# Titles.....Pros and Cons



## stonebroke

There's been some discussion on titles here lately. I'd like to share some of my thoughts on the subject. These are my thoughts only...them and a buck will get you a cup of coffee. :lol: I'm certainly no expert on the subject....just a dyed in the wool hunter like most folks here on the forum. For the record, I do not field trial and I haven't participated in the various hunt tests. I've been to several Springer trials as a spectator, have talked to many people who trial and do the field tests, etc.

First of all, I believe anything a person does with their dog is a good thing, be it hunting, hunt tests, field trials, hunting for shed antlers, or just taking a walk. We can't spend too much time with our dogs. For those who do the various hunt tests and/or field trial, the time you all spend training your dogs is probably of at least equal value as the hunt tests/trials themselves. I tip my hat to anyone who doesn't let their dog sit in a kennel run day after day or on the back steps between hunting seasons.

In regards to the titles themselves, there certainly is something to be said for a pup that comes from a pedigree with dogs that have hunt test and/or field trial tests. We can argue all day about what trials have or haven't done to the various breeds, whether "the collar" has ruined our dogs, how closely a field trial or hunt test duplicates a true hunting situation, etc. but the fact is that if someone is looking at a pedigree with absolutely no titles of any kind, the pedigree tells us little of nothing unless we happen to have seen 3 or 4 generations of the dogs in action.

Having said that, the titles do not tell us everything, obviously. They do not tell us what it took to put a title on a dog... They don't tell us a whole lot about the trainability of the dog. They don't tell us about what problems were overcome to put the title on the dog. I had with a professional trainer many years ago. I had read an article in the newspaper about a dog that had won the Grand National MH championship....correct me if I have that title wrong... At any rate, I was impressed and called up the trainer to see if he knew of any pups available this dog had produced. The first thing he said is, "You don't want a pup from that dog......If you'd seen what it took to train him you wouldn't want one of his pups....he's the most bullheaded dog I've ever worked with". I appreciated his honesty and I never forgot what he said.

I bred a dog of mine to a dog with JH title several years ago. The owner of the stud dog talked up his dog to the hilt, sent pictures of the dog working, etc. He told me he was working on the SH title and after that he'd go on the the MH level. It sounded great to me, so we did the breeding. We got some really nice pups so I repeated the breeding. The second time the guy was heading out of town when my bit*h came into heat, so he agreed to let me bring his stud to my place. I had the dog here for about two weeks. I got my dog bred and decided to take "Rover" to a pond for a little retrieving and just to get him some exercise. I threw a dummy in the pond and he kind of trotted to the water and stood there.. He wouldn't go in the water!!! I got another dummy and tossed it just a few feet from the shore. He reluctantly went out and got it. Then I couldn't get the dummy out of his mouth... I swear his jaws were like a steel vice. I tried every command in the book and he absolutley would not drop the dummy (until he decided he didn't want to hold it any more).Now I was worried.... when I got home I planted some pigeons for "Rover". He could have cared less about the birds. Now I was even more worried! I'd bred my dog to a dog that wouldn't retrieve and showed no interest in birds!!! I called up the owner and he said, "Ya, some days he's like that but when hunting season rolls around and I grab my gun he's a different dog", or something to that effect. Now maybe he's right and maybe this dog would only work for his owner.....I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. It's certainly possible, but based on what I saw I have no idea how this dog ever got a JH title. The dog never did get a SH title, say nothing about a MH title. Fortunately, all of the pups we got were outstanding in the field.

The two experiences I've shared are probably the exception. My guess is that most dogs with a hunt test title are very good dogs. Without titles the only thing we have to judge a pedigree is what someone tells us, but I think we tend to get a little too obsessed with titles. I was as guilty as anyone at one time in regards to titles....not so much today. I still would not buy a pup from a pedigree with no field titles of any kind, but titles are just one factor that I look at and not necessarily the most important aspect.

Breeding only titled dogs can be detrimental the gene pool of any given breed also. By only breeding dogs with titles we are eliminating countless dogs that could contribute to the gene pool. I recently read that within every breed of purebred dogs 25% have at least one genetic defect....one out of four. Whether this is true or not, I have no idea but that's what I read. If we narrow the gene pool of any breed to only dogs with titles, the problem becomes even greater...

I'm rambling here....... You all jump in and share your thoughts. This is not intending to be food for a fight....just a discussion!!! :lol:


----------



## taddy1340

Stonebroke,

Good post and I know you're not trying to start a bickering session. It's a topic that deserves *CIVIL *discussion.

I agree with a lot of what you said...I feel much the same. However, I reserve most of my judgment about trials because I haven't run one. Sure, I've seen them, but I've never run a dog in one. It's very difficult for me to form an "informed" opinion if I haven't done them.

What I do know is that I trained my two labs...some titles in pedigree...to a decent standard. Maggies runs 100 yd blinds and takes hand casts. Harley...he's kind of like your example...he'll do dummy work, but he's a total different dog come real birds, guns, etc. It just seems to be a switch with him.

I probably won't ever train for a FT or HT. I'm more of a guy that woud like to base my breeding off of proven hunting stock. When I do go out on my own some day, I want to appeal to the average hunter (will be Labs). To me that is a dog that is (no particular order other than OB):

1. Completely Obedient in all situations
2. Manners in the blind, to include steady like a rock...no matter what
3. Can do 100-150 yd blinds via land or water (where the dog enters or runs the bank doesn't bother me)
4. Can do hand casts...left, right and back. I don't go as far as "angled backs" and such. I cast the dog to the general area with wind in his favor and let him hunt the bird.
5. Quality upland flusher
6. Family companion.

These are a few of my desired standards...which may not be the most conducive for HT/FT. I spent time with Tom Hamilton of Bracken Fen Gundogs in MS last year. He breeds/trains British labs. I really like his style and the ability of the dogs. Again, this is personal preference. I own 2 American labs and they've been great, but Tom will be assisting me when I do choose to begin my venture.

The discussion is no different than Chevy vs. Ford. It's a personal preference and one that most hold dearly to their heart.

I agree that I applaud ANYONE who spends quality time with their dogs.

My question for GH or others used to the HT/FT arena is, do the competitions become more about the handlers than the dogs sometimes? It seems that way sometimes from the outside. Also, does the FT arena sometimes seem like an "elitist" group? I'm just curious as I've admitted my inexperience in them.

Thanks!

Mike


----------



## verg

As usual..well said Stonebroke. You are always the level headed one and basically a realist like myself.
Like I have read before, "You can't hunt a paper." 
I have mentioned on here before that I *personally* feel the best dogs have a mix of titles and no namers on their pedigees.
I feel a dog that has lots of titles tells me that it most likely will have the "trainability" gene. It comes from dogs that were highly trained etc.
In my personal experience, I have had several labs. I have trained several, sold a few started ones, bred a couple times etc. This is what I noticed. Dogs (labs) with completely loaded titles were very trainable, quick learners with tons of drive. But in my experience a bit too much go-had hard time settling down at home. I had a few that had very little titles and they were real nice but a bit too much on the laid back side. As mentioned, *my* best ones had a mix of titles and average joes.
I look for titles when I purchase a pup, no question but I also agree that maybe too much emphasis is put on titles for the average hunter.
I had a pro trainer tell me recently that he won't hunt his dog at all during hunting season because it will screw up the training he put into it for the trials. I'm not sure what to think about that?


