# Pleasant Hill vs Wildrose



## indyfowler (Aug 25, 2010)

I am planning on sending my pup off for training in the next few weeks. I was dead set on sending him back to Wildrose but have started to hear great things about Pleasant Hill Retrievers near Evansville Indiana. Does anyone have any experience with Pleasant Hill? I am about 2 hours from Pleasant Hill and 8 hours from Wildrose. If it were reversed, I'd pick Wildrose hands down, but an 8 hour drive makes visiting rather difficult. Besides that, Pleasant Hill says that they will allow you to come down and help with the dogs training. Any ideas, help or advice is appreciated. I am also located in Terre Haute Indiana so feel free if you know of any other trainers in the area. Thanks.


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

I wouldn't send a dog to Wildrose if the ole' huckster was the last "pro" on the planet. I hope I wasn't unclear.

I've never heard of Pleasant Hill, so I cannot comment on them.

Good luck with whatever you decide.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

indyfowler said:


> I am planning on sending my pup off for training in the next few weeks. I was dead set on sending him back to Wildrose but have started to hear great things about Pleasant Hill Retrievers near Evansville Indiana. Does anyone have any experience with Pleasant Hill? I am about 2 hours from Pleasant Hill and 8 hours from Wildrose. If it were reversed, I'd pick Wildrose hands down, but an 8 hour drive makes visiting rather difficult. Besides that, Pleasant Hill says that they will allow you to come down and help with the dogs training. Any ideas, help or advice is appreciated. I am also located in Terre Haute Indiana so feel free if you know of any other trainers in the area. Thanks.



What are the reasons why you were dead set on wildrose?


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

I'm not anti-Stewart, but the ability to train with my dog at the other place would be a huge selling point for me. Also close enough to go spend some time there yourself prior to making the decision.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

I'm with Rick. You're right to do your research on Pleasant Hill, but being able to work with your dog is a huge plus. What you get out of your dog for his whole life depends on how well you hold up your end--and you can learn how to do that by training with your dog.

Amy Dahl


----------



## mspintail (Feb 9, 2011)

My lab is just finishing up at wildrose and I have had no complaints. However I live 2 hours from Wildrose and have made several trips to check on things.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

I would tend to shy away from Wildrose for training. If I were going to use a trainer who learned his craft in the UK, to run UK style events, I personally would use Tom Hamilton at brackenfen.com in Gulfport, MS. Tom competed, won and titled dogs at the highest levels in the UK when he was stationed in England with the USAF. However, he would be even farther from you than Wildrose. Also, what the others have said about being able to train "with" your dog and trainer is very important as well.


----------



## Hoosier32 (Apr 29, 2008)

indyfowler,

I do not know a thing about Wildrose, but I have sent three dogs to Gene Deutsch at Pleasant Hill Retrievers. Mainly, I have sent my dogs there just to get them started, and I have had nothing but great experiences. Gene and his wife will take excellent care of your dog/dogs and will be very honest about your dog's performance. Also, Gene is just as willing to train you as a handler as he is willing to train your retriever. I try to make it down to Gene's once a month to train and every time I go I learn something new. If you would like more information you can contact me at 812-820-1468. However, I would recommend just giving Gene a call. All of his contact information is on his website, phrdogs.com. 

Adam DePriest


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

I will repeat what I said on dh chat. WR will produce one off the best obedience trained dogs you willi ever see...second to non. I have been around several.

The retriever training will be pretty basic. Doubles and short blinds. Of course it depends on how long you are going to leave pup. I think they do a good job of introducing the dog to birds, water, boats,dekes, calls, dog stands etc... Many of these things are skipped by others. They also will have your pup EXTREMELY well behaved...steady and obedient
The negative side is the actual gundog training. They will give you a great start but don't expect then to produce ac finished dog.IMO

I would contact Robert Milner at Duckhill. Nobody has more experience than he. He's trained the british easy and the american way and has been successful at both. He would be a little closer to you.


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

boykinhntr said:


> I will repeat what I said on dh chat. WR will produce one off the best obedience trained dogs you willi ever see...second to non. I have been around several.
> 
> The retriever training will be pretty basic. Doubles and short blinds. Of course it depends on how long you are going to leave pup. I think they do a good job of introducing the dog to birds, water, boats,dekes, calls, dog stands etc... Many of these things are skipped by others. They also will have your pup EXTREMELY well behaved...steady and obedient
> The negative side is the actual gundog training. They will give you a great start but don't expect then to produce ac finished dog.IMO
> ...


Pretty big generalizations of other trainers in my opinion! Pick the best trainer, who can provide the results you want/need! Don't fall into the marketing machine, thinking that a North American based program will automaticaly fail you!


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

Misty Marsh said:


> Pretty big generalizations of other trainers in my opinion! Pick the best trainer, who can provide the results you want/need! Don't fall into the marketing machine, thinking that a North American based program will automaticaly fail you!


I was referring only to WR and not other trainers.I can't list every trainer in the country. Yes, you can only generalize bc all dogs are different. In my experience Wildrose excels at obedience but not necessarily in field work.

Misty he clearly is looking for british help. If it makes you feel better I would recommend Derek at the retriever academy and Chris Akin in Bono, Ar. They will spend more time on field work and give you a more finished retriever in the field.

The other hundreds of trainers may or may not do these things. better?


----------



## Ryan Isaacs (Jul 19, 2008)

indyfowler, I don't have any experience with Wildrose but I did purchase a pup from Gene (Pleasant Hill) a few years back. Give me a call and I'd be happy to share my experience/insight. 812-208-1623


----------



## Tim West (May 27, 2003)

I took a client out duck hunting who had a Wildrose dog and I was very impressed with the dog's obedience. He was steady to shot on water and handled well. We were not trialing or testing but hunting, but he was trained well as was the handler. We also field hunted and it was the dog's first time ever to be exposed to this. Trust me when I say that dogs can go nutso in a hurry when six guys explode out of layout blinds and the shot is called loudly so all can hear it. He never broke once and laid down the whole time.

This was my only experience with them, but I was impressed with the dogs steadiness.


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

Tim West said:


> I took a client out duck hunting who had a Wildrose dog and I was very impressed with the dog's obedience. He was steady to shot on water and handled well. We were not trialing or testing but hunting, but he was trained well as was the handler. We also field hunted and it was the dog's first time ever to be exposed to this. Trust me when I say that dogs can go nutso in a hurry when six guys explode out of layout blinds and the shot is called loudly so all can hear it. He never broke once and laid down the whole time.
> 
> This was my only experience with them, but I was impressed with the dogs steadiness.


That has been my experience with them as well.


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

boykinhntr said:


> I was referring only to WR and not other trainers.I can't list every trainer in the country. Yes, you can only generalize bc all dogs are different. In my experience Wildrose excels at obedience but not necessarily in field work.
> 
> Misty he clearly is looking for british help. If it makes you feel better I would recommend Derek at the retriever academy and Chris Akin in Bono, Ar. They will spend more time on field work and give you a more finished retriever in the field.
> 
> The other hundreds of trainers may or may not do these things. better?


