# interesting artical



## ryanps18

I am not trying to open up a can of worms here, just trying to get some ideas of what some of the old pro's think of this. Has anyone read any of his books, are they worth buying?

Five Key Points for Training Retrievers

By Robert Milner

1. Obedience First

The most common deficiency in the average hunter's gun dog training program is a lack of emphasis on obedience and steadiness.

If I could persuade the average gun dog owner to do one thing better as a trainer, it would be to spotlight obedience and emphasize the non-retrieve. The non-retrieve is when Pup sees a bird or dummy fall but doesn't get to retrieve it. The trainer or another dog retrieves it while Pup watches.

We took a wrong turn somewhere in the evolution of training, and now go about the retrieving and steadying processes in a totally illogical manner. We take a young dog and give him hundreds of retrieves with no restraint. For the first thousand retrieves, we encourage the dog to take off at will after the falling dummy. Then, after we have him well trained to break, we change the rules and decide to make him steady-which requires a certain amount of punishment to counteract the breaking behavior we have just trained.

The sequence should be reversed. Train him on obedience first, and train him to be steady by teaching him to expect to be steady. This is done with non-retrieves.

As soon as Pup is proficient at basic obedience, the "stay" drill should include some falling dummies. While he's sitting, toss out a dummy or two. Then go and pick up the dummies while he watches. If you are picking up 75 percent of what Pup sees fall, then Pup doesn't expect to retrieve everything that drops from the sky.

He becomes steady, with little effort and no punishment. Additionally, he develops into a calm, pleasant hunting companion. (The same principle applies to the older dog in hunting situations. If you send the dog immediately every time a bird falls, then you are training him to break. Make his life easier by making him wait.)

When duck hunting, wait till you have several ducks on the water before you send Pup to retrieve. Unless wind or current is carrying off the ducks, it won't hurt them to float for half an hour. If you are shooting doves, pick up the short, easy ones yourself. Let Pup sit for ten or fifteen minutes before he is sent for the difficult retrieves. The exception of course is the crippled bird, for which you send Pup quickly to reduce the odds of escape.

The practice of delayed retrieving also pays dividends by making it easier for Pup to learn hand signals and blind retrieves. If you have four or five dead ducks on the water that have been there a while, Pup is not going to remember exactly where they are. He knows they are there and will eagerly cast off in their general direction, but his certainty will waver and he will be prone to take some help from you.

Conversely, when you engage in the practice of immediately sending Pup on every fall, you are training him in self-reliance. When he's launched on the splash, he knows exactly where that bird is and will quickly pick it up. After he's found several hundred birds all by himself, he is going to be difficult to convince that he needs help from you in the form of hand signals.

2. Coming on Command

One of the most common obedience problems is failure to come on command.

This is as prevalent in young, green dogs as breaking is in older hunting dogs. Both problems stem from a lack of obedience. If a dog is well trained to heel, sit, stay, and come, he'll do nearly anything you want. The problem lies in the definition of "well trained."

A dog is well trained in obedience when he is obedient in the face of any level of distraction. That means he will respond properly when the neighbor's cat walks by, when another dog is playing next to him, and even when shotguns are shooting and ducks are falling.

3. Too Much Dog

The average hunter appears to be "overdogged," or to have a dog that is too hot for him to handle.

I place the blame for this on our field-trial system. Our retriever field trials were brought over from England in the early 1900s, along with the golden and Labrador retrievers. The trials were small and very representative of a day's shooting, and the skills judged were those that had value to the hunting dog and hunter. The trials emphasized game-finding ability, softness of mouth, and calmness of demeanor.

The typical Labrador retriever of thirty or forty years ago was a gentle, calm dog. Today an unfortunately large number of Labradors are hyperactive and difficult to train. The basic reason for this shift in breeding selection appears to be our field-trial system.

Unfortunately, our field trials-mainly because of increasing entries-have evolved over the years into elimination contests that evaluate skills that are of little importance in a hunting dog. These behaviors include lining, angle entries into water, pinpoint marking, and precise handling at long distances. Gone by the wayside are line manners and obedience, as well as game-finding initiative.

Moreover, training precision lining and long-distance handling requires a great deal of repetition, and some degree of punishment. The dog that excels at these skills tends to be hyperactive, with a high pain threshold, which is exactly the type of dog we are breeding today.

4. Electric Collars

The electric collar, which can create as many problems as it solves, is becoming far too predominant a training tool.

The electric collar is a great training tool in the hands of a good trainer. However, there are astronomically more electric collars than there are good trainers. The truth is: In order to train a dog with the electric collar you must be able to train him without it. The collar does not magically impart to the guy holding the transmitter the knowledge and skills of dog training. Most folks buy an electric collar to solve a basic obedience problem, and generally end up abusing the dog and not solving the problem, or trading one problem for an even bigger one. Proper training can solve nearly all problems in basic obedience, and you don't need an electric collar to do so.

5. Selective Breeding

We have forgotten the basic goals of breeding selection and have embarked on a course of producing better dogs by training rather than breeding.

The Labrador is the breed I most commonly work with, and I am alarmed at the trends I see. It has become the general custom to force-fetch train every dog. This corrects any tendency to drop birds, mouth birds, or run off to the bushes with birds. It also masks the genetic tendencies toward those behaviors.