----------



## verg

Oh and Taddy, 
If your dog can complete those tasks listed..they will pass the JR hunter portion with a breeze.
You also make a good point. Many say the FT are geared as much for the trainer as the dog where a HT is geared much more for the dog.
I prefer to run hunt tests. Can't really say much for a FT cuz I haven't run one but have seen them.


----------



## mamohr686

I agree with much of what you said. Personally, I look at titles a lot. When it comes down to buying a dog, there are still lots of questions to be asked. I wouldn't buy a dog that is worked only on pen-raised birds, I like to see that the parents are also hunters. Also, you have to know what the title is, and what is required to earn it. When I was running my Vizsla at an AKC JH test, I couldn't believe some of the poor hunting ability of some of the dogs there. There was a Gordon setter who finally achieved it's JH title after 13 attempts (4 must be passed). The owner was very proud, and was explaining he could now market his dogs to hunters as well as show folks. He even called his dog a dual champion which was totally false. A pointing breed has to earn both a FC and CH to earn the dual champion title. This breeder thought that a dual chamption had a CH (show conformation) and any hunting test title. On the opposite side of the spectrum, I have a friend who breeds vizslas in SD and runs a hunting/guiding business. His dogs see wild pheasants every day of the season and are unreal hunters. His dog didn't recieve a passing score 1 of the 2 days ( and a really low pass) because his dogs show no desire to hunt Pen-raised quail. The dog had excluse wild bird exposure and wouldn't point them. The buyer needs to understand the title and what it means. If you like a close working pointing dog, look for NAVHDA, NASTRA, and AKC hunt test titles rather than field trial placements. I look at the titles for many generations. If you see that the parents are also producing offspring with titles of similar hunting situations that you will encounter, the chances of getting a higher quailty dog go up. The drive to hunt and point birds is totally instinct, everything else is just obedience and exposure. I like to know that the hunting instinct is strong in the pup I purchase, and the rest is up to me. I also have nothing against show people. I like to know that my dog is within the breed standard and I understand how good form follows function.


----------



## stonebroke

*"My question for GH or others used to the HT/FT arena is, do the competitions become more about the handlers than the dogs sometimes?"*

Good question, Mike. Funny you should mention that. I used to subscribe to "Spaniels in the Field". It used to be a pretty good magazine....probably still is, but it went though some changes and I haven't kept up with my subscription. At any rate, it got to the point where it was more about the people than the dogs. They would have field trial results and would have photos of the people whose dogs had placed and hardly any pictures of the dogs. It drove me nuts. Now don't get me wrong....these are fine looking folks, but I'm more interested in seeing pictures of the dogs. As a matter of fact, I even wrote them a letter voicing my displeasure with so few photos of the dogs and told them they should change the name of the magazine to "People in the Field" . For some reason they didn't respond. :wink:


----------



## taddy1340

stonebroke said:


> *"My question for GH or others used to the HT/FT arena is, do the competitions become more about the handlers than the dogs sometimes?"*
> 
> Good question, Mike. Funny you should mention that. I used to subscribe to "Spaniels in the Field". It used to be a pretty good magazine....probably still is, but it went though some changes and I haven't kept up with my subscription. At any rate, it got to the point where it was more about the people than the dogs. They would have field trial results and would have photos of the people whose dogs had placed and hardly any pictures of the dogs. It drove me nuts. Now don't get me wrong....these are fine looking folks, but I'm more interested in seeing pictures of the dogs. As a matter of fact, I even wrote them a letter voicing my displeasure with so few photos of the dogs and told them they should change the name of the magazine to "People in the Field" . For some reason they didn't respond. :wink:


Agree! To me it's always about the dogs. If my dogs don't go, I don't go. Why hunt waterfowl or upland w/out them. There are A LOT of waterfowl hunters (many on this site) that don't want dogs in the field because either the dog or its blind or a combination may flair birds. In fact there was a huge discussion in the Snow Goose forum about dogs in the field (especially goose). I'll sacrifice a few birds at the opportunity to watch a good dog bring back my fowl...nothing like it! Now I understand the argument of OB vs bad-mannered dogs, but if the dog can hack it, they should be in the field!

I think a lot of these same people that don't want pooches in the field never owned a quality gundog or they're obsessed w/ kill #'s...or a combination. I will never forget the sight of Maggie bringin' back my first banded duck this past year. Priceless!

It should always be about the dogs whether its HT, FT or hunting. But, obviously we feel that way or otherwise we wouldn't be in the Dog Forum, huh?

Sorry for the rant...back on topic.


----------



## stonebroke

Several years ago there was a Springer by the name of *Pondview Windy Acres Yankee*. Yankee was an FC and an AFC. He won 7 trials in one year. As far as I know no dog has ever done that before or since. He was owned by Don Cande of Westmoreland, NH. Yankee was an incredibly well built dog.....just a broadchested, rugged handsome dog. I was interested in breeding to him but people told me he was wild as a March hare. I was in Vermont one summer so I called Don to see if I could drive over to see Yankee. He said to come on over, so I did. I spent the afternoon with Don and Yankee. We took him out and shot some pigeons over him, etc. He was not only one of the best looking Springers I've ever seen, but his manners were impeccable and what a gundog!! Now, how he acted at a field trial I have no idea but what I saw when I was there was the total opposite of what I head heard through the grapevine. He was very calm and mannerly....just a very affectionate dog. I fell in love with him. 
To make a long story short, I bred to Yankee 4 times. I placed a couple pups with field trialers and the rest whet to hunting homes. One of my pups owned by Keith McCrae was the high point pup in the nation in 1994. That same dog was awarded the "Gunners Award" at the 1994 Nationals, which is the dog voted on by the gunners as the dog they would most want to own as a hunting dog. The dog's name was Stonebroke's River Scout. He went on to become a U.S. and Canadian field champion as well. Another dog from this same breeding placed 2nd at the 1997 Canadian Nationals and was also awarded the Canadian "Gunner's Award". That dog's name was Stonebroke's Tick Fever and was owned by Ken Forney. The breeding produced two other field champions, but more importantly (to me) it produced countless wonderful hunting companions. 
"Yankee" has been the cornerstone of my breeding program..... I've linebred to him extensively, as have many other breeders. He was used at stud more than any other dog in the history of the breed to the best of my knowledge and the last I knew he was the all time leading sire (as far as producing field champions) in Springer history.

The point here is to not believe everything you read or hear.....check it out. Had I written off "Yankee" as a renegade based on what people told me I'd have missed out on one fine dog... Oddly enough, to this day I still have people tell me what a renegade he was...... Myths and misconceptions have a way of never dying.... For some reason people love to perpetuate bad press about a lot of different things...dogs are just one of them. Human nature I guess. Kind of like the old myth that it takes a 2X4 to train a Chessie. Will that one ever die? I still hear it regularly......most always from people who've never owned a Chessie. Such is life. :beer:


----------



## BROWNDOG

Very good disscusion so far.

I'm totally going to be talking about retrievers here so here it goes. I feel titles are important almost required if you are purchasing a puppy for FT and upper level hunt tests, and the reason I say that is because if I'm going to spend Lots and lots of time and money on a dog that I may be running for 10 years I want to have the best odds I can by buying the most qualified puppy I can from parents or lines that have excelled at this game.

