# Trial dogs versus hunting dogs... compare/contrast



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

Field trials are all about the extreme. Not about what most want.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

Mike McDonald said:


> Two questions, First do you think the average guy can handle effectively a dog that is capable of winning in trials?
> Thanks, mac


Of the events I've been to, and those have all been amateur, I would say that the average of those could not. Many find difficulty handling the dog they have. 
And no, I am not perfect and neither is my dog. We do poorly in structured events. That's not the dog's fault, its that I do train to compete. 
I think the average hunters main difficulty is not understanding how to communicate with a dog in a way that a dog knows what is expected of it.



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Grouseman2 (Dec 28, 2001)

What is a washed out trial dog and more importantly why would anyone want a washed out trial dog as a hunting dog? 

Mike


----------



## RecurveRx (Jun 21, 2004)

Mike McDonald said:


> Two questions, First do you think the average guy can handle effectively a dog that is capable of winning in trials? Here is my disconnect I watched a number of trial dogs run that I have really admired but at the same time felt certain that I couldn't handle.
> 
> Second would you hunt a dog that wasn't a trial dog?
> Thanks, mac




second question. yes. without a doubt. i do hunt dogs that are not trial dogs. only three of the dogs with which i regularly hunt (none owned by me) are actively campaigned. again, i'm not of the belief that a dog has to be of field trial lineage to be a great wild bird dog.

to be clear, i'm speaking of sanctioned trials.

first question. no. i think that having the skill set required to develop a dog capable of consistently winning sanctioned trials takes a level of commitment that is beyond the average guy. the guys/gals that i see competing in trials are not average. i do think that the average guy can take a field trial bred dog and hunt it effectively. 

i still think the difference is in the owner/handler. 

good discussion.


----------



## RecurveRx (Jun 21, 2004)

my apologies. after rereading the question, i realized it wasn't asked of me.


----------



## Mr. Botek (Mar 15, 2011)

I apologize as well Mr. McDonald, for answering a question you posed to someone else.

I do stand by what I wrote. 


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## gundogguy (Oct 5, 2008)

"The devil is in the details" I know a lot of trialers and I know a lot of companion dog hunters.

Trial folks are always analysising their dogs performence, what can be done to improve this or how do we approach that and so on. Development of the dog is formost.

The companion hunting crowd is thinking about where and when they will go hunting next and with whom.


----------



## kellyM87 (Oct 23, 2008)

I did find it odd when I was selling one of my dogs as a hunting dog how many people wanted to know her pedigree. Not to many asked how good a bird finder she was though. Makes ya wonder. She did go to a great hunting home though.


----------



## Back woods (Jul 30, 2003)

Mike McDonald said:


> Two questions, First do you think the average guy can handle effectively a dog that is capable of winning in trials? Here is my disconnect I watched a number of trial dogs run that I have really admired but at the same time felt certain that I couldn't handle.
> 
> Second would you hunt a dog that wasn't a trial dog?
> Thanks, mac


Question #1 Yes, I say yes because the average guy is going to take said dog off of the couch and take it hunting. A trial dog that is allowed to hang out and lounge around the house all summer then is taken hunting in the fall is not going to be a hard handling big running competitive type dog. Now that same dog in on our trial string is being roaded 8 to 12 miles twice a week and free ran twice a week in the woods all summer and is going to be in the best shape is going to be a different dog. Now if your saying can a average guy handle a trial dog once he is in top form I would say probably not. 

Question #2 Most defiantly. Hifive's Dancing Shadow is an awesome hunting dog as well as Hifive's Sin Again. I can't count the amount of birds we have shot over these dogs. 

Back at you.
In your mind what makes a trial dog a trial dog and not a hunting dog?


----------



## Laphroaig (Dec 13, 2011)

Grouseman2 said:


> What is a washed out trial dog and more importantly why would anyone want a washed out trial dog as a hunting dog?
> 
> Mike


A washed out trial dog can be an aged dog no longer competitive, or it can be a young started dog deemed lacking in area(s) that justify the time and expense of keeping him or campaigning him. One man's trash is another man's treasure.

Why would anyone want one? I obtained one because I needed a proven experienced grouse dog for this upcoming season. The benefits of buying a puppy are many and widely known. But, in spite of pedigree analysis and inspection of parents; there is no guarantee that the pup you get will be exactly as predicted. Linebred pups increase the probability however, but there are divergences among puppies within any litter. 

Choosing a trial washout lets you see what you're about to get. Range, style, bird finding ability, manners, bidablility, and more are readily available to see first hand. Trial dog rejects were at one point considered as high likelihood prospects, so there is nothing "wrong" with them. Trial dogs (puppies) all start their training on even footing. Take three puppies. One may wind up being the next Grand Champ. But, all three are trained the same way as the evaluation process is being conducted. Once some age is on the dogs the best is identified, and those lacking "something" may get sold. But, in the meantime just think about how that "washout" has benefited from the time and experience he has had at the hand of the field trial trainer! All to my benefit when looking for a started dog. 

The field trial world, as it should be, needs to be discerning. To everyone's advantage, there are many good matches for those prospects that are "lacking" something the field trial community deems necessary that may have no impact on what a hunter deems important.


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

Page 28 in this month's Gun Dog Mag probably addresses what the real issue is here.

