# British Labs



## kb27_99 (Sep 28, 2006)

Is this the general thinking of all so called British Lab Breeders?


This is just one paragraph:

"In America, when we run across an undesirable trait in a dog such as unsteadiness, hard-mouth or even strong will the American approach is to force train this out of the dog. Consequently, these undesirable traits are manifested in their genetics and continue from generation to generation."




http://www.huntfieldlabs.com/about.cfm


Kevin


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

kb27_99 said:


> Is this the general thinking of *all *so called British Lab Breeders?
> 
> 
> This is just one paragraph:
> ...


I doubt you'll find any one belief that ALL breeders of any kind believe. All or Never/none are dangerous generalizations.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Fire up the microwave...again!

Evan


----------



## kb27_99 (Sep 28, 2006)

Didn’t realize that a simple question would cause controversy. I'll delete it if you all foresee problems.


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

kb27_99 said:


> Didn’t realize that a simple question would cause controversy. I'll delete it if you all foresee problems.


Why delete it? Sit back and enjoy the ride. It's cheap entertainment.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> "In America, when we run across an undesirable trait in a dog such as unsteadiness, hard-mouth or even strong will the American approach is to force train this out of the dog. Consequently, these undesirable traits are manifested in their genetics and continue from generation to generation."


Pretty much their marketing strategy, whether it's if they know better or not. It certainly doesn't take into account the vast number of field puppies that naturally deliver to hand gently and willingly before CC or FF are even in the picture.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

kb27_99 said:


> Is this the general thinking of all so called British Lab Breeders?
> 
> 
> This is just one paragraph:
> ...


The short answer is "no." However, I doubt you were looking for the short answer.


----------



## ryanps18 (Feb 12, 2008)

Never understood the big deal here. British play a different game so they breed accordingly. I don't agree with some of the BS they spew about American labs, that being said American lab breeders don't have kind words to say about British labs either as I am sure you will find that out as this thread progresses. 

What you posted is one opinion from the guys life experiences with labs, so take it for what its worth. I do own a British lab and I will probably own many more throughout my life. Why do I buy them? Because I can and I want too end of story. If you don't like them here is an idea don't buy one and move on to something that meets your needs.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

ryanps18 said:


> I don't agree with some of the BS they spew about American labs, that being said American lab breeders don't have kind words to say about British labs either as I am sure you will find that out as this thread progresses.


In fairness to real Brits, I rarely hear the objectionable rhetoric about US dogs from them. Most of the falsehoods are marketing tools used by US breeders of so-called British Labs.

Most British folks who post on this forum are usually helpful and courteous.

Evan


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

irregardless of where it takes place, there ARE undesirable traits that are trained out of dogs of all breeds. vocal issues and mouth problems are probably the ones most of us that have been around a while have seen.

it's part of the modern culture to want it now. why wait to breed it out over multiple generations?-Paul


----------



## marshmonster (Jan 21, 2009)

"In fairness to real Brits, I rarely hear the objectionable rhetoric about US dogs from them. Most of the falsehoods are marketing tools used by US breeders of so-called British Labs.

Most British folks who post on this forum are usually helpful and courteous."

Evan
_______





AND that I believe to be the truest statement ever on this subject....

SOME of the American breeders of British labs are the problems, not the brits, and not the labs.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

A few thoughts --

1. No, I do not think that is the opinion of all British Lab breeders. It is a marketing ploy by a few breeders to unscrupulously create a false niche in the puppy market. Unfortunately the false propaganda takes on a life of its own among the ignorant.

2. I have no problem with anyone saying, "My dog is better; My kind of dog is better; My breed is better." I have every problem with someone saying, "Your dog is worse; Your kind of dog is defective; Your breed sucks."

3. I have trained with a handful or British-bred field Labs, and while they did not have the style I particularly look for, they were nonetheless birdy, competent and able hunting dogs. A pleasurable companion afield.

4. No doubt Robert Milner is reading this thread, and maybe he would like to delurk and defend his statements about American-bred field Labs?


----------



## David McLendon (Jan 5, 2005)

Evan said:


> Fire up the microwave...again!
> 
> Evan


And I'd like a box of Junior Mints, some Skittles and a bag of Pup-Peroni for the Chopper dog


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

> Most British folks who post on this forum are usually helpful and courteous.


I'll soon alter that!! 

If we all pick a pup with a good chance of having the characteristics we want, from healthy and sound stock, train it the way we want for the objectives we have in mind, the chances are we, and the dogs, will enjoy the ride and be happy with each other.

Hows that for controversial?

Eug


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

I prefer Mexican Labs. They come to America to work.:razz:


----------



## road kill (Feb 15, 2009)

duk4me said:


> I prefer Mexican Labs. They come to America to work.:razz:


Cheaply???


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Colonel Blimp said:


> I'll soon alter that!!
> 
> If we all pick a pup with a good chance of having the characteristics we want, from healthy and sound stock, train it the way we want for the objectives we have in mind, the chances are we, and the dogs, will enjoy the ride and be happy with each other.
> 
> ...


There you go, Eug, stirring the pot!!!









Evan


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

kb27_99 said:


> Is this the general thinking of all so called British Lab Breeders?
> 
> 
> This is just one paragraph:
> ...


Speaking as a Labrador trainer in Scotland(This just about qualifies as Brit'but only when I am not wearing Tartan;-))

I look upon the American 'style' of force training,with regard to competition,(to gain the desired affect for the act)rather than purpose of actual execution in real life!
The word 'force' in itself can be seen as a negative?,but taken positively with a structure to 'convince' an action that was previously not understood,should be seen as an achievement,and change of behaviour for the benefit of both to recieve reward.

The British Lab is the same as the American lab!(now thats a statement!) They are both Labs ! it is just the methods and route to achievement that is different,governed by different rules.But they both achieve the same result 'a retrieve'!

I dont believe you can 'breed training issues,or un-breed training issues' You can only create them,with each and every dog,whether they are US,or UK.
The brit way,over the years of selective breeding is a combination of 'temperament,bidability,trainability,drive,enthusiasm' ,but we still get the odd one (more than a few) that just dont have these qualities,including 'noise' 'hard mouth','over excitement' etc,its just that in the 'competition' world of fileld trials ,these ones are 'sold off' and never enter the arena?

