keeping up with me on my bike than retrieving(that's because I didn't get a duck  ).

Get a dog and spend a lot of time with 'em and I bet you'd not want to go out without your pooch.


----------



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

Steelheadfred said:


> Mike,
> 
> Have you read Chuck Fergus books? Jim Fergus? Tom Huggler's a Fall of Woodcock? Some of Chad Mason's works? Bare November Days, and a Dog for all Seasons? All these are stories not "how to's" from more current modern day writers.
> 
> ...


Knew I'd get nailed over the books you mentioned the moment I closed my post. You're right, of course, these are not how-to-do-it books but rather deal with "the experience." Although in my opinion from a literary standpoint *some *of the above is trite and not worth the paper it's written on.

Next - I probably should have chosen my words better. How about: There's a lot more to bird hunting as you and I and BIGSP and many others on this forum understand it than just killing birds.

Not trying to justify anything but rather trying to understand. We are rational beings who go through life making decisions, large and small, on options presented to us. These are rational decisions and although they may seem irrational to others they are, nonetheless, rational to the person making them. Many of us devote a great deal of time, effort, money, emotion etc. towards our decision to be a "bird hunters." I think it's healthy from a cognitive perspective to *understand* why we make the decisions we do. Most hunters when asked "Why do you hunt?" will respond with something like - "I enjoy being out in the woods," "the comradeship," "watching a good bird dog work" etc. But of course all this can be done without killing anything and while all of the above are may be part of the hunt they're probably not the real reason/reasons why one hunts . Again I'm interested in understanding rather than justification.

Not sure why you seem to think I find the photo offensive. Thematically it's much like many photos I've posted.

Hoppe's no.10


----------



## FieldWalker (Oct 21, 2003)

I like to shoot at stuff.

IMO -- you can hunt a close working dog anywhere... but the same does not apply for dogs with more range... cover types aside... my biggest example would be anywhere near a road with decent traffic...

Hoppes- I agree with you 100% on the off-topic. The enjoyment I get out of a weekend has nothing to do with the number of birds bagged (I do get some enjoyment out of people telling you that the number of birds bagged has nothing to do with it... yet, they are the first to post tailgate photos).


----------



## Jay Johnson (Jan 10, 2008)

This is all personal preference but the only reason I would ever choose a closer working dog over a wider ranging dog is if I someday can't hear well enough to find the wider ranging dog on point. Then I will be forced to go with a closer working dog if I want to keep hunting. I don't ever consider the size of the covert when I put a dog down. My good grouse dogs in big coverts are still my good grouse dogs in smaller coverts. They adapt and hunt each in a sensible way.


----------



## k9wernet (Oct 15, 2007)

FieldWalker said:


> I like to shoot at stuff.


Me too



FieldWalker said:


> you can hunt a close working dog anywhere... but the same does not apply for dogs with more range... cover types aside... my biggest example would be anywhere near a road with decent traffic...


You can also hunt solo. Or hunt with a chihuahua in your backpack. Generally speaking, a dog with more range has the opportunity to find more birds. I don't worry too much about roads -- my dogs seem to recognize that there aren't many birds in the road. That said, I don't hunt near too many busy roads.



FieldWalker said:


> The enjoyment I get out of a weekend has nothing to do with the number of birds bagged


Agreed. If it was all about birds bagged I'd be having a pretty crappy year! I hunt pretty low flush rate areas for the low hunter numbers that go along with them. However, I do like to get my dogs on birds!

KW


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

BradU20 said:


> I just spent a week in S. Dakota and I think this topic is very easy to grasp out there. Fence rows, tree lines, creek bottoms and ditches are made for flushing dogs. Big CRP fields need a ground-eating pointing dog.


We agree here.



BradU20 said:


> I think you are missing the point here. Why would I want to run by bigger running pointing dog in narrow strips of cover? The dog is going to take the edge and move to the front. I'm going to have to whistle/yell/hack the dog back the entire time. Or I can drop a flusher in there and work it w/o a sound (ideally). Why fight it?


I might be reading you wrong here, if so, I apologize. But this seems to imply that big running dogs won't hunt and bust through cover and instead take the easy route and run up and down the edge of the cover. If that's what you're saying, I don't think that applies to all of them.



