# " The Overdogged Hunter" By R. Milner



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

I train and help out with a HRC club in MN, last night was the first group training session of the year, great turn out 15 plus new members, alot of young dogs and there owners that need ALOT of help but seem willing to learn, befor we got started we did a little introduce yourself and your dog session, mostly labs, a few goldens and a couple of mix breeds. a couple of the young labs were from british breedings, and guess what they were the noisiest out of control dogs we had there last night, kind of made me chuckle a bit, owners are completly against the collar, healing stick, and they have been convinced by the breeders that FF is not required. Fast forward to this afternoon I get home to a new magazine on ther table and there is a article by Milner on the "Overdogged hunter" pointing a finger at the US field trial game for unruly dogs in the blind.

a quote from his story. " *I place blame for unruly dogs on OUR field trial system" *

Sure wish he could have been there last night to give some advice to the owners and to back up his story.

The three most well mannered young dogs were from a couple of high octaine US FT breeding..... Two 15 week old puppys that did 100 yard marks , delivered to hand, sat untill sent and were quiet, and a 10 monthe old that did a nice little double, was quiet, and honered off lead.


----------



## BonMallari (Feb 7, 2008)

any chance of posting the actual article so we all can read it first in its proper context before jumping to any conclusions


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Bon I'll scan it and post it, 


Chris if this is taboo just delete the whole post...


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

pretty tough to read sorry.............


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

Zoom the page to 200%. It's the same "story".


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

Didnt get to the second page. No need to. I totally disagree with the first page.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

This is exactly why there is so much passion when Milner, Stewart, and Brits are brought up-because articles like this are pure marketing and propaganda. I sell to hunters all the time that don't use e-collars and they train and hunt just fine and the parents are FF and CC. Poppycock.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

I love this little guy!










Thank's BHB! (Although, I might wind up overusing it, and crash the new server!  )


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

Kevin, oh KEVIN, where are you? ;-) HPW


----------



## BHB (Apr 28, 2008)

Seems to me that it is a "waa waa" article! Want some cheese with that "whine"? 

What the average hunter doesn't need is a dog that won't do the retrieve!! It seems to me that that's what you get when you breed "cooperative nature" dogs to more of the same! In my opinion, we sure don't need to go back to the early "Brits" way of breeding and training! That's just the way I see it! 

copterdoc, your welcome! I like him too!

BHB


----------



## Obabikon (Jul 1, 2009)

Don't you think posting this kind of stuff *over and over and over again *is...um...stupid?

Who cares???

Do you like _your _Lab, regardless of if it was bred in America, Canada, the UK, or Timbuktu?

Of course you do!

Is anyone putting a gun to your head and forcing you to buy an American bred dog vs a UK bred one, or vice versa??

Of course not!

OK, then why does this matter?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Obabikon said:


> Don't you think posting this kind of stuff *over and over and over again *is...um...stupid?
> 
> Who cares???
> 
> ...


Actually, I want to know what is out there being published, so when callers come up with this stuff, I know where it is coming from. It's amazing how much wrong information is out that that gets attention. Like the Internet, just because it is published, doesn't make it correct, plus characterizing all US breeders the same is worse than the Brits vs US threads. Milner doesn't have a clue what all US breeders do. It's just marketing his own. My guess is, buyers are down.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

Isn’t it interesting how little has changed since Bill Tarrant wrote “The Mechanical Dog” in 1983? That article is credited with stimulating the inception of the whole hunt test movement. In some of his writing later on however, Tarrant was very disillusioned with how the hunt tests had fashioned themselves as 2nd rate field trials that valued and measured the same attributes while ignoring traits that are of more importance to a real hunter.

Because the hunt tests have evolved this way, the niche that they were initially intended to fill remains open and is currently being serviced by the “British Lab” promoters.


----------



## BHB (Apr 28, 2008)

ErinsEdge said:


> ... Milner doesn't have a clue what all US breeders do. It's just marketing his own. My guess is, buyers are down.


My guess, too! Good point!

Realistically, I think it has to do with where people's interests lie. That's where they are going to take their dogs, whether breeding or training. 

For a hunting dog I don't want a dog that is a mind-numbed robot(thank you Rush) but I want a dog that thinks so that he can figure out every situation that a retrieve requires. At the same time he needs to have some manners in the blind and that comes from training, not breeding! 

BHB


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

It matters that this stuff gets published because of the uneducated puppy buying public....

Would you rather try to train a dog to "go" that doesn't want to, or train a dog to "stop"? I know my answer......


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

Todd Caswell said:


> befor we got started we did a little introduce yourself and your dog session, mostly labs, a few goldens and a couple of mix breeds. a couple of the young labs were from british breedings, and guess what they were the noisiest out of control dogs we had there last night, kind of made me chuckle a bit, owners are completly against the collar, healing stick, and they have been convinced by the breeders that FF is not required.[SNIP]
> 
> The three most well mannered young dogs were from a couple of high octaine US FT breeding..... Two 15 week old puppys that did 100 yard marks , delivered to hand, sat untill sent and were quiet, and a 10 monthe old that did a nice little double, was quiet, and honered off lead.


This jives very well with my experience with new owners of Brit labs as well. You do have to take caution not to jump to the wrong conclusions however. IMO the FT puppies were not naturally more well behaved and the British labs naturally poorly behaved IMO. The FT bred pups were more well behaved because they were purchased by people who actually knew what the hell they were doing and the British labs in this instance (common with first time owners of British labs and not terribly uncommon of first time owners of any lab) had no freaking idea what they were doing and were getting a lot of bad advice. The bad advice that is peddled by SOME of the British crowd is "feel good" advice. It feels good to say you don't need a heeling stick or an e-collar, but the results often suck...not strictly due to the absence of these training tools but because of the mentality of being so soft on the dog that the dog doesn't know what is expected of it and the handler is completely unprepared to enforce whatever standard they would like to establish if they had the sense to establish one.

The average owner of a British lab (in my experience) is a first time owner who is a nice guy, but only knows the "feel good" hogwash they have been sold. Yes, I know there are British lab owners who have trained many dogs and whose dogs are a pleasure to be around and whose dogs perform well, but the people who are buying into the marketing and jumping on board do not fit this mold at all.

Who among us wanted to FF our first dog? I didn't think mine needed it. I mean he delivered to hand beautifully so why do something so foreign and unpleasant when it seems unnecessary, right? I've seen this over and over with first time owners of hunting labs. They love their dog and they want to be kind to their dog, who can fault them for that? So this type of person (first time owners of a hunting dog) has the perfect mentality to buy into the British huckster spiel that these "gentlemen's gundogs" don't need such crude things as corrections with the collar or crop. These folks (first time owners) almost invariably forgo FF (whether under the influence of British hype or not) and almost invariably regret it at some point down the road IMO. I've even seen it with some of my friends. Then you almost invariably wind up with an owner who is trying to figure out whether it is too late or worth it to try to FF and/or CC a 2-5 year old dog.


----------



## Obabikon (Jul 1, 2009)

limiman12 said:


> It matters that this stuff gets published because of the uneducated puppy buying public....
> 
> Would you rather try to train a dog to "go" that doesn't want to, or train a dog to "stop"? I know my answer......


So, what's the danger to the "uneducated" public?? That they get a dog that won't have the drive needed to compete in hunt tests/field trials?

It's funny how one's perspective and vested interests color how one percieves things....

I read the whole article (which was published in a hunting magazine, not an elite dog training mag) and the message I got was, "The average bird hunter (who likely doesn't have a lot of experience, time, or training ability) would be better served to get a pup out of softer, mellower parents with less 'go' rather than one out of American Field Trail champs."

Then again, I don't run FT/HT, nor do I breed and sell American-bred pups....

Is the message I got out of the article so bad...or wrong?? It seems a lot like saying the average 16 year old kid who just got his license is better off driving his parents' 10-year-old minivan than a new corvette. He probably doesn't have the experience or know how to handle the corvette and it's power safely and constructively.

True, I will say that Milner does bad-mouth American-bred dogs too much and comes across as snooty, but it's FAR from propaganda.


----------



## Georgia.Belle (Dec 5, 2006)

I have a couple of issues. One, I thought that force fetch was more that just "fetch". Correct me if I am wrong but I was under the assumption that it was part of the overall trained retrieve program, not just delivery to hand as he states. Second, we have had discussions in our training group about sensitive dogs and an ecollar. It seems to me that we have more sensitive dogs today than we may have had in the past. Look at the success rate of some of the current bitches running. To me at least the hight pain treshold, hardheaded dog is really not what I want in my dogs. I don't think that is the way the breed is going at the current time, in the past maybe but certainly not now. Variable intensity collars have allowed us to move past this, at least in my opinion. 


Buy what makes you happy.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

This stuff cracks me up.

There's really no reason to get so worked up about it.

Think about this: On both sides of the pond, there are lots of folks breeding dogs with the "working retriever" in mind. 

On both sides, they are working to breed dogs that love birds, that show marking and memory, that are biddable and trainable, and that handle and can be controlled.

On both sides of the pond, selective breeding is pairing winners with winners. Simple statistics indicate that the offspring is likely to behave similarly to the parents.

It's such a waste of energy to complain about the "other side". There's room for the American FT-bred dog. There's room for the British Field dog. They both excel on the games that their owners and breeders play.

Really, why not team up to help the uneducated make the right choice and avoid backyard-bred, unhealthy, problematic dogs? These dogs are typically neither out of North American, nor UK/European field lines. They're out of that other huge portion of the registered retriever population.

I really would not want every hunter out there having a dog like my current FT dog. A lot of them would goof the dog up, would have him doing stupid stuff, and could have a maniac on their hands if they didn't do it right.

I think those who let Milner's little snippy comments at the North American FT game and breedings get to them are the very people who propogate the power and impact of his, Stewart's and other North American UK lab breeders. I promise you all that Robert Milner is enjoying this thread and thanking you for the free publicity. And he's not been an RTF sponsor for many months! 

Chris


----------



## huntinman (Jun 1, 2009)

Different strokes for different folks. There's room for all. If the dogs are getting any training whatsoever, they are better off than 90% of the dogs sitting in someones backyard getting fat. If they can find a bird and bring it back, they are helping the resource too.


----------



## Steve Peacock (Apr 9, 2009)

Chris has a good point, Mr Milner has his opinion which he is entitled too. I have my own opinion which differs from his. I will continue getting the dogs that fit me & my training and he can do the same. We probably disagree on many things, but I will respect his opinion as long as he respects mine.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Labs are either bred to do the work, or they are not. Doesn't matter where they were bred.
I just wish someone would take a quality English bred pup, train it the American way, title it the American way, and put an end to this silly argument. But, if a person did that, I doubt very much that they would put much effort into advertising that their pups were "English bred", and advertise them as "well bred" instead.

I've seen -so called- English bred Labs that I wouldn't waste the money feeding, but I have also seen English bred Labs that I would be more than happy to hunt over. Sounds a lot like American bred Labs, doesn't it.

Wonder if I can use a lil "creative marketing" and sell Beagles as duck dogs ;-)

As for being "over dogged", each hunter is an individual with their own set of skill/knowledge levels. That doesn't change by the nationality of the dog (or the hunter)


----------



## Donald Flanagan (Mar 17, 2009)

The premise of the article, that today's field trial dogs are too much dog for the average hunter is certainly not an opinion held only by the author. Are there some field trial dogs that have way more power than the average hunter NEEDS? Yes- I think most hunters would do very well with a SH-level dog. But here's the real question- does the average hunter have the skills required to train the dog that the author posits as being the ideal for the breed? What I see a lot of, even on the part of handlers with years of experience in dog training, is inconsistency, poor standards, and little common sense. They have the same trouble with their dogs from high-octane field trial breedings as they do with their show/hunt test breedings.

The author describes a dog that is easy to train, and that the average hunter should be able to bring such a dog to the level needed by the average hunter. But I've seen dogs that were professionally trained, which seem to have been ruined by the owners. These are so-called "average hunters". In my opinion, it's not that the dog is too high-powered for the hunter, but rather that the hunter is either incapable of training/handling the dog properly, or is unwilling to learn to do so. 

So is it possible to breed a dog that can be trained to the SH level by someone who is inconsistent, has poor standards, and doesn't use a structured program? Is the average Brittish field-bred labrador such a dog?


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

He has a couple of good points - there are lots of people who are overdogged. However his solution isn't really on the mark.

Buying a British Lab or buying an American Lab has nothing to do with getting the right dog with the right owner/trainer.

Sure, there are FT dogs who are over the top energy wise, just as there are British dogs that don't seem to have the drive. I think that's the root of why people have a problem with Milner et al. He might have great hunting dogs, but it's not BECAUSE they're British if he does.

I've had 2 labs both from fairly strong FT lines, and both have been calm calm calm - so calm that people consistently comment about it. Both also have plenty of drive and desire.

I do agree that it would be nice if there was a better way to look at the breedings and be able to make a judgment about how hard or easy the pups would be to train or how much drive they would have etc. It's not easy for pros to know that, and the average person looking for a pup has absolutely no way of making that evaluation.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Robert who???


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Steve Peacock said:


> Chris has a good point, Mr Milner has his opinion which he is entitled too. I have my own opinion which differs from his. I will continue getting the dogs that fit me & my training and he can do the same. We probably disagree on many things, but I will respect his opinion as long as he respects mine.


Why respect an opinion that has no basis in fact?

That's like saying I respect your opinion that the world is flat.

I think Milner is simply marketing and doing a great job of it.


----------



## Take'em (Nov 29, 2006)

Todd Caswell said:


> I train and help out with a HRC club in MN, last night was the first group training session of the year, great turn out 15 plus new members, alot of young dogs and there owners that need ALOT of help but seem willing to learn, befor we got started we did a little introduce yourself and your dog session, mostly labs, a few goldens and a couple of mix breeds. a couple of the young labs were from british breedings, and guess what they were the noisiest out of control dogs we had there last night, kind of made me chuckle a bit, owners are completly against the collar, healing stick, and they have been convinced by the breeders that FF is not required. Fast forward to this afternoon I get home to a new magazine on ther table and there is a article by Milner on the "Overdogged hunter" pointing a finger at the US field trial game for unruly dogs in the blind.
> 
> a quote from his story. " *I place blame for unruly dogs on OUR field trial system" *
> 
> ...


Congatulations on perpetuating this seamingly never ending mindless argument. A couple loud British FT dogs is hardly a fair representation of them as are the three well mannered angelic American bred Labs a fair representation of all of them. Keep up the good work.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

NCHank said:


> He has a couple of good points - there are lots of people who are overdogged. However his solution isn't really on the mark.
> 
> Buying a British Lab or buying an American Lab has nothing to do with getting the right dog with the right owner/trainer.
> 
> Sure, there are FT dogs who are over the top energy wise, just as there are British dogs that don't seem to have the drive. I think that's the root of why people have a problem with Milner et al. He might have great hunting dogs, but it's not BECAUSE they're British if he does...


That's not why I have a problem with Milner.

I don't know about everybody else, but my problem is with his repeatedly bashing the methods used in the U.S. to train Retrievers to a level high enough to be competitive. Saying that our methods are abusive, and counter-productive, and at the same time so effective, that we are able to replace quality genetics, with forced compliance.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

While I don’t necessarily concede all of Mr. Milner’s conclusions, I think it is only logical to assume that given the differences in what is emphasized in the British Field Trial game vs. the American version that selective breeding for each venue would tend to produce dogs w/ different attributes. 

I don’t think it’s controversial to say that the British trials demand a more “composed” dog that relies on his nose much more than the American trials do and as a hunter, I can certainly appreciate the advantages of those traits. 

My cynicism however makes me question the likelihood that a British breeder would typically be willing to send his best prospects away to a country where it would probably not be awarded the recognition he might earn if he were sold to a British Field Trialer.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

copterdoc said:


> I love this little guy!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Got me laughing, hey save some for me.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

dpate said:


> I'm going to defend Milner a little. From my understanding, Milner was a pretty successful FT trainer and breeder back in 80's and then began to change his tune about American breeding selection and training methods. I certainly don't think he's doing it for popularity as evidenced by this forum although he sure gets a lot of free publicity. He apparently saw something he disliked in U.S. dogs and breeding programs and began taking other traits into consideration when breeding and started training a different way.
> While I don't agree with everything he says, I have learned a great deal from Milner just as I have from the Mike Lardys of the world.
> 
> As far as all the FT "bashing" as many call it, to me, he is just stating how he arrived at his opinion and I think some his arguments have some validity. It is undeniable that Brits and American FTs put more stock in different traits. No doubt, the guy is a great marketer and self promoter and I envy his ability to do so. But the bottom line is, you don't stay in the retriever business for 40 years through false advertising and selling bad dogs. Just my opinion but you know what those are like.
> ...


I know a local kennel that has been in business for over 30 years. The last time I called all they had were silver labs.

So that doesn't hold much water IMO.


----------



## Vicky Trainor (May 19, 2003)

Had a client come this morning to work with his dog.....with this article in hand. He was so afraid that his "field trial bred" Lab would be too much dog for him since it was not from England. He said he thought his Lab was from "selective breeding", but was it the "right" type of breeding. 

We took his dog out, heeling off lead, and did some marks. This was the first time he had come to work with his dog and was very happy to see his "field trial bred" Lab was well mannered, steady, marking well, retrieving and delivering to hand.

