# The"in between" Setter



## Scott Berg (Feb 24, 2008)

BIGSP said:


> Great point Justin. I'd like to hear what Bruce, Scott Berg and Scott Townsend think about that. I know my 2 older dogs check in with me too much because of how I handled them as pups. My new pointer didn't get handled nearly as much and she is much more independent.





mudbat2128 said:


> I think alot of the time if people would train these field trial breed dogs to handle with in the first six months of their lives, before they start to get their independace they would have a mid range dog with out much trouble at all.(with in 150 yds)


I have made the point several times here and elsewhere ... To draw a comparison between and actual field trial dog and a hunting makes absolutley no sense. Trial dogs are pushed / encouraged to run at extreme ranges. Absolutley, the very same dog in most cases, especially the good ones, will operate at a very acceptable range provided the expectation is not that the dog hunt at flushing dog ranges. The really good ones are two completetly different animals in a trial vs hunting scenario. I have seen a significant number of trial dogs that make a considerable adjustment with a shotgun present. I could also site many examples of litters where one dog was a successful trial dog and every other dog in the litter made a good hunting dog. 

Lloyd & Pete (Long Gone & Grouse Ridge) arguably the two most successful cover dog field trial breeders sell 90+% of their pups to hunters. There really are only a very small percentage of breeders, probably less than 5% who are "field trial" breeders. There are quite a few Pointer breeders who specialize in trial dogs but any other breed the percentage is tiny. We have about 250 pups we have bred and another 100 where other people have used our CH male in the hands of hunters. Many of them would be more productive if their owners had developed / trained them in a manner that allowed them to range just a bit more but as I have said that personal preference is just fine.

SRB


----------



## BIGSP (Sep 16, 2004)

Scott Berg said:


> I have made the point several times here and elsewhere ... To draw a comparison between and actual field trial dog and a hunting makes absolutley no sense. Trial dogs are pushed / encouraged to run at extreme ranges. Absolutley, the very same dog in most cases, especially the good ones, will operate at a very acceptable range provided the expectation is not that the dog hunt at flushing dog ranges. The really good ones are two completetly different animals in a trial vs hunting scenario. I have seen a significant number of trial dogs that make a considerable adjustment with a shotgun present. I could also site many examples of litters where one dog was a successful trial dog and every other dog in the litter made a good hunting dog.
> 
> Lloyd & Pete (Long Gone & Grouse Ridge) arguably the two most successful cover dog field trial breeders sell 90+% of their pups to hunters. There really are only a very small percentage of breeders, probably less than 5% who are "field trial" breeders. There are quite a few Pointer breeders who specialize in trial dogs but any other breed the percentage is tiny. We have about 250 pups we have bred and another 100 where other people have used our CH male in the hands of hunters. Many of them would be more productive if their owners had developed / trained them in a manner that allowed them to range just a bit more but as I have said that personal preference is just fine.
> 
> SRB


Scott,

I don't disagree with what you said. I just don't want or need a dog with that much power. I also agree with what Scott Townsend said that "the high powered dogs often times take more to develop because theynare so high powered. I want a dog that's just a little easier going. 

I also agree with and have seen trial dogs that change when a gun is present. But, even you said those are special animals.


----------



## crosswind (Sep 1, 2004)

BIGSP said:


> Scott,
> 
> I don't disagree with what you said. I just don't want or need a dog with that much power. I also agree with what Scott Townsend said that "the high powered dogs often times take more to develop because theynare so high powered. I want a dog that's just a little easier going.
> 
> ...


...


----------



## 2ESRGR8 (Dec 16, 2004)

crosswind said:


> ..Before you say don't want or don't need you really should take an opportunity and hunt behind such an animal.It will change the way you think. It is well worth the extra efforts that go into the training.Once you have owned an animal that driven you will never except anything less.


Probably true for guys that check in and read this forum everyday but also probably NOT true for about 90% of the bird hunters that want a natural, easy going, moderate range(if not close) hunting buddy they can whistleup from under the porch grab the gun from the corner in the kitchen and wander out the back door looking for a pheasant or a couple partridge.
But then again that guy is likely better served by a rough shooting spaniel than any pointing dog breed in the first place.


----------



## FindTheBird (Dec 18, 2004)

Brent, Major's father was a Michigan Horseback Dog of the Year, and he's a great handling, moderate range dog who requires almost no direction from me.


----------



## 2ESRGR8 (Dec 16, 2004)

FindTheBird said:


> Brent, Major's father was a Michigan Horseback Dog of the Year, and he's a great handling, moderate range dog who requires almost no direction from me.


 Today.... but what was he like as a two year old?


----------



## FindTheBird (Dec 18, 2004)

2ESRGR8 said:


> Today.... but what was he like as a two year old?


_After_ two he settled down nicely, but that's a topic for a different thread.


----------



## BIGSP (Sep 16, 2004)

FindTheBird said:


> _After_ two he settled down nicely, but that's a topic for a different thread.