BIGSP said:


> My thoughts exactly. I had my pointer puppy down last night in some big strips of dogwood. She just took the edge and followed it, sometimes ranging out to 300 yards. She pointed a couple of birds but, they just didn't hold long enough for the shot. This would have been ideal cover for a flusher with 2 guys.


BIGSP, I'd argue this is an age and experience issue for your dog, not the cover. See if that still happens in a couple of years.

But as an aside, what makes you think those birds wouldn't have flushed at the same distance if a flushing dog and its handlers were to come through? (I don't mean this question to sound as terse as it comes off in writing by the way)



k9wernet said:


> See now, I see that as a function of how your dog works the cover and effective quartering, as opposed to the natural tendency (close-working or far-ranging) of that dog.
> 
> When my pointer is "on" (and frequently she's not) she'll range far, quartering wide. I don't mind a dog punching out 100 yards, but I'd much prefer her 100 yards to my left or right for the most part. 100 yards straight out is of little use: I'd jump those birds if I'd just kept walking.
> 
> I think Jarl (WCH) is on the right track in this conversation. Yeah, a big running dog that's going to punch out 100 yards might be overkill in a small, tight cover. However, a big running dog that will dive into those dogwood tangles and complete an effective search on it's way out to 100 yards covers all your bases and is an ideal dog IMO, regardless of cover type. A good big runner can deal with big or little cover. A close worker is more limited, IMO.


That pretty well sums up how I see it.

I think a lot of it has to do with tempo and how you've chosen to handle your dog over time. Some people like to make hunting behind a big running pointing dog an athletic event by covering a lot of ground as fast as they can. But I'd argue that slowing the pace down or even stopping occasionally and just letting the dog _hunt_ without driving it forward pays dividends. Just because the dog likes to range doesn't mean you have to keep moving forward with it.

I think there's a good argument to be made regarding places and situations where a flushing dog is more appropriate. But I don't think cover size really matters with a big runner as long as such a dog bothers to hunt off the beaten path.


----------



## Dave Medema (Jan 18, 2005)

WestCoastHunter said:


> But I don't think cover size really matters with a big runner as long as such a dog bothers to hunt off the beaten path.


Let's just say you have a 5 acre cover with a strip of berries down one side. The DNR plante the berries in 2 stips about 10 yards apart. Would you prefer to take my field trial setter or a flusher/close pointy?

BTW - I consider myself extremely biased as I've had FT setters for 20+ years.


----------



## I'm with Brandy (Aug 5, 2007)

WestCoastHunter said:


> I've hunted more than a few plots out in Washington while going after pheasant that contained giant blackberry stands that no one in their wildest dreams could crawl into and flush a bird from. A cocker, springer, or possibly even a Lab would do very well in there while a Pointing dog of any sort would not be practical.
> 
> I think the question would be better phrased if it included the notion of thick cover and at what point does it become impossible or more of a hassle than it's worth for the hunter to get to the bird. At what point do you the hunter throw up your hands and say, "ok, my dog looks good on point, but I can't get in to flush what he's pointing, wish I had a Springer here"?


I hunt an area very much like that here in MI. I have never run a dog in there with out a flush. You could do it with a pointer but I would not want to be the one to have to crawl in for the flush. The cover is thick and about 10' high. All you can do is crawl its to thick to walk. 

Fritz, I hunt many hill sides with a flusher even steep river banks. Placing one person at the top of the hill and one at the bottom is going to give someone a shooting opportunity. The flushing dog should be quartering the hill side just like it would in a flat field. Training is a huge advantage with this, the birds may end up in the river or on the other side. So you need a dog that will do water retrieves and sometimes have to do blind retrieves across the river to the land on the other side.

The other thing to think about too. Is that I have the option of sitting my flusher when she is birdie and flushing the bird myself. So that does give me another option while hunting my flushing dog. I have done this many times with Woodcock.


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

Doug I have all the same options outside stwas you do. Have you hunted the up? Or have you hunted behind some really strong grouse pointing dogs? Look I did fine up there killed a bunch of birds just saying horses for courses and amor of the courses are better designed for a race car then an suv. The hills in nlp pale compared some areas of the western Yoop.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Paco (Dec 18, 2006)

I'm with Brandy said:


> Fritz, what was it about the cover in the UP that would have made you want a pointing dog over a flusher?
> 
> My impression from what I have read is that people are eluding to a big running pointer will pass birds in small cuts but some how not pass up birds in large cuts? And that the large cuts are to big to hunt with a flusher?
> 
> ...