We are now masking with training the major trait that we spent a hundred years developing through selective breeding-namely, delivery to hand with a soft mouth. If we take a hard-mouthed dog and put him through the force-fetch program so that he delivers gently to hand, then he will behave like a great dog. We may even make him a field champion through superior training. However, his puppies will still have that genetic tendency toward hard mouth, and we will be going backwards in the selective-breeding process.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two other examples of behaviors that have a very significant genetic component that we mask with training are:

Hyperactivity

We train the hyperactive dog to be under control and be a gentleman. The electric collar is quite popular for this. Put a hyperactive dog in the hands of a good trainer with an electric collar and that dog will make an excellent gun dog or field-trial dog, but his puppies will probably inherit the same hyperactivity. His puppies will be just as difficult to train as the sire was.

Cooperative Nature 
We generally characterize these dogs as "soft" and tend to give them away as pets when they flunk the electric-collar program. Thus we are tending to remove from the breeding pool dogs that exhibit this valuable trait. This trait of "cooperative nature" is of extreme importance to the average hunter, because the average hunter is usually quite low in dog-training skills.

The gist of all this is that the average hunter is low in dog-training skills, which is as it should be. The community of dog experts should be promoting the selective breeding of a dog that the average hunter can train, and enjoy. We should not be breeding a dog with a bundle of genetically transmitted behavioral tendencies that make him difficult to train into a good working dog. The average hunter should not have to get a Ph.D. in dog training in order to come up with a dog that is pleasant to hunt with and pleasant to live with.

We probably need to look back to England for solutions. They still have the same field trials they had eighty years ago, still selectively breed for major traits, and still get rid of dogs that lack a cooperative nature and predisposition toward trainability.

I, for one, get my personal dogs from England. They are calm, cooperative, and pleasant to live with, and they find all the birds I shoot. I've gotten lazy and prefer a dog that has gotten most of the required talents through selective breeding.

Copyright © 2000 by Robert Milner.


----------



## brianb

His bashing of american bred labs and field trials ****** alot of people off. Yes I've seen hyperactive field trial dogs, I've also seen hyper nontrial dogs, trial dogs that were a joy to hunt with, good English labs and English labs that would only pick up a bird if it was covered with gravy.

If you take out a lot of his rhetoric he has some good points. There are just a lot more in depth training material out there than Milner's.

It doesn't take a dog whisperer genius to run an ecollar humanely. I am of the firm belief that the first year to 18 months of life for a hunting dog, hunt test or field trial prospect should be nearly identical. the dog should be force fetched, introduced to the collar, completed its handling drills, and be handling in the field at a reasonable level. It should also be doing double retrieves on land and water.

After that the training should start to differ based on what you want out of the dog.


----------



## ryanps18

Brian,

thanks for the feedback.

One more question: Don't you think that a Lab should retrieve without having to force fetch the dog. I know they don't do FF in england or use e-collar's and still are able to train to a very high level. Why are most of the trainers here so set on these techniqes.

I am not saying one is right or wrong, I am just trying to understand why we have to force a retriever to retrieve, is that not why we bought a retreiver in the first place. Maybe that's a stupid question, I have no idea, but the more I read of other training methods it just seems to make more sense. But what do I know!


----------



## Kyle B

Force Fetching takes the choice away from the dog. Probably the best summation I have ever read regarding the purpose of Force Fetching was written by Amy Dahl in The 10 Minute Retriever:

"The process of making a dog absolutely reliable in its bird/dummy handling and delivery. It converts retrieving from a matter of play to a matter of obedience. It provides a foundation of confidence for advanced training--no matter how confusing or stressful a situation, the dog knows that going when sent is the right thing to do. This confidence is the basis of greater style and intensity than is possible in any play-retrieve."


----------



## ryanps18

Kyle,

That makes perfect sence to me. But how then does a guy like Mike stewart claim to not use use force fetch and still train that ducks unlimited dog to what I think is a hell of good dog?

Do you think he is full of it?


----------



## brianb

No, I am sure that Drake the DU dog wasn't Force Fetched (FF for short)

I would personally love to have that dog in the blind.

Force fetch for me is the first step in getting a dog to take hand signals / blind retrieves. It is telling the dog to go and get something in its mouth. First from my hand, then from the ground, then from a pile it can see, then as a true blind retrieve.

It can be done without it FF but FF gives you something to go back to when you hit problems. Without it you have be more creative and have the right dog.

My experiences with "British" dogs are that they don't have enough birdiness. I've seen a couple really nice ones but the majority were lacking. The owners were frustrated trying to figure out how to wake up their prey drive.


----------



## ryanps18

Brian

Thanks again! I am still learning, I have read many articals and books but I can't claim that have much hands on experience as I have really only trained two dogs.
So I thank you all for being patient with my dumb questions.


----------



## Kyle B

ryanps18 said:


> But how then does a guy like Mike stewart claim to not use use force fetch and still train that ducks unlimited dog to what I think is a hell of good dog?
> 
> Do you think he is full of it?


I think a lot of people think that their way is the right way. I am not of fan of Mr. Stewart's methods or his breeding program, but there are many that are.

I've only seen Drake on the DU shows. He looks like a really nice dog, but I don't recall seeing how Mr. Stewart deals with problems such as cast refusals, not returning the bird to hand, or any of a list of issues that Force Fetching assists you with.


