# Running the bank, who cares?



## Canuck (Nov 10, 2004)

I recently met a young guy who is hunting, shotgun and dog crazy. He is 25, rich, has 5 dogs, a $4000 shotgun, and for him, upland bird hunting is a contest that is carried out at an almost running pace. He has to have the best and fastest dogs money can buy. He invited me out to watch his dogs (2 wirehair ponters that day) work. I brought my dog ( a 6 year old, 53 lb female yellow lab) along for the walk but kept her at heel. He had dizzied up several pigeons and planted them in a grassed road allowance. His dogs quickly pinned down the pigeons in the order they had been planted and he shot all but one. His dogs performed great. It was a nice time, except for one thing...before the end of the mile long road allowance, he had badmouthed my 26 year old Citori, my dog (which at 53 lbs is not fat or slow) and my favorite pair of hunting boots (NOT kangaroo leather!) and I was doing a well contained slow burn ( I am 55, not rich, have 1 dog, one shotgun, etc.).

As we approached the truck, which was parked near a long, narrow dugout his dogs pointed the one pigeon he had missed. It was standing in the open field beside his truck. It flushed and flew straight down the long dugout and he dropped it about 40 yards away in the dugout. He gave his dog a line and sent it. It hit the water hard and started the long swim. I was a little ticked with the lecture I had received and maybe a little envious of his beautiful shotgun. so without thinkng much I sent my dog on the retrieve. She ran the bank of the dugout, hit the water right beside the pigeon, ran the bank back to me and delivered the pigeon to hand before his dog was 1/2 of way to where the pigeon fell.

So my question, what is best, a dog that "thinks" or a dog that performs like a well tuned robot?

PS. my dog will take a line and handle on a blind retrieve but if I she marks a bird and I send her on a line where she sees an easier route (for example the dugout bank) she ignores my line and runs the bank. My buddy says I have "uncorrectable" problems that "I have let go too long" and oh yeah, my boots are too heavy :-?


----------



## Goldeneye (Feb 24, 2006)

Personally, I never get tired of this debate!!

First, if the bank running is OK with you and your dog, I have no bones about that. A dog is about what you want, and I respect the notion that it is your dog and your choice.

But....

Bank running is NOT a sign of a smart dog. It is the natural reaction to a situation that almost every dog will exhibit. To say the bank runner is smarter than the lining dog is not at all accurate.

Now, in your example your dog did a faster retrieve, that is true. But this was an easy mark that either dog would have recovered. But what about a bird that has fallen in a harder spot? The bank runner will be much more likely to get confused and lose the mark. Then, he will have an extended hunt that will take longer and more importantly be less likely to result in a recovered bird than the dog who runs a straight line to the mark.

Not a believer?

Then I ask you to put yourself in a situation that has happened to me many times when I have been without a dog when a bird goes down in cover. It could be a pheasant in a thick patch of cover or a duck in the cattails-doesnt matter. When you drop a bird and know you dont have a dog what do you do? Most of us will say we mark the spot and walk right to it to get the bird. We dont walk all the way around the cover to find the bird. By marking the spot and giong straight to it we have a reference point to go by which allows us to find the bird. It also takes one element out of the equation. By going straight we only have to worry about depth of the fall and not about the lateral position of the bird. Same for the dog. I have also seen where two hunters were out and one wont take his/her eyes off the bird and directs the other hunter to the spot. Same thing, dont lose that mark!!

I have seen hundreds of people do this because people are smart. The smart person goes directly to that bird just like the smart (trainable) dog goes right to that bird.

By averaging out all the birds retrieved in a dogs life I believe you will see two things that are superior from the lining dog VS the bank runner. One, the overall speed or time spent per retrieve will be faster from the lining dog, because he is more accurate. Two, you will see far less lost birds because he is more accurate and is able to get to the harder birds much easier. And the value of a retriever is the ability to recover birds that would otherwise be lost.

I want the accurate dog, for sure. The downed bird in your example I could go and retrieve myself if I had to. It is the harder birds that demonstrate the value of a trained retriever. Those birds will be lost without that well trained dog.