All I was getting at was that saying Wildrose will train the best obediance, second to none, and that most other trainers skip past decoys, boats, boats etc.. to be a bit if a stretch don't you think, that's all? Is he "clearly looking for a british trainer" he never said that, he just mentioned two trainers that happened to be British. I just went on to say that he may want to expand the search to all trainers that may fit his needs. Wow, didn't realize a British dog needed to be trained by a british trainer, although I'm sure Wildrose will tell you different?


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

Misty Marsh said:


> All I was getting at was that saying Wildrose will train the best obediance, second to none, and that most other trainers skip past decoys, boats, boats etc.. to be a bit if a stretch don't you think, that's all?


Undoubtedly. How can you say, "the best" and "second to none" when you haven't seen the work of all others? Huge hyperbole. Why not just say that the obedience is excellent? If that is what you've observed then that could be an accurate statement, but "the best" and "second to none" is such a gross exaggeration that it brings everything else you've said into question.

And to say that MOST TRAINERS ship past decoys, boats, dog stands, etc., is to say that you are intimately familiar with MOST pro's regimens, which the poster is almost assuredly NOT. Sounds like this poster is just buying into the hype.

I've seen a few WR trained dogs and have been completely unimpressed. One of them was particularly enamored of bringing back a decoy when it couldn't find the mark. Same dog (whose owner was immensely proud of the wildrose training) also would only pick up one type of bumper because that is the only type she had been exposed to at WR (canvas only, no rubber/plastic). I've seen owners of wildrose "trained" dogs have to get on their hands and knees and beg the dog to finish retrieving the duck at a hunt test. I could go on and on.

To the original poster, send your dog to someone who relies on RESULTS and word of mouth rather than marketing hype and riding the coattails of Ducks Unlimited to provide them with their good name.


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

HuntinDawg said:


> Undoubtedly. How can you say, "the best" and "second to none" when you haven't seen the work of all others? Huge hyperbole. Why not just say that the obedience is excellent? If that is what you've observed then that could be an accurate statement, but "the best" and "second to none" is such a gross exaggeration that it brings everything else you've said into question.
> 
> And to say that MOST TRAINERS ship past decoys, boats, dog stands, etc., is to say that you are intimately familiar with MOST pro's regimens, which the poster is almost assuredly NOT. Sounds like this poster is just buying into the hype.
> 
> ...


Don't lecture me on buying into the hype and then post your absurd sentiment about riding coattails. 

I have no dog in this fight. I just gave an honest assessment of the place bc I feel I have a decent understanding of what he can expect. Obviously, I don't buy into the hype when I say that they don't excel in field work. Does that sound like someone buying into the hype?

If tihis was another kennel you would not take such offense. Are you telling me if some asked about the retriever academy and I said " Derek will produce one of the best marking dogs you will ever see" you would come on here and question my verbage. You are going to tell me that I haven't seen every trainer in the country and there is no way I could say that?. Amazing...

I say one good thing about the place and some of you literally can't stomach it. As for the WR dogs you have seen ppl beg to return a bird, I have seen much of the same from some dogs trained by the big names.


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

boykinhntr said:


> Don't lecture me on buying into the hype and then post your absurd sentiment about riding coattails.
> 
> I have no dog in this fight. I just gave an honest assessment of the place bc I feel I have a decent understanding of what he can expect. Obviously, I don't buy into the hype when I say that they don't excel in field work. Does that sound like someone buying into the hype?
> 
> ...


I was going to comment, but there is no point! Your replies tell your story quite clearly!


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

boykinhntr said:


> your absurd sentiment about riding coattails.


As to my comment about the huckster riding DU's coattails, the DU affiliation is the single thing that made him a high profile name. His reputation among the uninformed (not saying YOU are uninformed, but the uninformed seem most impressed with him) comes from his affiliation with DU and from his own marketing prowess (which is not unsubstantial) rather than from his dog training ability/program/methodology or the quality of his breedings. Almost any dog trainer/breeder could have phenomenal commercial and financial success if they were publicized in DU magazine and DU television as "the trainer of Drake, the DU DOG!" This was the way he was described in every single episode of DU TV for years along with his silly little training segments. That is such incredible free advertising that anyone could have had commercial success. Folks think of DU as authorities and they picked this guy to train Drake the DU dog, so he must be AWESOME! That is the obvious inference and this worked to tremendous affect for those new to working retrievers. I stand by my comment about him riding DU's coattails 100%. If it weren't for his appearances on DU TV and in DU magazine, I wouldn't even know who he was and the same can be said for many thousands of other viewers/ DU members. I am not a gunsmith, but if the NRA started publicizing me as their expert gunsmith I'd have a waiting list a mile long to screw up peoples guns. Those kinds of endorsements, whether stated or simply by association are HUGE.



boykinhntr said:


> If tihis was another kennel you would not take such offense.


Honestly, there is some truth to that. I have been so completely unimpressed with the WR trained dogs I've seen that I don't want to see someone else get hoodwinked. If I was about to make such a poor decision (send a dog to WR for training) I would hope someone with more knowledge/experience would speak up and make me re-think that decision - no different than if I was about to purchase a poor quality or overpriced winger, e-collar, etc.

If I saw people flocking to any other trainer that I believed to be truly substandard, I think I would advise them similarly regardless of whether they were "British" style trainers, Carr-based trainers or whatever.



boykinhntr said:


> Are you telling me if some asked about the retriever academy and I said " Derek will produce one of the best marking dogs you will ever see" you would come on here and question my verbage. You are going to tell me that I haven't seen every trainer in the country and there is no way I could say that?. Amazing...


No, I am telling you that your statement about Derek ("one of the best you will ever see") is vastly different from stating:



boykinhntr said:


> WR will produce one off the best obedience trained dogs you willi ever see...second to non.


"Second to non[e]" is a heck of a lot different from "one of the best." Second to none is the single best to the exclusion of all others. That, sir, is hyperbole.



boykinhntr said:


> As for the WR dogs you have seen ppl beg to return a bird, I have seen much of the same from some dogs trained by the big names.


I sure haven't. I could name a fairly long list of successful hunt test pros (I've had very little experience with dogs trained by FT pros, to my knowledge) from which I have never seen a dog have to be coaxed to return a bird to hand. Heck, I am a totally unexceptional trainer, and NOBODY has ever seen my have to coax/beg one of my dogs to return to me with a bird at a hunt test or in real hunting (we all do it with puppies in training/pre-training of course). When I say I've seen WR trained dogs have to be coaxed/begged to return birds to their owner, I'm not talking about puppies. I'm talking about a dog running HRC Seasoned, a dog running HRC Finished and a dog at a club training session that was supposed to be at an advanced level (multiples and blinds) running at a club training session just off the top of my head. As a matter of fact, every WR trained dog that I have seen (of those that I have KNOWN were WR trained - granted I have probably seen some (good or bad) that I did not KNOW were WR trained) has been grossly underwhelming in some basic aspect or another and EVERY ONE of them has had to be sweet talked by their owner to return with a duck at some point in the test/training session (I'm sure it wouldn't be 100% with a larger sample, but still very unimpressive in that regard). That is pathetic and unacceptable. [Disclaimer: I only know what the owner's told me about their dogs' level of training along with knowing what level of event/work the dog was being asked to perform - I do not know what level the WR staff considered these dogs to have been trained to but all were from WR breeding and all were put forth as having been trained at WR.] In such an instance I would blame the training before I would blame the breeding BTW.