People want the endurance, nose, and drive of a trial dog breeding, but they want it tempered, and they don't want to have to go to a trainer to do it nor do they particularly want a dog that needs to go through "turn and burn" training in order to learn how to handle.

For the sake of comparison I've seen some spaniel people who say they want dogs that are willing to try and go past 40 yards. Dogs that need some training to stick within that. Yet I've seen others say that very same kind of dog would be a candidate for the pound because they believe a spaniel should have a natural range of no more than 40-50 yards and should always want to be around the handler. I think the same disagreement exists with pointing dog people.

I think a lot of folks like field trial lines because they're one of the only games in town that still does something that resembles hunting. But most just want a dog that they can show some birds to, drop in the woods, and go hunting with. The trial breedings I've seen and heard of seem to have needed something more than that to be good dogs do their owners. They also tend to have higher than average commitment from their owners.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Back woods (Jul 30, 2003)

99% of our dogs are sold to "average" hunters.

From what I have seen, the average hunter is far more dedicated to the training of their dogs than the hunters on this board want to give them credit for. Maybe we just sell to a higher level of "average" hunters.


----------



## FindTheBird (Dec 18, 2004)

The variables within this topic are enormous, and difficult (if not impossible) to adequately address in the scope of an on-line forum. In the end, I think it boils down to what you like.

Personally, I prefer to buy a trial breeding that holds a lot of potential and then mold the dog to achieve the behavior that I expect. The result is an extremely high performing, highly controllable hunting machine who is a pleasure to both hunt and live with. If I get lucky and the dog turns into a trial prospect, so much the better.


----------



## Mike McDonald (Sep 10, 2007)

Back woods said:


> Question #1 Yes, I say yes because the average guy is going to take said dog off of the couch and take it hunting. A trial dog that is allowed to hang out and lounge around the house all summer then is taken hunting in the fall is not going to be a hard handling big running competitive type dog. Now that same dog in on our trial string is being roaded 8 to 12 miles twice a week and free ran twice a week in the woods all summer and is going to be in the best shape is going to be a different dog. Now if your saying can a average guy handle a trial dog once he is in top form I would say probably not.
> 
> Question #2 Most defiantly. Hifive's Dancing Shadow is an awesome hunting dog as well as Hifive's Sin Again. I can't count the amount of birds we have shot over these dogs.
> 
> ...


Bruce, I don't know. My answer would be drive and physical ability, but you're the pro and I believe that you have a much better idea or else you wouldn't be able to accomplish what you've accomplished. 
Personally when I've watched some of the more successful trial dogs run I have been pretty sure I couldn't handle them as hunting dogs even if they weren't in tip top shape. That may reflects more on me as a handler than the dog. That said I would say my handling skills are at least ok for a hunter. Rudy may be the exception to that rule. mac


----------



## mudbat2128 (Sep 7, 2004)

FindTheBird said:


> The variables within this topic are enormous, and difficult (if not impossible) to adequately address in the scope of an on-line forum. In the end, I think it boils down to what you like.
> 
> Personally, I prefer to buy a trial breeding that holds a lot of potential and then mold the dog to achieve the behavior that I expect. The result is an extremely high performing, highly controllable hunting machine who is a pleasure to both hunt and live with. If I get lucky and the dog turns into a trial prospect, so much the better.


Couldn't agree more.


----------



## chewy (Mar 27, 2006)

a horseback dog runs lines because that's what it is trained to do. if I am hunting a field I want the dog hunting objectives where the birds should be. take Ionia for example. I want the dog hunting the tree lines and objectives in the middle. if the dog always finds birds in objectives and tree lines he will associate those with birds. I don't want the dog hunting the middle of the field so I don't put birds there. 

I would imagine the same goes for grouse trial dogs. if you want it to hunt a certain pattern u teach it the pattern. 

what makes a good trial dog is it's brains. the same thing that makes a good hunting dog.


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

I'll rephrase. 

A guy can buy a Ryman, never put a shock collar on it, and can often reliably expect it will range no more than 70-100 yards, and shoot piles of grouse over it. That said, I could see why someone would want to sprinkle in some trial blood to such a dog.

As a Pointer owner I recognize the contribution that field trial folks have made to my breed of choice. I don't care what you buy, show or field, foreign or domestic, trialers have made their mark on that breed.

That said, I can see why some would prefer a Ryman or some of the versatiles instead. I can also see why some would prefer to get a couple of generations away from competition since to win, a breeder has to push the limits. A Ryman type dog isn't going to win a coverdog event and the tail isn't the only reason why.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Bonz 54 (Apr 17, 2005)

I used to Field Trial my Britts years ago. I got tired of hearing, "He was great on the birds, but he needs more race"! ! :yikes: This is completely contrary to what I want as a hunting dog. I take a dog hunting because I want to watch it hunt. I don't want to have to keep checking an Astro to find out if he's still in the same area code. 

Field Trialing is a *test* to see how much a dog can be pushed. The difference between a Trial dog and hunting dog is the same as a Thoroughbred race horse and a fine Tennessee Walker. It is my opinion that "trialbred dogs" are wound SO tight that it does take a pro trainer to get a handle on them.