Now, It isnt a matter of finances. I think the guy you described sounds like real a jerk. I think he was rude to insult you and your dog and I wouldnt want to hunt with him. Just because he was a jerk who had a lining dog doesnt mean lining dogs are inferior. I know a few jerks who shoot old Brownings, but Im not selling mine because of that!

In the end it is really a personal decision. Some folks hunt mostly areas where those easier falls are all they get. Maybe a river hunter or someone who only hunts in one or two areas where lining isnt needed or desired. But most folks hunt a variety of birds in a variety of locations. Whatever fills your needs :beer:

Just dont let lack of time, training knowledge or desire lead you to believe that bank running is superior, because for the vast majority of hunters, it isnt.

Cheers!


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

> Bank running is NOT a sign of a smart dog. It is the natural reaction to a situation that almost every dog will exhibit. To say the bank runner is smarter than the lining dog is not at all accurate.


I say bs, its a sign of common dog sense, and common sense is a rare commodity everywhere nowadays.

running the bank makes perfect sense. lining is nothing more than a field trail step designed to put one more obstacle in winning, its an attempt to weed out comptetitors, nothing more.

Is lineing useful yes but only on blinds



> By averaging out all the birds retrieved in a dogs life I believe you will see two things that are superior from the lining dog VS the bank runner. One, the overall speed or time spent per retrieve will be faster from the lining dog, because he is more accurate.


Thats an opinion, again I disagree. If a dog can mark well they do fine running the bank there is no difference in finds excelt the dog running the band uses alot less energy and gets to the bird a lot quicker which is very useful on cripples giveing cripple less time to recover from being stunned by the shot.

Canuck you should try to stay close to that guy he will probably have some real nice dogs that won't meet his BS standards that you can get from him for little or nothing.
Good story I enjoyed reading it. The fact that you dog will take aline when on a blind is the smart way to train :beer:


----------



## JBB (Feb 9, 2005)

A dog that brings back your birds, listens, well gets along with the family, causes you no trouble and you enjoy is a good dog.


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

> Then I ask you to put yourself in a situation that has happened to me many times when I have been without a dog when a bird goes down in cover. It could be a pheasant in a thick patch of cover or a duck in the cattails-doesnt matter. When you drop a bird and know you dont have a dog what do you do? Most of us will say we mark the spot and walk right to it to get the bird. We dont walk all the way around the cover to find the bird. By marking the spot and giong straight to it we have a reference point to go by which allows us to find the bird. It also takes one element out of the equation. By going straight we only have to worry about depth of the fall and not about the lateral position of the bird. Same for the dog. I have also seen where two hunters were out and one wont take his/her eyes off the bird and directs the other hunter to the spot. Same thing, dont lose that mark!!
> 
> I have seen hundreds of people do this because people are smart. The smart person goes directly to that bird just like the smart (trainable) dog goes right to that bird.


One major fault with this comparison...people don't have the nose to find a bird like a dog. That is one of the reasons we walk straight to the bird. As Bobm said, this was brought on by field trialers...nothing more. This is the same as many of the FT dogs that are over-handled. We're taking the "hunt" out of the dog. God forbid a dog break it's line and actually hunt for the fall rather than take 4 casts to get him on top of it.


----------



## brianb (Dec 27, 2005)

To say a bank running dog is the sign of intelligence is just bunk.

That is about like saying a dog that sits quietly while people eat is dumb. And that the one that goes around stealing food off of plates is smart. After all the thief got to eat and the quiet dog got nothing.

It is a matter of training. One dog was trained for this and the other wasn't.

All those comments about "robot" dogs are just bunk. It takes an intelligent, tractable dog to learn not to cheat water. Any dog will run the bank.

If you don't want to teach your dog to go straight that's fine with me, just don't go badmouthing people who take the time to train for it.

The field trial comment doesn't hold water either. Those dogs are taught to go straight because it is the most effective way to find a marked bird. The line the dog takes to get a mark isn't judged, only the mark the dog had on the bird.