----------



## Bob Glover (Nov 14, 2008)

_I say one good thing about the place and some of you literally can't stomach it._

It's amazing to me how some people on this board have *nothing* good to say about Wildrose. I have never had any personal experience with them or Mike Stewart, but a friend of mine once reserved a pup from them, put down a deposit and the breeding fell through. He didn't want to wait longer and asked for his deposit back. Mike was really nice, said he understood and put the check in the mail. I saw some Wildrose dogs in action at the DU Festival in Memphis one year and they did ok; were very calm compared to other field trial dogs that were there. They may not have performed to hunt test or akc field trial quality, but looked like they would please the average hunter.

Wildrose markets their dogs to a different clientele than the field trialers'... their clientele is much larger. Looking at their website, their puppy prices are staying high also. Right or wrong, more people will purchase an 'adventure dog' than a potential field trial champion.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Troll(trolled, trolling, trolls): 
1.  Drag baited line through water
2. Fool internet user into responding, sending responses to carefully designed incorrect statements. 
hook, line and sinker regards,


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

I personally knew nothing about either , but a short search has revealed that they teach for two different discipline. *Wildrose* teaches by what they call" _training based upon well-founded British training principles _". for British type hunting and testing events

*Pleasant Hill Retrievers *on the other hand trains for competing in AKC Hunt Tests, UKC Finished Tests, Qualifying Level Field Trials or Super Retriever Series Competitions. The information provided gave no indication if they use a Carr based format or not. 

A lot would depend on which you want for your dog.

john


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Pals said:


> Troll(trolled, trolling, trolls):
> 1.  Drag baited line through water
> 2. Fool internet user into responding, sending responses to carefully designed incorrect statements.
> hook, line and sinker regards,


Seems like a baseless accusation to me.

john


----------



## mlp (Feb 20, 2009)

I can't say anything about Pleasant Hill, but 9 years ago I bought a pup from Wildrose. I live about 2 hours from WR and I went there nearly every weekend and mike would let me use his training grounds to train on and would help me with his training.


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

Maggiesmaster said:


> _I say one good thing about the place and some of you literally can't stomach it._
> 
> It's amazing to me how some people on this board have *nothing* good to say about Wildrose. I have never had any personal experience with them or Mike Stewart, but a friend of mine once reserved a pup from them, put down a deposit and the breeding fell through. He didn't want to wait longer and asked for his deposit back. Mike was really nice, said he understood and put the check in the mail.


All of the WR clients that I have met seemed like really nice guys and they really loved their dogs...how's that?

It is good to hear that Mr. Stewart did the right thing when the breeding fell through. I never suggested that he dealt unscrupulously with his clients and I have never heard anyone else suggest it either.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

john fallon said:


> Seems like a baseless accusation to me.
> 
> john


 
you were sayin? Seen the new thread John?


HOOK, LINE, SINKER regards,


----------



## Gunners Up (Jul 29, 2004)

Tim West said:


> I took a client out duck hunting who had a Wildrose dog and I was very impressed with the dog's obedience. He was steady to shot on water and handled well. We were not trialing or testing but hunting, but he was trained well as was the handler. We also field hunted and it was the dog's first time ever to be exposed to this. Trust me when I say that dogs can go nutso in a hurry when six guys explode out of layout blinds and the shot is called loudly so all can hear it. He never broke once and laid down the whole time.
> 
> This was my only experience with them, but I was impressed with the dogs steadiness.


Gentlemen,

The above evaluation is from a Field Trial Judge, Successful Amateur Handler, and proprietor of one of the more successful duck clubs in Oklahoma. If Tim West says the dog was steady and did good work while field hunting then I would be of the opinion to keep an open mind in regards to the hunting dogs Wildrose is producing.

Rich


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Tim West said:


> I took a client out duck hunting who had a Wildrose dog and I was very impressed with the dog's obedience. He was steady to shot on water and handled well. We were not trialing or testing but hunting, but he was trained well as was the handler. We also field hunted and it was the dog's first time ever to be exposed to this. Trust me when I say that dogs can go nutso in a hurry when six guys explode out of layout blinds and the shot is called loudly so all can hear it. He never broke once and laid down the whole time.
> 
> This was my only experience with them, but I was impressed with the dogs steadiness.


I've not read all the posts in this thread. But here is a HUGE takeaway. 

Tim West is a field trialer who also guides and hunts.

Guys, there is no room for hatefullness. Really! Mike Stewart is the first to tell you that if you want to do AKC Field Trials, or even the American Hunt Tests...go elsewhere. 

British-trained dogs tend to be steady and quiet. Folks tend to appreciate these attributes in the duckblind or the layout field. Just the facts.

Thanks, Chris


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Chris Atkinson said:


> I've not read all the posts in this thread. But here is a HUGE takeaway.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


After reading this thread, and particularly this post, I wonder if perhaps I have joined the wrong forum. Do you know of one that caters to those who primarily plan to hunt their dogs and really have no intention of ever competing? Is the information on this forum pertinent to both? There is quite a bit of info on this forum, but if it is primarily aimed at getting a dog ready to compete, it may not be where I need to be. Please let me know. Thanks


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

HPL said:


> Perhaps I have joined the wrong forum. Do you know of one that caters to those who primarily plan to hunt their dogs and really have no intention of ever competing? Is the information on this forum pertinent to both?


 
I'm sorry HPL,  I don't quite follow. 

If you don't intend to compete, Wildrose could be a choice worth investigating. So could many other trainers and breeders.

Can you please clarify why you wrote that perhaps you have joined the wrong forum? I am not clear why you quoted my post, and wrote that. 

RTF is here for the benefit of the global retriever community. 

I hope you gain some benefit here. If not, RTF has failed.

Chris


----------



## spencedilworth (Jun 27, 2010)

HPL said:


> After reading this thread, and particularly this post, I wonder if perhaps I have joined the wrong forum. Do you know of one that caters to those who primarily plan to hunt their dogs and really have no intention of ever competing? Is the information on this forum pertinent to both? There is quite a bit of info on this forum, but if it is primarily aimed at getting a dog ready to compete, it may not be where I need to be. Please let me know. Thanks


I know what you mean. While this forum does seem to be more geared towards competition I think people that want dogs that will just hunt will still get tons of great info from this forum. Robert Milner @ Duckhills Kennels has a forum that you may also be interested in for hunting dogs. Sorry, but I just know of the two forums. I equate it to reading training books and watching film. Take what you can use from this forum while getting info from others. I feel certain that any questions you have regarding your hunting dog will quickly get answered by the people on here.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Chris Atkinson said:


> I'm sorry HPL, I don't quite follow.
> 
> If you don't intend to compete, Wildrose could be a choice worth investigating. So could many other trainers and breeders.
> 
> ...