Interesting questions.

Enjoying this thread. 

I have some experience with a dog or two that will point,then flush remotely on command when it's the best option.(Grouse,woodcock and Phez.) The beeper or bell lets me know where they are.

Training certainly plays a roll. I like having options,so I like a finished dog.

And to the original post question,,,,No ,it will have no effect in my next gundog choice.


----------



## Bobby (Dec 21, 2002)

2ESRGR8 said:


> I'll bring the coffee.


We ate all the bagels. Enjoyed them with coke. The coffee wagon never showed.

We were in our spots all day, south of the area you focus on......I think. Moved birds all day, but it certainly wasn't ideal conditions.


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

Tecumseh said:


> Good luck with that. I would assume that you don't have much experience with big running dogs [and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that]. You can only control what you can see. I don't remember Michigan being flat and open like parts of Kansas where you can see your dog 90+% of the time. I don't care how "under control" one of my dogs is, there is no way I run it anywhere near a well traveled road. There are plenty of birds in safer areas. Why anyone would want to add to the already numerous hazards dogs face while hunting amazes me.


That's what I get for giving an overly simplistic answer like "I would."

The nature of FieldWalker's question indicated to me that he would run a closer working dog next to such roads but not a big running dog. My point is why not? My answer isn't meant to imply letting the dog run out of view 500-1000 yards or more and hunt the area. There's a difference between letting the dog run over the next horizon and keeping it close...and yes, I think you can train a dog to know when one or the other is more appropriate, or rather, you can train it to follow a command to stay in walking range or tear up the landscape.

My experience is indeed limited, but both my Pointers will range out to the point where I can't see or hear them if I let them. We don't play that game in the woods or near roads.


----------



## I'm with Brandy (Aug 5, 2007)

Paco said:


> Interesting questions.
> 
> Enjoying this thread.
> 
> ...


This is my point Frank, I feel its more about the training than the type of cover or dog. I know you can have your pointing labs flush after they have pointed a bird but many pointers are not trained to do that and may not be able to do both a point and a flush with out loosing the point. Just like trying to get a flushing dog to whoa can ruin the strength of their flush.

I would not change my choice of having a flushing dog based on the type size or color of the hunting area. I continue to train to handle the different types of cover we come across. I enjoy a flushing retriever especially the ESS breed and that is the only reason why I use one. 

Now if I change to a different game like rabbits I would get a different dog for that maybe even another ESS but I don't want my current ESS hunting rabbits when I am after birds so I don't shoot rabbits over her even though she has flushed them on occasion.


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

Example of some of the new cutting practices. 

A couple weeks ago my brother and I entertained a few friends that I am trying to put together a business deal for. They normally go to Iowa for a long weekend but with the state of corn up and pheasants down they asked if we could show them around. We went exploring in a new area rented a cabin for three nights and had a good time. Some of the pictures show some of the "new" cutting practices taking place.

Behind Norri with his first ever grouse (he looks real excited eh? lol) is a prime example - this is about a 10 acre strip of cover maybe 60 yards wide by a half a mile long or so.










This spot here in the back ground is kidney shaped and about 15 acres










just a couple of bad examples of what Scott is talking about.


----------



## BIGSP (Sep 16, 2004)

Well,

I am going to take this argument back full circle. I think most dogs especially pointing dogs are only great in the eyes of their owners. Simply put most of us don't put in the time that is needed to have a truly great dog. 
So, going back the original question yes, I think one should consider the dog that they are buying when looking at the outlook of habitat in one said area. I recently bought a new dog and wanted a pointer. I wanted one that didn't have any trial blood close up (let's not go down that road for the sake of this topic). I wanted a dog that was fast fun to watch but, didn't have big running dogs for parents. I did this because most covers that I hunt are 30-50 minute covers. I don't like doing 3 hour death marches through unproductive cover. I like hitting a spot and moving on if there isn't birds. No need for a trial dog in my covers. I think my dogs manners are decent on birds but, not great.
Going back to a few others questions why would a flusher allow you to kill more birds than a pointer? Again, in most instances we don't get enough birds in front of our pointers to make them great. Flushers get that bird in the air and don't have to "handle them as properly" as a pointing dog.