----------



## gonehuntin'

Millner's advice is dated, but much of it is good. I totally disagree with him that a pup should have no marks until obedience trained. Rubbish. A dog's entire existance and being revolve around birds. Start them on them from 6 weeks on, same with bumpers, then begin obedience training them at 6-10 months depending on the pup. His advice on steadying is good. Same with obedience. When I was trialing it was incredible to me that the very thing every amature should have been able to kill a pro with, basic obedience, was the last thing they were concerned with. His views on e-collars were based on the old collars of the 70's and early 80's that did not have variable intensity features. That single thing changed everything. Now any dog, no matter how soft can successfully be collar trained. Be aware also that the collar was a west coast innovation and it has taken a long time for it to be accepted across the country. Some parts of the country still don't like it and most don't understand it. I too feel that his views on american dogs are totally biased and pure bull. A field trial champion is an incredible intelligent, tractable, and willing dog with a ton of desire. I'll put them against ANY english dog any day. On force fetch, it's just another way to train. Everyone is force trained. We are forced to go to school, forced to behave, forced to get a job and hold that job. Why shouldn't a dog be the same. It lessens the time required to train a dog and gives a superior foundation to any other method. It gives you something to fall back on and correct problems that develop later with. It just plain makes it easier on you and the dog.


----------



## jonesy

If the amatuers and some pro's would stay consistant with the puppy work, and retrieves, it would be and stay natural. what I see usually happens, is the dog gets a couple oppertunities to screw up and it is the end of session, and everyones tired, and the dog gets away with it...then the next session, the dog boogers up...because last time it was ok, and they yank and crank and usually gets it all screwed up...then if you look back to the prior session, if the problem would have been solved right then as it was happening, or as it happened, the dog would have been right back in sync. but they let it slide and now its a down hill battle. The pros use the ff because the dogs that come are so far gone, that for our money and time, its the quick easy fix, that the ams are looking for. People want an instant source to eliminate their screw ups..ff is it. People do not want to spend the money or the time to fix what has fallen apart...but yet they will spend 30,000 on a truck.....1000-2500 on a gun, 500-1000 on clothes.......but yet bat an eye on the dog....and the dog gets the short end of the stick....because they dont want to spend the money to make or fix the dog.....that will feed them during the season. Dog bill is always the last one to get paid.......but they look good in the truck, and boy....that gun sure is pretty, and the ol' dog.....well he's pretty good ol hunting dog.........thats pointing everything that we will eat tonight, or that done the quad retrieve with 2 100-150 yard blinds, sat out in the middle of the decoys with a whistle sit, holding the bird....while dad and his buddies done some more shooting. people forget the little things alll they want is the material things that make them think they are better ...than what they really are. I do alot of bird dogs and retrievers...alll year, and have made and fixed many nice retrieveing dogs, of any breed, the only thing that I can say is training is consistancy, and if you are fair to the dog, it will in return be fair to you, the only thing they know is what we have taught. For every action, there is a re-action. I am bias, I do both natural, and ff, I prefer the natural. Jonesy


----------



## ryanps18

jonesy,

good post, I agree


----------



## daveb

brianb said:


> My experiences with "British" dogs are that they don't have enough birdiness. I've seen a couple really nice ones but the majority were lacking. The owners were frustrated trying to figure out how to wake up their prey drive.


No offense, but you definitely haven't been around the ones I've seen.


----------



## hydro870

> I am not of fan of Mr. Stewart's methods or his breeding program


I'll second that. Mostly because of the misinformation he is spewing about American Field Trial Dogs - which are without question, the best hunting stock.

Show me 10 British Labs, and I will show you at least nine that need a good force fetch lesson. I have pheasant hunted with a few British Labs - none of which would retrieve. They would just stand next to the bird after it was shot. They would be great retrievers if the guys that owned them would get them force fetched. I loved the fact that they gave me the old "we did not have to force fetch our dogs, they are British Labs" line before we went hunting. And then in the field the dogs did not retrieve. I was sure to point it out as my American Force Fetched dog brought the bird's home. When it comes to obedience, dogs are dogs my friends. And get one thing straight, fetch and hold are obedience commands.

Say what you want, a dog that is not force fetched is not nearly as crisp and under control as a dog that is force fetched. And when someone makes a comment that American Field Trial retrievers are "hyper" or "too high", it simply tells me they know nothing of retrievers.

Hydro


----------



## hydro870

> The average hunter appears to be "overdogged," or to have a dog that is too hot for him to handle.


False, just the opposite is true, most hunting dogs I have seen could use a little more style and purpose in their step.



> The typical Labrador retriever of thirty or forty years ago was a gentle, calm dog. Today an unfortunately large number of Labradors are hyperactive and difficult to train. The basic reason for this shift in breeding selection appears to be our field-trial system.


This guy is an absolute idiot. Based on this garbage he without question knows nothing of retrievers and has an agenda against Field Trialers - who are the keepers of our hunting stock. Show me a Field Trial dog and I will show you the perfect pet and hunting partner all rolled up into one bird retrieving machine.



> Unfortunately, our field trials-mainly because of increasing entries-have evolved over the years into elimination contests that evaluate skills that are of little importance in a hunting dog. These behaviors include lining, angle entries into water, pinpoint marking, and precise handling at long distances. Gone by the wayside are line manners and obedience, as well as game-finding initiative.


OMG, this guy needs to have is keyboard taken away from him!!! Pinpoint marking is everything, it is exactly what the duck hunter expects. It is what I expect. Get the duck, get back. I also expect precise handling at long distances when hunting. Secondly, I will put the obedience of a trial dog up against ANY dog. Lets just line em' up, and I'll show you the difference.