Mike,
You know I love Major, hell watching him run at the RGS fun trial in Traverse is what got me excited about pointers in the first place. But, you have told me from time to time that he can be a hand full and your not quite sure what you are going to get out of him. My Maverick dog is the same way. Runs great, points birds, bumps birds and is for the most part too excitable. I've had 3 different pro's tell me he is one of the few shorthairs that could compete in the woods. I think he could from a running standpoint but, he just doesn't have the great bird sense that's required to compete in those venues. I guess what I'm trying to say is I like a dog that I can train, has drive but, not too much. I don't want to work that hard at training it. If Maverick had been with a guy like Vance, Bruce or either of the Scott's at a young age he probably would be a fantastic dog but, lets face it most of aren't pro dog trainers. Even though I have spent a ton of money on dog training I'd rather have a dog that was a little easier to train.

My Morgan pup (pointer) has had very little formal training. We just introduced her to birds and she has been pretty good on grouse from day 1. She pointed her first grouse around 6 months of age and has pointed a pile of them since. She handles pretty easy but, doesn't run nearly as hard as the trial bred dogs I've seen. Again, horses for courses. We all know it can be done many ways. This is just my program right now and it could change by the time I'm ready for another dog.


----------



## R. Ford (Nov 23, 2010)

2ESRGR8 said:


> Probably true for guys that check in and read this forum everyday but also probably NOT true for about 90% of the bird hunters that want a natural, easy going, moderate range(if not close) hunting buddy they can whistleup from under the porch grab the gun from the corner in the kitchen and wander out the back door looking for a pheasant or a couple partridge.
> But then again that guy is likely better served by a rough shooting spaniel than any pointing dog breed in the first place.


 
2ESRGR8, I am not singling you out here, just quoting you. I have heard so many 'longer range' hunting dog advocates make the statement about hunters who enjoy a closer ranging dog being better suited to a flushing dog. Something about that statement always rubs me the wrong way. First off, close range pointing dog, doesn't mean within gun range, well not to anyone I know who is not trying to be derogatory to close ranging advocates. It generaly means closer than 'where the hell is my dog'. There are such differances in style of hunting between flushing and pointing dogs. I don't see how anyone who likes the relaxed atmosphere that a pointing dog offers would be better suited to a flushing dog, even at 50 yards.


----------



## 2ESRGR8 (Dec 16, 2004)

R. Ford said:


> 2ESRGR8, I am not singling you out here, just quoting you. I have heard so many 'longer range' hunting dog advocates make the statement about hunters who enjoy a closer ranging dog being better suited to a flushing dog. Something about that statement always rubs me the wrong way. First off, close range pointing dog, doesn't mean within gun range, well not to anyone I know who is not trying to be derogatory to close ranging advocates. It generaly means closer than 'where the hell is my dog'. There are such differances in style of hunting between flushing and pointing dogs. I don't see how anyone who likes the relaxed atmosphere that a pointing dog offers would be better suited to a flushing dog, even at 50 yards.


 It's because they get to shoot at everything that flys.
Even walked up birds by the hunter offer a retrieving training opportunity.
That's a serious no-no with a pointing dog whether it be a 50 yard dog or 150 yard dog.


----------



## crosswind (Sep 1, 2004)

2ESRGR8 said:


> Probably true for guys that check in and read this forum everyday but also probably NOT true for about 90% of the bird hunters that want a natural, easy going, moderate range(if not close) hunting buddy they can whistleup from under the porch grab the gun from the corner in the kitchen and wander out the back door looking for a pheasant or a couple partridge.
> Exactly the point I am trying to make is just because a dog comes from a field trial ancestory does not mean it has to be, or is going to be, rough handling and big going.That is all part of training. If it is you have failed on the training end.
> Big running and rough handling, is and probably always will be the big misconception about these trial bred dogs that the hunting dog people like to throw out there. Bottom line is IT IS ALL ABOUT THE TRAINING.
> So many hunter have this thought in their head that if they can keep thier dog in close they will get more shooting in.They get to shoot at all mistakes, walked up, charged in, bumped, whatever. None of those are able to be shot at if ole Fido is out there at even 75 yrds.
> ...


 Absolutely right. 
You guys beat me to some of the info/ opinions.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

about a year ago i offered for sale a setter female at a low price, less than half i paid for her as a pup. she had beautiful manners on birds and was sired by 2x/ru natl ch. she just ran too close to suit me.

didnt even get a nibble. i gave her to a 15 yr old son of a friend as a pheasant dog.

i think it's thrilling to watch a dog that is fast and ranges to the edge. and there is a lot of excitement working your way to the point. the other kind is like watching percherons compete in the kentucky derby at a walk.


----------



## kek25 (Jul 9, 2005)

dogwhistle said:


> . . . and there is a lot of excitement working your way to the point. . .