This is kind of a crude analogy but if you were to adopt a child and your main focus (asside from providing a good home) was to end up with a child that was a professional athlete, genes are genes most great athletes came from great athletes. I know it's not a very godd analogy but it's the best i can do for now.

So I'm going to get a pup from a proven gene pool, this is where the titles come in. As far as stud dogs go most great stud dogs don't become great untill they are almost retired. A young dog that is say 3 years old and has his FC or AFC title may be a great dog but he may or may not pass his good qualities to his puppys so he is not a proven stud only time and breedings will answer that. As far as titles on *****es I feel they are as important and in most cases more important than the stud. Most people can't afford a puppy out of an FC or AFC female and even if you could you probably wouldn't be considered as a buyer unless you had a long history in FT, most of those puppys are sold befor they hit the ground and there lives are already planned for them from 6 monthes to 3 years or so.
I like to see a female that is QAA, MH or has a record of throwing nice puppys from previose litters.

I'll explain this in a minute but you see ALOT of FC/AFC X JH litters out there and in my eyes they are a gamble at best. What hapens is a guy buys a pup from a really nice breeding gets a JH title on her and then decides to breed gets pretty good money for the pups because he breed to and FC and because his female is aloso from a nice breeding, bujt is this female really a talented dog and does she throw nice pups? We really don't know. All puppys are a Gamble, some of the greatest breedings have produced nothing and some that don't look so good on paper have produced, you just never know.

I'll probably get jumped for this but in my eyes a JH really doesn't mean alot to me in terms of "Does this dog really have what it takes" Not that the owner hasn't worked his or her butt of getting that title and can't be proud of there accomplishment just from a breeding stand point it really doesn't prove much.

You see this alot with some of the Show/field breeds that have working titles and need a field title to consider it a breedable dog or they will get more for pups if the dog has a field title and most never get past a JH, that is enough in there eyes.

I've heard it alot befor that FT dogs are too hot for the average guy or they are too hyper. This may be true in some cases but alot of them have a nicely built in switch in them, calm around the house but they will give 100% when it's time to work. And the one I have is just like that.

If i were looking for a hunting dog and companion I guess I'de look for a good mix of titles and hunting dogs in the ped, there are probably alot of good hunting dogs that could of been good FT dog s if they had been put in the right hands.

Most FT dogs have had there basics from FF to transition done by a pro, there ar'nt alot of ameratures that have the ability to do a good enough job training to have a competitive dog in the end. for a number of reasons the first being knowlege, and the second being good grounds to train on with technical water year round.

A couple of years ago I saw my first FT and was hooked and learned very fast that I was not qualified enough to train at this level and that didn't have the grounds to do that even if I was. So Bodey went south the last two winters, I did what I could, the best that I knew how and then handed him over to a pro that I trusted, if i had not done this he would have been so far behind (with our winters and my knowlege at this level) that I would not have been able to run any Derbys last summer or Quals this summer.

They say it takes on the average of $50,000 to get a FC and to most of these people it is just a drop in the hat to them. (definatly not me) 

Iv'e been told HT were developed for people that couldn't compete or afford FT I don't know for sure if it is true but I often wonder what the hell am I doing this for. I guess most of all like the competitiveness of FT VS HT. You may not win very often but when you do it sure feels good.

Sorry to rant I start typing and forget what I was thinking about in the first place.

Bottom line I love working with dogs whether it be hunting or training.


----------



## stonebroke

I also think titles have more (or less) significance depending on which breed you are looking at. I wouldn't consider a Springer from 100% show lines regardless of the titles in the pedigree. To clarify that, the only titles a Springer from show lines holds these days is an AKC hunt test title.....there are no Field Trial Champions within the Show lines. None. There hasn't been a dual champion in the breed since 1938. I'm not saying that a Springer from Show lines with a MH title wouldn't be a good hunter.....I'm sure it would be, but the pups from AKC hunt test Springers would be too much of a gamble for me. Plus I don't like the way the show bred dogs are built. Springers from Show Lines and Springers from Field Lines have become so different they really should be separate breeds. They look nothing alike (to my eye) and they certainly have very different personalities, hunting and retrieving drive, etc. but that's a topic for a different thread.

I see the JH titles as a way to get folks involved with the testing programs and to get them out working with their dogs. Hopefully it will encourage them to continue on with the field work. If there were only SH and MH tests a lot of people would feel they couldn't train a dog to that level and would not participate at all. Success breeds success, as they say....Once a person has the JH ribbon and certificate I would think it would motivate them to take the next step.


----------



## BROWNDOG

stonebroke said:


> Several years ago there was a Springer by the name of *Pondview Windy Acres Yankee*. Yankee was an FC and an AFC. He won 7 trials in one year. As far as I know no dog has ever done that before or since. He was owned by Don Cande of Westmoreland, NH. Yankee was an incredibly well built dog.....just a broadchested, rugged handsome dog. I was interested in breeding to him but people told me he was wild as a March hare. I was in Vermont one summer so I called Don to see if I could drive over to see Yankee. He said to come on over, so I did. I spent the afternoon with Don and Yankee. We took him out and shot some pigeons over him, etc. He was not only one of the best looking Springers I've ever seen, but his manners were impeccable and what a gundog!! Now, how he acted at a field trial I have no idea but what I saw when I was there was the total opposite of what I head heard through the grapevine. He was very calm and mannerly....just a very affectionate dog. I fell in love with him.
> To make a long story short, I bred to Yankee 4 times. I placed a couple pups with field trialers and the rest whet to hunting homes. One of my pups owned by Keith McCrae was the high point pup in the nation in 1994. That same dog was awarded the "Gunners Award" at the 1994 Nationals, which is the dog voted on by the gunners as the dog they would most want to own as a hunting dog. The dog's name was Stonebroke's River Scout. He went on to become a U.S. and Canadian field champion as well. Another dog from this same breeding placed 2nd at the 1997 Canadian Nationals and was also awarded the Canadian "Gunner's Award". That dog's name was Stonebroke's Tick Fever and was owned by Ken Forney. The breeding produced two other field champions, but more importantly (to me) it produced countless wonderful hunting companions.
> "Yankee" has been the cornerstone of my breeding program..... I've linebred to him extensively, as have many other breeders. He was used at stud more than any other dog in the history of the breed to the best of my knowledge and the last I knew he was the all time leading sire (as far as producing field champions) in Springer history.
> 
> The point here is to not believe everything you read or hear.....check it out. Had I written off "Yankee" as a renegade based on what people told me I'd have missed out on one fine dog... Oddly enough, to this day I still have people tell me what a renegade he was...... Myths and misconceptions have a way of never dying.... For some reason people love to perpetuate bad press about a lot of different things...dogs are just one of them. Human nature I guess. Kind of like the old myth that it takes a 2X4 to train a Chessie. Will that one ever die? I still hear it regularly......most always from people who've never owned a Chessie. Such is life. :beer:


I attended a Springer Trial a couple of years ago and I'll say that there trials simulate and test a dog in a true hunting situation more that any other breed I have seen (Have never seen a pointer trial) Very fun to watch.


----------



## BROWNDOG

> see the JH titles as a way to get folks involved with the testing programs and to get them out working with their dogs. Hopefully it will encourage them to continue on with the field work. If there were only SH and MH tests a lot of people would feel they couldn't train a dog to that level and would not participate at all. Success breeds success, as they say....Once a person has the JH ribbon and certificate I would think it would motivate them to take the next step


I totally agree..........