The line to a blind retrieve is judged, not marks. Those guys have big $$$ in those dogs. If bank running was more effective at finding marked birds they would be doing it and winning ribbons and saving themselves alot of work. It isn't, so they don't.

On the otherhand, the guy does sound like a tool.


----------



## Kyle B (Oct 18, 2005)

I disagree with the Field Trial statements, but do agree that you should train the dog to meet your needs. BTW, in a FT if you handle on marks you are probably going to be dropped, so unless the dog puts 4 downed birds in between his front legs (at distances up to 400 yards) he's going to have to have a memory and perform a hunt.

If you don't have a problem with a bank runner, then go for it.


----------



## daveb (Jun 29, 2006)

Congratulations for not shooting your friend.


----------



## taddy1340 (Dec 10, 2004)

> Congratulations for not shooting your friend


That is too funny!


----------



## ryanps18 (Jun 23, 2006)

Kyle B said:


> I disagree with the Field Trial statements, but do agree that you should train the dog to meet your needs. BTW, in a FT if you handle on marks you are probably going to be dropped, so unless the dog puts 4 downed birds in between his front legs (at distances up to 400 yards) he's going to have to have a memory and perform a hunt.
> 
> If you don't have a problem with a bank runner, then go for it.


I have never seen a dog need to make a 400 yard retrieve while hunting.

This is off topic a little but in field trials they only use shot dead birds no criples I think, not sure on this one. But say they do use only shot dead game, what good is a dog that can run a straight line with its head up.

What if you are out hunting and the bird runs after its been shot and maybe runs to the left or right. How does a field trial dog find the bird if all it has been trained to do is run straight lines with its head up until told to stop and handel.

Anyone have any thoughts on this.


----------



## Kyle B (Oct 18, 2005)

I will admit that I have only seen extremely long retrieves in hunting situations a couple of times. Both times it was on goose hunt's where there was a long shot taken. But honestly that is besides the point that I was trying to make, which was Field Trial dogs do have to "hunt" and they are not robots that only take hand signals to find downed birds.

Live birds are used in Field Trials and there are cripples that have to be dealt with. The dogs are not trained to just run straight lines with their heads up until they are told to handle. Actually, we spend a significant amount of time early in training teaching dogs to hunt (dirt clod drills come to mind). Dogs that can only mark the area of the fall are really not going to make it in competition as that's only one aspect of marking.

My dogs compete in Field Trials and we hunt all over the country during hunting season. They never seem to have a problem in either venue.


----------



## drjongy (Oct 13, 2003)

Wow...life is too short to be worrying about these matters in a hunting situation. If the bird goes down and the dog finds it that's all I care about.

I would have taken this young punk to a sporting or trap range and smoked him and his $4000 gun. :lol:


----------



## brianb (Dec 27, 2005)

I have seen a number of examples of long or tough retrieves.

Broke wing goose sailing several hundred yards. Heart shot pheasants and sharptails that don't look hit but fly 200 yards then climb straight up and then fall dead.

Drop a pair of mallards. Short one is dead in the dekes, the long one is a crip that is about 15' off line to the first one and it is swimming fast. Get the dog past the dead bird on the crip.

But you are right in that the ability to rout out a crip isn't really tested in field trials. There isn't a real good way to test for it while still treating the birds in a humane manner. NAHRA (hunt test program) does do a trail which I think is a good test.

A field trial dog has all the tools to be an exceptional hunter. It just needs a little field experience to work out those things you can't train for.


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

I wonder what Bo Taylor would do?


----------



## Kyle B (Oct 18, 2005)

tb said:


> I wonder what Bo Taylor would do?


He'd probably train the dog to run straight, but if you really care you can call him and ask him.


----------



## ryanps18 (Jun 23, 2006)

thanks guys, now I know!


----------



## tb (Jul 26, 2002)

Kyle B., forgive me but I cannot resist an observation and a question:

Observation: Now we know that Bo Taylor's dogs run straight because the field trial judges require it.

Question: Will Bo Taylor run a straight operation in Douglas, ND now that the ND state district court judges require it?