Well, it seemed to me that your point was in part that one might be training one way if hunting was your primary interest and in a different way if competition was your goal. If so, does the training advice/discussion on RTF pertain to both disciplines? From what I have read so far (and an enjoyable read it has been) most of ya'll seem to be aiming at the competitive part of training and, if one would train differently if one wasn't planning on competing, I thought perhaps I should know that. I should say that I intend to train this pup myself as I did the last two, but came to the forum because I was encountering some difficulties I didn't remember having with the previous two (owned and hunted over about a 30yr period) and hoped to find some useful info. Have read numerous posts that have addressed several issues I have experienced, so not only good to see how others work through them, but also great to see that there is nothing new under the sun. However, if techniques would be different for hunters and competitors.......

My original question was not meant to be a shot or criticism, just an honest question.

BTW, have also been enjoying reading POTUS. Boy, some of those guys play rough! 


Thanks


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

HPL said:


> After reading this thread, and particularly this post, I wonder if perhaps I have joined the wrong forum. Do you know of one that caters to those who primarily plan to hunt their dogs and really have no intention of ever competing? Is the information on this forum pertinent to both? There is quite a bit of info on this forum, but if it is primarily aimed at getting a dog ready to compete, it may not be where I need to be. Please let me know. Thanks


Here is the deal. There is a lot of great info on this forum. However, british dogs and particularly Wildrose dogs just don't receive a warm welcome. There are plenty of people on here that are willing and able to give good advice and instruction. Unfortunately, those posts are usually drowned out by negative, american way or your wrong, type posts. I left this forum yeats ago bc of the negativity. I am picking up a new pup so I am back. I have had a lot of really nice ppl help me but sometimes you have to wade through
the rude unhelpful posts. Just part of it.
I have always trained with the collar and FF but have gained valuable information from learning the british way. I am an avid hunter and the brits have a pretty good program for a calm steady hunting dog. The more I read the more I like.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

HPL said:


> Well, it seemed to me that your point was in part that one might be training one way if hunting was your primary interest and in a different way if competition was your goal. If so, does the training advice/discussion on RTF pertain to both disciplines? From what I have read so far (and an enjoyable read it has been) most of ya'll seem to be aiming at the competitive part of training and, if one would train differently if one wasn't planning on competing, I thought perhaps I should know that. I should say that I intend to train this pup myself as I did the last two, but came to the forum because I was encountering some difficulties I didn't remember having with the previous two (owned and hunted over about a 30yr period) and hoped to find some useful info. Have read numerous posts that have addressed several issues I have experienced, so not only good to see how others work through them, but also great to see that there is nothing new under the sun. However, if techniques would be different for hunters and competitors.......
> 
> My original question was not meant to be a shot or criticism, just an honest question.
> 
> ...


HPL,

Take this for what it's worth - I think you might of misread Chris's post...and I'm not sure i can clarify it any without adding to the confusion...

I'm thinking Chris was trying to say there are many ways to skin a cat and a person with first hand knowledge has confirmed that a dog trained via Wildrose was an very nice dog to hunt with. Chris referenced that person's experience as a way to say that his opinion is valid and not just pulled out of his rear end....did I clear it up or make it worst.

This forum is for every one who wants to learn how to train their retrievers whether hunting, family pet, hunt tests, field trials, etc...yes it seems everything revolves around hunt tests or field trials because that is usually how most validate their training....it becomes addicting almost as much as hunting. And hunting is of course the ultimate way of validating your training....nothing like the real deal.

FOM


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

HPL said:


> Well, it seemed to me that your point was in part that one might be training one way if hunting was your primary interest and in a different way if competition was your goal. If so, does the training advice/discussion on RTF pertain to both disciplines? From what I have read so far (and an enjoyable read it has been) most of ya'll seem to be aiming at the competitive part of training and, if one would train differently if one wasn't planning on competing, I thought perhaps I should know that. I should say that I intend to train this pup myself as I did the last two, but came to the forum because I was encountering some difficulties I didn't remember having with the previous two (owned and hunted over about a 30yr period) and hoped to find some useful info. Have read numerous posts that have addressed several issues I have experienced, so not only good to see how others work through them, but also great to see that there is nothing new under the sun. However, if techniques would be different for hunters and competitors.......
> 
> My original question was not meant to be a shot or criticism, just an honest question.
> 
> ...


Many times, the responses on RTF by many whenever Wildrose is brought up is a shock gobble response that is very anti-Mike Stewart, anti-Wildrose, anti-Brit labs. 

My intent was to show that I found it refreshing to see an accomplished Field Trial competitor, who also guides for duck hunters (and therefore sees lots of Field Trial dogs in the hunting environs) compliment a Wildrose dog. He also mentions some conditions/situations that can lead a dog to unravel. 

I found it nice that Tim West was validating that a Wildrose dog performed well in the OK Duck Club hunting scene. Not too long ago, there was a titled FC/AFC dog who was also complimented for his performance at the same club by the same guide.

My point is that life's too short to get all worked up trying to make everyone think that brunettes are the prettiest women in the world. Some guys like blondes. And that's OK.

Same with dogs and training methods. 

There is no one size fits all. 

If you find an internet forum that tries to make you think that's true, it's going to be a pretty narrowly focused resource.

Chris


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Many times, the responses on RTF by many whenever Wildrose is brought up is a shock gobble response that is very anti-Mike Stewart, anti-Wildrose, anti-Brit labs.
> 
> My intent was to show that I found it refreshing to see an accomplished Field Trial competitor, who also guides for duck hunters (and therefore sees lots of Field Trial dogs in the hunting environs) compliment a Wildrose dog. He also mentions some conditions/situations that can lead a dog to unravel.
> 
> ...


Thanks Chris!

Just began to think that there might be a different approach if you primarily planned to hunt your dog. 

BTW, don't forget redheads, and there is something about shiny black hair & alabaster skin (but that's just GDG I guess).


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

HPL said:


> Thanks Chris!
> 
> Just began to think that there might be a different approach if you primarily planned to hunt your dog.
> 
> BTW, don't forget redheads, and there is something about shiny black hair & alabaster skin (but that's just GDG I guess).


 



There are many different approaches to dog training no matter what your goal is.


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Many times, the responses on RTF by many whenever Wildrose is brought up is a shock gobble response...


Didn't know Chris is a turkey hunter, but that pegs it.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

boykinhntr said:


> Here is the deal. There is a lot of great info on this forum. However, british dogs and particularly Wildrose dogs just don't receive a warm welcome.


I better tell my poor little ol' non-WR "british" hound she isn't getting a warm welcome here. 