----------



## gonehuntin'

taddy1340 said:


> My question for GH or others used to the HT/FT arena is, do the competitions become more about the handlers than the dogs sometimes? It seems that way sometimes from the outside. Also, does the FT arena sometimes seem like an "elitist" group? I'm just curious as I've admitted my inexperience in them.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Mike


As most of you are aware, there is a huge difference between hunt tests and field trials. That Huge difference is this: *IN A FIELD TRIAL THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE WINNER. IN HUNT TESTS, YOU ONLY COMPETE AGAINST A STANDARD, NOT INDIVIDUAL DOGS*. Believe me when I say, that is an immense difference.

Hunt tests were started so armature handlers could be successful. You go into a field trial, and each stake, Open, Armature, Qualifying and Derby can only have ONE winner. There will also be a 2nd, 3rd and 4th place and maybe some Jam's (judges award of merit). In a hunt test, all dogs can finish and get points as long as they meet the standard.

To put this in perspective, you may enter an Open All Age Stake or a Derby Stake with 60 dogs in each stake. That means your chances of getting any points is one in 60 or winning, one in 15 of just finishing. I've seen Open stakes with only a first and second place finisher, no RD or Th.

I want you all to think of two things: 1) What your chances are of competing against professionally trained dogs trained in warm water year round. 2) The sheer amount of money and time it takes to successfully compete against these dogs. These dogs are the greatest of all dogs. No one with a hunting dog or a hunting stake dog can say that's a great dog if they can't beat one of these dogs. The competitions are so different. Field trials are so exacting; only the most intelligent, most tractable, most talented, and dogs with the most natural ability compete and become field champions.

Not so hunting tests. You are only running against a standard so your hunting dog can compete if he has been trained well enough. Hunt tests are fun and relaxing, field trials are all about tension and pressure.

This is why the coveted title *FIELD CHAMPION* means so much. It is so very, very difficult to obtain. So when people tell me, "I don't care about titles, they tell me nothing of the dog. You can't hunt paper", I say "Poor misinformed person. You know absolutely nothing about these dogs". They are the absolute Einsteins of the dog world, the true royalty.

Are field trial people snobs or cliquish? Absolutely. They will help a beginner. Until that beginner beats them. All field trialers are elitists. They consider their dogs to be the paragon's of the breed; they are. Most are very wealthy people so many have little in common with them. They are an opinionated group and very narrow minded. They have to be to compete in the sport they have chosen.

Hunt test people are down to earth; more like you and I. You can easily spend the day shootin' the bull about hunting, fishing, or anything else. A field trialer will talk only of the trial, training and of course, his dog.

You have to be a good handler, but it isn't the handler that makes the dog. You probably won't win if you're not a good handler, but most competitors are good handlers. Most pro's are better.

I was in McCall Idaho at a National once and Charles Hill came to the line with Wanapun Dart's Dandy, at the time, the only triple crown winner in retrieverdom. As he walked to line the announcer announced he and the dog: " Coming to line now is Charles Hill and Field Champion, Armature Field Champion, Canadian Field Champion, Canadian Armature Field Champion, National Champion, National Armature Field Champion, Canadian National Armature Field Champion, Wanapun Dart's Dandy." The guy next to me looked at me and said " I guess that about says it all". Indeed. She went out in the first series of the National.


----------



## brianb

Excellent discussion. I totally agree that titles alone don't tell whether you'd want a pup out of two potential parents.

I am speaking of retrievers. There are SOME, pro trained dogs that the pro trainer has the dog savvy, knowledge, and consistency to handle to the highest level. This same dog would drive Joe Average trainer with family obligations just nuts.

Now, I firmly believe with the new ecollar that is adjustable (the old ones were basically hot and hottest) it is allowing softer, more tractable dogs to be trained to the highest titles. Back in the early days it took a "hard" dog to stand up to the training. Now, they can dial in the correction to suit the dog. A very good thing.

The problem I have with a non-titled pedigree is that the phrase "hunting stock" has been used by every (I'm sorry) back yard breeder that has ever drug Rover out on opening day of pheasant season. I don't have the resources to go hunt for a week or even several days with a potential breeder to evaluate their stock. Plus, alot of people don't like showing strangers their spots.

Titles give me a set of bench marks to judge the parents. It tells me that on several occasions, independent and knowledgeable dog people said the sire and dam met the standard or were the best dog that day.

The top level hunt tests and field trials are extremely difficult and require an intelligent, trainable dog with lots of bird sense.

With knowledge as a base, I can then dig a little deeper to find out more about various other traits.

I'll never run an All Age stake. I don't have the resources or desire to get to that level and I refuse to let someone else train my dog.

On a side note, I watched a spaniel test once and those are some cool little dogs. It was impressive to watch those little buggars go from 60 to 0 and sit at the flush in an instant.

Regards,

Brian


----------



## verg

I think the words "can't hunt paper" is just a acronym for saying a dog with titles may not be a better *natural hunter *than a meat dog.
I don't disagree with this statement...it makes sense to me. 
I know a pro trainer has mentioned that he struggles hunting pheasants with his dogs because they have a hard time using their natural instincts..they look for direction too much and as I said rarely hunts them for fear of picking up bad habits in the field that will interfere with their trial training.
I have NO problems with trialers. But realistically the trial is very little like a real hunt. Dogs are directed in everything they do. I hunt with a guy on occasion that has a ex trial dog. The only time I really see him excel is on a blind retrieve where a goose sailed 200yds. Other than that, he is out retrieved by other dogs much of the time. 
I guess the question I'm asking is if you took a FC dog down here to SD and hunted pheasants with a small group and maybe a couple real solid other meat dogs with say a JH titles. Would that FC outshine the other dogs in a natural hunting setting? I mean would it really stand out above the other dogs?
I'm not being sarcastic, I'd like to hear what you guys think?


----------



## taddy1340

Very good discussion fellas!

GH...thanks for the reply. I do like HT in that they test against the standard rather than having to choose ONE winner from 50 or so dogs.

As far as "hunting stock," I hear what you guys are saying. A pedigree without any titles may be suspect at best. When selecting from said "hunting stock," my recommendation is to view the parents in action...especially the dam. If purchased from a non FT or HT breeder/trainer, the homework really needs to be done.

Mike


----------



## kgpcr

Taddy1340
I sure hear you about wanting to hunt with your dog! i would not hunt if i could not hunt over my Little Chocolate Pointing Lab!! She is going to turn two in may. I had her to ND at 5 months old and she did great. at 6months old she was really doing good. I never trained her how to do blinds. she is starting to get hand signals. Will hold a point unless the bird moves then she will flush it. She will take a shortcut when doing a water retrieve when she can by running down the bank. She is not steady to wing and shot as i want her on the pheasant as soon as possible in case it does not go down dead. I have no desire for a title on her. She is however the dog that every one wants to hunt behind. When we break up into small groups for the day they all want to go with me and my dog. They all talk about how good she is and rave about her. I just could not be happier and i truly love to hunt with her. as i type this she is laying by my feet. She is a sweet heart that only wants to please. She is 53lbs of pure fire in the field and can run all day. She is all i ever dreamed of and my most enjoyable hunt came this fall when it was just her an i. she rides in the front of the truck and is a great dog. What a joy to hunt over your own dog!!