----------



## Kyle B (Oct 18, 2005)

tb said:


> Kyle B., forgive me but I cannot resist an observation and a question:
> 
> Observation: Now we know that Bo Taylor's dogs run straight because the field trial judges require it.
> 
> Question: Will Bo Taylor run a straight operation in Douglas, ND now that the ND state district court judges require it?


TB, forgive me also, since we are obviously off the subject of running straight lines and the necessity for them in hunting situations.

Observation: You hide behind a fake handle on the Internet.


----------



## Goldeneye (Feb 24, 2006)

Well, I only see one response attempting to actually discuss this. Too bad, because it is worthy of discussion.

Taddy thoughtfully stated the fault with my argument is that we dont have a nose and dogs do, thus eliminating the need for lining and marking the spot of the fall. I , of course disagree.

Retrievers are at their best when they learn to use both their eyes and nose together. Most decent hunting retrievers will have an adequate nose, but far less learn to use their eyes. There is a concept called "area of the fall" which is simply the area near where the bird has fallen. The best retrievers use their eyes to get to the "AOF" accurately and their nose to pinpoint the bird or pick up the trail if the bird is moving.

The bank running dog that is not in the right area has little chance of finding a difficult bird by using its nose, but the dog that marks and lines the AOF reasonably well will be in a far better position to recover the bird.

Anyone ever lose a bird in cover, mark its fall with your eyes and get to the area only to call the dog over and give a huntem up command?? I thought so. This is a common example of using eyes(yours) to get the dog to the proper area so a reasonable hunt can begin.

A lot of you have said you dont value lining in a retriever. How many of you have owned a retriever that has been trained to line? I always find it interesting that some people will argue against something they have no exprience with. How can you know which is best if you havent spent a lot of time with each?

To clarify, I believe that the lining dog will outperform a bank runner. I am not saying any of you who allow their dog to bank run have a dog that is not smart, is not talented or is not a good retriever. I just believe that you can have even more if you so desire.


----------



## ryanps18 (Jun 23, 2006)

goldeneye,

Good post,

Your right, even if the wind is perfect and the dog is not in the AOF he might not find it or wear himself out trying.


----------



## gonehuntin' (Jul 27, 2006)

Lots of misinformation or misunderstanding here. In a field trial, a dog IS judged on the line he runs to a mark and whether or not he avoided water or cover to get there. You know all those cutsey little pictures the judges are drawing in their books? That's what they're drawing. They need ways to drop and separate dogs and thjis is one of the ways. They feel that when a dog avoids cover or hidden water, he is showing lack of courage.This is why these dogs are taught to never go around anything. 
As for bank running. I don't consider it a fault at all (this from an old field trial trainer). If you are hunting river country, like the Snake in Idaho, the bird could totally drift away and be lost if the dog doesn't cut it off. Hence, most river dogs run down the bank and get even or ahead of the bird before getting in. In cold weather, the least amount of time a dog spends in the water, the better. You can not compare finding a bird in cover to finding a bird in water. In water the bird can usually be seen. In cover not. That same dog that ran down the bank will go directly to a bird in cover. 
This is a debate that no one will ever win because it is strictly an opinion or preference. For every example you can give of the benefit of a dog running a straight line, one can be given for not running a straight line. This is a debate that cannot be won because there is no right or wrong to it.


----------



## Canuck (Nov 10, 2004)

I just believe that you can have even more if you so desire.[/quote]

Goldeneye,I think that is what my "friend" might have been trying to get across to me. 

I have to agree with pretty much everything you have presented, especially your point about taking your dog over to where you saw the bird fall, in your example, heavy cover. In the case where your dog has not marked the fall, don't we do that because it is the best and quickest way to get the dog started on the trail of a cripple or started slightly downwind to locate a "dead bird" (my dogs favorite word). It's teamwork and you and your dog learn it over the seasons. There is no doubt that a dog that will trust you and take a line, the longer the better, is a huge advantage in a hunting situation. I am happy with my dog when she looks to me for a line in those situations where she has no clue where the bird fell.