So it could be argued' that the American way ,is to 'not accept' these failures,but to overcome them,and utilise them in competition ,for the purpose of the event and achieve what the regulations of the day allow?

Not every Labrador is a 'Retriever' ,but every Retriever is a Labrador in my Eyes;-)


----------



## Lynn Hanigan (Dec 14, 2007)

It's a good thing we did not present Cosmo to the queen as a gift.
It would have set US/UK relations back 50 years............


----------



## blind ambition (Oct 8, 2006)

polmaise said:


> Speaking as a Labrador trainer in Scotland(This just about qualifies as Brit'but only when I am not wearing Tartan;-))
> 
> Not every Labrador is a 'Retriever ,but every Retriever is a Labrador in my Eyes;-)


No offense meant but some of us might not take this as a compliment. I'm certain that your eyes would notice, that my dog's hair is longer than your dog's


----------



## Mike Tome (Jul 22, 2004)

kb27_99 said:


> Is this the general thinking of all so called British Lab Breeders?
> 
> 
> This is just one paragraph:
> ...


Yeah... come to think of it.. I've *NEVER* seen a British lab break....


HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

blind ambition said:


> No offense meant but some of us might not take this as a compliment. I'm certain that your eyes would notice, that my dog's hair is longer than your dog's


Aye well ?
You know what I mean?
Its not personal,to Goldens,Flatcoats,Chessapeakes,etc;-)
I forgot we were in a 'politically correct world'


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

kb27_99 said:


> Is this the general thinking of all so called British Lab Breeders?
> 
> 
> This is just one paragraph:
> ...


Lets finish the quote...



> The British method is quite different. A dog exhibiting an undesirable trait is simply but selectively 'culled' from gene pool. This has been practiced for many , many years. The British breeding process set’s the standard for Labrador Retrievers with flawless calm temperament, the unwavering need to please their master, uncanny hunting instincts, and a driven spirit that is easy to train. And Oh yes, by the way, they make the best companions I've ever seen.


You'll notice that each of these traits is really a matter of opinion. You will also note that the traits he describes for American dogs are tangable items, while traits he describes for British are not. What the heck is "flawless calm temperment?" or "unwavering need to please their master?" Is all poppycock, to quote my english friend Mr. Spooner.

/Paul


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

Kevin,
Thanks for the invitation.
Here is more than you ever wanted to read about my opinions on British and American Labradors;

www.fetchpup.com

and the more politically correct version:

www.duckhillkennels.com

Best Regards,

Robert Milner


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

rmilner said:


> Kevin, Thanks for the invitation. Here is more than you ever wanted to read about my opinions on British and American Labradors; www.fetchpup.com and the more politically correct version: www.duckhillkennels.com


Robert, I am very familiar with your writings at both your sites and have encouraged many to read them.

Are you interested in discussing them or just linking to them?


----------



## Jake Lunsford (Jun 15, 2008)

I think that Mr.Milner's discussion points could well be found in his two links. I think that he IS discussing just by linking. After all, it is his opinions that we will find there.

One of my favorite topics regards,
Jake


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

ryanps18 said:


> Never understood the big deal here. British play a different game so they breed *and train* accordingly. I don't agree with some of the BS they spew about American labs, that being said American lab breeders don't have kind words to say about British labs either as I am sure you will find that out as this thread progresses.
> 
> What you posted is one opinion from the guys life experiences with labs, so take it for what its worth. I do own a British lab and I will probably own many more throughout my life. Why do I buy them? Because I can and I want too end of story. If you don't like them here is an idea don't buy one and move on to something that meets your needs.


I have added some appropriate words (red & bold) in the above quote that give a little more balance & insight into what practically happens with any retriever intended as a finished retriever (hunt or trial) - here or abroad. I would take issue with anyone who insists a particular behavior is purely bred or trained. For example, a common "British" practice is to focus on the steadying aspect of training before serious retrieving is encouraged while the US process for FTs encourages serious and relatively lengthy retrieves from a 12-16 wk old pup, with 200+yd retrieves common as a pup reaches 12 mos & being trained for US FTs - and all before a serious steadying aspect is enforced. One might even argue it's the training more so that the breeding that molds a particular behavior - again in the US & UK.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

so what i see in print and hear about Cosmo and his offspring is not accurate? it's just the way that they are trained that makes them vocal and "animated"?

it has been written and talked about so much by so many different people that i find that hard to believe...

some undesirable traits are "in" a dog from birth. some people are willing to put up with them in order to reap the rewards associated with desirable traits that they also possess.-Paul


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Jake Lunsford said:


> I think that Mr.Milner's discussion points could well be found in his two links. I think that he IS discussing just by linking.


One-sided presentations does not a good discussion make.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Show time!

Evan


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

paul young said:


> so what i see in print and hear about Cosmo and his offspring is not accurate? it's just the way that they are trained that makes them vocal and "animated"?
> 
> it has been written and talked about so much by so many different people that i find that hard to believe...
> 
> some undesirable traits are "in" a dog from birth. some people are willing to put up with them in order to reap the rewards associated with desirable traits that they also possess.-Paul


I believe the *predisposition* to certain positive and negative behaviors are "in the dog from birth" but believe training modifies most behavioral predispositions. They can be modified (again both positively & negatively) by training - good or bad. I happen to have a Cosmo grandaughter, that left untrained may well have been vocal & animated but with appropriate early training shows no inclination to noise & undue animation as she come to the line and watches marks thrown or shot. In general terms, I believe that a pup's behavior & predisposition to certain behaviors can be effectively and positively modified where a standard of behavior is consistenly taught & required.

In my comments in the previous post, you will find that I never mentioned either breeding or training as a sole indicator of behavior as you have implied, rather I indicated it is my opinion that some combination of both breeding & training produces most expressed behaviors.


----------



## Jake Lunsford (Jun 15, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> One-sided presentations does not a good discussion make.


Aren't others supposed to present the other sides? It's a discussion, not a self reflective monologue.