Pretty sure his "fears" are now gone.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

I have some pretty high powered dogs. Rarely has it occurred to me while hunting that I had too much dog.

I have hunted with plenty who were polishing their owners boots after a short time in the field. Personally I appreciate a dog who is still in the ditches and cover trying to dig out just one more bird before I put them up in the box. They could be hunting on bloody stumps and they still want just one more bird!

No that's what I call "selective breeding."


----------



## Steve Peacock (Apr 9, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> Why respect an opinion that has no basis in fact?
> 
> That's like saying I respect your opinion that the world is flat.
> 
> I think Milner is simply marketing and doing a great job of it.


Ted, that was kind of my point, I respect that he has his opinion, I don't agree with it and believe he is wrong. I guess I should have said I respect that he is entitled to his opinion. Would that be better? I do agree with something he alluded too, It comes down to breeding, whatever you get. If the dogs today have been bred to be LESS bidable (as he claims) then how can so many be trained to such high standards. I KNOW it sure isn't the application of the electric collar. 

But I will respect his right to believe the way he does as long as my right to believe another way is respected. How's that? ;-)


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

BHB said:


> My guess, too! Good point!
> 
> Realistically, I think it has to do with where people's interests lie. That's where they are going to take their dogs, whether breeding or training.
> 
> ...


That would be a good point if the "mind-numbed robot" wasn't a myth created by Mrs. Milner, Tarrant and Wolters and perpetuated by Mr. Stewart.

The funny thing is that so many people parrot the words while thinking they somehow came up with the opinions on their own. 

Bert


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

dpate said:


> I live down the street from a chihuahua breeder who has been in business for years. I imagine those chihuahuas are expected to do about the same as those silver labs which is to lay around and look pretty (not my idea of pretty but...) The majority of Milner's pups go to hunting homes, SAR etc so I guess I should change my original statement to say you don't stay in the working retreiver business 40 year through false advertising and bad dogs.


 I totally agree he's good at what he does. But he made it sound as if can simply take one dog from his superior breeding program and run it in American FT and beat everyone if he would only FF his dog. Surly he has one dog he isnt going to breed he can FF.

I think most breeders have plenty of time to evaluate a dogs natural ability before FF. So I don't buy it.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

Take'em said:


> Congatulations on perpetuating this seamingly never ending mindless argument. A couple loud British FT dogs is hardly a fair representation of them as are the three well mannered angelic American bred Labs a fair representation of all of them. Keep up the good work.


Thank you, the point trying to be made is that a puppy buyer can get OVERDOGGED from either side of the "pond". The assuptions are correct that neither of the brit dog owners have any idea how to train a dog, hopefully that will change and we can help get them on the right track, but they have been dupped into believing that they fall out of the womb delivering to hand, will never make a peep, and if you strap a e- collar around there neck it will most certainly ruin them for life. 

The two 15 week old puppy's are litter mates one belongs to myself and the other to a training partner, and the 10 monthe old belongs to me as well. All three have been brought up through the Hillman program, After traing the 10 monthe old I thought it may have been a fluke but now seeing the advancments of the two littermates I'm a believer that it works. 
All three are from a QAA Weezer son that I recently sold, he was a handfull to say the least he was brought up throwing lots of marks, restraining him and then trying to steady him later on, it has and will be a life long battle, he would have been a perfect student for the Hillman program.

I really believe that across the pond they do selectively breed for these calm, easy to train traits, and i have to believe Mr. Milner does as well, we have all seen FT or driven shoots from across the pond that are posted and there great, Id'e be more than happy to hunt over a dog that performed that well.

What Mr. milner may want to consider doing is not pointing a finger at the US FT game for OVERDOGGING the average hunter but to police the newspaper Brit breeders that are NOT breeding for these traits but using the Brit name as a smoke screen and marketing tool.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> What Mr. milner may want to consider doing is not pointing a finger at the US FT game for OVERDOGGING the average hunter but to police the newspaper Brit breeders that are NOT breeding for these traits but using the Brit name as a smoke screen and marketing tool.


Bingo! That's exactly what's happening-inferior BYB Brit dogs.


----------



## Dog Pro (Apr 9, 2008)

As someone who earns a living training dogs,i don't like to see the one sided brain washing either,anyone who is in the market for a puppy is obligated to learn as much as they can and get opinions from ALL sides.As for me,when i buy a puppy for my started dog program he/she comes from parents with alphabet soups in front of their name,you may have seen them..FC/AFC,NAFC,NFC...well you get the idea,i have only had to send a few dogs back to their owner because they just didn't have it.1 was a chessie that was unworked for 8 months prior,had 0 desire to retrieve,the rest have ALL been Brit/bench/show type breedings,i won't even divulge what the predominate color was.This is 100% my experiance,so your milage may very.Mr. Milner has found his marketing niche,good for him,but the 1 sided argument is wearing thin.:-x


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

I don't think it's fair to assign Mr. Milner the job of policing everyone who advertises "British Labs". He's simply making the same arguments about Field Trials that were made by the heros of the hunt test movement 30 yrs ago.

The thing is, the hunt tests did not do what their early supporters had hoped for. Instead they evolved into 2nd rate Field Trials measuring the same qualities but to a lower standard. 

Do you agree or disagree with this statement from the article?:


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

I agree w/ Milner that the latter traits "line manners, obedience & game-finding" are more relevant to the hunter.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Define hunting.


----------



## Dog Pro (Apr 9, 2008)

As someone who earns a living training dogs,i don't like to see the one sided brain washing either,anyone who is in the market for a puppy is obligated to learn as much as they can and get opinions from ALL sides.As for me,when i buy a puppy for my started dog program he/she comes from parents with alphabet soups in front of their name,you may have seen them..FC/AFC,NAFC,NFC...well you get the idea,i have only had to send a few dogs back to their owner because they just didn't have it.1 was a chessie that was unworked for 8 months prior,had 0 desire to retrieve,the rest have ALL been Brit/bench/show type breedings,i won't even divulge what the predominate color was.This is 100% my experiance,so your milage may very.Mr. Milner has found his marketing niche,good for him,but the 1 sided argument is wearing thin.:-x


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> .... ....
> 
> I think Milner is simply marketing and doing a great job of it.


I certainly believe this.

What pisses me off is that he sh*ts on my preference so he can sell his preference.

To me he's no better than a politician, used car salesman or any other professional liar.


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

> I don't think it's fair to assign Mr. Milner the job of policing everyone who advertises "British Labs". He's simply making the same arguments about Field Trials that were made by the heros of the hunt test movement 30 yrs ago


Your right I don't believe it is his "JOB" to police this but if I thought I had the original WIGET I would be the first to call out the imposters rather than trying to degrade out the competition.


----------



## Thelabtrainer (Mar 12, 2011)

We have all seen out of control "American FT" dogs AND "British" dogs, most of the time it is more a result of owner/handlers that, to put it nicely "Don't know what the heck they are doing". Out of control dogs are dogs that are allowed to be out of control!!! Is there a genetic factor envolved? Absolutly in my opinion, but I have found that most behavior problem can be traced back to the owner. I wish we (the retriever world) could get past all this mumbo jumbo (pride issues and marketing)and focus on proper training!
I guess conflict sells! SAD


----------



## whitefoot (Aug 19, 2010)

Dave Flint said:


> Do you agree or disagree with this statement from the article?:
> 
> 
> _“Unfortunately, our field trials, mainly because of increasing numbers of entries, have evolved over the years into elimination contests that evaluate behaviors that have little value for a hunting dog. These behaviors are lining, angle entries into water, pinpoint marking and precise handling at long distances. Gone by the wayside are line manners and obedience, and game-finding initiative.”_


I mostly disagree with this statement. How is a pinpoint marking dog not valuable for a hunter? A dog that can mark can step on the bird and bring it right back so the hunter can get back to hunting. To me, lining is also important. It is very rare, in my experience, that a dog will be able to mark evey bird down in a volley. So a lot of hunting with a dog comes down to running blinds. How is it not valuable to have a good lining dog that can go straight to the bird and pick it up? While I don't necessarily think that angle entries into water matter for hunting, it is the training that goes into acheiving this that can be greatly beneficial and can save your dog's life. Isn't it valuable to be able to handle your dog away from trouble...like going across an icy pond, or handling away from a strong current? Finally, for precise handling at a distance...there have been countless times where I've winged a goose and it's sailed a field or two over. I sure do find it valuable to have a dog that can be sent to get it, rather than let it become coyote bait. 

That said, I also greatly value line manners, obedience and game-finding initiative. However, unlike Mr. Milner, I have an open mind and don't think that the sets of traits are mutually exclusive.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> Define hunting.


When hunting from the duck blind I expect the dog to find and retrieve the birds I shoot regardless of where they land, and regardless of their condition when they land.
When hunting upland I expect the dog to find birds for me to shoot, and find and retrieve them after I shoot.
Does the dog have to be a good marking dog? It sure helps.
Does the dog need to know how to be lined and handled? It sure helps.
I expect my dogs to find *all* of the birds I shoot, not just some of them!
Sometimes they have to rely on their own initiative, sometimes they need that initiative from a handler.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Obviously it takes a very trainable dog to compete in a FT. So they should produce another very trainable dog. I don't see any conspiracy theory regardless of what a person does with the dog.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

A brilliant marketer sells their products on it's features and benefits, not on half truths, smoke and mirrors.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

whitefoot said:


> I mostly disagree with this statement. How is a pinpoint marking dog not valuable for a hunter? A dog that can mark can step on the bird and bring it right back so the hunter can get back to hunting. To me, lining is also important. It is very rare, in my experience, that a dog will be able to mark evey bird down in a volley. So a lot of hunting with a dog comes down to running blinds. How is it not valuable to have a good lining dog that can go straight to the bird and pick it up? While I don't necessarily think that angle entries into water matter for hunting, it is the training that goes into acheiving this that can be greatly beneficial and can save your dog's life. Isn't it valuable to be able to handle your dog away from trouble...like going across an icy pond, or handling away from a strong current? Finally, for precise handling at a distance...there have been countless times where I've winged a goose and it's sailed a field or two over. I sure do find it valuable to have a dog that can be sent to get it, rather than let it become coyote bait.
> 
> That said, I also greatly value line manners, obedience and game-finding initiative. However, unlike Mr. Milner, I have an open mind and don't think that the sets of traits are mutually exclusive.


I don't think anyone is suggesting that pinpoint marking and lining are NOT valuable traits, but that the FT Game has evolved to the point where it's really not much about hunting traits - I would have to agree with that. At the same time, Milner's assumption that those traits are being pursued to the extreme by most American breeders is just not backed up by the facts. I would also tend to agree that the US FT game is breeding for traits that are not 100% in line with what hunters would need, and I think that is or at least can be a problem.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

NCHank said:


> I would also tend to agree that the US FT game is breeding for traits that are not 100% in line with what hunters would need, and I think that is or at least can be a problem.


What exactly are those traits? And how do you know FT dogs lack them?


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Most dogs are born with a good nose. You can't breed that out of them. 

A good nose and trainability. What more does a hunter need? 

It's always easier to take drive than add it. Give me that crazy dog he's broken!


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

*one Thing To Remember Is That Most Involved dog Owners Tend To Hunt Less Than 4 Weeks A Year And Train VERY LITTLE..... If A Gun Dog Was My Main Goal And Nothing More Id'e Do Without..... It Would Save Me Thousands And......................*


I do know that it takes time and experience for a seasoned FT dog to ajust to the real hunting world ( waterfowl )there are no guys in white coats tossing birds and a triple may come alot faster than at a trial, for the first year it seems like we are always picking up a single and running two blinds, there first year.


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

NCHank said:


> I don't think anyone is suggesting that pinpoint marking and lining are NOT valuable traits, but that the FT Game has evolved to the point where it's really not much about hunting traits - I would have to agree with that. At the same time, Milner's assumption that those traits are being pursued to the extreme by most American breeders is just not backed up by the facts. I would also tend to agree that the US FT game is breeding for traits that are not 100% in line with what hunters would need, and I think that is or at least can be a problem.


I disagree that all US FT breeding is for traits not in line with what hunters want. There are many of us with longevity in our Labrador Retriever breeding program from field trial lines with those goals in mind. I prefer hunters, and most of my clients are hunters with the occasional Hunt test or FT placement. 

My first dogs purchased from breeders in the mid 1980's and dogs I have observed regularly in my training group and with several pros tolerated very hot collars and could handle way more pressure (original non-collar methods).
I find the evolution of the FT breeding program in conjunction with the E-collar field training has produced a more sensitive and tractable Labrador Retriever in my limited experience (probably 30 pups over the last 25 years..either kept in my own breeding program and trained or purchased from others) as the retriever training methodology has evolved. I concede that some breeders new to the game may base their breeding decisions on pedigrees and titles only without consideration for the total retriever, i.e., size, type, temperament, and drive which may produce the "hoter and hoter" more driven dog which may not exactly be a fit due to a hunter's requirements, but it's a minority group in my opinion, and not the epidemic hype suggested in the article.


----------



## Dog Pro (Apr 9, 2008)

Every puppy i purchase is sired at a minimum by an AFC,most are FC/AFC,and the dams are usually at minimum hunted and at least a SH.i have had several NFC pups,all of the these dogs go to hunting home,a few run HT's,none are campaigned in a FT,so the notion that a 'HOT' field bred lab is too much dog for the hunter is nonsense,if the dog has been trained well and the owner has been schooled properly then there is no reason to not have a hard charging dog.We all drive vehicles that will exceed 100 mph,have more power than we need most of the time,but it sure is nice to have it when hauling a load or getting onto the freeway.I will take a 'hot' breeding every time,i can install power steering/brakes or even a parachute if i have to,what i can't do is replace the motor,trying towing that trailer with your F-350 with a volkswagon engine,you may get there,just allow plenty of time/room to do so.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Todd Caswell said:


> *one Thing To Remember Is That Most Involved dog Owners Tend To Hunt Less Than 4 Weeks A Year And Train The Rest Of The Time..... If A Gun Dog Was My Main Goal And Nothing More Id'e Do Without..... It Would Save Me Thousands And......................*


I think if it was not for mans love for his dog then non of the sports would exists. Even the occasional hunter has a spiritual connection with his dog in the field that cannot be replaced or replicated in any FT.

The love of hunting behind ones dog has nothing to do with ribbons or money. Most wouldn't trade their gun dog for your FC.

Regards,


----------



## Thomas D (Jan 27, 2003)

I get so tired of people complaining about the "out of control FT dogs". Most of these people haven't been to a FT in years (if at all). 

Even though HT are my game, I see way more OOC dogs at a HT (and I have one) than at a FT. This is just my observation after running 8-10 HT per year, judging 3-4 HT per year and observing 3-4 FT per year.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

PackLeader said:


> I think if it was not for mans love for his dog then non of the sports would exists. Even the occasional hunter has a spiritual connection with his dog in the field that cannot be replaced or replicated in any FT.
> 
> The love of hunting behind ones dog has nothing to do with ribbons or money. Most wouldn't trade their gun dog for your FC.
> 
> Regards,


This quite possibly is one of your most arrogant, unfounded in experience and clueless posts yet.


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

I think a salesman whose consistent approach is to denigrate the competition rather than simply focus on the merits of what he has to sell is just piss poor.



DarrinGreene said:


> A brilliant marketer sells their products on it's features and benefits, not on half truths, smoke and mirrors.


Bingo. Negative selling is not brilliance. Anyone can do it.



Howard N said:


> What pisses me off is that he sh*ts on my preference so he can sell his preference.
> 
> To me he's no better than a politician, used car salesman or any other professional liar.


Agreed.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> I think if it was not for mans love for his dog then non of the sports would exists. Even the occasional hunter has a spiritual connection with his dog in the field that cannot be replaced or replicated in any FT.
> 
> The love of hunting behind ones dog has nothing to do with ribbons or money. Most wouldn't trade their gun dog for your FC.
> 
> Regards,


Pack Leader, what are you basing this on? When was the last time you spent a day training your field trial dog? When was the last time you and your dog earned a field trial placement. When was the last time you've stopped your dog at 300+ yards needing a precise cast with figurative landmines on the left and right and your dog takes the precise cast needed to go to the blind? Those feelings are pretty d**** special. The dog and I were one unit at that moment in time.

I don't think I'd take their hunting dog for my FC!

Extremely proud of my dogs sometimes regards,


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Howard N said:


> Pack Leader, what are you basing this on? When was the last time you spent a day training your field trial dog? When was the last time you and your dog earned a field trial placement. When was the last time you've stopped your dog at 300+ yards needing a precise cast with figurative landmines on the left and right and your dog takes the precise cast needed to go to the blind? Those feelings are pretty d**** special. The dog and I were one unit at that moment in time.
> 
> I don't think I'd take their hunting dog for my FC!
> 
> Extremely proud of my dogs sometimes regards,


I wasn't saying that the gun dogs are better trained by any means. I'm happy that makes you feel special.


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

I found a lot of truth to the article. However, it is never a good idea to paint anything with such a broad stroke. I have also found that breeders of FT dogs are often more honest about their dogs' temperament when speaking one on one and not on the internet. One extremely respected breeder/trainer spent a lot of time asking me what I was looking for and then proceeded to tell me that the pup he had in mind would probably be too much dog for what I was looking for. I appreciated his honesty and will call him again when Ilook for my next pup.