I know my dog is a good hunter, and I know that she would likely get booted out of any field trial I was foolish enough to enter her in. As you can likely tell I have never field trialed a dog but I admire the people and the dogs that do.


----------



## Goldeneye (Feb 24, 2006)

Gone Huntin,

I mentioned earlier there are some situautions where bank running is better. If I ever get the pleasure to return to the Snake, I might bring a dog that avoids the longer swims :wink: For almost every other situation I will have my lining dog 8)

I think the fact that there are a variety of opinions on this is exactly why it is worth debating. In 25 years of training dogs I have learned that the only way to get better is to listen to those that do things differently and examine your own program--everyday. The opinions of others are based on their own expriences and I cant see why listening and debating with those that hold differing views would not be beneficial to someone, if not everyone. There is, after all, nothing wrong with differing opinions. If I ever hear a line of reasoning that supports it, I might even change my opinion!!

Canuck,

I think your "friend" was just an ---!

Back to the example of walking the dog over to the area--

"don't we do that because it is the best and quickest way to get the dog started on the trail of a cripple "

No, we do that because our dog could not accomplish it himself ( like he could have with more or different training) and we cannot handle to the area due to heavy cover or lack of training. The best and quickest way would be for the dog to mark, line to the AOF and dig out the bird. A mark is almost always preferable to a blind. It is quicker, easier, more efficient and IMO more fun to watch. A mark is certainly preferable to walking the dog to the spot of the fall as well. A dog that sees and marks the bird, then is able to use his eyes to get close and his nose to finish is a sight to behold.

A blind is an option when the dog doesnt see or remember his mark or "doesnt have a clue where it fell" as you put it. This is inevitable and I think it is great you and your dog can do some handling in these situations. The fact you can is a testament to your teamwork. But you can reduce the frequency of times when your dog is lost, or clueless, and requires handling or helping(walking out as in the example). This can be done by teaching skills such as lining to the area of the fall.

As for your dog getting booted from a trial, join the club. There is only one winner out of 100+ dogs. Every hunting dog gets to be a winner!

Keep hunting them dogs!!


----------



## brianb (Dec 27, 2005)

Gonehuntin'

I sure hope that you don't judge. The dog is supposed to judged on the mark on the bird not the route he took to get there. That is what a blind is for. Those little drawings are supposed to show the hunt the dog put on once he got to the area of the fall. If a dog front foots every bird but didn't go straight he deserves the blue. To do otherwise defeats the statement of "marking is of primary importance"

Lardy had an article discussing this about 6 months ago in RJ.


----------



## Canuck (Nov 10, 2004)

Bobm brought up "common dog sense".

I recall a friends very small springer spaniel (Purdy) and an arctic goose hunt we had many years ago. Long story short, we dropped eight snows into the decoys and my buddy sent his dog with a touch to her head. Purdy raced out of the blind, caught and killed the one cripple and brought it to the middle of the decoy spread. She then proceeded to collect the other seven geese into a pile with the dispatched cripple, and once that action was complete, she then dragged the birds one at a time to the blind (she was a very small springer). We sat and laughed our heads off watching her figure out the "problem". Again, probably a dog that was not going to win a field trial but a very versatile dog none the less.


----------



## gonehuntin' (Jul 27, 2006)

brianb said:


> Gonehuntin'
> 
> When the dog runs around brush and water on the way to a mark, most judges consider it a lack of courage and avoidance of a hazard. That's why the tests are set the way they are. Many times a hazard is used to push a cheating dog into an ole mark. No, I don't judge; have no interest in it and it's far to political for me. Now maybe a dog should be just just on marking ability, but this isn't the way it's done. I for one agree that the dog should not avoid obstacles on the way to a mark. Now, please understand I'm refering to all age dogs here, not derby dogs.
> 
> ...


----------



## Goldeneye (Feb 24, 2006)

The dog that runs relatively straight will, virtually every time, win because that is by far the most accurate way to mark a bird.