----------



## david gibson (Nov 5, 2008)

>>>>>>>
The British method is quite different. A dog exhibiting an undesirable trait is simply but selectively 'culled' from gene pool. This has been practiced for many , many years. The British breeding process set’s the standard for Labrador Retrievers with flawless calm temperament, the unwavering need to please their master, uncanny hunting instincts, and a driven spirit that is easy to train. And Oh yes, by the way, they make the best companions I've ever seen. 
<<<<<<<<

totally describes my Brady!!! and he ain't cockney - he's cajun/texan!

all kidding aside - i do remember an elderly man named Mr. Godfrey who ran tests down here in the early 1990's while he himself was clearly in his 80's, he had a line of very english labs that performed quite well in our duck hunt - oriented tests down here. i am sure he has passed on by now, but he was a nice gent - anyone remember him??


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

then i guess Cosmo was poorly trained? i would say that since your dog is his GRANDAUGHTER, that the subsequent breedings achieved the effect of moderating these traits. then, you had the good sense to train in a manner that moderated it further.

good training will make the most of what you have, but it can't alter genetic makeup, and it can't be passed along to offspring. i think that in this regard the Brits know exactly what they're doing.

how about when multiple generations produced by a sire or dam develop sticky mouths, even though the pups went to different trainers? none of these people knew what they were doing?

if what you're suggesting is true, why pay much attention to breeding at all?

my current dog came from a breeding in which i had personal knowledge of every dog in a 3 generation pedigree. she's pretty much what i expected. i think breeding is at least as important as training in defining what the adult will be like. further, i think the dam has more influence on this than the sire.-Paul


----------



## ryanps18 (Feb 12, 2008)

Granddaddy said:


> I would take issue with anyone who insists a particular behavior is purely bred or trained.


Huh? A particular behavior is most Certainly bred and or trained in a dog. We would not even be having this discussion otherwise.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Jake Lunsford said:


> Aren't others supposed to present the other sides? It's a discussion, not a self reflective monologue.


That's my point. His website presents one "self-reflective" side. Without him here, another side is presented. Neither is an adequate _discussion._ I am suggesting he stays here and discusses his opinions with the other side.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

AmiableLabs said:


> That's my point. His website presents one "self-reflective" side. Without him here, another side is presented. Neither is an adequate _discussion._ I am suggesting he stays here and discusses his opinions with the other side.


 
But why? Do you really think opinions will change through discussion? I have my doubts. The fact is I've trained british labs there were nothing but pot bellied pigs with no drive or desire and I've trained british labs that would have challenged any Cosmo dog for breaking and vocal. 

Training is always about the dog in front of you and never about the people behind you.....

/Paul


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

Amazing how one can go from blood lines and breedings that tend to have certain tendencies to claiming all have specific traits not tendencies. I have two American bred labs who have the "bluest blood" you can find, and they spend more time sleeping at my feet in the house, but can ramp up to work and yet quickly respond to commands and to the work I need them to do. Mine aren't broke and they are far removed from British lines.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Lets finish the quote...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I find it interesting that evey site I have ever been to that says those things about American labs breeds 20+ litter per year. 

I also wonder when the last time these 20+ litter per year "kennels" actually culled pups or breeding stock due to lack of desired traits or presence of undesired traits. 

While I am wondering about that I also have to wonder what is being done with the dogs to find out what traits they have at all before they are added to the 20+ litter per year program?


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

A good example of a purely genetically transmitted behavior is a labrador bitch's maternal behavior. There is no way the bitch could learn it, and certainly it is not trained. It is a fairly complex behavior: digging a nest (if dirt is available), birthing the puppies, cutting the cord, cleaning them up, nursing them, licking them to stimulate elimination, etc. 

Delivery to hand is (or used to be) a mostly genetically transmitted behavior (as opposed to trained). Selective breeding for a hundred plus years is how we brought labs from "pounce on the bird and eat it" to "pick up the bird and carry it gently back to the trainer".

Some other heavily genetically influenced behaviors are:

a. I have seen several lines of lab that have an extremely pronounced tendency to steadiness. They become steady with very little training.

b. I have seen several lines of labs with a natural tendency to walk at heel.

c. I have seen many lines of labs that produce litters in which 9 to 10 out of 10 puppies deliver to hand naturally. 

d. I have seen several lines which produce litters in which 4 or 5 out of 10 puppies deliver to hand naturally.

e. I have seen some lines of labs with a tendency to spin.

f. I have seen several lines of labs with a tendency to whine and bark in a high distractionn environment (such as shooting birds).

g. I have seen several lines of labs that are hard mouthed.

h. I have seen some lines of labs that are very reactive to their environment and have a very difficult time learning to deal with a high distraction environment.

i. I have seen several lines of labs that are absolutely filthy in kennels.

I think all the above behaviors or traits have a huge genetic component. Training is not going to permanently change them. The trainer simply fights an ongoing battle to keep them contained. 
To me that is not the smart way to deal with problem behaviors that have a large genetic component. The smart way to deal with problem behaviors is to breed away from them.

There is also the factor of the average hunter to consider. I think we as the labrador breeding community have a responsibility to try and breed the behavioral package with which hunter can deal, and with which he can succeed with training to produce a good gundog. Thus we have a responsibility to breed away from problem behaviors.

The purpose of Labradors is to retrieve birds for hunters.

Best Regards
Robert Milner
www.duckhillkennels.com


----------



## Jake Lunsford (Jun 15, 2008)

AmiableLabs said:


> That's my point. His website presents one "self-reflective" side. Without him here, another side is presented. Neither is an adequate _discussion._ I am suggesting he stays here and discusses his opinions with the other side.


ok....................................


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

rmilner said:


> Some other heavily genetically influenced behaviors are:
> 
> I think all the above behaviors or traits have a huge genetic component. Training is not going to permanently change them. The trainer simply fights an ongoing battle to keep them contained.
> To me that is not the smart way to deal with problem behaviors that have a large genetic component. The smart way to deal with problem behaviors is to breed away from them.
> ...


My first reaction was to comment on anecdotal evidence... but I didn't see anything that was specific to country, so *we are agreed, it has nothing to do with British or American.*


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

It is about breeding practices and breeding selection criteria.

Best Regards,
Robert Milner
www.duckhillkennels.com


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

rmilner said:


> Some other heavily genetically influenced behaviors are:
> 
> a. I have seen several lines of lab that have an extremely pronounced tendency to steadiness. They become steady with very little training.