Its not the origination point of the dog that's the issue. I suspect what Boykinhntr means is that its the marketing pundits, ON BOTH SIDES, that poopy up the water. I can assure you, the dog's don't care. ;-)


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

GulfCoast said:


> I better tell my poor little ol' non-WR "british" hound she isn't getting a warm welcome here.
> 
> Its not the origination point of the dog that's the issue. I suspect what Boykinhntr means is that its the marketing pundits, ON BOTH SIDES, that poopy up the water. I can assure you, the dog's don't care. ;-)


Obviously, I wasnt referring to the dogs feelings.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

O.K. Ya'll, I think I have the gist of it now, which leads to another question: would someone please 'splain the difference between the British and American way, or can you point me in the direction of a good comparison? Thanks


----------



## schb02 (Feb 21, 2010)

Maggiesmaster said:


> _I say one good thing about the place and some of you literally can't stomach it._
> 
> I saw some Wildrose dogs in action at the DU Festival in Memphis one year and they did ok; were very calm compared to other field trial dogs that were there. They may not have performed to hunt test or akc field trial quality, but looked like they would please the average hunter.


If another person tells me that ALL field trial dogs are not calm I am going to puke! If another person tells me that the British labs is the BEST lab to get I am going to puke! Do NOT pick your pup because it a British Lab or an English Lab. Pick a litter that has the qualities YOU are looking for. Yes that means you have to do the research and lots of it. Picking a trainer is the same. Do good research and the bad ones will hopefully get off of your list. In my opinon this is not the place to be doing your research on a trainer. Everone has a list in there head of whos the best and the list in each persons head is different. Take the time and do your own research. Call them up, watch them train, train with them and ask loyal friends if you need help not a message board. That is my rant thanks for reading....


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

HPL said:


> O.K. Ya'll, I think I have the gist of it now, which leads to another question: would someone please 'splain the difference between the British and American way, or can you point me in the direction of a good comparison? Thanks


The brits and the americans play different games. Therefore, they train differently. They also have different philosophies. The simple explanation is that american training usually incorporates force fetch and the e collar. The british does not. American dogs are expected to run perfect lines and always take the most direct route, especially important on water retrieves where the dog isn't allowed to run the banks. The american way relies first and foremost on handling to get to the bird.

The brits allow more hunting up on the dogs part. Their test consist of live birds that are shot so the handler doesn't always know where the bird is. He had to get the dog close and let the dog hunt it up. The brits put special emphasis on steadiness by shooting many birds in front of the dog. They also allow the dog to run the bank to get to a bird. They dont FF or use e collars. Brits pride themselves on needing calm dogs that deliver naturally to hand. Whether this is true is often debated.


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

> Would someone please 'splain the difference between the British and American way, or can you point me in the direction of a good comparison? Thanks


Very roughly it goes as follows.

Training with the e-collar in the US is now regarded as conventional, even the norm. E collar usage and US Field Trials have grown symbiotically; it would be verging on the impossible to compete without using the collar. 

There are several training methods published; Lardy, Graham, and Strawski (Fowl Dogs) amongst them, which whilst primarily aimed at Trial and Hunt Test dogs, are also used in training hunting dogs. All of them have the advantage of being sequential, building the dogs abilities in small stages over time. Two other significant features are the introduction of birds at an early stage, certainly before any real steadiness training; and the process of Force Fetch. 

"The British way" (horrible phrase) does not include the use of e collars or Force Fetch, great reliance is placed on the dogs natural ability and developing it through reward based training. Steadiness is seen as a goal in itself, all the training methods reflect this; two salient points being the introduction to birds at a much later stage, and limiting the number the of retrieves the dog is allowed to make (eg six dummies out, dog sent for one only, the handler picks the rest). The big disadvantage to the new trainer is the lack of high quality published material; there is some and it's getting better but it's not as easily come by as the US stuff.

That's a real bare bones reply, I'm sure others will expand on it.

Eug


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

boykinhntr said:


> The brits and the americans play different games. Therefore, they train differently. They also have different philosophies. The simple explanation is that american training usually incorporates force fetch and the e collar. The british does not. American dogs are expected to run perfect lines and always take the most direct route, especially important on water retrieves where the dog isn't allowed to run the banks. The american way relies first and foremost on handling to get to the bird.
> 
> The brits allow more hunting up on the dogs part. Their test consist of live birds that are shot so the handler doesn't always know where the bird is. He had to get the dog close and let the dog hunt it up. The brits put special emphasis on steadiness by shooting many birds in front of the dog. They also allow the dog to run the bank to get to a bird. They dont FF or use e collars. Brits pride themselves on needing calm dogs that deliver naturally to hand. Whether this is true is often debated.


To me, this sounds like the way the difference is described by those promoting British dogs and training. In my opinion, it misleads regarding American training. I train the American way, and I train dogs for hunting and for field trials. I would say that the American style is to emphasize developing the dog's drive and initiative from the beginning (five weeks or so when they can see well enough to track an object and pick it up). Americans tend to assume they can make the dog steady enough, when we get around to it. Steady enough is a practical standard that depends on the individual, but for many it means able to be in a blind or blinded boat without spooking the birds, spilling the coffee, upsetting the boat, or being a pest. For some, it means flushing pheasants and sitting on the flush so as not to be in danger of being shot. Achieving a practical level of steadiness is not a big deal.

Hunting, or using the nose to find birds, is considered essential in the breeding of American retrievers and in most hunting situations as well as events. To quote Jay Sweezey, "they make their living with their nose." Marking is also emphasized. This is the skill at which retrievers excel: watching a bird down and accurately getting to the spot, through terrain, water, mud, brush, rushes, whatever--then putting on a good, smart, productive hunt in the right area.

Handling is important in events, but most hunters don't bother to teach their dog to handle, if they train the dog at all. Handling requires maintenance to keep it sharp, so at the higher levels it is mainly for the person who enjoys training and the well-to-do who can send the dog back to a pro for periodic refreshers. Most American hunting retrievers are out there doing what they do based on drive, initiative, marking, and bird-finding ability.

"Going straight," often maligned by proponents of the British style, has an inherited component and a trained component. We seek dogs with a natural tendency to go straight because it tends to be associated with focus, desire, and heart. The opposite trait tends to be associated with an inclination to shirk and avoid effort. So our trials reward going straight, usually not because dogs are dropped for cheating but because if they cheat they will forget where they've been and which birds remain to be retrieved. Going straight can also be taught, and it is easy to do--not a big battle against the dog's so-called "nature." We teach it because it is a low-effort way to improve a dog's marking success. Dogs who take their attention off their destination to pick their way around obstacles tend to lose their way.

American field trials are intensely competitive, with many more entries than British trials. Typically in an Open there are 25-35 Field Champions entered, plus 60-80 other dogs. With this intense competition, the tasks required have evolved to be sophisticated and difficult, requiring considerable training BUT, and this is essential, also requiring that the dog demonstrate a great deal of initiative. This makes training for these trials an art. Although the tasks required don't usually look like a "normal day's shoot," they do for the most part reward the traits that make an effective hunting dog: drive, marking ability, nose and bird finding ability, initiative, heart, and tractability. Unfortunately IMO today's trials don't select as strongly as I would like for the great water dog.