It is not an insult to say that a certain FT breeding is too much dog for an inexperienced trainer. Seems like common sense to me.


----------



## whitefoot (Aug 19, 2010)

NCHank said:


> I don't think anyone is suggesting that pinpoint marking and lining are NOT valuable traits


Milner's quote absolutely states that marking and lining are traits that offer little value for hunters.

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


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

whitefoot said:


> Milner's quote absolutely states that marking and lining are traits that offer little value for hunters.
> 
> “Unfortunately, our field trials, mainly because of increasing numbers of entries, have evolved over the years into elimination contests that evaluate *behaviors that have little value for a hunting dog. These behaviors are lining, angle entries into water, pinpoint marking and precise handling at long distances.* Gone by the wayside are line manners and obedience, and game-finding initiative.”


I'm relatively new but have been taught consistently that the latter, "manners and obedience, and game-finding initiative" is absolutely critical in order to create the former...


----------



## Dixiedog78 (Jul 9, 2009)

“Unfortunately, our field trials, mainly because of increasing numbers of entries, have evolved over the years into elimination contests that evaluate behaviors that have little value for a hunting dog. These behaviors are lining, angle entries into water, pinpoint marking and precise handling at long distances. Gone by the wayside are line manners and obedience, and game-finding initiative.” - Robert Milner

I run HRC/AKC hunt test and I also hunt. There is no doubt in my mind that because I train for and run hunt test.....my dog is a better hunting dog than your average "hunting dog". 

While Robert's dog is running the bank on the way to hopefully retrieving a duck.... my dog has entered the water at a angle, climbed over a floating log, crashed through thick brush, picked up the crippled duck without hesitation, marked another duck going down and is back ready for another retrieve. 


Who is their right mind thinks that lining, marking, and angled water entries are not important to hunting situations?


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Dixiedog78 said:


> Who is their right mind thinks that lining, marking, and angled water entries are not important to hunting situations?


Someone trying to market to people who don't know any better.


----------



## Gary Wayne Abbott I (Dec 21, 2003)

"Overdogged"?


What a load of codswallop!

Reminds of a song,

A car too fast, 
A girl too pretty,
too much money.....

Too much dog? 

I have no doubt some might sing the praises of less is better, I hope I never do.

Milner clearly suggests he has a better bred dog and training system and yet does not compete to prove the fact? Apparently he is much better at running his mouth than running his dog's. I suppose it makes sense that someone that expouses the virtues of less is more would certainly additonally lack the ambition required for competition.


"The Over Dogged Hunter"? I believe the mentioned song about " too much" continue's "There ain't no such thing".

How about "The Under Manned Dog"?


----------



## Obabikon (Jul 1, 2009)

Gary Wayne Abbott I said:


> Milner clearly suggests he has a better bred dog and training system and yet does not compete to prove the fact? Apparently he is much better at running his mouth than running his dog's. I suppose it makes sense that someone that expouses the virtues of less is more would certainly additonally lack the ambition required for competition.


I must have missed the part where Milner said his dogs/methods were better for producing FT/HT contenders......oh wait--he NEVER said that!!

That's right--he just said (albeit snobbily and arrogantly) that calmer, softer dogs are probably better for the average HUNTER (who usually lacks the time, ability and motivation to train their dog to an advanced level).

Jeez, how dare he say such a thing in a HUNTING magazine....


----------



## TroyFeeken (May 30, 2007)

Actually, for the green handed trainer, a soft and sensitive dog is probably one of the worst things in their hands. A medium level dog that can handle some pressure and can bounce back from it is going to be ideal as new trainers need a dog that won't be side tracked by an improperly timed correction or using too much force etc. Very quick way to destroy a dog that is soft and sensitive is by using too much force or any level of force at the wrong time.


----------



## Obabikon (Jul 1, 2009)

TroyFeeken said:


> Actually, for the green handed trainer, a soft and sensitive dog is probably one of the worst things in their hands. A medium level dog that can handle some pressure and can bounce back from it is going to be ideal as new trainers need a dog that won't be side tracked by an improperly timed correction or using too much force etc. Very quick way to destroy a dog that is soft and sensitive is by using too much force or any level of force at the wrong time.


"Calm*ER*"

"Soft*ER*"


----------



## TroyFeeken (May 30, 2007)

So you assume that all FT bred American line dogs require a 5 or 6 on a TT collar?


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

You know what they say about opinions...they're like..........everybody's got one!


----------



## TroyFeeken (May 30, 2007)

Someone saying a certain line of dog is calmer or softer is all in the eyes of the person making that judgment. If you can harness the desire and condition a dog properly to being next in charge after yourself as a trainer/handler, then echoing the statement of Todd earlier, you can have either a very well mannered dog or one that is entirely out of control. Environmental conditioning has a great deal of impact on your end result as well as training commands.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Pas Bon said:


> You know what they say about opinions...they're like..........everybody's got one!


And some are actually based in reality. ;-)


----------



## Obabikon (Jul 1, 2009)

TroyFeeken said:


> So you assume that all FT bred American line dogs require a 5 or 6 on a TT collar?


Mine did! 

But seriously, I don't assume that...or anything else in the retriever training/breeding universe for that matter, given my newbieness.

I'm just (futily) trying to point out that although this writer's approach is abrasive, he did not say what people seem to think he said.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

I’m amazed that some of you really won’t acknowledge that an “average hunter” could find himself w/ a dog that has too much drive. Do you drive a formula one racecar to work? Do you use 3 ½ magnums to hunt doves? 

At the end of the hunt, there isn’t much practical difference between the dog that pinned every mark and the dog that needed help on occasion or between the dog that lined a blind and the dog that took 2 or 3 whistles. On the other hand, there is a noticeable difference between hunting w/ the dog that sits pleasantly for the whole morning and the one who dumped the canoe when we unknowingly paddled into a raft of redheads before sunrise. (he was one hell of a marker though )


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

Dave Flint said:


> I’m amazed that some of you really won’t acknowledge that an “average hunter” could find himself w/ a dog that has too much drive. Do you drive a formula one racecar to work? Do you use 3 ½ magnums to hunt doves?
> 
> At the end of the hunt, there isn’t much practical difference between the dog that pinned every mark and the dog that needed help on occasion or between the dog that lined a blind and the dog that took 2 or 3 whistles. On the other hand, there is a noticeable difference between hunting w/ the dog that sits pleasantly for the whole morning and the one who dumped the canoe when we unknowingly paddled into a raft of redheads before sunrise. (he was one hell of a marker though )


I find it amazing as well. FT dogs are the best of the best. They have to have a certain amount of energy and go to do the amazing things they do. In experienced hands these dogs are properly trained and their drive is essential to the game. For 95% of retriever owners (hunters only) that dog may be too much. 

Pat Day handles his race horses just fine but would you give one to your neighbor to go horseback riding?


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Dave Flint said:


> I’m amazed that some of you really won’t acknowledge that an “average hunter” could find himself w/ a dog that has too much drive. Do you drive a formula one racecar to work? Do you use 3 ½ magnums to hunt doves?


I suspect that's because very little of this matches with reality in practice. No one is really average because everyone's circumstances are different. As has been well pointed out, it's very rare that a dog has "too much drive". It's far more common that a dog is "under-manned" in training. That's not the dog's fault.

Formula one race cars are illegal to drive to work on city streets. It's not illegal to train your retreiver to use his talent and drive in an organized way.

There is no parity between using overly heavy loads on lightweight birds, and in hunting with a fine well driven, but also well trained dog. Apples & oranges regards.

I'll go back to biting my lip now.

Evan


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

I too had always heard that FT dogs are "out of control", "hot" and "loose" at the line.

I was invited to join a training group that is mostly FT based.

In that group, I witnessed the exact opposite of what I had heard.

I've witnessed VERY controlled, calm, FOCUSED dogs.

I would hunt with any of them

Those dog run "short" marks as well as long ones.
They run "short" blinds as well as long ones.
They can mark in featurless fields,
They can mark in busy ones.

They wasnt 1 dog I would call "out of control"

Well,, OK,, just one~~~~ Mine!

ALL of that problem being MY fault.

I *honestly *can say, I've witnessed a LOT of out of control dogs at HT's
And I believe it is mostly due to the handlers standards. 
I'm the MOST guilty.

If you watch the Pros at HT's run their dogs, you will witness a Totaly different standard in many cases than what most of us amatures uphold. Its very obvious.
Its NOT the dogs breeding!

Gooser


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Being a guy with a UK FT bred dog that hunts 45 days a year, runs US tests and trials and has a total ball doing it, and listened to vitriol from both sides, I have long been of the opinion that the primary genetic issue in "out of control, hard to train" vs "calm and attentive, easy to train dogs" is the TRAINER'S genetics, and not the DOGS. 

I have never seen an out-of-control, PITA to be around dog in the marsh, and said "US FT dog." Rather, I think "untrained dog." I have never seen a calm, attentive dog in the marsh going about his business picking up birds and thought "UK line dog." Rather, I think "trained dog." A dog, no matter what side of the pond it came from, that sits quietly and obediently while hunting does not LACK drive, rather it HAS solid obedience. That comes straight from its TRAINER. It seems pretty simple to me.

Joe Duckhunter thinks its harder to train a US FT bred dog mainly because some of the UK pundits have been so shrill about telling him so, not because its true. None of them train themselves, no matter what anyone tells you. 

Peace out.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Have we got this figured out yet?


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

Not calling out Mr. Milner personally but it seems that peoples issue with the whole "british" thing isn't about training method, breeding stock or the OVER DOGGED issue. Is is about OVERRPICED. That some people are usign a marketing pitch to sell "british" dogs. If you want a good hunting dog check out the good back yard MH to SH type breedings and save yourself 50% on marketing.


----------



## dpate (Mar 16, 2011)

I'm really glad we got this worked out!! Whew, that took some persuasion but everybody finally switched their stance.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

tom said:


> Have we got this figured out yet?


I’ve learned that the phrase “Moderation in all things” is for pussies who can’t train dogs.

under-manned regards


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

GulfCoast said:


> Being a guy with a UK FT bred dog that hunts 45 days a year, runs US tests and trials and has a total ball doing it, and listened to vitriol from both sides, *I have long been of the opinion that the primary genetic issue in "out of control, hard to train" vs "calm and attentive, easy to train dogs" is the TRAINER'S genetics, and not the DOGS.*
> 
> *I have never seen an out-of-control, PITA to be around dog in the marsh, and said "US FT dog." Rather, I think "untrained dog." I have never seen a calm, attentive dog in the marsh going about his business picking up birds and thought "UK line dog." Rather, I think "trained dog." *A dog, no matter what side of the pond it came from, that sits quietly and obediently while hunting does not LACK drive, rather it HAS solid obedience. That comes straight from its TRAINER. It seems pretty simple to me.
> 
> ...


I think you've come extremely close to nailing it with this post.

I have hunted around dogs who lacked drive though and they were extremely quiet and well mannered in the blind, they just tended to fail when the birds went down. One is American bred (not FT bred) and one was of British bloodlines. They didn't always fail to get the bird, but they always failed to impress and tend to leave their owners frustrated.

There are 2 possibilities for dogs who are well mannered and quiet in the blind. They either have very little or no desire to go get the birds and are happy to stay dry in the blind or they have desire to go get them and are well trained and held to a standard of obedience as Gulf Coast says. This is necessary (being well trained and held to a high standard) for dogs from either side of the Atlantic UNLESS they lack drive.


----------



## agengo02 (Nov 3, 2009)

Every person on this thread is making a broad judgement about the other side's way of doing things. The british people are defending Milner/his tactics, while the american people are defending FT/HT and their tactics. Both sides are downgrading the opposite while up-selling their methods. Go back and read the posts. The fact is the only universal statement that can be made is that each trainer believes in his/her own system. Nobody is going to use a system that they don't believe in. If a new puppy buyer doesn't do his/her homework and gets a less than desirable dog it is on them only. 

Most on this forum are pro FT/HT. Some of us are not. Most think you need to buy as good of a dog as you can afford from certain lines. Some of us think you can get the same output from a "mutt" that was free. Nobody is going to switch anybody else's mind on their training or their dog. 

9 pages to figure that out.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

I think it's a bit shortsighted to think that the way US Field Trials are run has no impact on the population of Labradors. Just as British Labs are changed because of they way they evaluate dogs over there. Different tests put up different dogs, and when success at a certain kind of test is one of your main selectors for breeding stock, it IS going to affect your population.

That said, I know people overdogged with a Labradoodle.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

I'm always suspicious when one tries to make 'their' case by pointing to the 'extremes' of the opposing view. 

My old meat dog out of MH sire and dam will be a MH/HRCH and good little hunting dog trained with both positive and negative reinforcement, direct and indirect pressure gettin' after pheasant, doves ducks and geese in temps from 60 down to 0. 

Hard to believe I'm not the norm or average guy that enjoys training a good dog.


----------



## Gary Wayne Abbott I (Dec 21, 2003)

agengo02 said:


> Every person on this thread is making a broad judgement about the other side's way of doing things. The british people are defending Milner/his tactics, while the american people are defending FT/HT and their tactics. Both sides are downgrading the opposite while up-selling their methods. Go back and read the posts......



I don't see it the same as you.

The OP cites a article written by Milner bashing American bred dogs and training technique. He further preaches his grand ideas about training, breeding, genetics and the "average hunter" that are merely his opinion and have no real basis in fact. 
I for one grow weary of critque and absurd baseless claims from Milner and others that have no experteese in an endeavor that they speak so poorly of. If you or Milner are happy with your huntings dogs, well good on you, bravo. Do not however expect me to smile and nod as you tell me how poor my trial dogs and training are and how that somehow makes your dogs and technique superior. If you have a superior dog or technique demonstrate it, show me a shred of evidence or better yet put your dog side by side to mine and black my eye......otherwise its all a load of codswallop! 
On a broader scale of the topic at hand follows an idea I reject or think its a sad reflection on the state of our society if the "average or most" people agree that less is in any endeavor is somehow superior. The idea bespeaks directly to what "many" including myself see as the wussification of America. 

Happy hunting regards,


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

2 things come to mind. 

1 Obviously he is not smart enough to train a FT dog
2 The folks that buy into his way of thinking dont deserve or are smart enough to own one.


----------



## agengo02 (Nov 3, 2009)

Gary Wayne Abbott I said:


> I don't see it the same as you.
> 
> The OP cites a article written by Milner bashing American bred dogs and training technique. He further preaches his grand ideas about training, breeding, genetics and the "average hunter" that are merely his opinion and have no real basis in fact.
> I for one grow weary of critque and absurd baseless claims from Milner and others that have no experteese in an endeavor that they speak so poorly of. If you or Milner are happy with your huntings dogs, well good on you, bravo. Do not however expect me to smile and nod as you tell me how poor my trial dogs and training are and how that somehow makes your dogs and technique superior. If you have a superior dog or technique demonstrate it, show me a shred of evidence or better yet put your dog side by side to mine and black my eye......otherwise its all a load of codswallop!
> ...



Yeah because NOBODY on here has downgraded Milner's methods (not even in just this thread) and touted their as superior. 

Are you suggesting Milner has "no expertise" in dog training? 

See you, along with others in the FT/HT crowd, keep saying that we need to prove our dogs to you through trialing, when in reality there is no way any trial or test would be able to accurately mimic an actual hunt. If our proof is in the hunt, how would we be able to show it to you if you only trial? If trials and tests are to show how good of a hunter the dog will be, then why not prove it with a hunt. You wouldn't be able to brag about it on here, or show off your pics of your dog loaded down with ribbons, but it would actually be an accurate showing of the dog's hunting skills. 


Are you trying to call me a "wussy" because you think I think "less is superior"? If so then you seriously misunderstood my posts as I don't think someone needs to train less for a hunting dog, just differently.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

agengo02 said:


> Yeah because NOBODY on here has downgraded Milner's methods (not even in just this thread) and touted their as superior.
> 
> Are you suggesting Milner has "no expertise" in dog training?
> 
> ...


Tests & trials are suppose to demonstrate two things, *trainability & natural attributes*. Now why wouldn't I want to know those things about the dogs that produces that future hunting companion I'm shopping for.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Steve Amrein said:


> 2 things come to mind.
> 
> 1 Obviously he is not smart enough to train a FT dog
> 2 The folks that buy into his way of thinking dont deserve or are smart enough to own one.


under manned


----------



## agengo02 (Nov 3, 2009)

tom said:


> Tests & trials are suppose to demonstrate two things, *trainability & natural attributes*. Now why wouldn't I want to know those things about the dogs that produces that future hunting companion I'm shopping for.


Wouldn't you rather the parents be excellent hunters than be titled in games? Aren't there breeders that DO NOT hunt but only test in order to "prove" their lines are superior? But if you don't ever but these natural attributes into practice then you will never know how good of a hunter the parents actually are. I see that they absolutely test trainability since the tests have such specific requirements, but so does agility competitions.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

agengo02 said:


> Wouldn't you rather the parents be excellent hunters than be titled in games? Aren't there breeders that DO NOT hunt but only test in order to "prove" their lines are superior? But if you don't ever but these natural attributes into practice then you will never know how good of a hunter the parents actually are. I see that they absolutely test trainability since the tests have such specific requirements, but so does agility competitions.