The absolute BEST Grouse dog/hunting dog I ever owned never placed in a trial, but she was deadly when hunting. My .02 FRANK


----------



## chewy (Mar 27, 2006)

WestCoastHunter said:


> I'll rephrase.
> 
> A guy can buy a Ryman, never put a shock collar on it, and can often reliably expect it will range no more than 70-100 yards, and shoot piles of grouse over it. That said, I could see why someone would want to sprinkle in some trial blood to such a dog.
> 
> ...


why sprinkle trial blood into it? just because a dog has titles doesn't mean he is a bird finding machine.


----------



## Laphroaig (Dec 13, 2011)

These guys may know a thing or two...


----------



## hehibrits (Mar 10, 2007)

chewy said:


> why sprinkle trial blood into it? just because a dog has titles doesn't mean he is a bird finding machine.


It would be up to me as consumer, or supplier (if I were to breed one of my dogs) to do my homework and not just find any titled dog. This means watching a few trials and seeing the dog a couple times down alone.


----------



## FindTheBird (Dec 18, 2004)

Bonz 54 said:


> It is my opinion that "trialbred dogs" are wound SO tight that it does take a pro trainer to get a handle on them.


There are exceptions to every rule (especially with dogs) but that's an extremely broad statement and IMO, generally not true--even for pointers bred to win trials. As Bruce mentioned, 99% of his dogs go to hunters, and of those who I know of, most don't use a pro in their training. In fact there's a rookie who frequents this board who put a handle on a runner all by himself and now the dog requires very little handling.

Granted if you happen to get a dog that runs, you must adjust your training, but you have to make training adjustments for any number of quirks that you're likely to encounter in any dog anyway--it's just part of the game. One could also argue that a dog out of direct trial lineage is easier to train and more tolerent of training errors too (not that I've ever made one:lol.


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

I still maintain the difference is the owner not the dog.

The owner makes the decision on how committed they are, make the decision on the line of dog they desire for many of the reasons listed above, but that's not the difference in dogs, that the difference in the owners. 

We are fortunate to have a long list of breeds and lines with in the breeds to pick from to suit our needs and desires. 

While you can't get blood from a turnip, it's the owners job to assess what he has, it's strengths and weakness and tailor a program that will best suit the dog from conditioning, to obedience, to control and handling. 

I've got three dogs, all very similar all very much different, the two older ones had certain covers they excelled in, not that one was better than the other just I picked places to suit their strengths vs. each other.


----------



## hehibrits (Mar 10, 2007)

Laphroaig said:


> These guys may know a thing or two...


 
I am sure they do, this was posted on here a few years back. I only watched it again briefly to be reminded why I like hunting over dogs not trained to this degree. Thier total lack of intensity on point along with it looking to me that the dogs were backing more out of fear than honor. I like a dog stacked up high still as a stone. If my dog turned to look at me while it was on point or flagged it stub, I would be beside myself. Whether they break after flush, or not, is all secondary to that. That's just me. 

and begin......


----------



## FindTheBird (Dec 18, 2004)

Laphroaig said:


> These guys may know a thing or two...


Lady and I were drawn with the big guy in the video at the Grand National (Derby) Futurity last Fall. In the trial previous to that one, we had 3 finds in her 25 minutes on the course, with 2 broke (steady to wing/shot/release) grouse and a woodcock which got her the blue. 
As luck would have it, she contracted a severe case of limber tail a few days before the Futurity and we scratched. Would have been very cool to run a dialed-in dog with the likes of Dave Hughs...


----------



## chewy (Mar 27, 2006)

Bonz 54 said:


> I used to Field Trial my Britts years ago. I got tired of hearing, "He was great on the birds, but he needs more race"! ! :yikes: This is completely contrary to what I want as a hunting dog. I take a dog hunting because I want to watch it hunt. I don't want to have to keep checking an Astro to find out if he's still in the same area code.
> 
> Field Trialing is a *test* to see how much a dog can be pushed. The difference between a Trial dog and hunting dog is the same as a Thoroughbred race horse and a fine Tennessee Walker. It is my opinion that "trialbred dogs" are wound SO tight that it does take a pro trainer to get a handle on them.
> 
> The absolute BEST Grouse dog/hunting dog I ever owned never placed in a trial, but she was deadly when hunting. My .02 FRANK


the difference between a thorough bred and a tw is the same as a banana and an apple. they are fruit but thats the only similarity. that's like saying a toy poodle and an English pointer are the same

the difference between a trial Brittany and a hunting one is the amount of English setter in them . 

seriously though. it's about matching an owner with the dog


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

FindTheBird said:


> Lady and I were drawn with the big guy in the video at the Grand National (Derby) Futurity last Fall. In the trial previous to that one, we had 3 finds in her 25 minutes on the course, with 2 broke (steady to wing/shot/release) grouse and a woodcock which got her the blue.
> As luck would have it, she contracted a severe case of limber tail a few days before the Futurity and we scratched. Would have been very cool to run a dialed-in dog with the likes of Dave Hughs...


Give em no mercy Mike.