----------



## Merimac (Jan 17, 2006)

Honestly, If I am reduced to a ten acre hunt I am switching hobbies. Ten Acres is equivalent to me walking back and forth in my yard five times. Not worth it for me and I don't want to kill the birds with limited cover.


----------



## Scott Berg (Feb 24, 2008)

BIGSP said:


> Well,
> 
> I am going to take this argument back full circle. I think most dogs especially pointing dogs are only great in the eyes of their owners. Simply put most of us don't put in the time that is needed to have a truly great dog.
> 
> I wanted one that didn't have any trial blood close up (let's not go down that road for the sake of this topic).


We agree on the first point. I am going to go down that other road because this position is VERY poor advice for anyone that wants a truly exceptional bird dog. 

I will leave my opionion out of it for the moment. I heard Rick Smith, Bob West, and Tom Dokken address this thinking at a seminar. I may have recited their thoughts previously but I dont want to get into a I have been running birds dogs all my life debate. These three have proven in their knowledge in no uncertain terms and have devoted their entire lives to bird dogs. Hobbyists who wish to ignore the insight of people who have distinguished themselves as these three have simply are not interested learning anything beyond what they already believe.

Here is what they said although they put it in a more politically correct context than I will.
All three said as near as a can quote them exactly that they would look for as many champions close up as they could find regardless of breed. Here is the part they put more nicely than I will here. They said people buy dogs with less drive and less ability to cover up their inability to train them or the unwillingness to put in the time to properly train them. In pointing dogs (and they said this) most people have to hunt their dogs in a less effective manner because the dog does not handle birds properly, either as a result of preparation or ability. 

The scientific facts are pretty straight forward here. Canine genetics regress toward the mean rapidly. Advancing or retaining a high level of performance requires a very high degree of selectivity. Competition provides selectivity. I would readily concede that competition is by no means perfect but it does sort down to probably the top 3-5% that have consistent success. At 5%, any other breeder would need to evaluate 20 dogs to find one to breed. How many breeders do any of you know that evaluate ½ that or 10 dogs to find one (top 10%) 

If there is anything the internet should have helped illustrate is that objectivity among dog owners and breeders is a very rare thing. Very few breeders possess the objectivity to do a good job of selection. Even if they have this rare trait they must then be willing to make a considerable investment in the selection process.

Those of us who fancy a hunting dog that can perform at a very high level should be very appreciative for what competition has done for our dogs. 

SRB


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

BIGSP said:


> Well,
> 
> I am going to take this argument back full circle. I think most dogs especially pointing dogs are only great in the eyes of their owners. Simply put most of us don't put in the time that is needed to have a truly great dog.
> So, going back the original question yes, I think one should consider the dog that they are buying when looking at the outlook of habitat in one said area. I recently bought a new dog and wanted a pointer. I wanted one that didn't have any trial blood close up (let's not go down that road for the sake of this topic). I wanted a dog that was fast fun to watch but, didn't have big running dogs for parents. I did this because most covers that I hunt are 30-50 minute covers. I don't like doing 3 hour death marches through unproductive cover. I like hitting a spot and moving on if there isn't birds. No need for a trial dog in my covers. I think my dogs manners are decent on birds but, not great.
> Going back to a few others questions why would a flusher allow you to kill more birds than a pointer? Again, in most instances we don't get enough birds in front of our pointers to make them great. Flushers get that bird in the air and don't have to "handle them as properly" as a pointing dog.


Unless you work with pointing dogs for a living or plan to grow a beard like one of the guys from ZZ Top and live in a tent in the woods for several months out of the year, I don't think it's feasible to get all that is possible out of a dog. Especially if you work, don't have land, and are a long drive away from good bird habitat. All you can do is your best, and if that's not good enough for you and the dog, then that's why pro's and clubs exist.