Do you need an e-collar to be competitive in agility? The standards are not even remotely close.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

Gary Wayne Abbott I said:


> On a broader scale of the topic at hand follows an idea I reject or think its a sad reflection on the state of our society if the "average or most" people agree that less is in any endeavor is somehow superior. The idea bespeaks directly to what "many" including myself see as the wussification of America.



Yep, that’s what wrong with America these days, the dogs are too well behaved. 

(I can feel my IQ dropping the longer I follow this thread)


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Less is not more. 

It's just that hunters have different needs. If all you hunt is upland then you don't need a dog that can mark @ 500 yards. You don't need a dog that runs straight lines past a poison bird. You don't need a dog to handle between two land mines at 300 yards. Heck you probably wouldn't even need a dog steady at the line because there is non.

This is why I said define hunting...

The dog should be custom tailored to the hunter, not the hunt test.


----------



## achiro (Jun 17, 2003)

agengo02 said:


> Wouldn't you rather the parents be *excellent hunters* than be titled in games? Aren't there breeders that DO NOT hunt but only test in order to "prove" their lines are superior? But if you don't ever but these natural attributes into practice then you will never know how good of a hunter the parents actually are. I see that they absolutely test trainability since the tests have such specific requirements, but so does agility competitions.


Not sure why I'm posting in this stupid thread but here goes nothing...
"excellent hunters" by whose standards? I'm sure most of us that hunt have gone with someone that thought their dog was awesome only to find out that what they consider great is less than mediocre to others. 
The titled dog let's you know what that animal can do based on the standards needed to achieve that title and a FT title lets you know that dog has done it better than a bunch of other really good dogs on a few given weekends. 
Anyone that downplays those things is ignorant at best as to what a hunt test or field trial requires.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

agengo02 said:


> Wouldn't you rather the parents be excellent hunters than be titled in games?


How would one establish that the parents were "excellent hunters"?

Amy Dahl


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

afdahl said:


> How would one establish that the parents were "excellent hunters"?
> 
> Amy Dahl


The news paper add said they were. ;-)


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Originally Posted by *agengo02*  
_Wouldn't you rather the parents be excellent hunters than be titled in games?_


No not really. That's based soley on the owners opinion. Where as a title means the dog has met some type of standard or been the best of the best on a given weekend. I would still take a pup out of non titled parents if I loved the pedigree. But to have someone say "excellent hunters" means very little. I have an excellent upland dog sitting in my lap---but she will never be a FC. Just don't tell Weezie that--she thinks she is the best field bitch ever. 

I found the article to be ridiculous and arrogant to a fault.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

tom said:


> Tests & trials are suppose to demonstrate two things, *trainability & natural attributes*. Now why wouldn't I want to know those things about the dogs that produces that future hunting companion I'm shopping for.



What element of a field trial demonstrates that a dog has a superior nose?


----------



## Bill Watson (Jul 13, 2005)

I will admit to being "just a crazy old fart", but I would rather be "overdogged" than "underdogged" any day whether I'm testin, trialing, or hunting. Bill


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Dave Flint said:


> What element of a field trial demonstrates that a dog has a superior nose?


You think that marking is accomplished by a dog's eyes only?


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Dave Flint said:


> What element of a field trial demonstrates that a dog has a superior nose?


The inability to zero in on a fall dropped in deep cover. You know it when you see it, though rarely at a field trial. When hunting with a FT competitor you are told by tail action whether there are prospects for action in any field.


----------



## Quackslayer (Feb 14, 2011)

I spend a lot of time in the duck marshes and in my experiences if you don't have a dog with a lot of drive they have a tendency to quit you. When it's 15 degrees and the hunt gets boring most "soft" dogs will sit on the bank and shiver and might even curl up in a ball and go to sleep. 
I have to agree with Mr. Watson and I too would rather be over dogged than have one sleeping on the bank when the ducks come in.
Also I believe that a hot dog can be the best thing for a novice trainer. My first real project was a FT pup, I did everything in my power to screw that poor dog up but she was too resilient to ever let my poor training tactics ruin her. A soft dog would of never done the things I asked that dog to do! 5 years later and a lot bad habits revisited and fixed she is one of the best duck dogs around bc her drive kept her trying to do what she was bred to do, Retrieve!
Just my two cents but i tell all novice trainers too buy as much dog as they can buy because that dog will teach you how to teach and it's really hard to break their spirit!
Soft dogs cant hunt where I hunt in the conditions I hunt in! I've had friends try and they always wish they had a dog like mine!


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

Ted Shih said:


> You think that marking is accomplished by a dog's eyes only?


No, but I think that if everything else is even, the dog that fades w/ the wind to use his nose will probably place behind the dog that pins it.


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

Dave Flint said:


> What element of a field trial demonstrates that a dog has a superior nose?


As a field trial judge, handler and trainer, I long ago learned that about 90% of birds are actually smelled rather than seen first. Eyes help them see them, brains help them remember and together eyes and brains (and training) help them get there and stay there. BUT the nose finds the bird. 

So to answer your question the element of retrieving demonstrates the superior nose. None less than Judy Aycock when once asked "What makes a superior marker" responded with "scent discrimination". 

HUGE FOOD FOR THOUGHT!!!

Cheers,

I apologize for getting sucked into this.


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Dave Flint said:


> No, but I think that if everything else is even, the dog that fades w/ the wind to use his nose will probably place behind the dog that pins it.


 I think you are missing the point. I believe that dogs use their eyes to get to the area of the fall and that they use their noses to find the bird.

I don't really care whether you want a FT dog or not. But, I think you are making judgments about a whole classification of dogs about which you would seem to have little personal knowledge.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

This is what a remarkable nose is capable of.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiCXLXcSTd4&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Dave Flint said:


> No, but I think that if everything else is even, the dog that fades w/ the wind to use his nose will probably place behind the dog that pins it.


which just means that the winner disturbs less cover, gets back quicker and gets us set up for the next flock of birds more effectively. So what's wrong with that exactly?


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Dave Flint said:


> What element of a field trial demonstrates that a dog has a superior nose?


Finding birds. Including detecting birds at a dead run on a blind retrieve.

But also note that field trial washout Labs are the dog of choice to go to Iraq and Afghanistan where service members' lives depend on their effectively detecting hidden explosives. Scenting conditions are far from ideal: hot and dry. These dogs are not working on lead, but are running down a road. Running and getting hot compromise a dog's scenting ability.

And note that Robert Milner himself seeks field trial washout Labs as SAR candidates. Scent work, again. Probably he looks at this pool of dogs because they are good at it?

Amy Dahl


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

afdahl said:


> Finding birds. Including detecting birds at a dead run on a blind retrieve.
> 
> But also note that field trial washout Labs are the dog of choice to go to Iraq and Afghanistan where service members' lives depend on their effectively detecting hidden explosives. Scenting conditions are far from ideal: hot and dry. These dogs are not working on lead, but are running down a road. Running and getting hot compromise a dog's scenting ability.
> 
> ...


lol...what a good post. 

You can't 'train' the quality of a nose. You can only enable it through use of many birds, over time, in increasingly complex situations for the dog to learn and improve.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Yes but their are two types of SAR dogs. Those that use ground scent, and those that use air scent.

Working these two different types of odor will create different behaviors in search dogs which often work against each other. This is why they say never let your tracking dog use air scent in the beginning. Alway run the tracks with the wind at your back. 

And never leave a track for the air scenting dog. We want his nose on air born scent. That is how they detect scent over a half mile away. If an air scent dog is running around with his nose on the ground he is useless. 

The same applies to hunting dogs.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

PackLeader said:


> Yes but their are two types of SAR dogs. Those that use ground scent, and those that use air scent.
> 
> Working these two different types of odor will create different behaviors in search dogs which often work against each other. This is why they say never let your tracking dog use air scent in the beginning. Alway run the tracks with the wind at your back.
> 
> ...


I've largely been of the impression that was more breed based than training based. Pointers wind - Retrievers track.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Ted Shih said:


> You think that marking is accomplished by a dog's eyes only?


Ted!

Bear with me!

What do you think of this statement?

For a dog to demonstrate it MARKED, it must display the following:

1. Go directly to the are of fall.
2. Once there, establish a hunt.

Gooser


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

HNTFSH said:


> I've largely been of the impression that was more breed based than training based. Pointers wind - Retrievers track.


Lab's can track or air scent depending on the training. So can many other breeds.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

PackLeader said:


> Lab's can track or air scent depending on the training. So can many other breeds.


I think all do both - it just tends to concentrate one way or another the closer to the object. I don't know squat about search and rescue. Running a flushing retriever I get a kick out of the air scent but the track always is what finds the bird.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

HNTFSH said:


> I think all do both - it just tends to concentrate one way or another the closer to the object. I don't know squat about search and rescue. Running a flushing retriever I get a kick out of the air scent but the track always is what finds the bird.


Because thats what the dog understands. learning to quarter properly and pin point the location of a bird using air scent takes a lot of training.

That would be like saying a SAR dog needs no training if they have a good nose they can just track 7 day old tracks and smell a body a mile away. 

it doesn't happen like that, I don't care how good the breeding is.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

PackLeader said:


> Because thats what the dog understands. learning to quarter properly and pin point the location of a bird using air scent takes a lot of training.
> 
> That would be like saying a SAR dog needs no training if they have a good nose they can just track 7 day old tracks and smell a body a mile away.
> 
> it doesn't happen like that, I don't care how good the breeding is.


They are not exclusive is what I'm suggesting.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

HNTFSH said:


> They are not exclusive is what I'm suggesting.


When you say find to a tracking dog they put their head down and track. When you say find to an air scent dog they start quartering into the wind.

A properly trained air scent dog should ignore all ground scent. They are deployed in places that have already been trampled by police and other volunteers. If they follow a track then your going to have a long trip back to the parking lot. 

A tracking dog will sometimes raise it's head when entering a scent pool. We see that as a negative also and set the training up best we can to avoid it. If they get into an old scent pool then they can loose the track.

Obviously you won't hold a gun dog to this kind of standard in either discipline.
This is just both sides of the coin.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

This is precisely why I have trained my dog off dead body scent on public grounds and keep him focused on birds.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

> Learning to quarter properly and pin point the location of a bird using air scent takes a lot of training.


I don't agree. 

Jamie, could you tell me how many hunting dogs you have trained to "quarter properly" and what kind of upland work you've done to "train" a dog to "pin point the location of a bird using air scent"? That statement just doesn't jive with my experience. Maybe you could share your experiences with a personally trained hunting, flushing dog or a pointer to make me understand the thrust of that quote. 

What does quartering properly mean? I have four upland Labs (two of which point) and they use their experience to seek out "birdy" cover. Quartering is a natural thing......eight week old pups will do it instinctively (no training, as in control or instruction). I'm just there to provide the opportunity and it happens. Many experienced upland dogs don't quarter in a set pattern because not all cover is "birdy".

I've had very young dogs with little to no experience......instinctively locate a bird without any training on my part. Mostly they are just given exposure and their instincts "sort it out". I try to stay out of the way and keep my mouth shut. In a way, I guess that could be called training (but not really). 

After the "genetic instincts" are thoroughly heightened, most attempt to try and establish "the rules of the road" with as little interference as possible. It becomes simply "find a bird and interact properly.......so I can shoot it (or not)". The only training is the part about "interacting properly". The rest of the package (seeking) depends on the quality of exposure and experience. 

My retrievers learn skills via teaching and the "upland compartment" of my dogs' (genetic bird seeking traits) exist because of exposure to "dog on bird" interactions (experience). There is a huge difference.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Your right Jim but most people teach it as a mechanical drill instead of developing it naturally. The dog zig zags but they are in no way using the wind. They just run a pattern. 

Pseudo quatering is what I call it.

Not only that but covering the entire area efficiently.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

"My retrievers learn skills via teaching and the "upland compartment" of my dogs' (genetic bird seeking traits) exist because of exposure to "dog on bird" interactions (experience). There is a huge difference."

Exactly you put the bird in a launcher and Leave it long enough for a good scent pool to build. Then bring the dog in down wind. 

If a BB throws the bird and 3 min later the dog picks it up he's not learning to air scent. The scent pool simply has not had time to develop.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

PackLeader said:


>



Not so! Insert the bushes, ditches, etc,etc, and you will see why you have your diagrams labels reversed.
It's easy to see what Dobbs was trying to illustrate with the diagrams, but that patterned quartering has little to no relevance when actually hunting.

You will want your dog checking out those "birdy" arias throughly, even if it means checking them out 2 or 3 times, and you will want the dog to pretty much ignore those "no cover" arias where you can see that there are no birds.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

PackLeader said:


> Your right Jim but most people teach it as a mechanical drill instead of developing it naturally. The dog zig zags but they are in no way using the wind. They just run a pattern.
> 
> Pseudo quatering is what I call it.
> 
> Not only that but covering the entire area efficiently.


sorry,for jumping in on this thread.
and from a 'scot', onlooker, and show interest to US training!
This post questioned me,as I may have mis-interperated it?
The pattern on the left (showing the efficient pattern)??, would miss game and ground that may be there?..if you are using a retriever as a flushing dog?
The same would be said(imo)if you were using the retriever to air scent like an HPR breed,as the ground game is missed.
The 'in-efficient', pattern on the right would cover more ground indeed ,but inefficiently using it.(unless i have read it all wrong?)
I dont have the fancy skills to draw digrams on the forum, I have however trained a few flushing/hunting dogs that don't miss much when asked,no matter the wind;-)


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

It's not my drawing. 

http://www.dobbsdogs.com/library/pointing/pdj34.html


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

oops!!! sorry i have just seen the post by 'tom', i think he is of the same sorry!!
blame it on the time lag between continents


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

polmaise said:


> oops!!! sorry i have just seen the post by 'tom', i think he is of the same sorry!!
> blame it on the time lag between continents


That's allright, your input is always welcome.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

> Exactly you put the bird in a launcher and leave it long enough for a good scent pool to build. Then bring the dog in down wind.


Launcher? 

When I was *younger and inexperienced* I used a remote launcher. How does the dog learn how to handle birds when the "boss" is meddling with the interaction? The problem is the dog learns how close to get depending on someone else's opinion. How the heck is a dog supposed to learn how to handle birds when he's not making the decisions? That's called "sticking a nose in where it doesn't belong". 

And another issue is that after a few days, the smart pointing dog will be hunting and pointing launchers.....that just might have birds in them. In addition, the smart dog knows where the launchers are because they can find the trail layed down to plant and load them. What's the dog learning? Someone else is "pulling the strings". Translated the dog is not hunting it just a poorly conditioned puppet. 

I had a Lab once that was regularly hunted on game preserves. She soon learned to follow the ATV paths until she found the foot scent of the planter (where he got off the ATV). Then she'd follow the trail he "layed down" to the planted bird. I'd say her preserve bird interactions wouldn't be very well suited for hunting wild birds......but she learned the difference.......eventually........in spite of the human "baggage".


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Everything you just said can be prevented but good points non the less.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

If you wait for 30 min after you plant the birds then where is all the human scent going to be? Not in the air where the dogs nose should be. How do you train a cadaver dog using cinder blocks and not have them not alert to cinder blocks? How do you train a bomb dog to detect explosives and not the other bomb related components?

You have a control setup.

You simply described bad habits that develop from improper training and or setups IMO.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

I've lost track of whether the discussion is gun dogs finding birds or not. 

Since my dog can't air-scent birds downwind of him too well...but can track 'em regardless of the way the wind blows...I think I'll stick with that.

The air scenting is just a bonus for the off-chance bird that's feeling lucky that day by sitting still.

Very rudimentary I know but seein' as how he's in gun range when birdy it don't matter all that much.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Why? The running birds give of air scent also. If there is no wind they can still detect air born scent when they run through it. Isn't that what you want to detect fresh scent? 

Ground scent could be old and the birds already gone.

Anyway thats my take on it.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

A good pointing dog hunts objectives while a good flushing dog runs a pattern. Many pointing dog owners don't seem to trust their dogs so they want them in gun range running like a spaniel. Many flushing dog owners don't trust their dogs so they insist that they cover the same ground again & again. Years ago when I was trying to hack my dog into an area I didn't think he'd covered thoroughly enough, a crusty old dog man said "son, if you know where the birds are why'd you bring the dog"?

Attached is an article that explains a little about how spaniels (flushing dogs) are expected to run in various wind conditions.


http://westwingsess.com/Using_the_wind.htm


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

PackLeader said:


> Why? The running birds give of air scent also. If there is no wind they can still detect air born scent when they run through it. Isn't that what you want to detect fresh scent?


There's very rarely 'no wind'. Any dog 'winding' a bird is a good thing. I appreciate that head turn and validation whiff a good flushing dog gives when winding a bird. Sometimes it's so evident you'd a thought the bird whistled for your dog.

That said - I would *far* prefer to track ground scent on a moving bird. You know where it's headed. You can nearly follow the bird step-by-step. If that bird circles back, or figure 8's you, it has far less impact on the dog's ability to stay on the bird. Doesn't matter *nearly* as 'much' if that bird is running crosswind, upwind or downwind. The feet still hit the ground and the body scented the brush.

Better knowing exactly where the bird has been leads to a better idea of where the bird is headed. I circle 'outside' my dog on a working bird because I understand the bird won't run THROUGH him to me. Also allows you to become your own blocker. A dog pressuring a bird at the right pace and in gun range will often result in a flush at your feet - the bird is worked back into you - it made a mistake. 