I would be suspicious of anyone who puts down American dogs as being all training and no natural ability, or incapable of being steadied, or any other simple summary. They've either seen very little and jumped to conclusions, or they're repeating what somebody else said, or perhaps they're trying to sell you something.

Amy Dahl


----------



## Marissa E. (May 13, 2009)

Wow, I was very mislead...

Here I always thought 'American Training' was done in a white coat with white ball cap and 'British Training' was done in your sunday best with a fancy hat on.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Rick Hall said:


> Didn't know Chris is a turkey hunter, but that pegs it.


Hi Rick,

Many moons have passed since I last took a Tom. But Spring gobbler is the one activity that I enjoy where I carry a scattergun, but leave my dog behind.

I love it!

Hey, I had a nice catch-up with Nick Mike last week. We talked for quite a while. He's doing the same kind of job, and is still having fun doing his Bluegrass music.

Chris


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

afdahl said:


> To me, this sounds like the way the difference is described by those promoting British dogs and training. In my opinion, it misleads regarding American training. I train the American way, and I train dogs for hunting and for field trials. I would say that the American style is to emphasize developing the dog's drive and initiative from the beginning (five weeks or so when they can see well enough to track an object and pick it up). Americans tend to assume they can make the dog steady enough, when we get around to it. Steady enough is a practical standard that depends on the individual, but for many it means able to be in a blind or blinded boat without spooking the birds, spilling the coffee, upsetting the boat, or being a pest. For some, it means flushing pheasants and sitting on the flush so as not to be in danger of being shot. Achieving a practical level of steadiness is not a big deal.
> 
> Hunting, or using the nose to find birds, is considered essential in the breeding of American retrievers and in most hunting situations as well as events. To quote Jay Sweezey, "they make their living with their nose." Marking is also emphasized. This is the skill at which retrievers excel: watching a bird down and accurately getting to the spot, through terrain, water, mud, brush, rushes, whatever--then putting on a good, smart, productive hunt in the right area.
> 
> ...


Ha ha, and yours sounds equally biased towards the american way. (which is how I train too)

I was trying to give a brief unbiased summary. But I give up. If you say one positive thing about british training, immedietly you are labeled as"buying into the hype". If you praise the brits for their attention to steadiness, somehow it is perceived that you are insinuating american dogs aren't steady.

I have always trained the american way but I like to have an open mind and appreciate the skills the brits exhibit. I guess I would be more biasedif I had a financial interest. But to me dogs are about having fun and learning from everyone.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

boykinhntr said:


> Ha ha, and yours sounds equally biased towards the american way. (which is how I train too)
> 
> I was trying to give a brief unbiased summary. But I give up. If you say one positive thing about british training, immedietly you are labeled as"buying into the hype". If you praise the brits for their attention to steadiness, somehow it is perceived that you are insinuating american dogs aren't steady.


I wrote about what I know, which is the way I train dogs. I respect British traditions and trainers but have little firsthand experience with them.

The thing you said which I consider utterly flat-out wrong was not about British training. It was, "The american way relies first and foremost on handling to get to the bird."

Amy Dahl


----------



## mattm337 (May 17, 2010)

Amy,

Please don't take this the wrong way, as I have immense respect for your family's accomplishments: is it fair to say the lining is an inheritable trait, or is it representative of a very high degree of trainability and perseverance to handle the pressure to run a factor-filled 300 yd blind? Again, not saying to criticize, rather to ask how we can know if lining is inheritable?


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

I thought Amy Dahl's reply was very good, also Colonel Blimp's! The whole British deal has nothing to do with the dogs, or the training methods, the distain originates from the negative generalizations of American field dogs used to sell them to the masses.


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

mattm337 said:


> Amy,
> 
> Please don't take this the wrong way, as I have immense respect for your family's accomplishments: is it fair to say the lining is an inheritable trait, or is it representative of a very high degree of trainability and perseverance to handle the pressure to run a factor-filled 300 yd blind? Again, not saying to criticize, rather to ask how we can know if lining is inheritable?


I think that you need to have a dog with brains/trainability, the ability to handle pressure is not a huge factor in my opinion as a smart dog combined with a good trainer will get the job done! "Yes" I personally feel that lining is inheritable trait, some dogs just have the confidence and ability to run better lines. I agree that your not going to take that great lining dog, do little work, and still 2 whistle 300 yard factor filled blinds without the training. I do not for a second think that you must have a tough, pressure receptive dog to acieve the highest levels of NA field trial work, not with todays adjustable e-collars and training methods.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

mattm337 said:


> Amy,
> 
> Please don't take this the wrong way, as I have immense respect for your family's accomplishments: is it fair to say the lining is an inheritable trait, or is it representative of a very high degree of trainability and perseverance to handle the pressure to run a factor-filled 300 yd blind? Again, not saying to criticize, rather to ask how we can know if lining is inheritable?


Trying hard to resist the tendency to get into the philosophy of how we know what we think we know. I'm big on direct observation as a source of knowledge, and base my ideas on these traits on my training experience.

I think that you are referring to a different trait than I did in my post. I had in mind the "naturally honest" dog that has little tendency to look for an easy way. There is another quality in a "natural lining dog" that readily learns to set him- or herself up, look out, and run long and straight with little training preparation.

In either case, for me it is a matter of observations made while training dogs, observations of differences between dogs. For the most part, dogs that will go long on a mark can be taught to go long on a blind. It's not a matter of pressure, but of range, confidence, and gradual building. Some dogs, however, show an aptitude early in training and advance really fast through that phase. I suspect they pick a spot to run toward, when we line them up, as if it was a mark.

Distinguishing the "naturally honest dog" from the "natural cheater" is probably more ambiguous. Positive reinforcement is operative in training whether we speak in those terms or not, and a dog that is allowed to run around obstacles on retrieves quickly learns that he or she can succeed that way. Still, my training experience leads me to think there is an inborn tendency in some dogs to, as Hugh Arthur said, "think about getting there, not think about *how* they're going to get there." 

Amy Dahl


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Hugh Arthur said, "think about getting there, not think about *how* they're going to get there." 

I really haven't taken time enough to process "why", but the quote above reminds me of a line from Jonathan Livingston Seagull.....
"Perfect speed is being there". I hope I got that right.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Actually, after all of the shouting dies down, I am really curious about the British dogs and training. I wrote that Americans tend to take for granted that they can get dogs steady enough for their purposes. From what I have learned of British methods, they appear to take for granted that the dog will have enough go power, enough initiative, enough talent, to be worth all of the effort of steadying, obedience training, etc.

That's pretty different.

I can only try to imagine what it would be like to take that focus, being confident that the go power and initiative is all there, ready for when I need it. I suspect it's beyond explaining, that the only way to understand would be to do it. 

Amy Dahl


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

This may be a double post, if so I apologize. I thought I had posted this earlier, but it hasn't shown up, so... 