----------



## hehibrits (Mar 10, 2007)

chewy said:


> the difference between a thorough bred and a tw is the same as a banana and an apple. they are fruit but thats the only similarity. that's like saying a toy poodle and an English pointer are the same
> 
> the difference between a trial Brittany and a hunting one is the amount of English setter in them .
> 
> seriously though. it's about matching an owner with the dog


I prefer pointer in my britts 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

FindTheBird said:


> There are exceptions to every rule (especially with dogs) but that's an extremely broad statement and IMO, generally not true--even for pointers bred to win trials. As Bruce mentioned, 99% of his dogs go to hunters, and of those who I know of, most don't use a pro in their training. In fact there's a rookie who frequents this board who put a handle on a runner all by himself and now the dog requires very little handling.
> 
> Granted if you happen to get a dog that runs, you must adjust your training, but you have to make training adjustments for any number of quirks that you're likely to encounter in any dog anyway--it's just part of the game. One could also argue that a dog out of direct trial lineage is easier to train and more tolerent of training errors too (not that I've ever made one:lol.


You kind of made my point Mike. Dogs directly from trial lines need a fair amount of training. It's not like a person can just show them some birds and turn them loose into the woods.

I go back to my Ryman example (and I know it's an over simplification). A person can take one hunting and never have to put a shock collar on the dog to get it to handle. How many owners of trial bred dogs can claim they didn't have to practice some "turn and burn" with their dogs? There are exceptions to every rule of course, but I doubt they are common in this case.


----------



## Laphroaig (Dec 13, 2011)

hehibrits said:


> I am sure they do, this was posted on here a few years back. I only watched it again briefly to be reminded why I like hunting over dogs not trained to this degree. Thier total lack of intensity on point along with it looking to me that the dogs were backing more out of fear than honor. I like a dog stacked up high still as a stone. If my dog turned to look at me while it was on point or flagged it stub, I would be beside myself. Whether they break after flush, or not, is all secondary to that. That's just me.
> 
> and begin......


I only posted that video to show the viewpoints of those who both hunt grouse over their FT dogs and trial them. The commentary that was given kinda squares up with what I learned and heard from one of Michigan's equivalents at the RGS dog training seminar..... I find it interesting that the stereotypes and prejudices of field trial dogs and hunting dogs kind of go up in smoke when you hear first hand from the actual field trialers, themselves.

To be honest, I'm not certain if your comment was serious or in jest. 

You may have, I'm not sure though, just dissed Long Gone Boston and Long Gone Madison? Total lack of intensity? Backing out of fear? 

I only saw the dogs look around after the bird was flushed. 

I have a son of LG Boston, and bloodline of LG Madison. I wish I could (learn how to) post some video of him and some pictures that aren't tiny. Style, intensity both on point and backing are really nice by my eye. 

Some may have seen him at the Traverse City RGS training seminar held earlier this spring. There were many very nice dogs there. He was the first dog from the audience that Bruce brought out, and he looked pretty good to me and a few others who made mention of him to me.


----------



## oilcan (Feb 10, 2007)

FindTheBird said:


> The variables within this topic are enormous, and difficult (if not impossible) to adequately address in the scope of an on-line forum. In the end, I think it boils down to what you like.
> 
> Personally, I prefer to buy a trial breeding that holds a lot of potential and then mold the dog to achieve the behavior that I expect. The result is an extremely high performing, highly controllable hunting machine who is a pleasure to both hunt and live with. If I get lucky and the dog turns into a trial prospect, so much the better.


 You bought a well bred puppy a good start, then put them with a pro for 6+ months a year plus a good stack of this $$. The pro then molds the dog to what he expects, after a while it either turns out a winner or not and it is then your hunting dog. Plenty of dogs get trialed and never win but people still call them trial dogs. Nothing wrong with that but if it don't go to the pro, do you end up a high powered uncontrollable hunting dog that just pisses you off and eventually send to a trainer, because there is plenty of that too.


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

WestCoastHunter said:


> You kind of made my point Mike. Dogs directly from trial lines need a fair amount of training. It's not like a person can just show them some birds and turn them loose into the woods.
> 
> I go back to my Ryman example (and I know it's an over simplification). A person can take one hunting and never have to put a shock collar on the dog to get it to handle. How many owners of trial bred dogs can claim they didn't have to practice some "turn and burn" with their dogs? There are exceptions to every rule of course, but I doubt they are common in this case.


I dont believe they need any more training, in fact you could argue they are more turn key, learn faster, mature faster, and forgive mistakes faster.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Scott Berg (Feb 24, 2008)

FieldWalker said:


> Most of the people I know that are above "average" hunters and have zero interest in trialing do not necessarily look for dogs 100% directly out of coverdog lines.
> 
> The question I often think about is... why?? Isn't the idea of competitive grouse finding dogs supposed to produce the best grouse producing dogs to the hunter?
> 
> If serious hunters and serious trialer folks (breeder/judges) are not looking for the same thing... where and/why is the disconnect?


This is a pretty easy conclusion to arrive but once you have been around this topic and heard it debated often you begin to look at the ancestry of the dogs and realize that this conclusion just simply does not hold-up. Starting with Pointers, this theory makes no sense because cover dog breeding has had a minuscule effect on Pointers. Very recently that has been more breeding within cover dog pointers but even then the fact of the matter is that most of the ancestry is a product of HB breeding. Pointers basically disprove this theory all by themselves.