Birds tend to run common escape routes so reading where they've been helps prepare for where they're likely going. I can tell by the 'hard turns' the dog makes how generally nervous the bird is, in addition to how close the bird is.



PackLeader said:


> Ground scent could be old and the birds already gone.


lol...reading the dog tells you that. We'll enter an area with a fence row/cover against private property. If I see the dog interested but not hot - I know the bird ran through a while back. If the dog takes that trail casually to the fence line - I know the area was hunted earlier in the day and a bird was driven through the fence row escape route.

Putting a dog on enough wild birds in hard pressed areas is a strong educator. While whiffing a bird downwind is a nice starting point it doesn't put up birds that go through the routine on a regular basis. It's the rare day here that birds sit and sitting birds are the only advantage to air scenting with a close flushing dog.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Yes then you have days when it rains heavy 3 days before a hunt and the ground scent is either scattered all over or totally washed out.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

PackLeader said:


> Yes then you have days when it rains heavy 3 days before a hunt and the ground scent is either scattered all over or totally washed out.


I'm only interested in the birds that are there THAT day.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

My experience with upland is, you just let um go and they find their way to the birds. Once upon a time I thought it was necessary to teach quartering.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Dave Flint said:


> A good pointing dog hunts objectives while a good flushing dog runs a pattern. Many pointing dog owners don't seem to trust their dogs so they want them in gun range running like a spaniel. Many flushing dog owners don't trust their dogs so they insist that they cover the same ground again & again. Years ago when I was trying to hack my dog into an area I didn't think he'd covered thoroughly enough, a crusty old dog man said "son, if you know where the birds are why'd you bring the dog"?
> 
> Attached is an article that explains a little about how spaniels (flushing dogs) are expected to run in various wind conditions.
> 
> ...


Great article, several different air scenting drills for developing the dogs nose. Those are drills I like to see being done with an upland dog.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

PackLeader said:


> Great article, several different air scenting drills for developing the dogs nose. Those are drills I like to see being done with an upland dog.


I don't disagree with the article but its pretty elementary stuff - dontcha think?


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Buzz said:


> My experience with upland is, you just let um go and they find their way to the birds. Once upon a time I thought it was necessary to teach quartering.


That's pretty much the way I feel as well - only exception would be big wheelin' pointers on big open ranges. Then I'd want a bit more structured coverage.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

Buzz said:


> My experience with upland is, you just let um go and they find their way to the birds. Once upon a time I thought it was necessary to teach quartering.



The optimum pattern covers all the ground (w/ his nose) with the least amount of energy expended.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

Jamie, how many pointers have you trained? I mean like bird imprinted as pups and "whoa broke"? Do you endorse (or use) the "silent whoa" approach (or not). When do you "steady" a pointer up? Are your comments from personal pointer training experience or is all this just "stuff" you read in books? Either way it's OK with me. I'd just like to know how much weight to give to your input on pointer training.


----------



## Gary Wayne Abbott I (Dec 21, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> Your right Jim but most people teach it as a mechanical drill instead of developing it naturally. The dog zig zags but they are in no way using the wind. They just run a pattern.
> 
> Pseudo quatering is what I call it.
> 
> Not only that but covering the entire area efficiently.


What happened to this thread? I thought the topic at hand was all about indirectly or directly calling out Milner on being a gutless, ignorant wussy?

As an aside, I disagree with teaching any upland dog a repetetive or range controlled hunt pattern. How about simply teaching them how to hunt where the birds are and then we can follow behind them and shoot them?


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Yes way off topic.

I was only trying to say that I don't think it's fair to teach dog to follow it's nose one day then the next day pound them on pattern blinds.

I also think it goes against the standards you are trying to obtain in a FT pup. That's all I have to say in regards to hunters with FT pups.

But what do I know I don't train FT dogs for a living and I'm low on tiger blood,.

Regards


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

PackLeader said:


> I was only trying to say that I don't think it's fair to teach dog to follow it's nose one day then the next day pound them on pattern blinds.


Now I'm really confused. You don't think it's 'fair' to both 'hunt-up' birds and also train to retrieve blinds? 

Back to Mr. Milner - statements like this are what grab me:

"The gist of all this is that the average hunter is low in dog training skills and that is as it should be". 

Really???


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

HNTFSH said:


> Now I'm really confused. You don't think it's 'fair' to both 'hunt-up' birds and also train to retrieve blinds?
> 
> Back to Mr. Milner - statements like this are what grab me:
> 
> ...


Because you don't want them to hunt on blinds. You want them to ignore everything and just go straight and stop when told. 

You don't see how demanding straight lines one day then letting them quarter the next can be confusing?


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

PackLeader said:


> Because you don't want them to hunt on blinds. You want them to ignore everything and just go straight and stop when told.
> 
> You don't see how demanding straight lines one day then letting them quarter the next can be confusing?


Oh!! I see - not fair to YOU, not the dog! 

It's only confusing if you can't or don't train the difference. 

In a day...we might start off duck hunting that would bring a mix of marks, true handled to bird blinds, and perhaps a blind or two with a release to hunt at the end.

Then move to upland - and hunt pheasant where I don't want sit-to-flush for conservations sake. 

Then finish the day back at the duck blind with a steady dog on ducks.

It's called training and the dog sure seems to have fun doing it all.

I'm beginning to believe you can't get past the dog-training-itself-with-your-help phase.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> *Because you don't want them to hunt on blinds.* You want them to ignore everything and just go straight and stop when told.
> 
> You don't see how demanding straight lines one day then letting them quarter the next can be confusing?


Not sure where you hunt, but sometimes a blind is -- well -- kinda blind.
Dogs deserve to be taught a *complete* set of skills if you want a good hunting companion.
BTW, it's easier to train a dog for this type of retrieves than one would think.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Both you guys have dogs that can run 400 yard FT blinds?


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

PackLeader said:


> Both you guys have dogs that can run 400 yard FT blinds?


You have mastered changing the subject though. Perhaps Milner IS right.

EDIT - and no...I don't have the dog or the skills to be competitive and get an ROI in Field Trials.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

I'm not changing the subject it's unfair to the dog. But I'm talking about a dog that is going through a force training program and will be expected to take a literal cast at 300 yards. 

Or an upland dog who's learning to quarter naturally.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

PackLeader said:


> Both you guys have dogs that can run 400 yard FT blinds?


It doesn't matter if those guys have dogs that will do it. Plenty of people do. I hope you haven't swallowed the myth that field trial dogs don't hunt!

Mike Lardy is known for taking his National competitors pheasant hunting after the end of the trial season (the National Open is at the end of the trial season, and around the beginning of hunting season in many areas), and he is not alone. Many trial competitors, all of whom have dogs that will handle under control at trial distances, hunt a variety of birds and conditions.

Dogs are capable of learning to apply the appropriate behavior in a given situation.

I think you used the word "pound" in a previous post. No pounding is required.

Amy Dahl


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally Posted by PackLeader
> 
> 
> > You don't see how demanding straight lines one day then letting them quarter the next can be confusing?


No, I don't.



> Originally asked by KwickLabs
> 
> 
> > Jamie, how many pointers have you trained? I mean like bird imprinted as pups and "whoa broke"? Do you endorse (or use) the "silent whoa" approach (or not). When do you "steady" a pointer up? Are your comments from personal pointer training experience or is all this just "stuff" you read in books? Either way it's OK with me. I'd just like to know how much weight to give to your input on pointer training.


None of these questions have been answered. 

Have you ever "dechased" a hunting dog (pointer or flusher)? Have you ever "sailed" a rooster or goose over your dog and handled him directly to the long fall? 



> Originally asked by PackLeader
> 
> 
> > Both you guys have dogs that can run 400 yard FT blinds?


What a meaningless deflection. How is that even relevant? Packleader, have you ever run a simple AKC Senior Hunt test cold blind? Again, just wondering what your hunting dog training background (pointers and/or retrievers) is so as to determine if your input on the Milner topic and resultant upland and scenting tangents have any value. Literature or experience?.......either would be appreciated.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

afdahl said:


> It doesn't matter if those guys have dogs that will do it. Plenty of people do. I hope you haven't swallowed the myth that field trial dogs don't hunt!
> 
> Mike Lardy is known for taking his National competitors pheasant hunting after the end of the trial season (the National Open is at the end of the trial season, and around the beginning of hunting season in many areas), and he is not alone. Many trial competitors, all of whom have dogs that will handle under control at trial distances, hunt a variety of birds and conditions.
> 
> ...


Keyword after.

Do you take dogs in transition pheasant hunting? If not why?


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> I'm not changing the subject it's unfair to the dog. But I'm talking about a dog that is going through a force training program and will be expected to take a literal cast at 300 yards.
> 
> Or an upland dog who's learning to quarter naturally.


Yes, my dog will take a cast at 300 yards, *BUT*, do you really think I would be able to see that bird laying on the ground from 300 yards away? Best I can do is handle the dog to the aria of the fall. Then it is up to the dogs nose & eyes to come up with the bird.
It's also conceivable that after the dog returns with that bird, I would ask it to quarter, and find me another bird to shoot.



> Do you take dogs in transition pheasant hunting? If not why?


Absolutly, duck hunting too. I even hunt over my Junior dogs.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

This entire Millner thing sort of reminds me of something Dr. Aaron Condon said to my class the first day of law school. "If you have the facts, pound on the facts. If you have the law, pound on the law. If you have neither, just pound on the table."


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

tom said:


> BTW, it's easier to train a dog for this type of retrieves than one would think.


Being from South Louisiana Roseau cane (phragmites) country, I'd love to hear more.

Not like the thread was headed anywhere productive, anyway.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> Keyword after.
> 
> Do you take dogs in transition pheasant hunting? If not why?


Most of the pros up here go hunting with the FT dogs. They love it. What is your point, that you can be right with a young dog? Can dogs take casts and go a long way? You bet. Do dogs know the difference between a trial and using their noses hunting? You bet. Their noses don't turn off at a trial, but they aren't in the air nor are they on the ground. IMHO you are nothing more than a troll that knows how to google that needs to at least watch FT dogs train instead of trying to figure it out with your very limited background.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

> Originally asked by PL
> 
> 
> > Do you take dogs in transition pheasant hunting?


Yes.

*"Daisy - 18 months old in transition doing upland"*









So PL how many hunting dogs have you taken through transition? 



> Originally Posted by PackLeader
> 
> 
> > I'm not changing the subject it's unfair to the dog. But I'm talking about a dog that is going through a force training program and will be expected to take a literal cast at 300 yards.


OK, answer this question.....even if you aren't going to answer any of my other questions......is this "I'm talking about a dog" opinion based on personal experience in the field?

Of course you do realize that a dog going through a force program isn't going to be taking a literal cast at 300 yards for quite some time. Don't you?


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Rick Hall said:


> Being from South Louisiana Roseau cane (phragmites) country, I'd love to hear more.
> 
> Not like the thread was headed anywhere productive, anyway.


Train in standing corn fields. Remember that success is built on success, so crossing one row of corn is a good place to start. Add difficulty (crossing more rows) as the dog progresses. The reward needs to be a good reward, so I use fresh killed birds. Simply cast the dog to the downwind side of the bird. Trust me, the dog will figure it out PDQ. If you are "underdogged" (lacking desire, perseverance & courage), sorry but it probably won't happen.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

KwickLabs said:


> Yes.
> 
> *"Daisy - 18 months old in transition doing upland"*
> 
> ...


Jim, I will video our next training and you can judge for yourself. After all knowledge is useless if you can't apply it right?;-)


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

tom said:


> Train in standing corn fields. Remember that success is built on success, so crossing one row of corn is a good place to start. Add difficulty (crossing more rows) as the dog progresses. The reward needs to be a good reward, so I use fresh killed birds. Simply cast the dog to the downwind side of the bird. Trust me, the dog will figure it out PDQ. If you are "underdogged" (lacking desire, perseverance & courage), sorry but it probably won't happen.


No such thing as standing corn in South Louisiana, though I suppose sugar cane might substitute in some parts of it. 

We train with the Roseau, itself, and the dogs do remarkably well working marks well within or beyond it by internal GPS and plenty of hunt, but your initial post referenced blinds, and it doesn't take too deep of a cane patch to toss a wrench into the steering.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

Because of my compulsive efforts to find credibility and the fact that training weather won't be ideal until this afternoon plus my lawn is still too short to mow, I had time to "Google" Entry Express. After logging in, I did an "advanced people search" (no pun intended). The response was "Your search produced no results".


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Rick Hall said:


> No such thing as standing corn in South Louisiana, though I suppose sugar cane might substitute in some parts of it.
> 
> We train with the Roseau, itself, and the dogs do remarkably well working marks well within or beyond it by internal GPS and plenty of hunt, but your initial post referenced blinds, and it doesn't take too deep of a cane patch to toss a wrench into the steering.


If the dog can carry the line on a mark, it can (and will with practice) do the same on a blind.
As you are well aware, you will not be correcting the dogs line once it is into the phrags. So the dog must be taught to do this on it's own. Sorry you don't have the corn fields, is the sugar cane planted in rows? Because corn is planted in rows, and it is so much easier for the dog to run down the rows than it is to cross them is what makes the corn field training work so well. They have to learn to cross them to be successful. Once the dog will do it square to the rows start doing angles, and they will learn to correct their line.


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

Your training and dogs are plainly far superior to mine if they result in long, straight lines through phagmites, as I'm certain there is "...plenty of hunt" involved in recovering our marks (and blinds) deep within the stuff.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

PackLeader said:


> Yes way off topic.
> 
> I was only trying to say that I don't think it's fair to teach dog to follow it's nose one day then the next day pound them on pattern blinds.



Pattern blinds are supposed to be fun. Hope you don't pound on them.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

Rick Hall said:


> Your training and dogs are plainly far superior to mine if they result in long, straight lines through phagmites, as I'm certain there is "...plenty of hunt" involved in recovering our marks (and blinds) deep within the stuff.


Nothing wrong with "plenty of hunt". With practice their hunt will become more efficient and they will need less of it.
My experience with the phrags is that half the time, even if it is a mark, the bird is not where it landed anyway.

The whole premise of retrieves in the phrags is based on "the nose knows" when nothing else does.
All we do is teach them to get where their nose can do it's job. So what if the dog is 20 yards off line when it gets a nose full, as long as it gets a nose full and understands it's meaning.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

Gary Wayne Abbott I said:


> What happened to this thread? I thought the topic at hand was all about indirectly or directly calling out Milner on being a gutless, ignorant wussy?
> 
> As an aside, I disagree with teaching any upland dog a repetetive or range controlled hunt pattern. How about simply teaching them how to hunt where the birds are and then we can follow behind them and shoot them?


Wait a minute, did you just call Lieutenant Colonel (ret) Robert Milner a gutless, wussie for suggesting that a weekend dove hunter doesn't need a field trial dog to pick up his birds and in the same thread claim that you don't want to train a pheasant dog to use the wind to a standard required by a Senior level spaniel test? (you can turn in that man card at the nearest granola bar)


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

Hopefully we can get back to everyone having the same opinion on training dogs. Because variety is never a good thing.


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

I don't see that the article as anything to do with variety, or even what way to hunt your game birds. It is what some people say is a very educated dog man making very broad statements towards a large group of dogs and trainers that is not accurrate. The only question is if they come from lack of exposure, or need to self promote at any cost? My guess is the later!!!!


----------



## Hunchaser (Jun 15, 2009)

Wow! what a great post. Very entertaining. 

I've got 3 american F/t dogs and 3 young UK dogs from Scotland. All are great hunting dogs and the UK pups promise to be the best. Here is what happened today while walking the 2 male UK pups.

They took off into the thick cover along the river. There was a furry of activity and both just flew back towards me (They are 4 mths old) the lead pup, Kelso, had a brown furry object in his mouth. He came up to me wagging his tail and delivered a small baby rabbit about 10 inches long to hand. The bunny didn't have a mark on him and was not injured at all. 

That's the breeding the real UK breeeders are talking about. Both pups deliver to hand, come when called have super soft mouths and are wild on birds and rabbits. 

There are lots of great NA dogs out there and more on the way. I moved towards the UK breeding because I've seen a trend for show people to breed labs and sell their show mutts as hunting dogs. 

My little Scottish dogs are wild as hell but they are smart and easy to train. They are almost like the Zip Code line which was my favorite breeding.


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

I saw all the Milner bashing going on here and decided to join this forum to stick up for him. It seems the truth hurts! Give the man some respect! The fact that so many of you get upset means that what he says might actually be true. It makes you think and makes you realize that what you are doing might actually be wrong and a waste of time. It is so easy to just say he writes for marketing reasons but that is just a cop-out. Most of you that post negative things about him probably have a very short resume compared to Milner's and have nothing to back up your opinions. Go get an education and a resume as long as Milner's and then come back and debate with him. If you are so smart then why aren't you a famous writer and trainer? He is famous because people respect and believe in him not because he is a good marketer. Think about these questions before you post immature garbage- you are just preventing yourself from becoming respected and popular...


----------



## Brandoned (Aug 20, 2004)

Oh this is about to get interesting....


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

Yup, just as the embers were dying there came a breeze...


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Where I do not know for a fact what Mr. Milner's motives are. I have always felt his passion and position of positive reinforcement non FF no E-collar training were not for marketing but for advancement of what he believes in.