Thanks to all ya'll. Many gave really well thought out responses and it has been very informative. I hope it will continue a bit more as this has given me much to think about. Thanks again.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

HPL said:


> This may be a double post, if so I apologize. I thought I had posted this earlier, but it hasn't shown up, so...
> 
> Thanks to all ya'll. Many gave really well thought out responses and it has been very informative. I hope it will continue a bit more as this has given me much to think about. Thanks again.


Cool! (so did you register for the wrong forum?  )


----------



## rhill14 (Feb 14, 2011)

afdahl said:


> To me, this sounds like the way the difference is described by those promoting British dogs and training. In my opinion, it misleads regarding American training. I train the American way, and I train dogs for hunting and for field trials. I would say that the American style is to emphasize developing the dog's drive and initiative from the beginning (five weeks or so when they can see well enough to track an object and pick it up). Americans tend to assume they can make the dog steady enough, when we get around to it. Steady enough is a practical standard that depends on the individual, but for many it means able to be in a blind or blinded boat without spooking the birds, spilling the coffee, upsetting the boat, or being a pest. For some, it means flushing pheasants and sitting on the flush so as not to be in danger of being shot. Achieving a practical level of steadiness is not a big deal.
> 
> Hunting, or using the nose to find birds, is considered essential in the breeding of American retrievers and in most hunting situations as well as events. To quote Jay Sweezey, "they make their living with their nose." Marking is also emphasized. This is the skill at which retrievers excel: watching a bird down and accurately getting to the spot, through terrain, water, mud, brush, rushes, whatever--then putting on a good, smart, productive hunt in the right area.
> 
> ...



Ok, this may sound incredibally dumb but i am new and a beginner. Obviously you can train a dog any way you prefer but does getting a british lab vs american lab play into the styler of training (age of intro to birds, ecollar, ff, birdiness, drive to get the bird, drive to hunt in the cold, and just all out love for hunting and retrieving etc.) I want a duck hunting, hell of a retriever lab that I will train myself for the first time. Tall order, I know but I am doing my best to gather all info possible and this is confusing me. Thanks for any input


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

rhill14 said:


> Ok, this may sound incredibally dumb but i am new and a beginner. Obviously you can train a dog any way you prefer but does getting a british lab vs american lab play into the styler of training (age of intro to birds, ecollar, ff, birdiness, drive to get the bird, drive to hunt in the cold, and just all out love for hunting and retrieving etc.) I want a duck hunting, hell of a retriever lab that I will train myself for the first time. Tall order, I know but I am doing my best to gather all info possible and this is confusing me. Thanks for any input


You are asking the right questions.

In my experience, a good Lab is a good Lab. I've trained some British imports I liked a lot.

I can think of two advantages to buying "American," for someone in your position. 

1. You can look at an official pedigree and see working titles that demonstrate that the puppy's ancestors had a certain standard of accomplishment. 

2. My understanding is that North American retriever events have more significant water components than British events, so watergoing ability is probably a bigger factor in selection over here (N.A.).

Amy Dahl


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

afdahl said:


> You are asking the right questions.
> 
> In my experience, a good Lab is a good Lab. I've trained some British imports I liked a lot.
> 
> ...


One other thing to add is that it will be easy to find a training group or club that trains "american" way. You really limit yourself in regards to training partners doing it the other way.

On british dogs, you can look at the pedigree and see FTCH or FTW. If your pup is from multiple generations of these you can rest assured he has good genes. 

I have a british lab on the way but he will be trained the american way. Thete are several great clubs in my area that I can train with. I bought a british pup bc the particular litter is very impressive. It is a repeat breeding and I know owners of the dogs. However, My first call was to Derek Randall at the retriever academy.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

boykinhntr said:


> I have a british lab on the way but he will be trained the american way. Thete are several great clubs in my area that I can train with. I bought a british pup bc the particular litter is very impressive. It is a repeat breeding and I know owners of the dogs. However, My first call was to Derek Randall at the retriever academy.


I did the same thing. Started "british" with a "british dog" and it did not work well for me. I realized I was leaving a lot of "performance" on the table. So, I went back and did "US basics" and have been pleased with the result, so far. Still working on the Grand, MN and the Q. It sure is fun!


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Cool! (so did you register for the wrong forum?  )


Not with this many helpful folks and clearly if the question is asked correctly, there is help to be had. 

Am planning on giving a response to your current poll also. Not till this evening. Just hitting the computer as I pass through at the moment.


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

HPL said:


> Not with this many helpful folks and clearly if the question is asked correctly, there is help to be had.
> 
> Am planning on giving a response to your current poll also. Not till this evening. Just hitting the computer as I pass through at the moment.


I am not sure anyone answered the part of your original question about training a hunting dog differently than a "competitive" dog. First there are many who would say that a hunt test dog is NOT a competitive dog and they are 100% correct in that hunt test dogs do not run to see who is the best, but to see who does and does not meet/live up to the written standard of performance for that particular event on that particular day.

However, I think you were talking about both hunt test and field trial dogs when you said that you weren't going to "compete" and asked your question.

The answer to your question is that you train "competitive" dogs and "just hunting dogs" (remember that many, if not most, of us got into the sport because we wanted a good/better hunting dog) is that you do train them almost exactly the same way until they are at a pretty advanced level of training at which point the field trial dogs must continue to advance beyond what will be required of a hunting dog or hunt test dog. This isn't just my opinion, but a paraphrase of the opinions expressed by Mike Lardy (one of the premier field trial trainers of all time) and Evan Graham (former field trial pro and writer of Smartworks dog training series).

I will tell you that I hunt with my dog far more than I "compete" with him. He has hunt test titles, but due to family circumstances I did not run a single hunt test with him in 2010 and may not in 2011. I did hunt with him frequently and will continue to do so. Both of the hunting retrievers that I have owned have been far better hunting dogs because I was preparing them to run hunt tests. They are not generally asked to do anything in a hunt test that doesn't have a practical application in a real hunting situation. Preparing to make sure he does things well enough to please the judges keeps me from skimping on things that I might have otherwise skimped on if I hadn't decided to run hunt tests with my first retriever.

For instance there are many owners of "just a hunting dog" that don't think their dog has to be steady. This can be a real menace and even a threat to the dog's life. Anyone who expects to go very far in hunt tests knows or finds that their dog had better be steady. Some owners of "just a hunting dog" find it acceptable to throw rocks when their dog can't find the bird (thinking the dog will go toward the rock's splash and find the bird), but anyone who hopes to proceed past the lowest level of hunt test knows that their dog better take hand signals and whistle commands and thus we don't need to carry a pocket full of rocks when we go duck hunting.

If you don't run hunt tests that is cool with me and many others here, but the skills needed to run hunt tests are vital to actual hunting.