I'll go down that road however and say that one of the reasons I chose Pointers is precisely because most aren't that far off from a trial line genetically. It's hard enough to get the dog out enough to make it good at what it does, why make it harder with lesser genes? (again, I admit mine are rescues, but I chose Pointers to rescue for a reason)


----------



## BIGSP (Sep 16, 2004)

Scott Berg said:


> We agree on the first point. I am going to go down that other road because this position is VERY poor advice for anyone that wants a truly exceptional bird dog.
> 
> I will leave my opionion out of it for the moment. I heard Rick Smith, Bob West, and Tom Dokken address this thinking at a seminar. I may have recited their thoughts previously but I dont want to get into a I have been running birds dogs all my life debate. These three have proven in their knowledge in no uncertain terms and have devoted their entire lives to bird dogs. Hobbyists who wish to ignore the insight of people who have distinguished themselves as these three have simply are not interested learning anything beyond what they already believe.
> 
> ...


Scott,

I don't disagree with you one bit. I read Wehle's book and that's about exactly what he said. That being said, there are a lot of good hunting dogs out there that are only 1 or 2 generations out of "Trial Blood" and if you find a good reputable breeder I think one can get what they want without going to "trial blood" but, you better know what you're looking for.

Good post.


----------



## BIGSP (Sep 16, 2004)

WestCoastHunter said:


> Unless you work with pointing dogs for a living or plan to grow a beard like one of the guys from ZZ Top and live in a tent in the woods for several months out of the year, I don't think it's feasible to get all that is possible out of a dog. Especially if you work, don't have land, and are a long drive away from good bird habitat. All you can do is your best, and if that's not good enough for you and the dog, then that's why pro's and clubs exist.
> 
> I'll go down that road however and say that one of the reasons I chose Pointers is precisely because most aren't that far off from a trial line genetically. It's hard enough to get the dog out enough to make it good at what it does, why make it harder with lesser genes? (again, I admit mine are rescues, but I chose Pointers to rescue for a reason)


So, are you agreeing with me? I too chose a pointer as my latest dog because the gene pool is pretty clean as far as hunting ability and genetic defects go.

I typically hunt about 30 days a year and spend an additional 30-40 days a year running dogs and training them and that's not enough to make my current dogs great. I am hoping that the pointer will be better because of it's bloodlines, my mistakes from the past and working with a pro trainer from the start. We'll find out. Maybe my next dog will be a flusher. LOL

I also chose pointing dogs from the start because I love watching them work. Do they cost me birds, yes, do they bring me great pleasure most of the time yes! But, back the main question, did I choose my dog based on the cover I hunt. I sure did, that's why I wanted a closer working pointer that comes from wild bird hunting stock.


----------



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

BIGSP said:


> "...great pleasure most of the time yes!


Yes, yes, yes and yes a thousand times over for BIGSP's reply. Bird hunting and one's choice of dog breeds, birds hunted, covers hunted, who you choose to share your bird hunting with and the like should be based on what brings "pleasure" and meaning to your life the *next time* - be it tomorrow or next Sept. 15th. - you head out with a bird dog by your side and a bird gun in your hand and most certainly not on a ten year forestry predictions. 

I can guarantee with *absolute certainty* that ten years from now* all of you *will look back at who you were or thought you were in November of 2009 and find that person hardly recognizable in 2019. 

Hoppe's no.10


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

BIGSP said:


> So, are you agreeing with me? I too chose a pointer as my latest dog because the gene pool is pretty clean as far as hunting ability and genetic defects go.


Let's just say I agree with both you and Scott.


----------



## Duece22 (Mar 30, 2004)

BIGSP said:


> Going back to a few others questions why would a flusher allow you to kill more birds than a pointer? Again, in most instances we don't get enough birds in front of our pointers to make them great. Flushers get that bird in the air and don't have to "handle them as properly" as a pointing dog.


Fist of all a flusher will not allow you to kill more birds than a pointer or vise versa. In the end the better dog, handler, shooter, and cover chooser will kill more birds regardless of breed. 

Second of all (and I am not trying to start a pointer vs flusher debate) why does a pointer have to handle it's birds more "properly" than a flusher in order to be successful? 

For example: I am hunting my flushing dog, they are hot on a bird that is running ten yards off there nose or a bird that is sitting twenty yards in front of them, I am the gunner that is twenty yards behind my dog making in both scenarios a un-shootable bird if it flushes. If i sit my dog and he obeys the command and stays on sit until I reach him or pass him and release him it creates a kill opportunity. If I sit him and he either does not obey the command flushing the bird at that time or obeys it only for a few seconds and breaks pushing the bird up still out of range he did not handle properly and created a missed opportunity. 