It also does not make much sense with Setters because if you look back through the pedigrees you see a whole lot of HB breeding. The Flannigans have bred to HB dogs for 60+ years and the majority of the ancestry of their most famous dogs over the years have been HB breeding. Most recently, Grouse Ridge Reroy who is arguably the most prolific cover dog stud in the past 20 years was smith bred (Pinnacle / Im Oscar) on the bottom side and his top side was GR Leroy who was not trialed and a product of CH Bobby Joe. There are many other examples. Lloyd Murrays dogs were greatly influenced by CH First Rate. Long Gone Agnes was out of him. Jerry Kolters lines were greatly influenced by First Rate and we have some of that blood too. We just did a line breeding of sorts on First Rate. Jerrys multiple CH Houstons Belle was out of a heavily linebred Sunrise Dog. Taz was Sunrise on the top and I could go on and on.

Like I said, its a logical enough conclusion to come up with but the ancestry does not support it and neither does our experience. We have bought and bred hundreds of dogs from both horseback and cover dog breeding and there is absolutely no question in my mind that there is zero difference in terms of finding and handling grouse. As a matter we tend to lean more toward the horseback dogs for certain attributes but in the end its about the individuals. 

My experience is very similar to Hehibrits. The only real difference is because FDSB has AA and shooting dog stakes and AKC has AA and gun dog stakes where an FDSB shooting dog stake is still a lot of dog for a hunter. As Hehibrits suggests, we have produced exceptional results for hunting dogs by breeding the direct off-spring of Champions that possess exactly the right traits. I would not jump to this conclusion if we had good results with 8 or 10 litters. We have probably bred a hundred litters of this description so we have a substantial number of data points.

SRB


----------



## Scott Berg (Feb 24, 2008)

Steelheadfred said:


> I dont believe they need any more training, in fact you could argue they are more turn key, learn faster, mature faster, and forgive mistakes faster.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Fritz,

You are absolutely correct. When people make this statement I can only assume they have very little experience with this type of breding or simply have a bias that makes this conclusion desireable. I have trained with a lot of different pros over the years and seen the various dogs they get. On course, there is a lot of variance but I have a lot of dogs steady to wing and shot in the time it takes them to get some of these dogs just reasonably relaible around game.

This first last video is the 3rd bird exposure of this 14-week old pup. He dam was sired by CH Hyest Skyhawk.




 
This second video is a 5 month old pup after one month of on and off bird exposure. He was sired by CH Ridge Creek Cody and his dam is by CH Berg Brothers Jack and CH Berg's Head Turner. He is 2 1/2 now. We sold him to a complete novice and kept stud rights. The owner never did any further training and the dog went out and handled every type of game bird, including grouse. BTW, his 8 year old child could handle him.





This last video is an 11-month old pup standing broke. His brother was Michigan cover dog puppy of the year and he had a 2nd place finish in a 30+ dog Open shooting dog stake as a 15 month old pup. He was sired by CH Berg Brothers Jack and his dam was a product of breeding Ch Berg's Head Turner to Ch Tekoa mountain Patriot. 




 
SRB


----------



## BradU20 (Jan 17, 2005)

WestCoastHunter said:


> Dogs directly from trial lines need a fair amount of training. It's not like a person can just show them some birds and turn them loose into the woods.


Did you read this on the internet?



Steelheadfred said:


> I dont believe they need any more training, in fact you could argue they are more turn key, learn faster, mature faster, and forgive mistakes faster.


Yup.


----------



## hehibrits (Mar 10, 2007)

Steelheadfred said:


> I dont believe they need any more training, in fact you could argue they are more turn key, learn faster, mature faster, and forgive mistakes faster.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


I believe this is even more true with your "softer" breeds, like britts...but is true across the spectrum. 

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## hehibrits (Mar 10, 2007)

Why the term "cover dog"? 
No, really...not trying to be smart.
Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## RecurveRx (Jun 21, 2004)

oilcan said:


> ... but if it don't go to the pro, do you end up a high powered uncontrollable hunting dog that just pisses you off and eventually send to a trainer, because there is plenty of that too.


I don't believe trial dogs have this market cornered. Most of the out of control hunting dogs that I have seen are of the garden variety. 




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## hehibrits (Mar 10, 2007)

Why cover dog!?!?!?!?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## RecurveRx (Jun 21, 2004)

I have a slow going methodical shorthair that was out of control until I elicited the help of a pro. 

Again, the owner's problem, not the dog's. 


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## Jay Johnson (Jan 10, 2008)

FieldWalker said:


> I think it is somewhat a "nature of the beast" issue. Imagine a dog that runs 300'ish yards out... then get him over a hill or two... and add a breeze that shoves your calling/hacking/whistling around... oh yeah, this dog has a giant bell around its neck. This dog has been bred for speed and trained for endurance. These dogs don't check in like most hunters would prefer - instead they are encouraged to always run... and always be out front.


I can appreciate that people have different comfort levels but I have always felt that the time and energy that a dog spends breaking off the search for grouse and coming in to check on me is a waste.

I actually prefer that the dog just hang out there to the front and continue the search and let me worry about hearing the beeper indicating point.

I realize that if you hunt restrictive coverts and such that this might not work so good but in big country it is the bomb.

My ideal grouse hunting dog is potentially a dog that is more independent than most of the grouse trial dogs I've watched. My dogs don't need to show for a judge. They just need to be in enough contact so I can find them on point.

Just more food for thought.