If that's truly the case, you need a better dog.


rmilner said:


> b. I have seen several lines of labs with a natural tendency to walk at heel.


I've seen lots of litters with a high percentage of pups that actually needed to be trained to perform standard, manmade acts required of them to hunt. Lost in such conversations are the facts that few of the standard skill requirements are behaviors dogs would voluntarily participate in if left strictly to the devices of nature.

Evan


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

Evan,
You are assuming that the dog that has a natural tendency to steadiness is merely lacking in drive. That is an erroneous assumption. I hope that I am not so unknowledgeable that I would confuse lack of drive with natural tendency to steadiness.

I will clarify. The dogs I am speaking of have a natural pause that needs very little training to shape into steadiness. The dogs have plenty of drive and hunting initiative.

Best Regards,

Robert Milner
www.duckhillkennels.com


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Evan said:


> If that's truly the case, you need a better dog.I've seen lots of litters with a high percentage of pups that actually needed to be trained to perform standard, manmade acts required of them to hunt. Lost in such conversations are the facts that few of the standard skill requirements are behaviors dogs would voluntarily participate in if left strictly to the devices of nature.
> 
> Evan


 
Hey Evan, let him be. If he can get a fully trained FC/AFC or even a QAA/MH dog by breeding and no training then let him. In the meantime I'll be out training. 

/Paul


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Hey Evan, let him be. If he can get a fully trained FC/AFC or even a QAA/MH dog by breeding and no training then let him. In the meantime I'll be out training.
> 
> /Paul


Alrighty, then! I need a reality break here. I think Star Trek is coming on.

Evan


----------



## kb27_99 (Sep 28, 2006)

Mr. Milner,

I have been doing some reading on the links you posted and have a question. You say you have trained as many as 150 dogs per year. Please explain what type of training they received. That’s a turn around of over 12 dogs per month.



Regards,

Kevin


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

ryanps18 said:


> Huh? A particular behavior is most Certainly bred and or trained in a dog. We would not even be having this discussion otherwise.


IMO, no it is not one or the other, it is some combination of both. It is my further opinion that behavioral predispostions (the breeding aspect) can be primary but not exclusive while actual expressed behavior is usually a result of training modification (whether the training is active or passive, intentional or accidental, or a result of environmental exposure).

On another aspect of this discussion, my lifetime of actively observing retriever behavior would indicate good retriever breeding results in a "bred-in" instinct to chase and capture rather than retrieve and gently return the object to hand. While many well-bred very young pups (either US or UK breeding) will return and even deliver to hand initially, even these will not consistently continue the desired behavior without training. Left to themselves, even these innate "retrievers" will eventually develop a stronger desire to keep the object retrieved. Again, JMO.....


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

rmilner said:


> A good example of a purely genetically transmitted behavior is a labrador bitch's maternal behavior. There is no way the bitch could learn it, and certainly it is not trained. It is a fairly complex behavior: digging a nest (if dirt is available), birthing the puppies, cutting the cord, cleaning them up, nursing them, licking them to stimulate elimination, etc.
> 
> Delivery to hand is (or used to be) a mostly genetically transmitted behavior (as opposed to trained). Selective breeding for a hundred plus years is how we brought labs from "pounce on the bird and eat it" to "pick up the bird and carry it gently back to the trainer".
> 
> ...



Mr. Milner,
I tend to agree with most of your observations and many of your conclusions. I've read your books, enjoyed them and learned from them. Like most who frequent this forum, I use a force-based collar program with my dogs to train them to hunt and particapate in hunt tests. I also employ things I've learned from you when dealing with young dogs. I've been pretty successful accomplishing my goals with this approach.
I find that all of these behaviors and more have a huge genetic component. Where you and I differ is the grouping of dogs into "British" and "American" categories. I tend to believe that you can find the best and worst examples of most of these behaviors in Labs with either accent.
The biggest difference between dogs as I see it, is in the breeding decisions we make. For example, I have a young dog that some would categorize as a stereotypical "American field trial" type. She is an incredible marking dog that naturally runs very hard and very straight. While she is very biddable and sensitive, she has over-the-top drive and desire and is always "on". In the excitement of a hunt test, she gets very high and has a tendency to chomp birds from anxiety. Because of her natural marking talent and drive (and a great pedigree), some would consider her a fine breeding candidate. They might even take a look at her pedigree and breed her to a very high-powered "flavor of the month" stud and produce a bunch more very hot dogs. Then a bunch of folks who have heard what great pups old NFC AFC Fillinthblank throws will buy these pups and provide much entertainment at hunt tests with their holding blind hurricanes. On the other hand, because of this bitch's inability to settle down and focus and in combination with the mouth issues, others would cull her immediately from their breeding program. Someone else might breed her to a stud known for throwing calm, thoughtful pups and hope for the best. Who's right?
The truth of the matter is that there are lines of American FT dogs as well as of British FT dogs that will produce great hunting companions and hunt test dogs. There are also plenty of "breeders" of both types that don't have any idea of what they are doing or what they are producing.

Your last line is where things get messy. For you, "The purpose of Labradors is to retrieve birds for hunters". That is not true for everyone. Different horses for different courses, as it were. I think that your observations are in many ways spot-on, but the simplistic "British=good, American=bad" presentation is neither truthful nor a fair argument and is the main reason why so many on these boards question your credibility.

That said, I would enjoy the opportunity to discuss (not argue) your ideas about dogs and training. I think too many miss a chance to learn when they dismiss you out of hand.

Respectfully,


----------



## Bill Billups (Sep 13, 2003)

It seems marking ability may not be coupled with a strong natural tendency to return with an object and deliver as a pup? The best markers I've dealt with as a pup would run straight to the object and run off with it. 