> Moreover, training precision lining and long-distance handling requires a great deal of repetition, and some degree of punishment. The dog that excels at these skills tends to be hyperactive, with a high pain threshold, which is exactly the type of dog we are breeding today.


I can't believe the level of ignorance here! Dogs that excel at taking a line are are the opposite of hyper. The ones that excel at this skill are the slower moving thinkers that have less of a tendancy to cheat water and cover. Obviously, this guy just doesn't have a clue about dogs OR dog training. Further, to win in the trial game a dog needs to be extremely trainable, these are the dogs that "we are breeding today".


----------



## tb

I agree 100% with hydro870. Get into the field trial literature: Retreivers Online, Mike Lardy, etc.

Let me tell you about the best blind retrieve I ever saw. I was hunting a small pothole with a buddy of mine. He gut-shot a drake pintail that sailed over the horizon at least 400 yds away, across a long barley field. No way the dog even knew there was a bird down. My buddy lined him up and sent him for the 400 yds plus blind. After only 2 or 3 whistles the dog was stopped right online at the horizon. My buddy gave him a strong "back", the dog took it perfectly, and my friend said "Well, he's on his own now." Wasn't too long and that pintail was in the bag. An incredible retrieve. The dog was trained by his owner and field trialed extensively. He won the National Golden Retriever Open Stake and retired as an AFC and a Master Hunter. Nicest dog you'd ever want to meet. FF'd, collar-trained the whole field trial bit. I'd hunt with that dog any day of the week. Pheasant, ducks, geese, you name it, he can do it.


----------



## ryanps18

Hydro,

FYI

That artical was written by Robert Milner not Mike Stewart.


----------



## hydro870

Dumb and Dumber...........

:beer:


----------



## taddy1340

Hydro,



> Field Trialers - who are the keepers of our hunting stock.


Do you feel this has shifted over the past decade or so? Richard Wolters credited hunters for keeping the hunting stock alive from the 50-90s, not field trialers. Or do you just not agree with Wolter?

Just curious...not arguing.

Mike


----------



## daveb

hydro870 said:


> Show me 10 British Labs, and I will show you at least nine that need a good force fetch lesson. I have pheasant hunted with a few British Labs - none of which would retrieve. They would just stand next to the bird after it was shot.
> 
> Hydro
Click to expand...

Once again, no offense intended, but you would retract those comments in half a second if you've seen the British Labs I've been around. Granted they're all from the same breeder, though, and the pedigrees are loaded with British FTCH's. If a Lab won't retrieve it probably has more to do with the breeding. Teaching a well bred Lab to retrieve is about as difficult as teaching a kid how to eat ice cream.

Hunting with a grand total of three of British Labs doesn't exactly make one an expert on them. Once again, no offense intended.


----------



## ryanps18

Hydro,

thanks for the input, after reading your post I endned up buying the book.
I figgure if I do the opposite of what you say I will have a damn good bird dog.


----------



## hydro870

> I figgure if I do the opposite of what you say I will have a damn good bird dog.


Hey man, it's the internet, the advise is free. Do with it as you wish.



> Hunting with a grand total of three of British Labs doesn't exactly make one an expert on them.


I agree 100%, that is why my comments were specific to those dogs, and not a generalization. I said if those fellows who owned those dogs that did not retrieve would force fetch them, they would have some nice retrievers.



> If a Lab won't retrieve it probably has more to do with the breeding. Teaching a well bred Lab to retrieve is about as difficult as teaching a kid how to eat ice cream.


I agree 100%. That is why American Field Trial labs rule, they are retrieving machines. Don't think force fetching is something you do to dogs that can't retrieve. It is something that can, and in my opinion, should be done to all bird dogs. Fetch and hold are obedience commands, and force fetching makes the dog understand they are obedience commands, even though they do it anyway. This stuff is dog training 101.



> Field Trialers - who are the keepers of our hunting stock.
> 
> Do you feel this has shifted over the past decade or so? Richard Wolters credited hunters for keeping the hunting stock alive from the 50-90s, not field trialers. Or do you just not agree with Wolter?


Where is the proof of working ability? When buying from a breeder who's dogs are not titled, you only have the word of the breeder selling his puppies. Ever notice every hunter who sells puppies always has "the best hunting dog ever". Ever notice they never choose not to breed a dog. Talk is cheap, the proof is in the titles, thus the Field Trial game.

Now, Richard Wolters agreed that titles for hunting dogs are necessary to maintain hunting stock. That is why Richard invented the hunt test game. So, if hunters are putting Master Hunter titles on their dogs, and then breeding them, they would be living up to Wolters recommendation. And I would agree with the validity of breeding those dogs with hunt test titles.

Just for future reference, Wolters stuff is very outdated. We have learned a lot about training dogs since the 1960's when Water Dog came out.

Hydro.


----------



## taddy1340

> Just for future reference, Wolters stuff is very outdated. We have learned a lot about training dogs since the 1960's when Water Dog came out.


I know many feel he is outdated. The book I referred to was a revision from the early '90s, originally written in the early 80s. I feel his reasoning for beginning the hunt tests further proved the necessity to separate from field trials.

I do know "hunting" breeders that don't breed dogs they feel won't better the stock.

Again, all opinions here. Take what you like and discard the rest.