I think Mr. Milner does what he does and says what he says because he believes it BETTER. I think he thinks its better and easier on both the trainer and the dog. and the bottom line is his method of training actually works.

He is entitled to his opinion as well as everyone else.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Rick Hall said:


> Yup, just as the embers were dying there came a breeze...


Yabbut I think we must be downwind of the feedlot cause........

No such thing as bad publicity regards

Bubba


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Gundogman said:


> I saw all the Milner bashing going on here and decided to join this forum to stick up for him. It seems the truth hurts! Give the man some respect! The fact that so many of you get upset means that what he says might actually be true. It makes you think and makes you realize that what you are doing might actually be wrong and a waste of time. It is so easy to just say he writes for marketing reasons but that is just a cop-out. Most of you that post negative things about him probably have a very short resume compared to Milner's and have nothing to back up your opinions. Go get an education and a resume as long as Milner's and then come back and debate with him. *If you are so smart then why aren't you a famous writer and trainer?* He is famous because people respect and believe in him not because he is a good marketer. *Think about these questions before you post immature garbage- you are just preventing yourself from becoming respected and popular...[/*quote]
> 
> There was one question the rest were statements. Just because somebody writes a book it doesn't makes him an expert or respected. Or what he writes is gospel. It does seem he has sold you though.


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

I certainly don't expect to change any minds. But I have spoken to Mr Milner about this and have a orry giod understanding of his beliefs. I can tell you that Milner believes and is passionate about his views. It is not marketing and he is not hurting to sell pups. I bought a dog from him and have been to his kennel several times to talk to him. However, I am not a Kool Aid drinker. I really like a lot of what he teaches but I also disagree with some things.

His view of american field trial dogs comes from experience. However, I also believe he is out of the loop and the trends he was seeing may not exist as much currently. I trained with HRCH Jack today. He was trained by a very well respected trainer (I won't mention his name without talking to him) and was out of FT lines. Jake is nothing but fantastic. Great retriever and very calm in the house. However, he would have been way too much for his owner and more than I would want to take on during the training years. Of course there are British dogs this way as well..However, the trainer was honest about it and said the dog was too much for a duck hunter and was meant to be go to a FT home. (my friend got him at the age of 6 fully trained). I also asked him about a finished dog I was interested in. he wanted me to come train with the dog bc he also thought this dog was too much dog. 

There is no shame in saying some FT lines need to stay in the hands of a pro. It certainly takes a special dog with a lot of desire and drive to compete at that level. That is a positive thing for FTers but could be a negative for amatuers. It just seems so obvious to me. On the internet it has bc taboo to talk about a FT dog being hot. However, the numerous trainers I spoke with had no problem using the term and warning me as well. In fact the term "too much dog" was used often. Some of these ppl are on this very board and a one or two are often mentioned. Most of these same ppl told me about other litters that would be a better fit. In fact one said the litter would make great HT dogs but probably not FT. 

So I do think there is some truth to Mr Milners article but his opinion on american ft dogs is probably outdated. And I doubt that anyone would say that Milners breeding program is the same for FT dogs. There is a market for both.

Pardon the errors.Sent from Droid X


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

boykinhntr said:


> So I do think there is some truth to Mr Milners article but his opinion on american ft dogs is probably outdated. And I doubt that anyone would say that Milners breeding program is the same for FT dogs. There is a market for both.
> 
> Pardon the errors.Sent from Droid X


I wonder when the last time Milner hung out around the field trial scene was?

I don't think it's taboo to talk about FT dogs that are a handful. I readily admit to having a couple, but I think that breeding was only a part of that. I think that I raised them to be absolutely crazy about retrieving, I worked hard at it. I was raising them for competition. I think there are other strategies however. Look at Hillman's approach to starting a puppy. I don't think it takes a Phd in dog training to understand what he's doing there. But I'm sure it takes some self discipline, patience, and consistency to see it through, as I'm sure Milner's approach does. Next pup I get, I will decide what approach to take based on the dog in front of me.


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

Buzz said:


> I wonder when the last time Milner hung out around the field trial scene was?
> 
> I don't think it's taboo to talk about FT dogs that are a handful. I readily admit to having a couple, but I think that breeding was only a part of that. I think that I raised them to be absolutely crazy about retrieving, I worked hard at it. I think there are other strategies however. Look at Hillman's approach to starting a puppy. I don't think it takes a Phd in dog training to understand what he's doing there. But I'm sure it takes some self discipline and patience.


Ill ask him next time I talk to him. I doubt it has been recent. Something really ribbed him the wrong way years ago and Id be interested to hear more about it from him. Besides the obvious disagreement, I think most ppl on here would like to talk to him. The guy knows dog behavior and get a lot out of any dog. No doubt he is a good trainer.


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

boykinhntr said:


> There is no shame in saying some FT lines need to stay in the hands of a pro. It certainly takes a special dog with a lot of desire and drive to compete at that level. That is a positive thing for FTers but could be a negative for amatuers. It just seems so obvious to me. *On the internet it has bc taboo to talk about a FT dog being hot.* However, the numerous trainers I spoke with had no problem using the term and warning me as well. In fact the term "too much dog" was used often. Some of these ppl are on this very board and a one or two are often mentioned. Most of these same ppl told me about other litters that would be a better fit. In fact one said the litter would make great HT dogs but probably not FT.


Yeah, but it's one thing for me to call my sister a bitch and something else entirely for you to do it.

(Not that it matters, but where I think Milner gets sideways is with over generalization.)


----------



## mlp (Feb 20, 2009)

This is where that picture of that deer eating popcorn would come in handy


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

Rick Hall said:


> Yeah, but it's one thing for me to call my sister a bitch and something else entirely for you to do it.
> 
> (Not that it matters, but where I think Milner gets sideways is with over generalization.)


I agree and I am not a Milner apologist. In fact I don't like a lot of his training program. I also think he would be surprised with current FT dogs. For non FF/e collar training, I actually prefer Wildroses program (that ought be received well on this forum). I think his way of teaching hold is inadequate, my dog will sit to the whistle not stand, and popping will be minimal.


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

FinnLandR said:


> What I will say is that it is Mr. Milner's habit of taking pot shots at those who force fetch which has turned me off of his methods (see DU forums and other threads here).


A bit of trivia a new trainer might not be aware of, is that the FF section of Milner's first book was long lauded, even by his critics, as one of the best explanations of the process in print.


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

Rick Hall said:


> A bit of trivia a new trainer might not be aware of, is that the FF section of Milner's first book was long lauded, even by his critics, as one of the best explanations of the process in print.


He also maintains that some dogs require it. I think he believes its unnecessary for most....Although I can't get behind his current process or lack there of.


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

boykinhntr said:


> He also maintains that some dogs require it. I think he believes its unnecessary for most....Although I can't get behind his current process or lack there of.


Well ya, my Beagles would require it because they are not retrievers, but that has nothing to do with why we FF a dog that fetches naturally. Milner gets lost in the fact that he can teach a retriever to fetch without FF (well gee, imagine that), and then never addresses the fact that he would then have to in some way apply the same pressure to teach other things. The base reason for applying the pressure on fetch is the fact that these dogs do it naturally, thus it is the best place to use it.
One way or another the pressure gets applied before the training is complete.
If you remember Milner's video, stepping on the rope applies pressure.


----------



## Bob Barnett (Feb 21, 2004)

tom said:


> Well ya, my Beagles would require it because they are not retrievers, but that has nothing to do with why we FF a dog that fetches naturally. Milner gets lost in the fact that he can teach a retriever to fetch without FF (well gee, imagine that), and then never addresses the fact that he would then have to in some way apply the same pressure to teach other things.
> One way or another the pressure gets applied before the training is complete.


The merits of FF have been discussed a bazillion times. Not going there...


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

boykinhntr said:


> The merits of FF have been discussed a bazillion times. Not going there...


Looked to me like you already did.
I was not so much pointing out the merits of FF as I was pointing out the "incompleteness" of Milner's statements.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> As a field trial judge, handler and trainer, I long ago learned that about 90% of birds are actually smelled rather than seen first. Eyes help them see them, brains help them remember and together eyes and brains (and training) help them get there and stay there. BUT the nose finds the bird.
> 
> So to answer your question the element of retrieving demonstrates the superior nose. None less than Judy Aycock when once asked "What makes a superior marker" responded with "scent discrimination".
> 
> ...


 
This is brilliant. 

Dennis, I know how it feels when you know you should drive past the car wreck and not slow down or gawk....but then, darn it, sometimes a point just needs to be made.

This point was worth making and it is huge food for thought.

Thank you!

Chris


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> As a field trial judge, handler and trainer, I long ago learned that about 90% of birds are actually smelled rather than seen first. Eyes help them see them, brains help them remember and together eyes and brains (and training) help them get there and stay there. BUT the nose finds the bird.
> 
> So to answer your question the element of retrieving demonstrates the superior nose. None less than Judy Aycock when once asked "What makes a superior marker" responded with "scent discrimination".
> 
> ...


 
I found this interesting also.
It got pretty much ignored.

In post 119 I asked Ted a question about what a dog demonstrates when it has marked.

I would really like to hear more discussion on Dennis's comment of what Miss Aycock said

Gooser


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Ted said this:

Originally Posted by *Ted Shih*  
_You think that marking is accomplished by a dog's eyes only? _







MooseGooser said:


> Ted!
> 
> Bear with me!
> 
> ...


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2011)

MooseGooser said:


> I found this interesting also.
> It got pretty much ignored.
> 
> In post 119 I asked Ted a question about what a dog demonstrates when it has marked.
> ...


I had/have always wished there was a way to get behind Dennis, Mike, whomever and create the BS marketing machine that is Milner and Stewart... The problem is that it doesn't have the warm, fuzzy, touchy, feely, snotty, elitist thing that it appears people want when they prefer something like what's printed (which I haven't read and don't want to read). There's nothing wrong with a difference of opinions, but there is something wrong with presenting falsehoods with print... Not like they're the only ones that do it, but it's annoying to watch the general public grovel and fall all over themselves pouring money to these folks. I just don't have much respect for people like that who are making money off BS simply because people will pay for what they HEAR withough investigating whether it's the truth. Oh, well...


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2011)

....and furthermore... Mike, Dennis and gang proved they were open to trying and participating in the UK stuff and I've never seen either of them print any diatribe about how awful and useless a Brithish bred/trained Lab is for their purposes... Yet these other guys just carry on and on and on about it all the time. How about you just market your dogs, your style, your method and ST*U about what other trainers/breeders are doing?


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

What of a set up that a judge throws his mark in combination with a wind that is blowing in such a direction, that by the time a dog winds the bird, the dog has run past ,or out of the area of fall?Almost imposible for a dog to wind the bird in the AOF?


What of a set up where the wind is directly at the dog and handlers back.
One dog is sent, it runs straight, but runs just past the bird, not hunting, but winds the bird just the second it gets downwind. puts on the brakes, huntss a bit back into the wind, and picks up the bird. (in my opinion, this dog used scent ,his nose, and picked up the bird, Good job.) 

The next dog runs straight, never goes downwind, but rather goes directly to the bird and picks it up. That dog never got down wind. (In MY opinion that dog REALLY Marked! It clearly used its eyes.


A dog that pulls up short,(before the AOF) and hunts its way till it gets downwind, and THEN picks up the bird, In my opinion didnt mark.

I want to see a dog, GO DIRECTLY to the AOF,, then,, once there ,,
establish a hunt.

The dog uses its EYES and brain together to get him directly to the area of fall. No scent yet.

Then he starts his hunt (noses for scent) and finds the bird.


I think. My opinion,,, is the dog ONLY used its eyes (and brain) to get him to the aof. The dog hunts, MARKING has been established.

I then may judge its nose on how he hunts, but , the dog has already compleated his marking requirement.

Gooser


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Yes they run straight to where they think the mark went, then they put on a hunt in the area if they don't see it. Normally with the nose on the ground. This can hurt you with drag back and everything else out there.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

If you consider what Ms. Aycock, and Ted said,

Is there a difference between MARKING, and just a dog compleating a retrieve?

Not tyring to argue, just askin the question.

Gooser


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

MooseGooser said:


> What of a set up that a judge throws his mark in combination with a wind that is blowing in such a direction, that by the time a dog winds the bird, the dog has run past ,or out of the area of fall?Almost imposible for a dog to wind the bird in the AOF?
> 
> 
> What of a set up where the wind is directly at the dog and handlers back.
> ...


excellent post gooser......


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Gary Wayne Abbott I said:


> I don't see it the same as you.
> 
> The OP cites a article written by Milner bashing American bred dogs and training technique. He further preaches his grand ideas about training, breeding, genetics and the "average hunter" that are merely his opinion and have no real basis in fact.
> I for one grow weary of critque and absurd baseless claims from Milner and others that have no experteese in an endeavor that they speak so poorly of. If you or Milner are happy with your huntings dogs, well good on you, bravo. Do not however expect me to smile and nod as you tell me how poor my trial dogs and training are and how that somehow makes your dogs and technique superior. If you have a superior dog or technique demonstrate it, show me a shred of evidence or better yet put your dog side by side to mine and black my eye......otherwise its all a load of codswallop!
> ...


where is the like button

/paul


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> where is the like button
> 
> /paul


For reference, I happened to watch Gary run his dog in a few series in a trial a few weeks ago. I saw a steady, compliant and trainable dog which got a placement if I recall correctly. I didn't see some out of control freak on a leash as some prefer to describe a well bred American Field Lab- it was more like a Navy Seal kicking some Bin Laudin ass-


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

Is it possible that this "game" you play has no purpose and is a waste of a use for a dog. Is it possible that your time and energy would be better spent on other goals? 
A field trial is just a game in my opinion. Why don't you train for the real world? Field trials remind me of all these stupid horse competitions that serve no purpose.


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

To those that think Milner is out of touch with field trials today- come up with a better argument than that! Come on, this guy has won a couple trials a while back if I am correct. I am sure he is friends and talks quite frequently with trial people. I hear he goes to one occasionally. Come on guys, that is just as lame as the marketing argument! 
What is even lamer is how seriously you take your game. It is just a game and serves no purpose! 
Why don't you get your philosophical hats out and tell me why this game is so important.... Hahahaha. How does it help hunters that could care less about them?
As far as Milner being confident, he should be, with all that he has accomplished. What amazes me is all the disrespectful people on this forum and in the dog world... You train less than ten dogs and read a few books and then think you are magically an expert on dog training. You should respect Milner for putting up with you! I certainly respect him for trying to share his knowledge and wisdom.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

:razz::razz::razz:
Hey gundogman!


Who wrote the article??

Whos dissin whos??


Gooser


----------



## vanman (Sep 26, 2007)

Been in the retriever stuff since 1996.had spaniels before that.started out running hunt tests up MH and National/ran UKC and Qd at the Grand/had a nice puppy that an old field trialer with 40 yrs plus noticed and said you got one hell of a nice trial dog.I said whats a trial.He said stick with me and Ill teach you,been with him ever since.I believe this man REALLY taught me how to train dogs and I have the utmost respect for this field trialer and he is a dear friend of mine.Thats what its about for me,training the dogs to the best of their abilities and their intelligence.If someone else doesnt care about field trials and trial training and trial dogs,thats fine with me.Thats why we live in the USA ,what ever suits your fancy.But Ill keep training dogs like that and running trials.Its made me some nice duck dogs and i giggle with joy every time they disappear over the horizon and come back 4 or five minutes later with the one that got caught in the crossfire.that guy in the hut there has opn and am plplcmnt and jams.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Gundogman said:


> To those that think Milner is out of touch with field trials today- come up with a better argument than that! Come on, this guy has won a couple trials a while back if I am correct. I am sure he is friends and talks quite frequently with trial people. I hear he goes to one occasionally. Come on guys, that is just as lame as the marketing argument!
> What is even lamer is how seriously you take your game. It is just a game and serves no purpose!
> Why don't you get your philosophical hats out and tell me why this game is so important.... Hahahaha. How does it help hunters that could care less about them?
> As far as Milner being confident, he should be, with all that he has accomplished. What amazes me is all the disrespectful people on this forum and in the dog world... You train less than ten dogs and read a few books and then think you are magically an expert on dog training. You should respect Milner for putting up with you! I certainly respect him for trying to share his knowledge and wisdom.


I look at it like this: 

You're a car guy. You want a fast car. You want a car you can drive to the grocery store on thursday night and go to the track of Friday night. You want something with limited slip, 350hp, rear wheel drive and a 6 speed. You can have it. They come with options that allow you to play at the level you want. 

Today for a good price you can get a Mustang V-6 with those features. 15 years ago you had to buy a Corvette. 25 years ago you bought a mid level Ferrari-

The games get tougher, people get smarter, train differently and continually learn to make a better product. The games, cars, horses, dogs or anything are the same- desire for performance in any form raises the bar- without some level of competition driving us along we'd only be mediocre.


----------



## Jerry Beil (Feb 8, 2011)

Gundogman said:


> Is it possible that this "game" you play has no purpose and is a waste of a use for a dog. Is it possible that your time and energy would be better spent on other goals?
> A field trial is just a game in my opinion. Why don't you train for the real world? Field trials remind me of all these stupid horse competitions that serve no purpose.


And it's possible that the things you do are also a waste of time and dog and energy etc. Who made you the judge of what is and what is not worthwhile? I don't run into too many people hunting for survival. You remind me of all those stupid trolls who go on web pages and make posts that serve no purpose.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Oh Sure!!