Bill


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

Hookset said:


> Mr. Milner,
> I tend to agree with most of your observations and many of your conclusions. I've read your books, enjoyed them and learned from them. Like most who frequent this forum, I use a force-based collar program with my dogs to train them to hunt and particapate in hunt tests. I also employ things I've learned from you when dealing with young dogs. I've been pretty successful accomplishing my goals with this approach.
> I find that all of these behaviors and more have a huge genetic component. Where you and I differ is the grouping of dogs into "British" and "American" categories. I tend to believe that you can find the best and worst examples of most of these behaviors in Labs with either accent.
> The biggest difference between dogs as I see it, is in the breeding decisions we make. For example, I have a young dog that some would categorize as a stereotypical "American field trial" type. She is an incredible marking dog that naturally runs very hard and very straight. While she is very biddable and sensitive, she has over-the-top drive and desire and is always "on". In the excitement of a hunt test, she gets very high and has a tendency to chomp birds from anxiety. Because of her natural marking talent and drive (and a great pedigree), some would consider her a fine breeding candidate. They might even take a look at her pedigree and breed her to a very high-powered "flavor of the month" stud and produce a bunch more very hot dogs. Then a bunch of folks who have heard what great pups old NFC AFC Fillinthblank throws will buy these pups and provide much entertainment at hunt tests with their holding blind hurricanes. On the other hand, because of this bitch's inability to settle down and focus and in combination with the mouth issues, others would cull her immediately from their breeding program. Someone else might breed her to a stud known for throwing calm, thoughtful pups and hope for the best. Who's right?
> ...


 
Well said Matt.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

Just wanted to take a minute to thank Mr. Milner for giving his side of this discussion. This topic has been beat to death over the years and his name has been part of it a time or two. I'm glad he's at least here to explain his position.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Matt, I like your post. The bottom line is the breeder needs to have knowledge of individual lines and traits and many people breed what's on paper. They don't have a clue about traits, which isn't easy to uncover either. If A type dog is good then lets do AA and it should be twice as good-not necessarily true. You could end up with an over the top poop stamper that is uncontrollable for the average handler. Same if you do double up on B type dog who is rock solid and would never break, but also lacks the desire that's needed to compete. In order to be able to do all age the dog must have superb marking, plus drive and desire and heart. Different strokes for different folks, but I do detest negative marketing. I often hear examples of that kind of marketing, and to me it shows lack of knowledge and even dishonesty.


----------



## ryanps18 (Feb 12, 2008)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Hey Evan, let him be. If he can get a fully trained FC/AFC or even a QAA/MH dog by breeding and no training then let him. In the meantime I'll be out training.
> 
> /Paul


I think a point often gets missed on this fourm, Most lab owners don't give a hoot about field trials. I think Mr Milner would be in one of those folks, and thus would breed a dog for the average hunter that lives with his dog 300 plus days a year and hunts the remainder.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

ryanps18 said:


> I think a point often gets missed on this fourm, Most lab owners don't give a hoot about field trials. I think Mr Milner would be in one of those folks, and thus would breed a dog for the average hunter that lives with his dog 300 plus days a year and hunts the remainder.


I think the main reason the so-called average hunter in the US has such an easy time getting a high quality retriever to hunt with is a heavy emphasis on selective field trial breeding. I believe that influence over arches all other genetic input in maintaining and promoting the best qualities that many a "Joe Hunter" tends to take for granted.

Evan


----------



## K.Bullock (May 15, 2008)

achiro said:


> I find it interesting that evey site I have ever been to that says those things about American labs breeds 20+ litter per year.
> 
> I also wonder when the last time these 20+ litter per year "kennels" actually culled pups or breeding stock due to lack of desired traits or presence of undesired traits.
> 
> While I am wondering about that I also have to wonder what is being done with the dogs to find out what traits they have at all before they are added to the 20+ litter per year program?


Precisely! Put English or Gentleman's gundog after it and not only can it be sold for a premium, the very fact that it is English and not (wild,hairbrained,robotic American) explains why it doesn't like to work.

Mass breeders do not cull they sell.


----------



## mlp (Feb 20, 2009)

I've been training my own labs for many years, about 10 years ago I was introduced to british labs and british training methods. I have enjoyed training my dogs with this method and have had wonderful results. 

I have noticed in the last couple of years that some british lab breeders are breeding dogs that are not even trained and are charging alot of money for their pups. When I first got into the british labs most of the breeders had sires and dams that were FTCH'S or FTW'S. With most breeders this is not the case now. I was hoping it wasn't going to come to this but here we are. If I'm going to give a big price for a pup I would like to get a pup out titled parents . 

In case anyone was wondering FTCH= Field Trial Champion, FTW= Field Trial Winner, These are british titles.


----------



## ryanps18 (Feb 12, 2008)

Evan said:


> I think the main reason the so-called average hunter in the US has such an easy time getting a high quality retriever to hunt with is a heavy emphasis on selective field trial breeding. I believe that influence over arches all other genetic input in maintaining and promoting the best qualities that many a "Joe Hunter" tends to take for granted.
> 
> Evan


I agree that field trails have influenced labs for the better in some regards. But when field trails are now so far removed from the average hunt, I am not sure how that benefits the average hunter looking for a hunting dog. I personally prefer a really soft dog, and the chance that I can get that from a top notch field trail breeding may not be all that good. Bottom line is there are so many breeders out there selling dogs, that it would be a big undertaking for a guy like me to sort out the good from the bad, in terms of what I am looking for in a dog. I am not an advocate of British bred dogs anymore than I am of American bred dogs, it’s really irrelevant to me. I just have certain things that I like in a dog and will buy said dog regardless of where the dog was bred. It just so happened that the last dog I purchased was a British bred dog because I thought that breeding would give me the best shot at what I was looking for. A really soft dog with a hell of a good nose, could I have found that in an American bred dog? The answer is absolutely, just think it would have taken much more time and effort to find him as I feel that breeding is getting way to diluted especially here in Minnesota, where their must be 1000 breeders selling pups.


----------



## fishduck (Jun 5, 2008)

I read the links and agree that an American Field trial is not representative of my normal days hunt. The British field trial is also not representative of my hunting. I have and will never be on a shoot where 100 plus birds are shot before my dog is allowed to retrieve. I have also never had ocassion to hunt with 6 dogs in a line where one dog at a time was allowed to retrieve.

I am sure there are British dogs that can do higher level hunt test work and American dogs that can compete in British trials. I would guess there is not an American field lab that would win a British trial and not a British lab that would win an American trial. 