----------



## BROWNDOG

> I guess the question I'm asking is if you took a FC dog down here to SD and hunted pheasants with a small group and maybe a couple real solid other meat dogs with say a JH titles. Would that FC outshine the other dogs in a natural hunting setting? I mean would it really stand out above the other dogs?
> I'm not being sarcastic, I'd like to hear what you guys think?


Hard to say depends on the dog, and how much he has actually been hunted. A good meat dog doesn't become a good meat dog by not hunting and an FC will not be a good meat dog by not hunting either. I would say alot of trial dogs hunt but not all, some of these people may love training and trialing but may not have a clue about hunting, but they love dogs and the competition.


----------



## gonehuntin'

You guys have to understand *why* a trainer or owner has trouble hunting a pure field trial dog. First, that dog has as much natural instinct as any other dog, it has just been *channeled* to hone it. Also, a field trial dog is not under direction at all times, it just seems like it. On marks, from the time that dog is released from the owners side, he's on his own. Blow the whistle and you probably won't be back for the next series. The dog has to *remember* and *accurately* mark up to three long retired guns. Takes a whale of a dog to do that.

From the time the dog is a pup, he's taught to run a straight line, to not look for birds but to go directly to the area of the fall and pick the bird up, as little hunting as possible. Were that same dog let quarter a field from a young age, they'd quarter and hunt as well as any other dog. Any trainer that can't understand why a field trial dog doesn't quarter is, honestly, not much of a trainer.

Training for a field trial has *nothing* in common with training a hunting dog. When you are only allowed one winner, there must be a way to separate these incredible animals. That's why the test are so precise and complicated. That's why hunt tests are so enjoyable; you're only meeting a standard.

Using a field trial dog is a lot like driving a race car on the street. You first have to de-tune it and make it legal. De-tune that dog and change his suspension, and you'll have the greatest hunting machine on the planet. :beer:


----------



## USAlx50

I dont plan on spending a day in the blind with 15 different dogs to try and figure out which one has the best "hunting stock" potential. So I'll pick my next pup based on titles and what people who have seen the dog compete in games can say about the dogs strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## stonebroke

I recently read a piece of "advice" by a pro trainer in a hunting dog magazine (that I will not name) on selecting a Springer pup. Here's what was written (word for word), *"The novice hunter," he added, "should stay one generation away from field trial championship stock. Such dogs are high-powered and extremely challenging for a first-time owner to train."*

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but the way I interpret his suggestion is that it's ok to get a pup that is the grandson or grandaughter of two field trial champion dogs, but do not get a pup from the field champions themselves. Is that how you all read it? If that's what he's saying, it makes no sense whatsoever. First of all, not all pups from field trial champions are "too hot" to handle. Secondly, skipping one generation would not result in any significant change in the genetic makeup of the pups. I can give countless examples of pups from non-titled parents that became field champions and National Field Champions and can give even more examples of pups from field champion parents that were absolutely wonderful gundogs and trained easily.

Every Springer pup I've ever bought was from litters where either both the sire and dam or the sire were Field Champions. My old dog, Tess, was out of two National Field Champions. My first Springer, Rosie, was the grandaughter of 3 National Field Champions. I've also kept pups from litters that I've produced that are one generation away from the field trial dogs in their pedigree...several. I've seen absolutley no difference in the pups that are a generation away compared to pups out of parents who were field champions. No difference whatsoever. Zippo. I'll be the first to admit that training is not my forte....... I'm not a good trainer. Thus, I like dogs that train easily and do a lot naturally. If I can train a Springer from Field Trial stock, anyone can.....believe me, and I've probably placed 99% of the pups I've had with non-field trialers.....many of them first-time gundog owners.

Some of the stuff written in Magazine Articles I read really irks me.. Had I not been breeding Springers from field trial lines for the past 20 years I probably would have believed what this Pro wrote, and would probably have stayed away from pups whose parents were field trial champions, but I know that his advice here is not valid. Whether his theory applies to other gundog breeds, I have no idea...... I doubt it. My common sense tells me that even if a particular line within any breed is too "Hot" for a novice to train, those genes aren't going to disappear by skipping one generation.


----------



## tumblebuck

I'm getting in on the conversation kind of late. Lots of good points and comments.

I do not run field trials with my dogs but have participated in AKC Hunt tests and will continue to do so.

Currently, I have three labs.

Dog #1 is from solid field trial lines. This dog is VERY biddable and trainable. She absolutely loves to train&#8230;everything from marks to simple OB. She is a team player. She has a Senior Hunter Title with a couple of Master Hunter passes. Due to my own inept training ability she has developed some bad habits and line manners so I don't run hunt tests with her any more. Training for that tlevel of competition got to be too much of a battle for both of us and it wasn't enjoyable.

Now we just hunt together and hunt a lot. This is my "go to" dog for any hunting situation. I love chasing roosters and this dog has endless drive and just won't quit. She can be a handful in the duck or goose blind at times but she makes up for it in marking and handling ability. I'm willing to overlook some of her quirks for the fact that I know she'll retrieve the birds at 10 yards as well as the ones that sail a hundred yards. She is just a great hunter (of course, I'm biased). In the house, she's calm and well-mannered.

Dog #2 is a "gimme". A friend of a friend of a friend type deal. He needed a better home than what he had so I took him in. I was the third owner within three months of this poor guy. Supposedly he came from "Championship Bloodlines". Interpret that however you want. I never saw any papers or pedigree for him.

He is a nice dog. Very calm and affectionate. I have to take a whole different approach to training this dog than dog #1, though. Any pressure at all and he'll just lay down and quiver (I think he was abused at one time, too). It took me awhile just to get him to retrieve a dummy. Now he loves to do it. He does alright in the field but has very little drive. He's got a good nose and flushes a few birds but he's the type of dog that will run around for a few minutes and then be content to let me break trail for him. Hunting in cattails&#8230;.I guarantee he'll be at my heels most of the way.

Dog #3 has the same sire as dog #1 but different dam. The dam for this one had a few hunt test titles in the pedigree and one AFC. I was hoping for a repeat of dog #1 but what I got is something in between #1 and #2.

She's got good instincts but she can be a blockhead sometimes. She doesn't take to training as #1 and hasn't mastered the concepts I hoped she would at this point. She does pretty well in the field. She needs a bit more experience before she figures it all out, though. She's nice and calm in the duck blind, too. I think she's going to be a good meatdog but don't think she has what it takes to make it to the Master Hunter level&#8230;senior level maybe.

Three dogs, three totally different "personalities".

Dogs my family had growing up never had titles. Back then we thought they were great dogs but given the dogs I have now, there is no comparison.

I have friends that own chessies, goldens, labs, wirehars, britneys, setters, springers, cockers, and just plain mutts. Some are titled and come from titled parents&#8230;.some don't and aren't. I have hunted behind most and can appreciate what each breed has to offer, but unquestionably the dogs that are of titled stock and receive *adequate training *for the type of hunting they do are, in my opinion, better hunters. They just seem to have the drive and instincts that make great hunting dogs.

Based on my experience, I will not buy a dog that doesn't come from solid lines of titled dogs.