OK HANK!!!

Lets just revert to takin a foot and kickin Gooser round the room!!:razz:

Gooser


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

Gundogman said:


> To those that think Milner is out of touch with field trials today- come up with a better argument than that! Come on, this guy has won a couple trials a while back if I am correct. I am sure he is friends and talks quite frequently with trial people. I hear he goes to one occasionally. Come on guys, that is just as lame as the marketing argument!
> What is even lamer is how seriously you take your game. It is just a game and serves no purpose!
> Why don't you get your philosophical hats out and tell me why this game is so important.... Hahahaha. How does it help hunters that could care less about them?
> As far as Milner being confident, he should be, with all that he has accomplished. What amazes me is all the disrespectful people on this forum and in the dog world... You train less than ten dogs and read a few books and then think you are magically an expert on dog training. You should respect Milner for putting up with you! I certainly respect him for trying to share his knowledge and wisdom.


Drink more of the Milner Koolaide! Most of the loudest mouths shooting down US field trials and field trial dogs are the guys that don't run them but make money spewing gross generalizations. It's easy to talk about merits, hard to prove them.


----------



## Jason Glavich (Apr 10, 2008)

Gundogman said:


> To those that think Milner is out of touch with field trials today- come up with a better argument than that! Come on, this guy has won a couple trials a while back if I am correct. I am sure he is friends and talks quite frequently with trial people. I hear he goes to one occasionally. Come on guys, that is just as lame as the marketing argument!
> What is even lamer is how seriously you take your game. It is just a game and serves no purpose!
> Why don't you get your philosophical hats out and tell me why this game is so important.... Hahahaha. How does it help hunters that could care less about them?
> As far as Milner being confident, he should be, with all that he has accomplished. What amazes me is all the disrespectful people on this forum and in the dog world... You train less than ten dogs and read a few books and then think you are magically an expert on dog training. You should respect Milner for putting up with you! I certainly respect him for trying to share his knowledge and wisdom.


So is He lame for the game that he plays? 
You asked, How does it help hunters? Ill try that maybe because hunters buy pups from accomplished parents to hunt with.
How many dogs have you trained? Since everyone on here has trained less than ten according to you? Did you read a book my Milner and are an expert in his training methods?

So because he won a few "a while" back and talks to people who do does that make him good? I talk to alot of people who win so I guess I am as good as Milner too.

HAHA!Respect him for putting up with us, that is a joke right?
Didn't he just bash all of us? Oh wait you did too, so I guess you stayed at a Holiday Inn last night so now you know it all. 

Here is how I see it, he found a market and people buy into it. I have found a market for my pups as well, the difference is I tell the people the truth about the breed both good and bad, he only bashes the rest while putting his dogs on a platform acting like they have no faults and there are no wash outs.

Go buy a silver lab and train it the Milner way and then you can gloat to everyone how you have best trained and most rare gun dog in the world, well I guess it won't be because it isn't a duckhill dog from across the pond but it will be close.

_How about a canoe lab? I think he markets those as well. Great dogs bred to be small so they don't capsize a canoe and they bring less water back into the canoe as well!!!!! OMG everyone should go buy one!!!!!!_


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I wonder if Milner proof reads this stuff to make sure it's inflammatory enough to keep the thread going. Surely these posts are not for real.
I think Boykinhntr hit it pretty much on the head with "His view of american field trial dogs comes from experience. However, I also believe he is out of the loop and the trends he was seeing may not exist as much currently."
I bet he hasn't trialed much since the days of hot hot collars and rat shot.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Gundogman said:


> Is it possible that this "game" you play has no purpose and is a waste of a use for a dog. Is it possible that your time and energy would be better spent on other goals?
> A field trial is just a game in my opinion. Why don't you train for the real world? Field trials remind me of all these stupid horse competitions that serve no purpose.



Gundog,

Welcome, glad to see you here as a new member and yet alienating 3/4 or better of the folks here. Yes most of us here waste time training our dogs 3-7 days a week. We also waste our time year round doing something with our beloved pets. Thats OK if you dont get it. I myself dont get why a person would even own a dog that sits in the kennel all the time except a few days a year just to go hunting. Usually in quite a embarrassing fashion I will add. As a animal my cat is far Superior to most dogs as it rids to house of unwanted vermin and unwanted relitives with alergies. Can live of a bowl of food and water, using the litter box with no training. But I digress. Most FT and HT folks also hunt with the "waste of time" they own and I would suspect have a far lower of percentage of dogs that are unpleasant to hunt with than milners progeny. I do have to give milner credit that he has done a very good job of marketing a mediocre product by bad mouthing a far superior animal. Still sorry to say but in the game of my dog is better than yours the only way to prove it is in the FT game. Its no different than any other unit of measure and performance. Baseball, scholastic, Miss USA or whatever. A lot of FT and HT washouts have gone on to make fine hunting dogs. I dont think I have seen the other way around. Lastly please dont take HT and FT people as snobby when it comes to the dogs and games. Most take it as serious and hard work worthy of the reward. 

Dont be to impressed with milner and his mantra as for most of us here on the board it does not take much to teach a dog to poop outside, flounder around and find a duck. If thats your standard of what the avg Joe needs than your goals are within reach of most. I hope you are not anymore insulted by my comments than I am of yours.


----------



## Losthwy (May 3, 2004)

Gun you are correct HT and FT are games and they serve no useful purpose. The arts, music, literature and sports serve no useful purpose either. When Edmund Hillary climbed Mt Everest it to served no useful purpose. And there, I'm sure, were some at the time who said, why is he wasting his time and energy on this goal? He could of stayed in bed and slept. That would of had purpose. Instead, he got up and climbed. 

Signed, _Philosophical Hat._


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

So after a few drinks last night I thought I'd run my mouth a bit. It was probably a waste but who cares... I don't regret what I said.

Kool Aid, that is funny. I just have a lot of respect for Milner and I simply don't understand why you hate the guy so much. I would never had joined this forum if I had not seen all the bashing going on. It is your fault that I am here!


----------



## Obabikon (Jul 1, 2009)

So now Milner's dogs "mediocre"? Why--exactly--do you say that? 

I thought it was the man and the message you all didn't like....


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Did you read the article Gundogman? Gee why would we defend ourselves or our dogs?! When someone promotes themselves by belittling others they deserve to be called on the carpet. You can put all the bows and ribbons you want on a pile of crap, its still a pile of crap.

This stinks.


----------



## Chris Rosier (Dec 27, 2008)

Paul "Happy" Gilmore said:


> I look at it like this:
> 
> You're a car guy. You want a fast car. You want a car you can drive to the grocery store on thursday night and go to the track of Friday night. You want something with limited slip, 350hp, rear wheel drive and a 6 speed. You can have it. They come with options that allow you to play at the level you want.
> 
> ...



Best post Ive seen yet.


----------



## Misty Marsh (Aug 1, 2003)

Gundogman said:


> So after a few drinks last night I thought I'd run my mouth a bit. It was probably a waste but who cares... I don't regret what I said.
> 
> Kool Aid, that is funny. I just have a lot of respect for Milner and I simply don't understand why you hate the guy so much. I would never had joined this forum if I had not seen all the bashing going on. It is your fault that I am here!


That's funny, you joined so that you could stand up for Mr. Milner. I bet he's happy to have a representative like you in his corner? Bye the way it's your fault that you are here. I don't hate the guy, not many people in this world that I hate now that Osama is dead. Funny you talk about respect, to me it's something earned, not given out freely. I can't respect anyone who talks ill of others for thier own self promotion and monetary gain. If he were to have a product that sold itself on merit, it would not need to be "built up" in all form of media by shooting down the compeition.


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

When Milner writes a lot of his articles and posts information, it seems that he backs his "theories" up with science and genetics. 

I think what agitates people most is the fact that he makes such a good argument and that what he says might actually be true.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

That article is basically from his book *Retriever Training: A Back-to-Basics Approach* Which I found to have a copyright of 2000. So in all actuality this entire discussion is about 11 years old.

This is nothing new that Mr Milner just spat out as a marketing tool. 


You would think that more people would know this???


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

Gundogman said:


> So after a few drinks last night I thought I'd run my mouth a bit. It was probably a waste but who cares... I don't regret what I said.
> 
> Kool Aid, that is funny. I just have a lot of respect for Milner and I simply don't understand why you hate the guy so much. I would never had joined this forum if I had not seen all the bashing going on. It is your fault that I am here!


 
Hmmmm............you wouldn't happen to be a "Troller, er ah Toller" person now would you? 

That might explain quite a lot about where your perception of reality comes from.

Regretting, deeply, the day I ever opened this thread regards, :sad:

P.S. For the record, I think Milner is a very good dog man. I don't subscribe to *all* his methods and theories but his knowlege and experience base is pretty solid.


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

Pas Bon said:


> That article is basically from his book *Retriever Training: A Back-to-Basics Approach* Which I found to have a copyright of 2000. So in all actuality this entire discussion is about 11 years old.
> 
> This is nothing new that Mr Milner just spat out as a marketing tool.
> 
> ...


So what is your point? 11 years is not that long of a period of time.


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

labguy said:


> Hmmmm............you wouldn't happen to be a "Troller, er ah Toller" person now would you?
> 
> That might explain quite a lot about where your perception of reality comes from.
> 
> ...


So I had a few drinks after dinner- So what?
Thanks for agreeing with me on Milner!


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

This has been his stance for quite some time and no one should be getting their feathers ruffled over it. At this point it's old news..Thats my point


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

Agreed! I don't understand why they are either. They are just giving him a bunch of free advertising. I guess the joke is on them!


----------



## Jason Glavich (Apr 10, 2008)

Gundogman said:


> Agreed! I don't understand why they are either. They are just giving him a bunch of free advertising. I guess the joke is on them!


So since you subscribe to his methods, what dogs do you have or have had? Did you ever try any other methods? 

I only ask because you seem to be swayed that way for a reason i am guessing it has worked for you? Do you have a dog from him? 

Also I ask because you did not answer other questions that were asked before.


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

Whoops you asked too many! You asked me 10 or so questions. Which ones do you really want answered?


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

Gundogman said:


> Whoops you asked too many! You asked me 10 or so questions. Which ones do you really want answered?


What part of his article or training method is based on science?


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

I'm going to have to remember this thread is still going next time I have trouble falling asleep. Still going.............................


Evan


----------



## tom (Jan 4, 2003)

PackLeader said:


> What part of his article or training method is based on science?


Or logic for that matter?


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

_Robert Milner has been training dogs professionally for more than thirty years. Over that stretch he has trained about 1500 retrievers for hunting and field trials, drug and explosive detection, and even search-and-rescue operations. He taught obedience classes at the University of Memphis for ten years, and has judged retriever trials in both the U.S and in England._


With that in mind give the guy a little credit...gotta be some science in there somewhere. There is no denying the man understands dogs and different ways to skin cats.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Obabikon said:


> So now Milner's dogs "mediocre"? Why--exactly--do you say that?
> 
> I thought it was the man and the message you all didn't like....


By milners description the dogs are less than "overdogged"

I have no problem with the dogs or the people that buy them. I have never seen in any FT or HT catalog list anything other than breed,sex,sire, dam, and honorific. Impress me in the field or field of competition not some unproven made up marketing BS.


----------



## Jason Glavich (Apr 10, 2008)

Gundogman said:


> Whoops you asked too many! You asked me 10 or so questions. Which ones do you really want answered?


All of them sounds good.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Pas Bon said:


> _Robert Milner has been training dogs professionally for more than thirty years. Over that stretch he has trained about 1500 retrievers for hunting and field trials, drug and explosive detection, and even search-and-rescue operations. He taught obedience classes at the University of Memphis for ten years, and has judged retriever trials in both the U.S and in England._
> 
> 
> With that in mind give the guy a little credit...gotta be some science in there somewhere. There is no denying the man understands dogs and different ways to skin cats.



I dont know why I can t let this go. But I looked up on AKC website and I find ZERO reference to milner judging anything. Should I check Entry Express to see if he has run a HT or FT in recent history or will this be the same as looking at facts in his hypothesis?


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Entry Express ........Zip, zilch and nadda..........


Underwhelming.


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

Steve Amrein said:


> I dont know why I can t let this go. But I looked up on AKC website and I find ZERO reference to milner judging anything. Should I check Entry Express to see if he has run a HT or FT in recent history or will this be the same as looking at facts in his hypothesis?


Why don't you call him up and ask him yourself since you are so concerned?

Here is his resume from his website. It doesn't say anything about judging but I thought what he says about Wildrose was interesting:

About Robert Milner founder of Wildrose Kennels and founder of Duckhill Kennels

• 1972 - I left USAF active duty and joined USAF Reserve as Capt

• 1972 - I established Wildrose Kennels in Grand Junction TN. I Began training gundogs and field trial dogs. I trained 2 dogs which became Field Champions and attained qualified all age status with a number of dogs. I Began teaching dog obedience at Memphis State University

• 1982 - I ceased training field trial dogs and concentrated on gundogs. I travelled to England in search of examples of original Labradors imported from England. I imported the first British Labradors to Wildrose Kennels in 1983.

• 1983-84 - I Established relationship with Maj. Morty Turner-Cooke, a well recognized British Field trailer and gundog trainer and breeder. Morty was my principle source for British Labradors at Wildrose Kennels. Maj. Turner-Cooke remains my principle advisor on all things concerning British Field Trial Dogs and British Gundogs. He is aided today Robin Watson (Tibea Gundogs), a noted British Labrador trainer and an A Panel judge for British Retriever Field Trials.

• 1995 - I sold Wildrose Kennels in order to focus my attention on my Commercial Real Estate Business. I sold Wildrose Kennels to Ed Apple in 1995. He subsequently sold Wildrose Kennels to Mike Stewart in 1999. I mentored Mike Stewart for several years to help him get started with British Labradors. I gave him his logo (a piece of the artwork from my first book) and some guidance on gentle training and the value thereof. I also went to England with him and introduced him to Morty Turner-Cooke and several notable British gundog trainers. I also introduced Mike Stewart to the folks at Ducks Unlimited and suggested him for their retriever focused marketing program. Mike Stewart has subsequently done a superb job of growing Wildrose Kennels and continuing Wildrose Kennels' tradition of breeding high quality British Labrador gundogs and conducting gentle training.

Over the years, I have probably trained around a thousand American bred Labradors for Field trial and gundog work and have trained a similar number of British Bred Labradors for gundog work. Along the way I have trained a fair number of explosive detection dogs and Disaster Search (USAR)

• 1996 - Retired from USAFR as LtCol with 26 years active and reserve duty in Disaster Response, Radar, Logistics

• Author of: 
- Retriever Training for the Duck Hunter 
- Retriever Training, A Back to Basics Approach 
- A Disaster Search Dog Training Manual (FEMA)

• Designer and Implementer of Disaster Search dog program for FEMA's Tennessee Task Force One, former Program Manager, Canine Manager and Task Force Leader for Tennessee Task Force One (FEMA US&R)

• Deployed with TN TF-1 as Dog Handler, Search Team Manager, or Task Force Leader to the following: 
- Winter Olympics at Salt Lake City 
- Columbia Space Shuttle Recovery 
- Hurricane Francis 
- Hurricane Ophelia 
- Hurricane Ivan 
- Hurricane Rita

2007 - I established Duckhill Kennels to breed better dogs for gundog work, scent detection work, and disaster search work. I am using almost exclusively British Labradors for these functions because of the great hunting initiative and trainability of British Labradors. I also established and designed DuckHill to serve as a laboratory in which to develop and improve the training processes for the above three functions . A primary goal of this training exploration is to remove as much force as possible from the training process and replace it with operant conditioning/positive reinforcement training techniques.

As I develop these gentle training techniques and protocols, I will post them on the Duckhill website in written and video formats. My goal is to develop a simplified, gentle training process which will be easy for the typical hunter to apply to his dog and produce a well trained, effective gundog.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

_As I develop these gentle training techniques and protocols, I will post them on the Duckhill website in written and video formats. My goal is to develop a simplified, gentle training process which will be easy for the typical hunter to apply to his dog and produce a well trained, effective gundog._

That is the koolaide that I drink!

A simplified, gentle training process which will be easy for the typical hunter to apply to his dog and produce a well trained, effective gundog.


The problem with Mr. Milner's statement is that it *ACTUALLY WORKS* for the "typical hunter".


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

So, his own resume says he quit training field trial dogs 29 years ago.

Yup, looks like he's really got his finger on the pulse of today's field trial game and the animals involved.


----------



## birdboy (Feb 9, 2009)

After reading this thread, I have decided to sell my e-collar and use the money to buy some of those clickers. You know, like the ones they use in the training classes at Petsmart. My only question is... how do you get a dog to stop at 300 yards with a clicker? That would be one hell of a clicked! 

I mainly just wanted to make sure I posted on this... since everyone else had.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

birdboy said:


> After reading this thread, I have decided to sell my e-collar and use the money to buy some of those clickers. You know, like the ones they use in the training classes at Petsmart. My only question is... how do you get a dog to stop at 300 yards with a clicker? That would be one hell of a clicked!
> 
> I mainly just wanted to make sure I posted on this... since everyone else had.


one real long check cord.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

birdboy said:


> After reading this thread, I have decided to sell my e-collar and use the money to buy some of those clickers. You know, like the ones they use in the training classes at Petsmart. My only question is... how do you get a dog to stop at 300 yards with a clicker? That would be one hell of a clicked!
> 
> I mainly just wanted to make sure I posted on this... since everyone else had.