The average hunter knows what they expect in a dog. If they are smart they will see the sire and dam work before they ever commit a dime towards a puppy purchase. That applies to dogs on both sides of the water.
Mark L.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

ryanps18 said:


> I think a point often gets missed on this fourm, Most lab owners don't give a hoot about field trials. I think Mr Milner would be in one of those folks, and thus would breed a dog for the average hunter that lives with his dog 300 plus days a year and hunts the remainder.


I train gundogs for Joe Hunter. I get the most ill bred, hodge podge backyard bred dogs brought to me for training. Fact is, the people you just described buy about the most difficult to train and horrible to live with dogs out there. You say Mr. Milner is breeding dogs for these people, but the fact is, those people won't pay the price for a well bred dog. Just last night, a good friend of mine showed up with a black lab puppy he paid 100 bucks for outside the Sportsman Warehouse, no papers, no idea about the parents, and no way to contact the people who sold the dog to him. 

If you're gonna use the "average hunter" debate, then you need to understand the "average hunter."

/Paul


----------



## ryanps18 (Feb 12, 2008)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I train gundogs for Joe Hunter. I get the most ill bred, hodge podge backyard bred dogs brought to me for training. Fact is, the people you just described buy about the most difficult to train and horrible to live with dogs out there. You say Mr. Milner is breeding dogs for these people, but the fact is, those people won't pay the price for a well bred dog. Just last night, a good friend of mine showed up with a black lab puppy he paid 100 bucks for outside the Sportsman Warehouse, no papers, no idea about the parents, and no way to contact the people who sold the dog to him.
> 
> If you're gonna use the "average hunter" debate, then you need to understand the "average hunter."
> 
> /Paul


Point taken, your spot on. And I would have fit that mold at one point in time, but now have educated myself a bit more and am willing to pay more for what I want. So i guess a better discription might be maybe a "Tweener" far below a pro and somewhat above average!


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> If you're gonna use the "average hunter" debate, then you need to understand the "average hunter."
> 
> /Paul


I agree. But along with that, I think what is too often missed in these (abundant) discourses is the inability to connect the so-called "average day's hunt" to what happens at a field trial. The substantive part of what field trials do isn't based on mere cosmetics. In other words, what you see isn't exactly what you get.

It's so easy to get thrown off by the artificial looks of a FT test with the white clad gunners in the field. And no duck calls??? It's not about looking like a hunt. It's about testing core attributes and traits that go into a working retriever that are being tested, and to admittedly high levels - disproportionately high. That's because it requires a competititve venue to really determine the greatest concentration of those virtues.

Selective breeders look for healthy stock, or at least that should be among their top priorities. But beyond that, they look for the most quantifiable evidence that the two animals used to whelp a litter possess the greatest amount of ability, along with a genetic background to maximize the liklihood of producing the highest quality pups.

That can't be proven by merely having everyone dress in camo and hide in the trees, or by having ancestors that came from some other country. Dirt may have many names given to it, but it does not influence the abilities of the livestock produced on it.

What does consistently keep the standards high is dedicated breeders. The ones who go the distance again and again to assure all possible evidences rise to the highest standards and meet the most proveable tests.

A lesser standard cannot offer that grade of performance record, and so cannot provide equal evidence of what the animals really have within them.

Evan


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Evan said:


> ...what is too often missed in these (abundant) discourses is the inability to connect the so-called "average day's hunt" to what happens at a field trial. The substantive part of what field trials do isn't based on mere cosmetics. In other words, what you see isn't exactly what you get.
> 
> It's so easy to get thrown off by the artificial looks of a FT test with the white clad gunners in the field. And no duck calls??? It's not about looking like a *hunt*. It's about testing core attributes and traits that go into a working retriever that are being tested, and to admittedly high levels - disproportionately high. That's because it requires a competititve venue to really determine the greatest concentration of those virtues.
> 
> ...


Geez, I'm always a pig in slop with this discussion. I much favo(u)r Mr. Milner's training for a gundog, but again: for a gundog. See, hunt (as boldfaced above) is where he gets a little disingenuous, like a tad misleading. He notes elsewhere that the Brits won't/don't tolerate a dog that punches out and disturbs game. That's true, they don't/won't. But it ain't *Labs* that they don't/won't tolerate. Repeat after me--and not from reading from lip-reading American-inflected copy about British superiority and temperament:

*Labrador retrievers are not, as in next to never, used for hunting in the UK, they are sat, nonslip, at the handler's side till released for a retrieve or sent on a blind. Spaniels are the gundogs that hunt or are called on for rough shooting over there*.

I believe Mr. Milner knows this very well, having spent time over there, as have I. Why he chooses to insist on this genetic built-in, born-of steadiness, I've no idea. (His successor at the Gentleman's GundogTM emporium, we all know pretty well where that spiel goes...) Our adage, in the US, in North America, in these time zones, these latitudes and attitudes, for hunter and field trialer alike, is: There are two kinds of dogs, those that break, and those that are going to. I've got a couple of those myself, that happen to be Labs, one British, one Grade-A American stock. The native version ain't budged in 40 (US) field trials...yet. The "non-native," steady-ready "type" broke on the second series of the first (US)FT she ever ran--on a dead bird! Frankly, I was delighted.

MG


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I have no desire to train, test, or hunt with a dog that won't break once in awhile. If he wants to sit that bad he can sit in the truck.

/Paul


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

fishduck said:


> I would guess there is not an American field lab that would win a British trial and not a British lab that would win an American trial.


Didn't Mike Lardy take some dogs across the pond and win some British trials? I think he went with Mike Stewart from Wildrose and a team of US trainers. I think I remember reading an article where he modified some of his training and geared it towards British trial work.


----------



## fred (Aug 12, 2007)

Thought we settled this in the late 1700's.


----------



## mlp (Feb 20, 2009)

Lardy didn't win . Him and stewart were hunting in different trials. Stewarts team won. I think lardy came in 4th or 5th out of about six or seven teams I think. I have a peice in a magazine on it somewhere.


----------



## Bill Billups (Sep 13, 2003)

Neither ran a british FT. Stewart had a team that ran a TEST at an Irish game fair. Lardy at about the same time had a team that ran a working test at a game fair in England.

Bill


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

bjoiner said:


> Didn't Mike Lardy take some dogs across the pond and win some British trials? I think he went with Mike Stewart from Wildrose and a team of US trainers. I think I remember reading an article where he modified some of his training and geared it towards British trial work.