----------



## Mike McDonald (Sep 10, 2007)

Merimac said:


> My thoughts on this.
> 
> Most, Not all people who hunt grouse do not train like trailers do. Trial guys train in the spring summer and fall. They hone the dogs skill far more than the average hunter. This means the hunter dogs are not nearly in as good of shape. They hunt 10 days a year and thats is what the dog gets. Many hunters are afraid to let the dog roll so they hack them in don't push the dogs potential. Many of us who do some trailing train off of horse or 4 wheelers. We travel to places to train in the winter. IE. Tennesee, Oklahoma, Texas, Georgia. In the summer We go to north and south Dakota. I don't know many hunters that do this. I know a few.
> 
> ...


Ben, I'm not sure I understand your answers. Is the answer to #1 no? I don't have any idea what the answer to #2 IS. I hunt my dogs on wild birds 55 or 60 days a year and train during the off season at least that. I'm lucky enough to have wild birds on my property. Last year I worked a total of 19 days during the 90 day Michigan grouse season then took the dogs to Kansas for a week in January. I recognize that I'm no trialer but I give it a pretty good effort and my dogs stay in good shape. mac


----------



## Scott Berg (Feb 24, 2008)

FieldWalker said:


> So would pace/range be the #1 thing that you would say seperates the two (hunting versus trial dogs)?
> 
> Do any active trialers believe there has been too much emphasis on range? I know these are "coverdog" trials... but I've seen trialers searching for run-offs more than a few times. While hunting, a dog that you can't find does not produce many birds in the bag.


I am not at all impressed with range for the sake of show. However, this continues to be the most misunderstod topic in the pointing dog world among many hunters. For the sake of avoiding a long explanation I am just going to repeat a point I have made several times. Performance testing whether it be dogs or car tires or any other product is most effectively done by pushing the test criteria beyond normal conditions.

Any dog will is likely to be more responsive to handle and more trustworthy around game at short or even range. The extended range and all it entails also helps identify the dogs with the best application, athleticism and stamina.

The real failure in understanding trials dogs place in making hunting dogs is the perseption that hunters buy these dogs and then develop and hunt them in the same form they are trialed. #8 shot is correct that even a trial dog does not range the same when hunting. More to the point, dogs from trial decent, at least the good ones, are relatively easy to develop into moderate range hunting dogs. I use an ecollar rarely.

The real issue is that of personal preference. This type of dog is still never going to be acceptable to those who do not trust their dogs much beyond shotgun range and prefer a slower moving dog. Some call this a preference to take the dog to game as opposed to the dog taking you to game. This is a very strong preference for many people and they should have the dog that suits that preference. It would not matter if the option was an absolute perfect patterning dog that required virtually no handling, handled every bird perfectly, and produced 3X more pointed birds. I am sure I shared by favorite story about pheasant hunting in Iowa. This is not about function. It is about strong preferences.

SRB


----------



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

mudbat2128 said:


> I think alot of the reason for this is most people are not willing to put in training to get a handle on that kind of dog or they don't know how, and two they wait way to long to start their training. The let the pup be a pup thing and turn into a out of control dog.


I don&#8217;t want to get this thread in the wrong direction but I can&#8217;t resist making a comment.
I could not agree more. If you don&#8217;t train in that first 6 months of a dog&#8217;s life you have missed a huge opportunity. The most formable time in a dog&#8217;s life is that first 6 months. I get the feeling that when we say we are training at 8 weeks old that people imagine an 8 week old puppy with an e-collar on and that is not the case. Or that the pup is not having fun. If you can&#8217;t train a pup at 8 weeks old and keep the learning fun then maybe you should wait until they are a year old. 

In the retriever world I have seen hunting owners with pups from trial lines and they have more dog then they can handle. In some cases if these handlers don&#8217;t get help this dogs can end up ruined. And help for these dogs can be expensive I have heard of owners spending $6000.00 for one year of boarding/training.

I think it is the responsibility of both purchaser and breeder to make sure the purchaser is getting the best match for their end use, training ability and goals. 

Scott I agree with the trust issue. I am not sure what your training methods are but I would imagine that in your training if a dog puts too much pressure on bird and the bird flushes you won't shoot the bird the reward will be denied. The problem that I see and I see it a lot with flushing dogs and steadiness is that owners won't have the same control. They will often accept sloppy work and shoot the bird giving the dog a reward for bad behavior. Or they may have spent $20 on a pen raised bird and they can't stand watching their money fly away. Then the dog gets even looser and the owner loses trust in the dog which they should but it was something they created. It comes down to expectations for the dog work. The higher your expectations in your training the more trust you will have in your dog.


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

Scott Berg said:


> I use an ecollar rarely.
> 
> SRB


Can you expound on that a little? It sounds like you breed something along the lines of what I've wanted for a while now. 

I've talked to owners of dogs from trial breedings, some trial, some do not, and not one has ever told me they don't use one to teach their dog to handle. This is apparently even common training advice from pros. I also can't tell you how many times I've read the very same advice on this forum.

I use e-collars, have no problem with them, but it does bother me that to bring a dog under control I've had to use them.



I'm with Brandy said:


> I could not agree more. If you dont train in that first 6 months of a dogs life you have missed a huge opportunity. The most formable time in a dogs life is that first 6 months.


 For me this might be the statement of the day. Both my first two dogs, rescues, were around 5 1/2 - 6 months of age and had never been handled in any way before I got them. 