Mike


----------



## hydro870

Actually, the truth is Richard tried field trials and just couldn't compete using his methods and dogs. And that's the historical truth, not an opinion. The field trial game is just way too competitive for the average joe. You could go through 10 dogs before you find that one very special dog that has the tallent to be an FC. Most people buy 1 dog to keep it 10 years no matter what. Field trialers are quick to wash out dogs that can't compete, thus only the best get bred.

I think Richard is great at making the reader believe they can train their own dog. He is right, you can. I think this is where Richard truly shines.

:beer:


----------



## tb

hydro is right, Wolters couldn't compete. Milner probably can't either.

Wolters was way wrong about another thing: the idea that you can train your dog in 10 minutes a day. Now, you can get a lot done in 10 minutes that's true. But when your dog gets past basic obedience, you will spend 5 minutes to an hour driving to the right place for the day's lesson and another 5-15 minutes setting up the retrieves themselves. Then you might spend 10-20 minutes running the dog. Then you gotta drive home. If you're not doing this, you're just doing pet stuff. So, if you're gonna spend all this time, why bother with the dog from the backyard breeder next door? Get one whose parents and grandparents have titles. Your odds of having a good dog just went way, way up.


----------



## hydro870

tb has got it!!! I can tell you know what dog training is really all about. It's a pleasure reading your posts.

:thumb:


----------



## ryanps18

hydro870 said:


> Field trialers are quick to wash out dogs that can't compete, thus only the best get bred.
> 
> you are right on the money here. they only breed the best for other field trial people not for the average hunter. If you are trying to tell me that the average hunter can trian the "best" field trial dog I think you are dead wrong. I am not doubting that these dogs are not good. I just think for the average guy who's dog will be 90% house dog and 10% bird dog is way too much dog for them at least for me anyway. Most people have lives outside of dog training ( they are not geeks like us)
> 
> I think that is where we differ in opinion. Stewart and Milner prefer softer dogs that are not well suited for field trials. And they are advocates for the agerage guy I don't think they are bashing american field trial dogs. I think that they feel that FT's are some what removed form the average days hunt so the average guy will be happier with a softer dog that is a little more user friedly so to speak.
> 
> I think it takes a trainer with experience to train a hard going dog or at least one with some time on his hands. I have seen many field trail stock and hunted behind a few too, all great dogs but they can be a handfull. I am sure not all of them are that way but to be competitive I would think they would have to be.
> 
> Good discussion guys I sure learn alot from this site even though I do not always agree with some of you. Let's keep it up!
> 
> take care
> 
> Ryan


----------



## hydro870

Dogs can be soft and they can also be sensitive. The best trial dogs are sensitive but not soft. I would say the traits that make a successful FC are sensitivity (a dog that only requires small corrections to get a change in response) and bidability (willingness to please). Sensitive dogs are usually quite intelligent. They also must have the guts and drive to get the bird. This is where I think there is some confusion. Successful trial dogs have drive AND are sensitive. The idea that desire is linked to "hard headedness" is definitely the misconception I am arguing against. The drive shows up during the hunt. Just about every trial dog I have seen (and I have lost count a long time ago) has a built in switch. They are NOT kennel pacers like the pointing breed trial dogs. Retriever trial dogs are the type to find a spot by the fireplace and lay there for hours while the kids play with their tail and pull on their ears. To me the best selling point of a field trial retriever is how easy they are to train. Anybody with a well bred field trial pup knows this well. Too me, this is the perfect hunting dog. That is why I believe American Field Trial retrievers are the best hunting stock.

Hydro - who likes the idea of having his cake and eating it too.


----------



## brianb

Daveb,

I was only speaking of the brit labs I had hunted / trained with which as of today has been 1 really good, 1 mediocre and 6 not so much.

I think trial dogs come in a variety of flavors. Some soft, some not. But all are very birdy. The ideal is what hydro speaks of. The worse case is what Milner speaks of. And yes, those dogs exist and are bred. Field trialers are excellent trainers and employ excellent trainers that can handle those "fire breathers" that drive the hunter nuts.

That is why you can't blindly put your faith in titles. Yes they mean alot and it takes a lot to get them. But you must look at the personality behind the title to see if that is the type of dog you want.

Personally, I'd love a dog like hydro describes, just as long as it has curly brown hair.

Chessies rule.


----------



## hydro870

> That is why you can't blindly put your faith in titles. Yes they mean alot and it takes a lot to get them. But you must look at the personality behind the title to see if that is the type of dog you want.


That is true.

Hydro.


----------



## daveb

My old Lab had to be put down a few months ago and my new one won't be available until late winter or early spring. I'm thinking about possibly getting involved in hunt tests rather than field trials but I ran across this article recently about the way we conduct field trials in this country as opposed to how they do it in England, which they do the same way they did it over 100 years ago. Not trying to start a war, but here's an excerpt of it...

That is not to say that field trials are simple or easy or insignificant. Field trials are a tremendous challenge to the intelligence of dog and skill of trainer. The canine behaviors required to win are very complex and require a lot of complex training. The problem lies in the fact that many of the behaviors being trained have no value in a hunting dog. Retriever field trials have become game unto themselves. They are driving a breeding selection process that produces more good field trial dogs.

A young dog that is a typical good field trial prospect doesn't generally fit the profile for a good gun dog prospect. The field trial prospect would be a very high energy, hyperactive dog that is able to take continuous training and not get bored. The field trial prospect would also be a relatively tough dog that can take the pressure required to train complex field trial behaviors.