Neither ran in an Open trial, if I recall correctly.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Wildrose grosses $1,000,000.00 per year according to Forbes??? Wow. Double wow. 

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0413/079-luxury-dog-breeder-luxe-labradors.html


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

bjoiner said:


> Didn't Mike Lardy take some dogs across the pond and win some British trials? I think he went with Mike Stewart from Wildrose and a team of US trainers. I think I remember reading an article where he modified some of his training and geared it towards British trial work.


Mike Lardy went to an event in England with a group of folks including Martin Deeley. Mike Stewart put together a team for the International Gundog competition at the Irish National Countrysports Fair in Moira Desmesne, Northern Ireland. Two different events.

Both were the same general timeframe - back when it was first possible to "passport" dogs, allowing owners to avoid the hassle of the formerly required "quarrantine period".

Both had fun. I had the chance to go to the Irish one a year or two after the two Mikes went. It was a great experience.

I'll tell you guys that it is really a waste of time arguing about which dog is better, who is right or who is wrong. 

Statements like "you've got the wrong dog", are about as unreasonable as telling a guy he's got "the wrong spouse", "the wrong car", or any other personal choice. 

If every guy liked the same thing, we'd all be chasing Patrick Johndrow's grandmother. Thank goodness for Patrick's grandpa, (and his grandmom too) different folks do respond to different strokes.

Chris


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Mike Lardy went to an event in England with a group of folks including Martin Deeley. Mike Stewart put together a team for the International Gundog competition at the Irish National Countrysports Fair in Moira Desmesne, Northern Ireland. Two different events.
> 
> Both were the same general timeframe - back when it was first possible to "passport" dogs, allowing owners to avoid the hassle of the formerly required "quarrantine period".
> 
> ...


Chris, you can't chase someone who won't run.....

Watermellon Wine regards....

/Paul


----------



## Fall Flight (Jul 1, 2008)

GulfCoast said:


> Wildrose grosses $1,000,000.00 per year according to Forbes??? Wow. Double wow.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2009/0413/079-luxury-dog-breeder-luxe-labradors.html


Yeah and as usual he has to bad mouth the American LAB. Its bad enough he does it on his website now he does it in a international magazine. 

*Stewart claims his English Labs are purer than the U.S. breed (the most popular in America since 1992), which has been cross-bred repeatedly, thus muddying the gene pool*

I think this guy gets a kick out of pissing people off. Go to the article.. I posted my comment at the bottom of the page. PURER = BS


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Statements like "you've got the wrong dog", are about as unreasonable as telling a guy he's got "the wrong spouse", "the wrong car", or any other personal choice.
> 
> Chris


That's true. I should have qualified my opinion. I think Paul was dead on about a dog that is "naturally steady". "If he wants to sit that bad he can sit in the truck."

If someone desires a dog that would rather sit than retrieve, and that person _has_ a dog that will sit rather than retrieve, he/she _has_ the right dog...for _them_.

But, if someone wants a dog that needs training to be steady because said dog would rather retrieve than sit, _but_ that person has a dog that would rather sit than retrieve, _that_ person has the wrong dog. For _that_ person, which would be me, that dog would soon become someone's pet, and I would be shopping for a better dog.

Of course, that's just my own opinion on retrievers.

Evan


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Evan said:


> That's true. I should have qualified my opinion. I think Paul was dead on about a dog that is "naturally steady". "If he wants to sit that bad he can sit in the truck."
> 
> If someone desires a dog that would rather sit than retrieve, and that person _has_ a dog that will sit rather than retrieve, he/she _has_ the right dog...for _them_.
> 
> ...


 
Kinda like putting brakes on a car that wont start


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Steve Amrein said:


> Kinda like putting brakes on a car that wont start


That is a _BIG_ 10-4!

Evan


----------



## laker (Sep 12, 2008)

Fall Flight said:


> Yeah and as usual he has to bad mouth the American LAB. Its bad enough he does it on his website now he does it in a international magazine.
> 
> *Stewart claims his English Labs are purer than the U.S. breed (the most popular in America since 1992), which has been cross-bred repeatedly, thus muddying the gene pool*
> 
> I think this guy gets a kick out of pissing people off. Go to the article.. I posted my comment at the bottom of the page. PURER = BS


Yep, it's called marketing. 
And judging from those numbers,,,,he knows how to push his product.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

That's one of the words for it.

Evan


----------



## laker (Sep 12, 2008)

Evan said:


> That's one of the words for it.
> 
> Evan


I'm not saying I agree,,,but make no mistake, he is a businessman as much as he is dog person...and for me there in lies the rub.


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

Seems like I remember from Economics 101 that high sales revenues are indicative of high demand for the product.

Robert Milner
www.duckhillkennel.com


----------



## laker (Sep 12, 2008)

rmilner said:


> Seems like I remember from Economics 101 that high sales revenues are indicative of high demand for the product.
> 
> Robert Milner
> www.duckhillkennel.com


Or great marketing.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Anyone want to discuss my vocal, neurotic British lab? Oh and BTW she really IS British. Bred here but out of imported dogs.

We can discuss her half siblings that I know of too, one of which is food agressive and one of which is vocal...

Then we can talk about my perfectly quiet, very intelligent American dog if you like...

And I'm sure someone can reverse that statment 180 degrees as well.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Having been to England and training with some of the FTers over there - British labs are not different from the American bred lab....all I see is marketing by a business man...labs are a labs....and this whole British vs. American labs is a ton of BS....

FOM <--- has so much more to say but will not offend Chris and RTFers


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Below is a portion of an Economics essay by Dr. Walter Williams

Economic ignorance allows us to fall easy prey to charlatans and demagogues, so how about a little Economics 101. 

It's popular to condemn greed but it's greed that gets wonderful things done. When I say greed, I don't mean stealing, fraud, misrepresentation, and other forms of dishonesty. I mean people trying to get as much as they can for themselves. We don't give second thought to the many wonderful things that others do for us. Detroit assembly line workers get up at the crack of dawn to produce the car that you enjoy. Farm workers toil in the blazing sun gathering grapes for our wine. Snowplow drivers brave blizzards just so we can have access to our roads. Do you think these people make these personal sacrifices because they care about us? My bet is that they don't give a hoot. Instead, they along with their bosses do these wonderful things for us because they want more for themselves. The legitimate businessperson understands that you have to give to get; you must give something of value to get something of value. To do business otherwise is to become a charlatan; profiting from stealing, fraud, misrepresentation, and other forms of dishonesty.