Good luck with your dog.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

HuntinDawg said:


> I am not sure anyone answered the part of your original question about training a hunting dog differently than a "competitive" dog. First there are many who would say that a hunt test dog is NOT a competitive dog and they are 100% correct in that hunt test dogs do not run to see who is the best, but to see who does and does not meet/live up to the written standard of performance for that particular event on that particular day.
> 
> However, I think you were talking about both hunt test and field trial dogs when you said that you weren't going to "compete" and asked your question.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the perspective DAWG. Both of my other two labs (one at a time for a full lifetime each) knew sit means sit and knew left, right, and back, and with two blasts after sit with my palm down "seek" (meaning it's right there somewhere!!), so all that stuff is what I have worked toward in the past, mostly for the dog's safety. Sit no matter what was brought home to me in a story of a dog killed by a train while running after a cripple, (read it in a magazine over 30 years ago and it has really stuck with me) so I teach sit every day of the dog's life. I don't want my dog to be a pain to folks who hunt with me either. However, I don't think I am in as much of a hurry as some to have everything perfected. That throwing rocks stuff just doesn't cause much of a splash in the middle of a south Texas grain field during dove season, so that's pretty much out for me too, besides I don't have that much of an arm. I got a lot of great responses to my question and some advice on some reading material. My pup turns 12 mos on Mar 6, so I may have to backtrack some, but I do have about 6 months before the first weekend of Sept, so I hope I can be ready by then. Would have hunted him this year, but I just don't have a good enough handle on this one yet, when he was about 8 or 9 weeks old, a cat killed an inca dove in my backyard and pup managed to scarf it down before I even realized it was there, so I am real concerned about him eating my game of choice (dove). I've been told that can be a very difficult habit to break and that was what brought me to this forum in the first place and I have gotten some very good input on that problem and we are working on that. I have high hopes for him in 2011. Planning to put in some sesame, so he should have plenty of experience by this time next year.

Thanks again.


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

HPL said:


> Thanks for the perspective DAWG. Both of my other two labs (one at a time for a full lifetime each) knew sit means sit and knew left, right, and back, and with two blasts after sit with my palm down "seek" (meaning it's right there somewhere!!), so all that stuff is what I have worked toward in the past, mostly for the dog's safety. Sit no matter what was brought home to me in a story of a dog killed by a train while running after a cripple, (read it in a magazine over 30 years ago and it has really stuck with me) so I teach sit every day of the dog's life. I don't want my dog to be a pain to folks who hunt with me either. However, I don't think I am in as much of a hurry as some to have everything perfected. That throwing rocks stuff just doesn't cause much of a splash in the middle of a south Texas grain field during dove season, so that's pretty much out for me too, besides I don't have that much of an arm. I got a lot of great responses to my question and some advice on some reading material. My pup turns 12 mos on Mar 6, so I may have to backtrack some, but I do have about 6 months before the first weekend of Sept, so I hope I can be ready by then. Would have hunted him this year, but I just don't have a good enough handle on this one yet, when he was about 8 or 9 weeks old, a cat killed an inca dove in my backyard and pup managed to scarf it down before I even realized it was there, so I am real concerned about him eating my game of choice (dove). I've been told that can be a very difficult habit to break and that was what brought me to this forum in the first place and I have gotten some very good input on that problem and we are working on that. I have high hopes for him in 2011. Planning to put in some sesame, so he should have plenty of experience by this time next year.
> 
> Thanks again.



Ha ha, Dove season brings out the worst in a lot of dogs! My boykin lost his mind several times in the dive field. I swear it was like he was a completely different dog. I have seen a lot of dogs eat a dove or two as well. 

It may take some extra time training but I bet your pup does just fine.


----------



## Brett Van Haaften (Jan 16, 2006)

Back to the question that started this. I do know Gene and train with him every chance I get. I have been around him for about 6 years and he has showed me alot about dog training. He might not show many titled dogs of his, But he would rather let the owners run their dogs and help them. Of all of his dogs I'll tell you that they can run with best. I don't know Mike so I can't say anything about him. This is my opinion, But I don't think you'll go wrong with Gene. Call them and set-up a time to visit them and that might help with making up your mind.


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

HPL said:


> when he was about 8 or 9 weeks old, a cat killed an inca dove in my backyard and pup managed to scarf it down before I even realized it was there, so I am real concerned about him eating my game of choice (dove). I've been told that can be a very difficult habit to break and that was what brought me to this forum in the first place and I have gotten some very good input on that problem and we are working on that.


I would be concerned about that too, but I don't think that it is a given that it will be a problem. I don't know if you force fetch your dogs, but as far as I know force fetch is considered the best tool for "curing" poor mouth habits.

My first retriever was not force fetched until he was about 2 years old. His delivery was very nice without it and I didn't know much about it and I certainly wouldn't have thought that he needed it even if I had known about it (typical of first time retriever owners IMO). At the end of his first or second hunting season (can't remember which) I took him straight from a goose hunt in which he was retrieving huge resident Canada Geese (which he had to manhandle on land due to their size, weight and cumbersome nature) directly to a club training session where they were using pigeons. At the training session he was returning with a pigeon and when he got just a few feet from me he flattened the pigeon (already dead) and I heard every bone in it's body break. I was too stunned/shocked to react and I didn't know what the proper reaction was anyway. He did it again later in the same training session and I was "ready" and scolded him. I began to worry that this was going to be a major problem. I like to hunt doves too and back then HRC commonly used pigeons on land and I was planning on running some hunt tests, so flattening the birds just wouldn't do. I really didn't know anyone to ask about the problem so I read all I could read on the subject and tried a bunch of "remedies" like attaching two bristle brushes back to back and having him retrieve those, etc. Nothing worked. I sent a letter to James Spencer who had a question and answer column in some magazine (Rertriever Journal maybe? or Wildfowl?). He answered me that the best cure was force fetch and that force fetch teaches proper mouth habits and he suggested his book Training Retrievers for the Marshes and Meadows for a full description of the procedure. I bought the book, followed the instructions to force fetch a dog and he was cured. Not exactly the same thing as you are facing, but similar. If a dog is left alone with a dead bird you really can't blame them if they eat it IMO, but eating one instead of finishing the retrieve is the kind of thing that could possibly be cured with force fetch and also with a strong revisiting of the "here" or "come" command. If the dog stops and eats the bird on the way back, then by stopping he has violated the "come" or "here" command IMO.

I don't know if you force fetch your dogs or not. If you have not done it, the procedure is explained very well in the book Smart Fetch by Evan Graham. I think he has a DVD on it too, but I haven't seen that. I think it may be covered in one of the Fowl Dogs DVD's by Rick Stawski and also possibly in Chris Akin's DVD. I don't think any of them will explain it as thoroughly as the Smart Fetch book though.

Good luck.


----------



## HPL (Jan 27, 2011)

Howdy again Dawg!

Neither of my previous dogs ever ate a bird, and with my first one I really thought he had a soft mouth. I also thought I must be a great shot as I almost never got a live cripple dove. They all looked like they had been centered in the pattern. When I got my second dog (who actually did have a very gentle mouth) I realized that some of those pellet holes in the dove retrieved by my first lab must surely have been TOOTH holes (did save me the trouble of wringing their necks). Also have no experience with FF, but looks like I'm about to.

Thanks again!


----------