One dog took about two years to really bring under control. He's my favorite dog to hunt with now and I can leave the e-collar off of him now if I so desire and he'll respond, but it took a long long time to get there.

The second dog, to be honest, I never had the time to really work with him as much as I should and that has been to both our detriments since he's a bigger runner than the first dog. Much bigger. I still don't trust this dog after 3 years. He can hold a point great, but it does me no good from 700-1000 yards away (oh yes, he has done this). 

My third dog I got a couple of years ago. I intentionally sought out a closer working breeding and I got just that. However, I got the dog at 11 weeks, worked with her on recall and trying to keep track of me from the start, and I don't think I've ever truly lost her or not had her check in. She runs like hell compared to the other two, but our relationship in the field is entirely different and I rarely, if ever, need the e-collar or the Astro with her. I strap them on more for peace of mind than any real need.

Someone could say I'm wrong, but I have to believe those first six months that I missed out on with the other two have worked against me in the past. Of course it could be that my third dog's breeding just makes her easier. But I'll never really know until I buy *gasp* a first gen trial dog and see for myself.


----------



## Steelheadfred (May 4, 2004)

E collars don't teach, they reinforce at distance, like a long check cord.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## hehibrits (Mar 10, 2007)

Steelheadfred said:


> E collars don't teach, they reinforce at distance, like a long check cord.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


Yup, just like a .410 loaded with rock salt or 9 shot did back in the day...

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

Steelheadfred said:


> E collars don't teach, they reinforce at distance, like a long check cord.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


If it makes you feel better to put it that way, be my guest. But some dogs need very little to no "reinforcement" with one. But it's been my observation that owners of trial bred dogs use them a lot to teach/reinforce handling commands in the field. I've had to do that with two of my own dogs and it annoyed the crap out of me.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Laphroaig (Dec 13, 2011)

Steelheadfred said:


> E collars don't teach, they reinforce at distance, like a long check cord.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine



If done right they can do both. 

You can teach a dog to whoa via ecollar. Bruce demonstrated it at the RGS. I have used the same method myself. The dog learns (you're teaching him) to turn off the stimulation by complying. Were talking low level stimuli. 

You can TEACH a dog (retriever) to sit, same philosophy. He learns that by sitting he turns off the stimulation.


----------



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

WestCoastHunter said:


> Can you expound on that a little? It sounds like you breed something along the lines of what I've wanted for a while now.
> 
> I've talked to owners of dogs from trial breedings, some trial, some do not, and not one has ever told me they don't use one to teach their dog to handle. This is apparently even common training advice from pros. I also can't tell you how many times I've read the very same advice on this forum.
> 
> ...


It sounds like you have a great bond with the third pup. Nothing says that a pup from a big running trial dog can't be taught to quarter thus keeping it closer. You don't have to let it run 1000 yards to the end of the field and then 1000 yards back to the other end. There is nothing wrong with a pointing dog that quarters. No matter if my next dog is a flusher or a pointer it will quarter.


----------



## mudbat2128 (Sep 7, 2004)

Laphroaig said:


> If done right they can do both.
> 
> You can teach a dog to whoa via ecollar. Bruce demonstrated it at the RGS. I have used the same method myself. The dog learns (you're teaching him) to turn off the stimulation by complying. Were talking low level stimuli.
> 
> You can TEACH a dog (retriever) to sit, same philosophy. He learns that by sitting he turns off the stimulation.


Do you do any kind of foundation work before this happens or do you just say whoa or sit and as your stimulating the dog show them what to do to get it to shut of the collar.


----------



## RecurveRx (Jun 21, 2004)

Knowing how to handle different dogs is part of the art. 

This thread has also reminded me of how widely different guy's definitions and expectations differ. Making it incredibly difficult to have a frank discussion via the webernet. 


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------



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

Steelheadfred said:


> E collars don't teach, they reinforce at distance, like a long check cord.
> 
> Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


There are two ways to use a collar one is as a correction for ignoring a command this is punishment. The second is force training. The dog is given steady stimulus to tell it you must obey me to turn it off. My older cousin used to twist my arm until I would give in, I never really thought of that as teaching. Haven't talked to him since I was a kid.

Swim by is an area where force training is used. The dog is asked to swim close and parallel to shore if the dog gets out it is given constant stimulus while it is on land once it gets back in the water the stimulus is turned off so land is considered hot. 

I teach swim by and I don't use any negative stimulus in the process. I show the dog the behavior that I want by breaking it down. I first teach them to swim from one end of the pond to the other using a visible pile of bumpers, parallel to the shore we are establishing as our shore for the swim by. Once they understand this concept I expand on it. I stand on the side opposite of where the dog will be asked to swim. I send the dog back to the other side of the pond they will get out and retrieve a bumper. When they get back in the water they are stopped with a sit whistle and I direct them with an over command (which was taught during baseball diamond drill and T drill) to either end of the pond. They know this router because I have already taught this line. If the dog starts to beach they are called to me if they swim toward me they are reminded of the over command. I may walk parallel with them to encourage them to hold the line. If at any time they get out of the water before they are supposed to they are simply stopped and called back into the water. When they get back in they get verbal praise. Once they have made it to the end of the pond they receive verbal praise. There is more to this exercise and it does get more complicated as you build on it. That is teaching.