----------



## Gordon Guy

Stonebroke,
I would like to add a few things to these observations. These are opinions and worth what I paid for them ($0.00). I've competed in AKC trials, Hunt Test, NSTRA, NAVDHA and in informal picnic trials. I believe on the average, the caliber of dog is higher when performance in dog events is the goal of the owner. When I compare the dogs in the fun trials (Owned by hunters who have no desire to compete with the pro's) to the general population of dogs I see at orgainzed/sanctioned events, there's a stark difference. The people who have the desire to compete don't want to go out there and loose or be embarrassed so the dogs they enter have a fire that's hotter than the average. They believe those dogs can beat all comers or else they wouldn't be out there. At one Fun event in ND I went to there was a guy with a Griffon, that dog never went more then 15 yards from the handler. He found his 3 birds and the guy was happy. He really liked his dog and talked him up. I'm happy that he's happy, but that dog wasn't for me. That dog would never have been entered in a hunt test or a trial by a pro, it could never have won. That owner might breed that dog because he was happy and liked his dog, it was a great hunting dog for *HIM*.

I like dogs with fire, out on the edge, almost out of control. I know where to find them, field trial stock.

Bottom line is it all depends on what you're looking for. Buyer beware!

I believe seeing the parents of your future pup and hunting over them says more then what a title will tell you. However, in the absence of that knowledge, titles tell you only that the parents have the *ability* to be trained to that level of the title and can *handle the pressure *of that training. They also have the *desire* to find birds without that desire they wouldn't handle the pressure.

Titles sell puppies. You even said it in your first post, that you will always buy dogs that have titles in their back ground. Generally people are funny, (I include myself in this, I've done it) they have to have belongings that are better than the next person. We've all heard people brag about what they paid for their dogs and what titles are in their dogs pedigree's. Until we loose that competitiveness between ourselves it will always make a difference, it's human nature. Right or wrong that's the ay it is.

Another observation I see is that people look down their noses and say that those dog events are not like hunting. IMO They're not suppose to be, they are games people play with their dogs and that's it. Most are designed to separate the cream from the crop to "better" their respective breeds so others can play in that same game. And satisfy the competitive nature in those folks, there's that competitive nature in us humans again. There are a lot of ethics issues at play if you hunt only to compete with your neigbhor (Should competitive dog games be like hunting? It would deminish what hunting means to me and open up a target for the non-hunting voters) and that's a discussion better left for another time.

My $.02

Tom Loy


----------



## stonebroke

Gordon Guy said:


> Stonebroke,
> I would like to add a few things to these observations. These are opinions and worth what I paid for them ($0.00). I've competed in AKC trials, Hunt Test, NSTRA, NAVDHA and in informal picnic trials. I believe on the average, the caliber of dog is higher when performance in dog events is the goal of the owner. When I compare the dogs in the fun trials (Owned by hunters who have no desire to compete with the pro's) to the general population of dogs I see at orgainzed/sanctioned events, there's a stark difference. The people who have the desire to compete don't want to go out there and loose or be embarrassed so the dogs they enter have a fire that's hotter than the average. They believe those dogs can beat all comers or else they wouldn't be out there. At one event in ND I went to there was a guy with a Griffon, that dog never went more then 15 yards from the handler. He found his 3 birds and the guy was happy. He really liked his dog and talked him up. I'm happy that he's happy, but that dog wasn't for me. That dog would never have been entered in a Trial by a pro, it could never have won. That owner might breed that dog because he was happy and liked his dog, it was a great hunting dog for *HIM*.
> 
> I like dogs with fire, out on the edge, almost out of control. I know where to find them, field trial stock.
> 
> Bottom line is it all depends on what you're looking for. Buyer beware!
> 
> I believe seeing the parents of your future pup and hunting over them says more then what a title will tell you. However, in the absence of that knowledge, titles tell you only that the parents have the *ability* to be trained to that level of the title and can *handle the pressure *of that training. They also have the *desire* to find birds without that desire they wouldn't handle the pressure.
> 
> Titles sell puppies. You even said it in your first post, that you will always buy dogs that have titles in their back ground. Generally people are funny, (I include myself in this, I've done it) they have to have belongings that are better than the next person. We've all heard people brag about what they paid for their dogs and what titles are in their dogs pedigree's. Until we loose that competitiveness between ourselves it will always make a difference, it's human nature. Right or wrong that's the ay it is.
> 
> Another observation I see is that people look down their noses and say that those dog events are not like hunting. IMO They're not suppose to be, they are games people play with their dogs and that's it. Most are designed to separate the cream from the crop to "better" their respective breeds so others can play in that same game. And satisfy they competitive nature in those folks. It's that competitive nature in us humans again. There are a lot of ethics issues at play if you hunt only to compete with your neigbhor and that's a discussion better left to another time.
> 
> My $.02
> 
> Tom Loy


You're right, Tom. Titles definitely do sell dogs/puppies and more often than not, rightfully so. If anyone were to have a litter of pups with no field titles on either side of the pedigree within the first 3 generations, they'd probably be sitting on those pups for a long time. They'd more than likely end up having to give some of them away, or at best sell them for little of nothing. They could very well be wonderful pups, but people want some reassurance that a pup they are getting has "what it takes", and titles do tend to provide that reassurance even though we all know every pup is somewhat of a gamble regardless of the breeding.

People are funny. Oddly enough I get many people who are more concerned with the color of the pups, the size they'll be when mature, etc. as opposed to the bloodlines, trainability, hunting and retrieving instincts, etc.. If you breed dogs long enough you'll hear anything and everything from prospective buyers. When I get a call from someone who is "out in left field", I just very politely try to educate them and help them out as much as I can. Often times I realize very quickly that I don't have the type of dog they are looking for and I try to direct them to someone who might if I can.


----------



## taddy1340

Todd and Tom...Good to see you guys chime in! I've seen both of your dogs and you're true to your word.

As for Todd "dog #1" I got to see her do some great handling work this past fall. Definitely a dog to be very proud of!

Again...great discussion...


----------



## gonedoggin

I think the value of the titles varies with the breed. I don't know anything about the pointing dog hunt tests so I'll refrain from commenting but for Retriever and Spaniel hunt tests, the JH title is either for puppies or show dogs. If a breeder tried to promote that as proof of the dogs ability I'd look elsewhere.

The MH title for retrievers is much more meaningful than the MH title for Spaniels. The Spaniel hunt test program is inhibited by the fact that several breed clubs (Clumber, Sussex, etc) that have been mostly ruined by conformation shows have an equal vote in determining requirements. Therefore while they are an entertaining way to spend the day, they aren't as rigorous as the retriever program.

On the other hand, the Springer field trial program is remarkably similar to a day's hunt compared to the Retriever field trial.

Bottom line, titles tell you something about the dogs but they can't tell the whole story. You've got to get more information to make an informed decision.


----------



## gonehuntin'

Speaking of retrievers, to me the only titles worth the paper they're written on is an AKC title. Any title that comes from a dog being tested against a standard and not another dog, has little value to me.


----------



## gonedoggin

gonehuntin' said:


> Speaking of retrievers, to me the only titles worth the paper they're written on is an AKC title. Any title that comes from a dog being tested against a standard and not another dog, has little value to me.