The reason Field trialers spend so much time on lining is because it is the best way to get the dog to the birds. Some excellent marking dogs do tend to run less than straight in their early years, such as in derbies. They get by this way on sheer talent and once they move on to more advanced stakes they learn to couple that raw talent with the trained skill of lining to perform to the best of their abilities.

Bank running is also considered to be symptom of a dog that has a lack of perserverance or courage. This applies more to the blatant cheats where the dog refuses the water and runs out of its way to avoid it.

Also, we need to consider the differences in bank running. There are big cheats and then there are more subtle, fine lines. I believe a dog that lines reasonably well, but doesnt take the ultra fine lines a competition dog would , is a perfect hunting companion.


----------



## griffman (Jan 17, 2004)

Canuck said:


> So my question, what is best, a dog that "thinks" or a dog that performs like a well tuned robot?


I will take the dog that thinks......hands down. A dog that "thinks" has natural ability. It's a dog that has desire and uses it's senses to hunt. Without those inate skills, all the training in the world will not produce a quality bird dog.

I want a dog that will do it all. I want the dog to be smart enough to follow my lead and smart enough to figure things out on his own. I want a dog to run the bank as needed. I want a dog to take a direct line as wanted.

The whole scenario can be summed up in a NAVHDA Utility test. That's the dog I want (and am lucky enough to have!).....a prized UT dog!

Being able to adapt to a situation is what makes a hunter productive. It doesn't matter if you're talking about a dog, person, cat, whatever.....if an animal or mammal can't adapt to hunt it's environment, that animal will not survive. The "hunter" must be versatile.

A dog that relies strictly on it's handler is not a hunter. A person that relies strictly on his/her dog is not a handler. Like someone else said in this thread....it's a team effort....you need a dog that can be taken control of when needed and also independent enough to let loose when needed.

If people were soooo smart, and such "great" hunters.....we wouldn't need to use dogs in the first place now would we? So, why in the world would someone want to train a dog to the point where it wouldn't "think" for itself? The dogs are the true hunters in our teams.....that's why WE follow THEM! Those who lose track of that are missing the boat.


----------



## gonehuntin' (Jul 27, 2006)

Yes Griffman, NAVHDA does seem to have it figured out. You still have to get in the water and not avoid the test for your UT.

brianb; this is why dogs can't avoid water and cover, taken from the AKC field trial regulation book:"Failure to enter either rough cover, water, ice, mud, or anyother situation involving unpleasant or difficult going for the dog after having been ordered to do so several times is sufficent cause to justify elimination from the stake". Also "He (the dog) should not disturb too much area"." 
And from the AKC manual for HUNTING TESTS : "It (perseverence) is also displayed by a willingness to face without hesitation, and repeatidly, rough cover, cold or rough water, ice, mud, or similar conditions which make the going tough.".
Both these quotes were from the "marking" sections of the manuals. These manuals are there for a purpose, as a set of guidelines for the judges to determine the winners of a test. So should a dog that runs around cover and pins the bird be judges higher than one that drills through the cover and pins the bird? Absolutely not. You sound like a bitter person that had a dog dropped in a test and are looking for trying to vindicate his dog. Don't fall into that trap. Too many people look at their dogs performance through "rose colored glasses" rather than objectively. When I was in the holding blind with a dog, left and walked to line, I knew EXACTLY what my dog would do on that test and corrected for it accordingly.
So no matter what Mike Lardy says (and I knew him back when he trained his golden on GEE and HAW rather than OVER) that is what the books say and that is how dogs will be judged. It's the law.


----------



## DJRooster (Nov 4, 2002)

If my friends were that arrogant I would cut them down to size real fast and if things didn't improve I would find a new hunting friend.


----------



## hydro870 (Mar 29, 2005)

The dog knowledge on this board is getting better and better all the time. Great reading.

Goldeneye and brianb, in my opinion, you guys have nailed it - great posts!!!

Hydro


----------



## brianb (Dec 27, 2005)

Thanks Hydro. I really enjoy this board more and more. Good training advice without out some of the politics of the trial / test game being discussed ad nasuem.

Especially since I am no longer a dreaded nonresident.

why not minot


----------