The good gun dog prospect on the other hand would be a calm, cooperative soft dog. That dog would be easy for the average hunter to train. Unfortunately the Field trial driven breeding selection produces less and less good hunting dog prospects.


----------



## hydro870

Someone, PLEASE stop the insanity.

If a highly intellegent, highly trainable, natural retriever, that is a great companion dog, great with kids, can relax in the house, and has the drive in the field is NOT for you, then I would stay away from field trial retrievers.

Hydro870 - who likes all of the above characterists in his hunting dog.


----------



## hydro870

p.s. I can't think of a single trait a gun dog should have that I wouldn't want in a trial dog. And I can't think of a single trait a trial dog should have that I wouldn't want in a gun dog.

Hydro - who hunts with field trial dogs, and who field trials with hunting dogs.


----------



## daveb

hydro870 said:


> Someone, PLEASE stop the insanity.
> 
> If a highly intellegent, highly trainable, natural retriever, that is a great companion dog, great with kids, can relax in the house, and has the drive in the field is NOT for you, then I would stay away from field trial retrievers.
> 
> Hydro870 - who likes all of the above characterists in his hunting dog.


10-4.

Speaking of field trials, and I take it you compete in them, would you prefer that we conduct them more in the fashion of how they do it in England and Ireland where trials mimick an actual hunt and dogs are absolutely required to be steady and quiet and use their natural game finding abilities when sent as opposed to the staged and artificial way we do it here? I've been doing a little reading on how we do them vs how they do them and I started to wonder who the geniouses were that thought that a 400 yard blind retrieve is the true test of a retriever.


----------



## brianb

Both are games used to evaluate a dog. Neither is perfect.

In the US every dog get the same test variables such as wind, sun position, etc may change but it is the same test. The reason the distances got to be what they are is that the dogs and training got so good. They had to make things tough to get separation needed to determine a winner. That's why they don't seem reasonable to the average hunter. If the tests were average they would have 98 out of a 100 dogs just ace the tests and you couldn't determine a winner.

In Britain, the trials do represent their hunting closely. But the US by and large doesn't do driven shoots. They do get tested on cripples etc. But they don't get tested on water which is where retrievers excell and are most needed.

I do wish line manners were taken a little more seriously in trials but eliminating a dog for one creep or whimper is not allowing the best to shine through. Too much emphasis on steadyness in my opinion. Not enough on actual dog work.

Brian


----------



## Horsager

I'm not a dog trainer, and I don't really hunt waterfowl, my comments really apply more to upland hunting. I think you could put Milnor's #2 as #1. When hunting upland game, if your dog will come on command, every time, without question you will have a great hunt with few problems. Dogs can smell the birds, some are better at it than others, but all of them are better at it than us. So you follow your dog to the bird, restraining him/her with a come command when they get too far ahead. The bird flushes and you kill it, the dog runs over and picks it up, now you again give the come command and they bring it back.

I realize that this is very simplistic, but especially for upland game the hand signals and such are IMHO "fluff". You give your dog the come command and if you want them to go right, you walk that way as they are returning to you, same for left. I think rather than all the advanced stuff if the average guy/gal would just train his/her dog to come on command the rest kind of falls into place.


----------



## daveb

brianb said:


> I do wish line manners were taken a little more seriously in trials but eliminating a dog for one creep or whimper is not allowing the best to shine through. Too much emphasis on steadyness in my opinion. Not enough on actual dog work.
> 
> Brian


I'm new to this field trial stuff but I would think that being sent for a crippled rooster and then on the way there the dog ignores 4 or 5 flushed roosters and retrieves the one he was sent for is more actual dog work than being sent and handled several times on a 400 yard blind retrieve. It seems to me that the way we do these things is more robotic. Once again, I'm new to this stuff and my opinions don't matter to anybody but from what I've read their method seems to be a better test for what the breed was bred to do.


----------



## brianb

Daveb,

I don't see that situation happening too often. Plus it is damn near impossible to set up as test. One other is you are comparing a marked retrieve to a blind retrieve. You are testing a dog for different things with each of those.

Your dog won't see every bird fall. That's why they teach a dog to do a blind. Plus, if a dog will do a 400 yard blind in training don't you think he'll get the 100 yarder hunting.

You are forgetting that they don't test their dogs on water. HUGE HUGE hole in their testing program.

Yes, they are basically testing their dogs the way they hunt. But we don't hunt driven game. The american hunt tests and trials do the best they can at simulating the way we hunt. IE laying in wait for game. Now field trials don't test upland work but both NAHRA and HRC have hunt tests that incorporate the work of a flushing lab.

They are three different games to play with your dog (Brit, American trial and hunt tests) All three have different rules and look for different things.

The one thing about American training manuals is that they don't bash the British methods in order to promote their own. Milner bashes field trials in order to promote the Brit way.

Either way, pick the game you like and train for it. Any one of them will give you a better dog than what you started with. Heck doing agility with your dog will make it a better hunter than not doing it. Just for the fact it teaches obedience.

Enjoyed having this discussion
Brian


----------



## daveb

Hey Brian, I agree, nice discussion, especially since I'm new to this stuff. I've owned dogs and hunted most my life but I've never once been interested in hunt tests and trials until recently. I'm going to check out a hunt test pretty soon and see if it's something I want to put time in to.