I'm not following you. Do you mean that you only appreciate Field trial titles and not hunt test titles? I've only experienced retriever hunt tests in Texas (both UKC and AKC) and I've read that we have a substantially higher standard for our hunt tests than other parts of the country. In my opinion, the highest levels (HRCH/MH) are quite meaningful. While you don't know by looking at a pedigree if an HRCH or MH dog passed 90% of his tries or failed 90% and finally muddled through to get his title, you do know that the work required is substantial and that a dog that repeatedly passed those tests is at least quite trainable.

Field trial titles are MUCH, MUCH harder to acquire and many fantastic dogs have lot's of points but just can't manage to get a 1st place to finish. While I'm highly impressed w/ an FC or AFC I'm also a little bit leery until I see the dog's temperament myself.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, these comments relate only to Retrievers.


----------



## gonehuntin'

gonedoggin said:


> I'm not following you. Do you mean that you only appreciate Field trial titles and not hunt test titles? As I mentioned in an earlier post, these comments relate only to Retrievers.


Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Here's the reason. I've seen some dog's with MH'S that took six or seven years to get. The owners spent thousands with pro trainers to get those dog's titled. Even with their MH, they couldn't go one series in an AKC test. They were slug's.

An MH title is better than nothing, at least it shows a dog has been trained and to an extent, will accept training. It shows the dog has some talent.

An FC title means that dog has *beaten* the greatest and most competitive dog's in the country to achieve that title. Big difference than simply taking years to conform to a standard.

I think the hunt tests are fantastic. They get people to train their dogs and give them a chance to congregate with other dog people on the weekends. You don't have to train as religiously for them and don't have to invest the thousands in training and trialing the AKC guys do. It's is truly a wonderful venue.

I simply don't put much store in the titles a dog achieves. Look at it like this: Any FC can begin to compete in MH and become one. It's like a gimme title. Very few MH dog's can compete in the AKC tests successfully.


----------



## Fosse

gonehuntin' said:


> Even with their MH, they couldn't go one series in an AKC test.


MH is an AKC tiltle from an AKC test. I see your point on a few rare occations. Most MH dogs I have been around(90%) can compete and become QAA without much problem at all. Not sure if you are just trying to get a FT/HT arrgument going. Bottom line is they are two complete different games. It is in the eye of the beholder which one is better. I believe that a dog that has proven him/herself in the FT game is a great dog to look at. Dogs that have proven themselves in HT by completing the highest level of tests and title MH are not to be discarded or discredited either. Both dogs are getting training that is better than most dogs you would run into on a weekend hunt.


----------



## Fosse

gonedoggin said:


> While I'm highly impressed w/ an FC or AFC I'm also a little bit leery until I see the dog's temperament myself.


I agree with this. To me(in most cases) there is a large amount of training and time with a pro to obtain these titles. These dogs most of the time do not get the amount of needed human interaction needed to make them a family dog(that most dog owners want in a pup). These pups are machines that spend 95% of their time in a small space on a dog truck or in a run at the kennel. However, these dogs live for it and enjoy every minute of it.


----------



## gonehuntin'

Fosse said:


> MH is an AKC tiltle from an AKC test. I see your point on a few rare occations. Most MH dogs I have been around(90%) can compete and become QAA without much problem at all. Not sure if you are just trying to get a FT/HT arrgument going.


I was to vague. It's true many MH's can compete in a Qualifying. They're not Open material though. I didn't even think about the Qualifying because no titles are involved. Qualified All Age Dog is not a title.

I'm not in any way starting an arguement. Just saying that there are a ton of MH's around and not to many FC'S. FC or AFC is a very hard title to obtain. Therefore, they mean more to me when I'm picking a pup.


----------



## stonebroke

There are also countless dogs with and FC, AFC, NFC, etc. who are out of non-titled parents. Here are just a few Springer Field Champions who were out of parents with no titles.....I could list many, many more:

1965 ENFC Saighton's Stinger
1979 NFC Burcliff's Brandi
1984 and 1984 NFC Wind Riding Streak
1967 NFC Brackenbriar Snapshot
4X NFC Saighton's Scud

I see now that some breeders are advertising what they are calling "Dual Titled Dogs"....not to be mistaken for Dual Champions. Looks like they have a dog with a Show Title, put a JH title on it and are now calling them "Dual Titled". I guess it's not an untruth, but seems to me to be a bit misleading.

As far as the MH or SH vs. the FC, AFC, etc. titles I think it depends on what a person is looking for. If a person is looking for top field trial prospect, the FC, AFC, etc. titles are probably more meaningful...depends on the breed I suppose.....but if a person is looking for a good hunting dog I think the MH and SH titles have merit. My two cents worth..

We need to keep in mind that not all Field Champions, Amateur Field Champions, etc. earn their titles under the same level of competition. It's one thing to take a first in a field of 10 or 12 dogs (depending on what 10 or 12 dogs are running). It's another thing all together to take a first place in a field of 40 or 50 dogs that are the cream of the crop. I'm talking Springers here as that is the breed I know the most about as far as trials go. In the marked catalogs I've read it's not uncommon to see 40 or 50 very highly competitive dogs run in a trial back east or in the midwest. On the other hand I've read the stats on trials in other parts of the country and in some parts of Canada where maybe a dozen dogs or so ran. Is a dog that earns an FC competing in trials with a handful of dogs that are not the top dogs in the country as good as a dog that earns an FC against 40 stiff competitors? I don't know.....maybe yes, maybe no... but on paper, they have the same credentials. Food for thought....


----------



## gonedoggin

There is a huge difference in difficulty between the Spaniel games and the Retriever games with the retriever game being much more demanding. The average SH or HR (mid level) retriever could easily pass the average spaniel MH test and I mean easily.

The good news for Springers is that the field trial format is really quite realistic. Pretty much any dog that is capable of finishing an all-age stake (3rd series) is going to be a damn fine hunting dog. The retriever field trial format however has evolved into an extremely long range obedience test. The winning dogs are bred more for their trainability than for their natural ability and for the average hunter, most of them are too hyper to make a pleasant companion in the duck blind.

The whole hunt test format was developed by retriever guys who realized that the field trial format was not producing the kind of dogs they wanted to hunt with. The success of these games prompted the AKC to develop them for the pointing dogs and spaniels. I've never seen a pointing dog hunt test but I do run both retriever and spaniel tests.

The spaniel tests are too simple and really don't mean much but they're still fun. I consider the retriever hunt tests to be quite meaningful. My opinion is for a good prospect for a Springer, look for CFC, AFC, or FC in the pedigree, for retrievers look for MH, HRCH, or GHRCH parents and grandparents.


----------



## Fosse

gonehuntin' said:


> Just saying that there are a ton of MH's around and not to many FC'S. FC or AFC is a very hard title to obtain. Therefore, they mean more to me when I'm picking a pup.


Ok, I am 100% with you. I tend to go the exact same direction. More so with the sire. I like to see at least a SH if not a MH title on all dams in the litters that I look at. Any FT titles on a dam is a bonus to me. The litter I am getting a pup out of in June is out of an FCxSH(with three Master passes).