Not implying that one is right and one is wrong it is a choice. A biddable dog is a must if you are going to teach.


----------



## Laphroaig (Dec 13, 2011)

mudbat2128 said:


> Do you do any kind of foundation work before this happens or do you just say whoa or sit and as your stimulating the dog show them what to do to get it to shut of the collar.



I did. As a young puppy I used an elevated place board (2-3") where I would give him treats (his regular food). He learned to run there and stand (never sit) and get his reward. No vocals at first. Then I used a hand signal, the whoa command, a starter pistol....all with food....

I did this to teach him.....how to be taught; if this makes sence. I have a DVD from someone (Hickcox maybe) that demonstrated how to use low level stimulation around the waist to teach/reinforce (whatever you want to call it) whoa. This little buggar will whoa and I mean right now.

I got in a pissing match (imagine that) with a contemporary just last week about using the e collar around his waist. I heard enough of his crap. He said that my method sucked and would never work. I had just had one dog work 2 quail which I shot. I got my 12 month old out commanded whoa. Threw one quail 18 inches over and past his head behind him. I threw the other one wizzing past his muzzle. Dog never moved. The guy said...I bet he doesn't retrieve....you know the rest of the story....2 to hand.

Hope this helps. Please don't just go on this post if you are whoa breaking your dog. I've condensed the info. But yes, it is effective.


----------



## mudbat2128 (Sep 7, 2004)

Laphroaig said:


> I did. As a young puppy I used an elevated place board (2-3") where I would give him treats (his regular food). He learned to run there and stand (never sit) and get his reward. No vocals at first. Then I used a hand signal, the whoa command, a starter pistol....all with food....
> 
> I did this to teach him.....how to be taught; if this makes sence. I have a DVD from someone (Hickcox maybe) that demonstrated how to use low level stimulation around the waist to teach/reinforce (whatever you want to call it) whoa. This little buggar will whoa and I mean right now.
> 
> ...


So than you thought your dog how to whoa first (whoa training/ built a foundation) and then you tought your dog that he has to compile to the command with the collar(reenforcement training). I'm not looking for a pissing match either or tring be superior. I just want people to understand the differance


----------



## Jay Johnson (Jan 10, 2008)

Laphroaig said:


> If done right they can do both.
> 
> You can teach a dog to whoa via ecollar. Bruce demonstrated it at the RGS. I have used the same method myself. The dog learns (you're teaching him) to turn off the stimulation by complying. Were talking low level stimuli.
> 
> You can TEACH a dog (retriever) to sit, same philosophy. He learns that by sitting he turns off the stimulation.


I think Rex Carr pioneered the use of avoidance training in his retriever training way back when.

I used it a lot when I was training our retrievers to handle. You in essence teach them that the faster the complete the command the faster they turn off the electricity.

Thing is, when I was using this method there was only one collar and it only had one setting. Pretty crude compared to today's collars and the training methods that have been adapted to take advantage of their capabilities.


----------



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

Laphroaig said:


> I did. As a young puppy I used an elevated place board (2-3") where I would give him treats (his regular food). He learned to run there and stand (never sit) and get his reward. No vocals at first. Then I used a hand signal, the whoa command, a starter pistol....all with food....
> 
> I did this to teach him.....how to be taught; if this makes sence. I have a DVD from someone (Hickcox maybe) that demonstrated how to use low level stimulation around the waist to teach/reinforce (whatever you want to call it) whoa. This little buggar will whoa and I mean right now.
> 
> ...


You are teaching and following up with renforcement. So you are actually employing two methods. Place baords are a nice tool. What I like about it is the dog is out there on their own and they succeed or fail on their own. The other part of your method and it is very important is denial of reward. If you have a dog with reward desire nothing teaches self control more than denial of reward. I am training with a pointing lab owner that is using the same method but with the collar around the neck. He is a big Hickcox fan.


----------



## Scott Berg (Feb 24, 2008)

RecurveRx said:


> Knowing how to handle different dogs is part of the art.
> 
> This thread has also reminded me of how widely different guy's definitions and expectations differ. Making it incredibly difficult to have a frank discussion via the webernet.
> 
> ...


Good point! This is a poor medium in general and when definitions vary widely it makes it tough to avoid getting sidetracked by those differences in definition. I guess we all just need to keep in mind the limitations of this type of discussion.

SRB


----------



## Laphroaig (Dec 13, 2011)

Guys, I refuse to drag this into an argument. The mods clipped my wings and I accept it.

I am simply saying that an ecollar can do more than reinforce....

I used the example of whoa breaking with an ecollar because if the truth be told you CAN use it without any prior puppy work. If someone is serious about it PM me and I'll dig out my DVD and send it to you. Better yet, go to the RGS training day. Bruce Minard shows how it's done.

I answered mud bats question honestly. I didn't think I was being teed-up. Will a place board and treats keep a dog steady on whoa in the face of a bird being thrown over it's head? Nope. The collar method worked for me. It's not the only way. Justin had a very good method as well that I have used in the past.....to each his own.

Collars can be used to teach as well as reinforce. I wish this forum could be used to learn from.


----------



## RecurveRx (Jun 21, 2004)

Scott Berg said:


> I guess we all just need to keep in mind the limitations of this type of discussion.
> 
> SRB



Yep. With a grain of salt. 



Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine


----------