You said they don't do any water work over there in their trials but according to this article they do. Maybe they don't in all of them..I don't have a clue. Here's an excerpt...

Flighted Ducks
The last test of the trial takes place on a lake of about 20 acres. The lake lies in a depression ringed by gentle hillside and the shore is lined with a belt of cattails 20 feet wide. 100 yards out is an island of about ¼ acre covered with thick brush. The ducks will be flushed off other lakes of the estate, and those that head for our present lake will be the quarry. The eight guns are stationed at places where past history has shown the ducks are likely to fly. The nine remaining dogs are stationed in a line 10 yards back from the bank on a hillside where they have a good vantage point to mark the falls. The dogs sit in line about 6 feet apart, each with his handler standing beside him.

Ducks begin flying over the guns in intermittent groups of two and three. The guns are good and knock down seven or eight ducks in 10 minutes. Then the ducks start coming more thickly. In the last 15 minutes of the flight 30 more ducks are downed.

The judges have marked down 5 cripples in the cat tails along the shoreline and two cripples have swum to the brushy island. The judges ask dog number 5 to get one of the cripples off the island.

Number 5 bails into the water and heads for a dead duck floating 30 yards off to the right. The handler stops him with a whistle and redirects him toward the island. Number five refuses and continues for the floating dead duck, which he retrieves. He will be eliminated for failing to retrieve the bird he was instructed to retrieve.

Number 15 is next sent for the duck on the island. 15 must be handled three times away from floating dead ducks, but he obeys and makes it to the island where he disappears into the brush. A few minutes later he reappears and, duck in mouth, he returns to his handler.

Number 17 is sent next for the remaining crippled duck on the island. He heads straight for the island and makes a flawless retrieve.

Number 21 is sent for a cripple in the cattails 50 yards down the shore line to the right. The handler sends him down the bank 50 yards and then stops him and directs him into the cattails. 21 reappears a few minutes later on the water side of the cattails, swimming toward a floating dead duck. The handler directs him back into the cattails. He reappears a few minutes later hunting up the hillside away from the water. The judges ask the handler to call 21 in.

Next the judges send number 10 for that same cripple in the cattails to the right. His handler sends number 10 down the bank fifty yards and then stops him and directs him into the cattails. 3 minutes later he emerges from the cover with the duck in his mouth. He has "wiped the eye" of number 21, who is eliminated.

In like manner the rest of the ducks are picked up. The judges save the dead one for last. Each dog gets four retrieves on this test, which concludes the field trial. It is interesting to note that nearly all the dogs take the driest route to the bird. They all run the bank when possible. This is expected in British field trials where success on the test is determined by collecting the bird, not by the route the dog travels to the bird.

Number 10 is declared the winner as he has performed flawlessly on several exceptionally difficult retrieves of runners, and he has two "eye-wipes" to his credit.


----------



## ryanps18

brianb said:


> "Either way, pick the game you like and train for it. Any one of them will give you a better dog than what you started with. Heck doing agility with your dog will make it a better hunter than not doing it. Just for the fact it teaches obedience."
> 
> Great point Brian I agree


----------



## brianb

Well, Make that the second time I've been wrong in my life, and I can't really recall the first. 

I think it isn't a requirement to have water in a trial like it is at ours.


----------



## ryanps18

brianb said:


> Daveb,
> 
> Yes, they are basically testing their dogs the way they hunt. But we don't hunt driven game. The american hunt tests and trials do the best they can at simulating the way we hunt. IE laying in wait for game. Now field trials don't test upland work but both NAHRA and HRC have hunt tests that incorporate the work of a flushing lab.
> 
> The one thing about American training manuals is that they don't bash the British methods in order to promote their own. Milner bashes field trials in order to promote the Brit way.
> 
> Enjoyed having this discussion
> 
> Brian


Brian,

have you ever been on pheasant hunt with a group and you are posting the end of the feild? That is close to a driven hunt, so yes we do hunt that way over here.

I have also just finished reading Milner's book and He in no way bashes American field trials IMO. He just is not into them anymore, If memory severs me he even won a few trails with a Golden. He also teaches people how to FF and how to use an E-collar properly.


----------



## hydro870

> You are forgetting that they don't test their dogs on water. HUGE HUGE hole in their testing program.


WHAT?????

I did not realize this. The Brits don't test their labs in the water?


----------



## brianb

Hydro,

He proved my information faulty on that little tidbit.

Ryansp,

Yup a blocker on a pheasant hunt is pretty dang close. But that is a very very small percent of American hunting. While it is a huge part of Brit hunting and testing.


----------



## ryanps18

C'mon man your killing me here.

I would not even bother hunting a tree row or a large field without a blocker unless you like watching pheasants fly away at the end. Where I hunt, late season birds rarely hold that tight.

That is why I laugh to myself when you FT guys talk about 400 yard retrieves. That is insane in a pheasant hunt. You should never have to take a shot on a bird that gets out too far, that's the job of the blocker and his dog. I have no idea who dreams up these trails but I do not see the need in training a dog to do things that I will never ask him to do.

What a wast of energy for a dog to be making 300 or 400 hundred yard retrieve on a hunt.

Granted you might need to send a dog for a retrieve like that maybe once in the dogs life on a duck hunt. Lets take the blinders of folks. Field trails are for the most part far removed from a typical days hunt.