In my case there's a lot of cussing working my way to the point, as the blackberry bushes try to de-glove my hands, the thronapple spines try to steal my sight, and the aspen branches give me a good whuppin across my face right in the exact spot that sends that electric shock right down to my toes. Sort of like the "shivers" we use to give and get in football games. And then there's the branches that smack you right across the lips when it's abut 20 degrees out. Let the expletives fly. :lol:

Oh, almost forgot about the hare holes that dislocate my ankles every chance they get.


----------



## 2ESRGR8 (Dec 16, 2004)

kek25 said:


> In my case there's a lot of cussing working my way to the point, as the blackberry bushes try to de-glove my hands, the thronapple spines try to steal my sight, and the aspen branches give me a good whuppin across my face right in the exact spot that sends that electric shock right down to my toes. Sort of like the "shivers" we use to give and get in football games. And then there's the branches that smack you right across the lips when it's abut 20 degrees out. Let the expletives fly. :lol:
> 
> Oh, almost forgot about the hare holes that dislocate my ankles every chance they get.


What about that small stiff branch that snaps the bottom of your earlobe when its 20*F outside? Dang I hate it when that happens. :rant:


----------



## BradU20 (Jan 17, 2005)

kek25 said:


> And then there's the branches that smack you right across the lips when it's abut 20 degrees out. Let the expletives fly.


I would rather bang my head against a wall then the get hit with a freekin' branch in the ear or nose when its cold. Why does that have to hurt so bad :rant: 

I think a lot of "average Joe" hunter types do want to shoot at every bird that gets up. That's why my grandpa hunts with close working brittanys. He's not a dog trainer - he's a bird hunter. I know he has a hard time hunting with my dogs when they are ranging out and a bird goes up wild ahead of them. I shrug it off, and look forward to them nailing the next bird. He cringes at a missed opportunity. He'd be out there with or without dogs hunting birds. If I didn't have a dog to follow....I'd take up ping pong or something...?


----------



## kek25 (Jul 9, 2005)

You guys are right. Forgot about the nose and ears. Just typing about it hurts.

Brad, I've hunted with guys like your grandad and understand that attitude when I think about the time and cost invested in hunting. But I tend to look at it more the way you do.


----------



## FindTheBird (Dec 18, 2004)

BIGSP said:


> Mike,
> You know I love Major, hell watching him run at the RGS fun trial in Traverse is what got me excited about pointers in the first place. But, you have told me from time to time that he can be a hand full and your not quite sure what you are going to get out of him. Even though I have spent a ton of money on dog training I'd rather have a dog that was a little easier to train.
> 
> My Morgan pup (pointer) has had very little formal training. We just introduced her to birds and she has been pretty good on grouse from day 1. She pointed her first grouse around 6 months of age and has pointed a pile of them since. She handles pretty easy but, doesn't run nearly as hard as the trial bred dogs I've seen. Again, horses for courses. We all know it can be done many ways. This is just my program right now and it could change by the time I'm ready for another dog.


Brent, thanks for the compliment on Major, but what I meant was that he can be unpredictable in the _fun trials_ that we participate in from time-to-time (although he's won or placed in the last 3 consecutive trials and has a total of 6 placements/wins.
As a hunting dog, he's one of the nicest dogs to gun over that I've ever seen, from ground application to handling, to speed, to bird sense, to stamina, I've got few complaints--I think that anyone on this board who has hunted over him will concur. 

With regard to ease of training, I think that the argument could be made that your well-bred trial dogs can actually be _easier_ to train, and will echo your experience with Morgan.


----------



## crosswind (Sep 1, 2004)

dogwhistle said:


> the other kind is like watching percherons compete in the kentucky derby at a walk.


  Watch out the Ryman folks will find that comparison higly offensive :lol:.


----------



## BIGSP (Sep 16, 2004)

FindTheBird said:


> Brent, thanks for the compliment on Major, but what I meant was that he can be unpredictable in the _fun trials_ that we participate in from time-to-time (although he's won or placed in the last 3 consecutive trials and has a total of 6 placements/wins.
> As a hunting dog, he's one of the nicest dogs to gun over that I've ever seen, from ground application to handling, to speed, to bird sense, to stamina, I've got few complaints--I think that anyone on this board who has hunted over him will concur.
> 
> With regard to ease of training, I think that the argument could be made that your well-bred trial dogs can actually be _easier_ to train, and will echo your experience with Morgan.


Mike just to make my point. I agree that most trial dogs are well bred but, why can't a hunting dog from non trial stock be just as well bred? Granted you will have to work harder to find this dog but, they are out there.


----------



## 2ESRGR8 (Dec 16, 2004)

crosswind said:


> Watch out the Ryman folks will find that comparison higly offensive :lol:.


 No worries, some like to snap caps at the sound of distant flushes while Ryman Setter owners like to salt and pepper thier grouse breasts when they hit the grill.
To each his own.


----------