----------



## stonebroke

gonedoggin said:


> There is a huge difference in difficulty between the Spaniel games and the Retriever games with the retriever game being much more demanding. The average SH or HR (mid level) retriever could easily pass the average spaniel MH test and I mean easily.
> 
> The good news for Springers is that the field trial format is really quite realistic. Pretty much any dog that is capable of finishing an all-age stake (3rd series) is going to be a damn fine hunting dog. The retriever field trial format however has evolved into an extremely long range obedience test. The winning dogs are bred more for their trainability than for their natural ability and for the average hunter, most of them are too hyper to make a pleasant companion in the duck blind.
> 
> The whole hunt test format was developed by retriever guys who realized that the field trial format was not producing the kind of dogs they wanted to hunt with. The success of these games prompted the AKC to develop them for the pointing dogs and spaniels. I've never seen a pointing dog hunt test but I do run both retriever and spaniel tests.
> 
> The spaniel tests are too simple and really don't mean much but they're still fun. I consider the retriever hunt tests to be quite meaningful. My opinion is for a good prospect for a Springer, look for CFC, AFC, or FC in the pedigree, for retrievers look for MH, HRCH, or GHRCH parents and grandparents.


I really can't say that the Springer Trials I've been to resemble actual hunting all that much....maybe they're different in Texas, but the ones I've been to have been run in open fields so that the judges could see the dogs. They used pen raised hen pheasants that could barely fly....none ran and flushed wild like a wild pheasant does, and I'd guess better than half of the birds were trapped by the dog. The courses were set up in circular pattern so that the handlers, guns, gallery, etc. made a big circle through a field and ended up where they started. By about the third time time around the fields were trampled down flat. Before I went to some trials I'd read that Springer Trials were a close approximation to hunting also. I don't know where or how people hunt who say trials are close to hunting, but they sure don't resemble the type of hunting I do....not even close.

I've not been to a Springer Hunt Test. I don't know how they are set up, but if they are using pen raised birds in open fields, they are probably not much of a test.....I'm guessing they are more of a test of how obedient a dog is as opposed to it knowing how to actually use its head and hunt.


----------



## gonedoggin

I've never seen one nearly that bad but I believe you, it could 
happen. You have to use pen raised pheasants and some bird suppliers are better than others. The skill of the bird planter is also crucial. Most trials use a mix of hens and roosters for the 1st two series and roosters for the 3rd. The cover that looked so good several months ago when the Field Trial committee planned the trial may get blown or 
rained down so that by the time of the trial it doesn't allow the dogs 
to demonstrate boldness to cover. But no committee wants to have 
people show up from all over the country to be disappointed in the 
trial they've put on. If what you've seen was typical, nobody would be willing to traipse across the country w/ their dogs to compete.

I guess I shouldn't have said "realistic", what I should have said is 
that the skills demonstrated in a Springer trial are very directly transferred to the 
hunting field. When things go right, the birds flush hard and fly 
strong, several of them will run giving the spaniel the highest chance 
of placing high by trailing the bird off the course and producing it 
for the gunners to make the shot. The cover will be diverse and 
challenging yet still allow the judges to see the dog in order to 
evaluate his performance. (a necessary evil) The gun team will let 
the birds get out far enough to provide challenging retrieves. There 
is also a huge amount of institutional knowledge that pervades the 
field trial community in terms of dogs, wind, scent, etc. Much of it 
is not written down.

The dogs that are called back to the 3rd series will run hard and 
fast, using the wind to cover their beats in a thorough, efficient 
pattern. They will have found birds at a good distance, closed in fast 
and produced the bird in a bold flush before they "hupped" and watched 
the bird away. If the gunners did their job, the springer will race 
out for the retrieve upon being sent and bring the bird back with a 
gentle mouth. If necessary, he will take hand signals to the bird but 
admittedly most spaniels wouldn't impress a seasoned retriever guy w/ 
their blind retrieves.

If you take that dog straight from the trial to the big CRP fields in 
Kansas, you won't try to handle him on a strict pattern, you'll just 
follow his lead and he'll put birds in your bag. Take him into the 
grouse woods and the good Springer will hunt closer and "hup" 
immediately at the whistle while you fight your way through a briar 
patch. You can send him into any likely looking patch of cover w/ the 
flick of your hand.

If you keep your standards high while you're hunting, you can run him 
again the next weekend without worry. As field trial formats go, I'd 
put the Springer game well ahead of both the retriever and pointing dog 
horseback trials as far as testing and producing effective hunting 
companions.


----------



## Chaws

Keep in mind with hunting retrievers there are actually 4 true venues of competition. 2 of those venues are only shown on an AKC pedigree, 1 on a UKC pedigree, and the other one isn't show on either.

AKC handles Field Trials and Hunt Test, both of which aren't much a replication of actual hunting. The Field Trial dogs are bred to be biddable (ability to learn concepts and respond to what you're teaching them) and have strengths in many areas such as marking, non-vocal, line manners, etc. Yes they run extremely long marks and blinds and amazing concepts with those included, however that goes to show what they're capable of. Some people start by training for hunt tests and want to go to field trials later in the dogs career but that is actually backwards. Field trialers and trainers train the dog for the longer more difficult marks and concepts but could then later train for the shorter and not as difficult concepts found in hunt tests. AKC also uses flyers or live birds for marks in all of their venues except for JH I believe which by doing so adds another dimension to the dogs ability to focus and be controlled.

UKC tests or HRC is getting to be more along the lines of a true hunting situation but still isn't exact. I like these types of tests mainly because of the type of crowd this venue brings with it and most people there are actual hunters. In this venue, you will rarely ever see a live flyer used in their tests which I'd really like to see them change. The concepts in these tests is more along the lines of AKC hunt tests in which the marks and blinds aren't field trial distances but the line is a totally different situation in the comparison.

The 3rd venue is NAHRA. This by far is my most favorite venue to run, again because of the people running their dogs their and the more hunting style of of set ups used. This venue does use live flyers in their marking situations and has a line more along the type of hunting situations.

The 4th venue is the SRS or what used to be ESPN Gun Dog Challenge. This venue doesn't use real birds at all, they use the Avery rubber ducks for all their retrieves. Some people in the game see this as the ultimate look at a dogs and trainers abilities because the set ups are very complex and the distances can be a combination of hunt and field trial lengths with the line being a combination of both as well, sometimes handling a gun, sometimes not.

Most people like the AKC events obviously because the title seen on the pedigree is always seen unless a UKC pedigree is also provided. In my dogs I like to see a combination of titles on the dogs but I do ultimately like to see the FC, AFC, or National winners either immediately in the pedigree or not far back on either stud or ***** side of the lines.


----------



## kgpcr

I have a MEAT dog and darn proud of it!! Thats what i want when i hunt. My dog cant read so she really does not care about titles. I have a friend who is a trainer and he wanted to train her for hunt tests and the like as he thought she has some really good potential. I would not let that happen to my meat dog. I want her to hunt plain and simple and i hunt pheasants so i could care less about all the water straight line crap. it all depends on what you want in a dog.


----------



## Fosse

kgpcr said:


> I have a MEAT dog and darn proud of it!! Thats what i want when i hunt. My dog cant read so she really does not care about titles.


I understand that you do not want your dog to go through the HT/FT games. That is not what this thread is about. This thread is about sires/dams---Grand sires/ Grand dams and so on...

Most people do not want to train and put themseves through the heartache. The dogs do not know the difference if they win or loose, well, except if they get a McDonalds cheeseburger at the end of the day :beer:

Most people would like the pup that they buy to be from a good back ground. The dog world came up with a way of understanding the dogs you are looking into buying from without ever meeting the dogs involed. These tests are ran to show how a dog can do against the standard and other dogs. This does not ever have to be you and your dog unless you deside to take it up as a hobby


----------