----------



## gonehuntin'

ryanps18; here's the problem with what you suggest about field trials. Trials cannot accurately depict hunting situations because in an AKC field trail there has to be a WINNER. Do you seriously think you could run an open all age stake with 80 great dogs on a simple hunting test and come up with a winner? No. This is why trials have evolved. These dogs are capable of learning the angle entries, cover drills, retired guns, poison birds, tight marks and fine handling. It in NO WAY detracts from their natural abilities, it only serves to enhance them. You are talking about dogs here that will seek water, drive hidden water and can pick up four birds out of a bushel basked then run a blind through the middle off a shot flyer. There has to be a way to separate dogs if there is to be a number one. Hunt tests can't do this.
Then there is problem two. If you try to separtate dogs by a hunt test who is going to do it? I can tell you that very few judges are capable of judging a dog on it's attributes and not on trained abilities. It would be a monumental task. You would be right back to where you were in today's trials; The dog that found the bird the quickest would win even if it were by a millisecond. Don't think I'd care for that either.


----------



## hydro870

> What a waste of energy for a dog to be making 300 or 400 hundred yard retrieve on a hunt.


You mean, what a waste of YOUR energy walking around a lake to find that crippled duck. The better the trial dog, the better the hunting dog, plain and simple.



> Granted you might need to send a dog for a retrieve like that maybe once in the dogs life on a duck hunt.


My dog makes a 300 yard retrieve while duck or goose hunting probably every other hunt. My partners will wing a goose and it may glide 300-400 yards before touching down. Someone may cripple a duck and it swims across the lake to the far shore. It goes on and on.

Hydro - who hunts trial dogs and who trials hunting dogs.

Again, I can't think of a single trait a gun dog should have that I wouldn't want in a trial dog. And I can't think of a single trait a trial dog should have that I wouldn't want in a gun dog.


----------



## ryanps18

gonehuntin,

Well written I agree with every thing you wrote. I am not against field trails, If that's your thing fine by me I really don't care and think thats great you guys can train your dogs to compete in that format.

What burns me is when I here FT guys talk and think that if a dog does not come from American FT lines the dog is worthless. Or Hunt Tests are the special olympics of FT"S. I know nobody says that kind of crap here. Or sit here and tell me that a bank runner is no good, the list goes on. what is required in an FT is not always the best while hunting.

Hydro,

You might want to invest in gun with a little more knock down power!
I got to give you a hard time.

Ryanps17 who will buy any FT dog reject and make him a fine bird dog.


----------



## brianb

> Field trails are for the most part far removed from a typical days hunt.


I don't know of one field trialer that would disagree with you on that statement. The reason the trials got so extreme are as Gonehuntin said.

The tests got so extreme because the dogs and training got so good.

Think of it this way. The national spelling bee is the same format as a field trial. They need to find a winner. How often is a kid going to need to use one of those words, almost never. But it would never end if they didn't test on extreme words because 98% of them can spell every average word. The trial dogs already mastered the skills needed for 99% of hunting normally by the time they are 2. Then they are trained past that.

No, you never take a 400 yard shot at a pheasant. But I have seen heart shot pheasants fly a couple hundred yards and fall stone dead. I probably see that a couple times a season. I don't pheasant hunt much with blockers. When I do, the blockers are usually the guys without dogs. Then a good portion of my hunting is waterfowl over decoys.

You take a trial dog and add a couple seasons of hunting experience and you will have one of the finest animals a field.

If you don't see the need to train your dog for those things that's fine. Just don't knock the time and money invested by those that don't stop training their dogs.

Right now, I can't ever see myself running a field trial. I don't have time to train right now with a 6 month old son. I don't have the money to send a dog to a pro. Unless something changes I can't ever see myself sending a dog to a pro. Just not my thing. I would rather train a dog myself and run hunt tests.

But I respect the animals those guys have and look for it in my new pups' pedigrees.

Brian Breuer - a lowly hunt tester


----------



## daveb

hydro870 said:


> My partners will wing a goose and it may glide 300-400 yards before touching down. Someone may cripple a duck and it swims across the lake to the far shore. It goes on and on.quote]
> 
> Sure...blame it on your buddies. :lol:


----------



## brianb

Dave - you noticed that too.


----------



## ryanps18

You guys are awesome!! this was a good thread.

I think we may be beating a dead horse on this one, lets argue about something else now!

Take care all and have a good long weekend


----------



## hydro870

Do you honestly believe I am going to admit my own cripples???????

Hey, I like the quote - "the best long range duck load is a well trained retriever". But, of course, having a well trained dog is no excuse for shooting birds out of range.

Ya, this was a good thread. Even though my posts sound a little cocky, but somebody has to be the myth buster!

Happy hunting. :beer:


----------



## gonehuntin'

Ryan & Brian; nice logical post, both. Ryan, any field trialer that says the hunting tests are like the "special olympics" needs a good kick right in the ***. Field trialers can be a snobby bunch. Just becaue a person chooses not to follow field trials, that in no way infers that his dog is inferior to the trial dogs. He just chooses not to train it precisely. Abilities and genetics are absolutely the same. I have chosen to leave the field trial games and it's the best thing, for me, I've ever done. I'm enjoying my dogs more now, though admittedly they're not trained to the standards they once were. I no longer have to do endless drills and crucify them for every mistep. Anyone that thinks the hunt tests are inferior to field trials, should try running their trial dogs In gold medal rounds of espn's great outdoor games. I don't see much difference in the level of training.


----------