How is that different in terms of handling a bird properly compared to the following pointer scenario? 

I am the handler hunting behind my pointing dog, he goes on point eighty yards in front of me, the beeper sounds and I am on my way to the point. If he stays staunch until I reach the point and have an opportunity to walk in on the bird it creates a shooting opportunity, if he can be released on a running bird without bumping the bird it will also create a shooting opportunity on running birds. If he goes on point eighty yards in front of me and half way there breaks point or "creeps" flushing the bird or never points and runs the bird over they did not handle properly and created a missed opportunity.

My point is that whether it is a flusher or pointer, handling, training, instincts and bird contacts are all a major factor in handing birds and killing birds. 

Ruffed Grouse are considered the king of upland game birds for a reason, if they were easy and every guy that owned a dog could kill them than we would not be having this discussion. If you have a dog whether it be a pointer or flusher that can handle Ruffed Grouse successfully on a regular basis than you have beaten the odds and should be proud of yourself and your dog.

Ric


----------



## BIGSP (Sep 16, 2004)

Duece22 said:


> Fist of all a flusher will not allow you to kill more birds than a pointer or vise versa. In the end the better dog, handler, shooter, and cover chooser will kill more birds regardless of breed.
> 
> Second of all (and I am not trying to start a pointer vs flusher debate) why does a pointer have to handle it's birds more "properly" than a flusher in order to be successful?
> 
> ...


Ric,

I agree with your point about good cover, good shooters etc to a point. I think most of those guys will have good dogs though too. Either through buying a good dog to start or having a mediocre dog that has tons of birds in front of it. So, that point is kind of moot.

Your scenario about the flusher has to do more with obedience than bird handling skills, don't you agree? My point is a flusher that is properly trained will almost always be in gun range, correct. That fact alone should equate to more birds being able to be shot. I am not one of those guys who believes in the theory of a bigger running dog is going to find more birds for the gunner. They may find more birds but, are they allowing for a successful shot? This is where I think field trials are a little goofy (don't get me wrong no way to fix it). A dog points a bird 200 yards out and as you're going in the bird flushes and you shoot your cap gun. This is considered a successful find, correct? It may well be in the field trial world but, in the hunting world you didn't get a shot, is that successful? Ric, I don't think most of the time a bird is going to sit right there at 80 yards. By the time you get there that bird is usually moving and unless you have a dog like Grush's Jack that tracks that bird and knows how to handle them you only know there is a bird in the area. Most of us don't have a "Jack" dog. Most of us don't have flushers like you and Fritz do either. 

Not really sure if that answers your question. But, we do agree the more birds a dog gets the better it's going to be. The best hunters usually have the best covers and are usually pretty good shots as well.


----------



## 2ESRGR8 (Dec 16, 2004)

Duece22 said:


> Second of all (and I am not trying to start a pointer vs flusher debate) why does a pointer have to handle it's birds more "properly" than a flusher in order to be successful?
> 
> For example: I am hunting my flushing dog, they are hot on a bird that is running ten yards off there nose or a bird that is sitting twenty yards in front of them, I am the gunner that is twenty yards behind my dog making in both scenarios a un-shootable bird if it flushes. If i sit my dog and he obeys the command and stays on sit until I reach him or pass him and release him it creates a kill opportunity. If I sit him and he either does not obey the command flushing the bird at that time or obeys it only for a few seconds and breaks pushing the bird up still out of range he did not handle properly and created a missed opportunity.
> 
> ...


 Your point is a good one but its the shootable bird where it gets gray.
If a pointy dog bumps a bird right in front you in gun range or out of range and the bird comes back by you the pointy dog handler should not shoot.
If the flushy dog rips a bird out of gun range and it comes at you don't you kill it to create a retrieve situation?


----------



## hehibrits (Mar 10, 2007)

Spend 10 minutes west of the Mississippi and you will have the answer.


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

hehibrits said:


> Spend 10 minutes west of the Mississippi and you will have the answer.


Matt,

What are you talking about?


----------