Evan


----------



## Jake Lunsford (Jun 15, 2008)

Wow. This is getting nasty. I was looking forward to hearing some comparison of actual differences in training technique, but I guess It ain't gonna happen.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

It never does, Jake. The emotions are driven by false accusations over breeding, far more than differences in training ideas. That would really end up being a different thread, and perhaps a good one.

This one travels the same path each time.

Evan


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

> Anyone want to discuss my vocal, neurotic British lab? Oh and BTW she really IS British. Bred here but out of imported dogs.
> 
> We can discuss her half siblings that I know of too, one of which is food agressive and one of which is vocal...



No way a "Gentlemans Gun Dog" would never act like that..


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Evan said:


> That's one of the words for it.
> 
> Evan


Evan, are you sure this is the direction you want to take? 

Chris


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Evan said:


> Below is a portion of an Economics essay by Dr. Walter Williams
> 
> Economic ignorance allows us to fall easy prey to charlatans and demagogues, so how about a little Economics 101.
> 
> ...


Evan, 

Let's be careful who's calling whom what...

Doesn't that seem reasonable to you?

I thought the guy interviewed in the Forbes magazine was quite happy with the product he received. To the point where he was willing to repeat the experience.

I think you've taken this a bit too far.


Chris


----------



## kb27_99 (Sep 28, 2006)

Evan,

Since Mr. Milner either didn't see my question or refuses to answer it I'll ask you for comparision purposes if you don't mind. If you choose not to participate I understand. On average, how many dogs do you train per year? 



Cheers,

Kevin


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

I think its awsome someone can earn a million bucks in the dog buisiness. He must be good at what he does and has the intellegence to market himself and his products.


Genious

Pete


----------



## Jake Lunsford (Jun 15, 2008)

Pete said:


> I think its awsome someone can earn a million bucks in the dog buisiness. He must be good at what he does and has the intellegence to market himself and his products.
> 
> 
> Genious
> ...


His videos are very informative and don't leave you scratching your head very often. He has a store as well, so not all his money comes from dogs. I think he does seminars too if I am not mistaken. It's not like he is a backyard breeder.


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

I took a look at both web sites. Very nice. I didn't see anything about health clearances. Did I miss it? I did like the videos on duck hills.


----------



## SeniorCoot (Feb 26, 2008)

Me-I could care less RE-Brit VS US labs but Mr Stewart who most folks love to bash(maybe because he is successful) has always answered any training question I have had --even though I have never spent one dime with him. So bash away but, Like Liberace, I bet he cries all the way to de Bank!


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

kb27_99 said:


> Evan,
> 
> Since Mr. Milner either didn't see my question or refuses to answer it I'll ask you for comparision purposes if you don't mind. If you choose not to participate I understand. On average, how many dogs do you train per year?
> 
> ...


Check PM

Evan


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

KB,

i don't think you'll get an answer from either Mr. Milner or Mr. Graham on this.

however, i will say that there are many folks on this forum who have trained more dogs to more titles or degrees than either of them. their names just don't show up as authors of books or training manuals.

knowledge lies where you find it, and it requires some searching.-Paul


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

i stand corrected.-Paul


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Evan,

Civility and non-defamatory posting is my goal in this particular thread. 

You may recall a broadcast PM you sent out to multiple retriever board moderators earlier this month asking that they focus their efforts in this direction. 

I'm attempting to accomplish that.

Let's pick a consistent message and direction and head that way.

Thanks, Chris


----------



## ryanps18 (Feb 12, 2008)

SeniorCoot said:


> Me-I could care less RE-Brit VS US labs but Mr Stewart who most folks love to bash(maybe because he is successful) has always answered any training question I have had --even though I have never spent one dime with him. So bash away but, Like Liberace, I bet he cries all the way to de Bank!


I have never met the guy (and I am sure most on here that love to hate him have not either) but his sucess, in my opinion is the main reason why he takes so much crap.

Also when I here folks complain about the whole "marketing" cry it just plain makes me laugh. I was at Game Fair last year here in Minnesota and attended one of the seminars. There where two gentleman speaking about training and such, and before the end of thier speach made it a point to rip British labs pretty good. Now I know not all do stuff like this but pot and kettle come to mind when here the marketing cry.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

I think the biggest problem is most people have not learned how to be objective,,,thus the problem lyes in us the non objective,,, not them

just trying to be objective

Pete


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Evan,
> 
> Civility and non-defamatory posting is my goal in this particular thread.
> 
> ...


Why do i find this hilarious.....ROFLMAO


/Paul


----------



## Matt McKenzie (Oct 9, 2004)

/Paul,
Are there people other than the British lab folks who might misrepresent things in order to peddle a product or service?

Just wondering.


----------



## road kill (Feb 15, 2009)

paul young said:


> KB,
> 
> i don't think you'll get an answer from either Mr. Milner or Mr. Graham on this.
> 
> however,* i will say that there are many folks on this forum who have trained more dogs to more titles or degrees than either of them. their names just don't show up as authors of books or training manuals.*knowledge lies where you find it, and it requires some searching.-Paul


Not arguing your point, but Mr. Graham has indirectly trained countless dogs through his programs.

Not the same I know, just adding context.

The same could be said about all that publish information on training etc.


----------



## kb27_99 (Sep 28, 2006)

Hookset said:


> /Paul,
> Are there people other than the British lab folks who might misrepresent things in order to peddle a product or service?
> 
> Just wondering.


 I know you directed this at paul but. Sure they do http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=37417

UKC doesn’t recognize the breed but when I informed the guy he was pissed at me for trying to ruin his reputation and PROFIT. Go figure.


Cheers,

Kevin


----------



## Shawn S. (Jan 17, 2005)

Hookset said:


> /Paul,
> Are there people other than the British lab folks who might misrepresent things in order to peddle a product or service?
> 
> Just wondering.


Something of the Canine Evangelist sorts?

Shawn


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

This thread is no longer productive. 

* locked *


----------