Like an e-collar, the clicker is not "plug and play." You have to teach the dog what it means, and, more importantly, you have to teach yourself how to use it effectively.


----------



## Byron Musick (Sep 19, 2008)

Here is a thought, instead of the typical beeper in the e-collar at range, add-in a "Clicker" function? Then you would have up to a 2 mile Clicker range, provided you use the proper transmitter wattage and proper effective method!

Hope this helps and adds to this thread!


----------



## Jason Glavich (Apr 10, 2008)

Buzz said:


> So, his own resume says he quit training field trial dogs 29 years ago.
> 
> Yup, looks like he's really got his finger on the pulse of today's field trial game and the animals involved.


And the last qualified seems to be 10 years before that.

Let's all just admit he is a training genius and all his dogs are great, not only great but better than every American FT dog that has ever existed. Look he even got DU and wildrose together and Drake was exactly what we all want in a gun dog...and all the other great things he has done in his life.

I will keep my high strung hyper active American FT bred lab


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Byron Musick said:


> Here is a thought, instead of the typical beeper in the e-collar at range, add-in a "Clicker" function? Then you would habe up to a 2 mile Clicker range, provided you use the proper transmitter wattage and proper effective method!
> 
> Hope this helps and adds to this thread!


 
DOOD!!! I'm putting in the patent paperwork right at this moment! I'll make a mint!!!


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

I can't help but laugh and wonder why so many people even care.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Just my observation, but from that resume it seems as if this Milner guy has been out of the FT games for awhile ~10-20 yrs. And perhaps his vision of what FT dogs are, is outdated. That long ago we used to be breeding hard to control fire-breathing insane FT dog, they were the only type of dog that could deal with that day's training methods. This was sure my opinion of FT dogs, until I actually went to a recent FT. My observations; yes you will every once in a awhile see this type of hard dog. but realistically when it comes down to the final count, the only dogs still in @ the end are those that can balance calmness and drive, are willingly cooperating with their handlers, and are able to think through super technical setups, in which fast isn't always better. From the past we had the drive, now I think we are breeding more for intelligence and cooperation. I see no difference in UK or USA dogs a good dog is a good dog, a smart dog can be taught, a cooperative dog likes to work with a handler, I don't see how any of these traits would take away from any venue, hunting, trailing, etc.


----------



## Take'em (Nov 29, 2006)

Pas Bon said:


> I can't help but laugh and wonder why so many people even care.


It's mindboggling. Some thicker skin might help. It's not exactly a new concept in advertising/marketing to diminish the competition while bolstering your own. Who cares? Should be water off a duck's back.


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

The Undertrained Hunting Dog 

_"It is amazing how gently you can say a command to get compliance with a well trained retriever."_


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

DEEEZang!!!,

lost electricity and internet to tornados last wednesday. i go out cut a ton of trees, tarp a ton of roofs and do piles of repair estimates on losses. when the internet comes back and i get a chance to see what's been going on the rtf, 26 pages, 256 posts of mr. robert millner!!! 

if we go out and rebuild a couple of rural alabama towns this summer and don't get to check in before autumn, PLEASE GUYS PROMISE ME THIS THREAD WILL STILL BE GOING! i love this stuff. 

chris we should print and bind this thread and sell it as coffee table books. title it _"Over Dogged a compilation by Chris Atkinson"_ all the avatars would be great for the picture sections. we could do a poll for whose avatar pic makes the dust jacket. "_The Working Retrievers_" by Tom Quinn and "_Over Dogged_" right there on the hearth beside a couple of hand carved decoys and a sleepy lab.(brit or am ft, anything but "back yard") 

john mc


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Gundogman said:


> When Milner writes a lot of his articles and posts information, it seems that he backs his "theories" up with science and genetics.
> 
> I think what agitates people most is the fact that he makes such a good argument and that what he says might actually be true.


Care to share the success Mr. Milner has had? When was the last time he titled either a ht or ft dog? Heck when was the last time he ran one? Those that can do, those that can't teach....

/paul


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Care to share the success Mr. Milner has had? When was the last time he titled either a ht or ft dog? Heck when was the last time he ran one? Those that can do, those that can't teach....
> 
> /paul



When was the last he cared? There are more ways to measure success in dog training than games.

When was the last time one of your dogs sniffed a live person from a pile of rubble or detected and alerted to a bomb in a building or saved a diabetics life.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Care to share the success Mr. Milner has had? When was the last time he titled either a ht or ft dog? Heck when was the last time he ran one? Those that can do, those that can't teach....
> 
> /paul


I think his resume settled that. Made no FC's, just trained a few that became FC's, and last ran Q dogs in the early 80's, the boot, shoot and electrocute era. Judging I'm sure in his own venues. I wonder if they have an amateur clicker stake?


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Pas Bon said:


> When was the last he cared? There are more ways to measure success in dog training than games.
> 
> When was the last time one of your dogs sniffed a live person from a pile of rubble or detected and alerted to a bomb in a building or saved a diabetics life.


3 years ago, my MH helped save a life. Ask Carol Huley how she feels about Ruckus. And there are many more on here that do SAR or have dogs that are service dogs. So what's your point?


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

I think his point is that Colonel Milner has been successful with training many types of labs.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Pals said:


> 3 years ago, my MH helped save a life. Ask Carol Huley how she feels about Ruckus. And there are many more on here that do SAR or have dogs that are service dogs. So what's your point?


My point is and was directed at the one who asked the question.


Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Care to share the success Mr. Milner has had? When was the last time he titled either a ht or ft dog? Heck when was the last time he ran one? Those that can do, those that can't teach....
> 
> /paul



Here maybe this will help.

http://tinyurl.com/3k2qm89.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Pas Bon said:


> When was the last he cared? There are more ways to measure success in dog training than games.
> 
> When was the last time one of your dogs sniffed a live person from a pile of rubble or detected and alerted to a bomb in a building or saved a diabetics life.


I trained two last year. So now he doesn't care?if he didn't care why does he keep writing articles then? Success is certainly an interesting topic. Teaching a dog to crap in the neighbors yard could be considered success, but it does little for testing a dogs field ability. The facts are there are various accepted and recognized venues for testing those skills and he doesn't run any of his dogs in them, while making unsubstantiated claims about those that do. Put up or shut up comes to mind.

/Paul


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Pas Bon said:


> My point is and was directed at the one who asked the question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great links to a book. You can't teach a dog from a book. 

/Paul


----------



## Jim Stevenson (Mar 18, 2010)

Steve Amrein said:


> Entry Express ........Zip, zilch and nadda..........
> 
> 
> Underwhelming.


I don't believe the interwebs were created in time for Milner.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

by Robert Milner - 20 April 2000

Retriever field trials originated in England in the late 1800's and early 1900's. These early competitions arose as a way to identify superior animals so that they could be bred to improve the working qualities of retrievers. Field trials in England today still serve that valuable purpose.

Field trials in America have greatly diverged from the original purpose. We imported field trials from England in the early 1930's. When we first imported them, as one would expect, they were very similar to British Field Trials. They were small, with only a few dogs running. They emphasized steadiness and game finding initiative. The tests in the very early trials were all marked retrieves. Blinds and hand signals came along later.

Three significant differences were written into American field trial rules which would cause them to radically diverge from their simple and effective beginnings. A major difference from the early the British predecessor was the omission of any limit on the number of dogs running in a trial. The popularity of field trials thus insured that they must become elimination contests. Recent years have seen American field trials with Open stake entries of up to 80 and 90 dogs. There is no way to adequately judge such large numbers of dogs in a 3 day trial.

With these large entries to judge, time becomes the enemy. Behaviors that require more time to test and evaluate are given insufficient testing and evaluation. The main victim has been steadiness. In early trials steadiness was heavily evaluated and was a major consideration in picking winners. Walkups with several dogs in line were a regular feature, as were a lot of close tempting birds falling. These practices were great tests of dogs' obedience and steadiness, but they are time consuming to run. Thus today's large numbers of competing dogs have practically eradicated the practice of thoroughly testing the dogs' obedience and steadiness.

In today's trials the longest time you'll see a dog be required to sit is about 20 seconds, the time is takes for a quadruple mark to be thrown. After the birds are down, the dog is sent within 5 seconds. Only one honor is required, and that is of not over 20 seconds duration. Even with such a weak evaluation of steadiness and obedience it is not unusual to see competing dogs creeping out 5 or 10 feet from the handler while the birds are being shot. Typically they are not penalized for this lack of obedience. The standard of obedience and steadiness in field trials is lamentably low.

The second major difference that we in America have incorporated into field trials is the practice of setting up or designing artificial tests to evaluate the dogs, rather than evaluating them during their actual working environment of hunting. If we really wanted a valid measuring stick for hunting dogs, we should evaluate them under real conditions. We should judge dogs while they are doing their actual job. This might entail judging dogs as they work at a commercial duck shooting operation, or while they work in a leased dove field, or at a commercial pheasant hunting resort. It should be as close as we can get to the real thing.

The 3rd major difference is the barring of professional dog trainers from judging. The trainers are the main repository of knowledge of dog behavior. Thus we have robbed field trials of the corporate body of knowledge of canine behavior. We have amateurs who are the judges that set up artificial tests to evaluate dogs so as to select for the inherited behaviors valuable for better gundogs. These amateurs are probably wonderful dog handlers, but one must question whether they have trained and dealt with the large numbers of dogs required to develop the knowledge and skill to separate trained behaviors from inherited behaviors.

These amateurs are handicapped by being deprived of the corporate body of dog training knowledge possessed by the community of professional dog trainers. We have thus erected barriers between the field trial judges and the corporate body of knowledge of canine behavior and canine behavior modification.

One must therefore question the validity of many of the testing criteria that have evolved in American field trials. Most of those testing criteria evaluate trained behavior as opposed to inherited behavior, and most of the criteria evaluate behaviors that are of limited or no value in a gundog.

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

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

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


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

CONTINUED.

Let me take you to a typical American field trial:

We drive out to the field trial ground on Friday morning arriving about 8:00 am. We go to the open stake. There are 2 judges for this stake and there are 70 dogs running. All dogs that are entered and pay the entry fee are able to run. A drawing has been held two weeks prior to the trial to determine the order in which the dogs will run.

Triple Land Mark 
The judges have designed the first test and have started. The test is a triple mark with a live bird shot by guns and thrower stationed out about 150 yards from the line. On the same azimuth as the flyer is a dead bird thrown by a thrower stationed out about 40 yards out from the line. A third set of gun and thrower is stationed out 165 yards and just to the right of the "live bird" guns. For the observer standing on the line, the two long sets of guns are on azimuths about 30 degrees apart.

The purpose of the short dead memory bird on same azimuth as long flyer is too trick the dogs and make the dogs overrun the short dead bird, so that handler has to give hand signals to bring dog back to the mark. Field trial dogs are typically trained very heavily on lining and tend to overrun short birds when tempted with having just picked up a long flyer. To make it harder for the dogs to check back on that short bird, the judges are also retiring that set of gunner and thrower. Retiring means that after the short bird is thrown the gunner and thrower scurry over to hide behind a thicket where they can't be seen by the dogs.

We watch dog number one come to the line. He is 10 or 12 feet in front of his handler. Typically this lax obedience is not penalized. Dog number one gets to the line.

His handler arrives shortly thereafter. With the dog sitting at heel the handler with his body language shows the dog the locations of the guns and throwers. Then the handler signals for the birds.

The judges signal for the birds. The short dead bird is thrown. Dog number one creeps out about 6 feet in front of his handler and then scoots back to watch bird number two which is the dead bird out 165 yards and just a little to the right. It is thrown just after bird number one hits the ground. Again, dog number one creeps out 6 or 8 feet and then scoots back before bird number 3, the long flyer, is shot. The birdboy throws the flyer which is dropped in the appropriate area by the guns. Dog #1 creeps out 12 feet and then immediately scoots back to heel as the bird hits the ground. The judges wait about 3 seconds and then call "number one". The handler sends the dog, which zooms out and retrieves the flyer. Upon number one's return with the flyer, his handler lines him up for the long right hand bird, which number one retrieves with a short hunt. Then comes the key short bird. Number one's handler lines him up toward the short bird and sends him. Number one overruns and must be stopped on the whistle given couple of directional signals to find the bird. He will be heavily penalized for this.

Dogs 2 and 3 have to be handled on the short bird. Dog number 4 has a long hunt on bird number 2 and covers a lot of ground. He will be penalized for the big hunt, but not penalized to the degree that Dogs 2 and 3 are for handling. Dog number 5 does a great job on the marks. Dog number 5 also creeps out 8 or 10 feet as each bird is thrown. He scoots back each time without being told, so the judges do not count it as breaking.

The dogs are all run on this same test A basic principle for American field trials is that the test be the same for every dog. Therefore if a dog gets a bad throw, so that the bird falls out of the area of the other falls, then the judges will call a "no bird". That dog will be taken off the line and brought back later for a rerun of the test.

By 2:00 in the afternoon, all 70 dogs have been run on the land triple. About 50% have had to handle on the short dead bird. The judges huddle and look at there scoring and decide which dogs to call back. They drop most of the dogs that handled on the mark, and call back 40 dogs to run the next test which will be double land blind set up right where the triple was run.

A Double Land Blind 
A major element of field trial judging is the commonly accepted principle that the dog must be on the line to the bird as he performs blind retrieves. Regardless of how many hand signals he requires he will be scored higher, the closer his route is to the line leading directly to the bird. Dogs that get very far off of the line will be penalized heavily.

A perfect job on a blind retrieve is done by a dog that lines the blind. The next best is the dog that handles responsively and stays close to the line. You sometimes see a performance where the dog gets the blind in one hand signal, but the dog has gone very wide off the line. Similarly, when obstacles such as brush, logs etc are on the line to the blind, the dog that runs around them will be penalized.

Field trial judges engineer their blind retrieve tests with two further elements of design to make them more difficult. They are suction and hazards. Suction is provided by marks that have been retrieved and hazards are provided by terrain and cover. In the double blind above, the suction is provided by marks 1,2, and 3 of the previous test. The hazard is the large area of brush that the dog must run past. The suction is toward the brush, which is 3 to 4 feet tall. The dog is out of sight when he is in the brush, thus the handler can't see him, and the dog can't see the handler for directions.

A further field trial judging convention is that when a dog is running on a blind and goes out of sight he is judged to be out of control while out of sight and is greatly penalized.

Of our 40 remaining dogs 20 do well on this test. 18 are lost by diving into the brush and having a resultant very poor job of handling on the blind. Two dogs are sent left of the brush and pick up the blind with 3 clean handles. These two dogs are dropped for being too far off line and avoiding the hazard.

The blind retrieves in field trials require a tremendous amount of training in order to condition a dog to charge out on an unseen bird in a particular direction. The charging out part is fairly easy to train. The particular direction is the difficult part. To win field trials a dog must be trained to the level that he will take a line within about 3 to 5 degrees of the azimuth given by the handler. As a matter of fact it takes a good bit of handler training for the handler to be able to communicate to the dog a line of that degree of precision.

The dogs that do well on this test are dogs that are highly trained in directional lining, and the dogs which are low in tendency to hunt in heavy brush. Thus here is an example of the value field trial judges place on the trained behavior of lining. It is also an example of the negative value or penalty placed on the inherited trait of game finding initiative. Dogs with a tendency to hunt heavy cover will not do well on a field trial test designed like this double land blind.

In a hunting situation the typical hunter seldom knows the exact location where the bird fell. Additionally if it is a cripple bird, it will probably head for cover. That is when you need a dog with game finding ability and a tendency to hunt the cover.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Final Continuation

Triple Water Mark With Honor

Retriever field trial water tests are where a dog's training in lining is most severely tested and most highly valued. The judges like to set up tests with long angle entries to test the dogs' state of training on lining.

When a dog is faced with a long angle entry his natural tendency is to either run down the bank or to bail into the water early at an angle closer to 90 degrees. In general a

Retriever has a natural tendency to take the fastest route out and back on a retrieve. That means he will generally try to take the driest route. . It has nothing to do with how well he likes the water. He takes the dry route because he is in a hurry to make the retrieve and he inherently knows it is the fastest route.

Field trial judges have made a science out of this canine tendency to take the drier, faster route. Nearly every water test you see in a field trial will have a major bank running component, and any dogs that run the bank will be dropped. The bank running aspects nearly always outweigh the other performance aspects of the water tests.

Looking at bank running from the aspect of value to a hunting dog, one must say that bank running is valuable in a hunting dog. Bank running bears directly on how many ducks a dog can retrieve in cold water. Cold water is a heat sink, and soaks up a dogs body heat. The longer a dog spends in cold water, the lower his body temperature goes. Dogs are susceptible to hypothermia just like people do. When a dog gets cold enough he will die. The drier the route the dog takes on retrieves, the more retrieves he can make before becoming hypothermic. Thus bank running is an asset in a hunting dog.

Our triple water mark in today's trial is designed to arduously test a dogs natural tendency to take the drier route. We have three sets of guns stationed across a small lake. The suctions and hazards in this test are presented mainly by the shoreline.

First, the dogs are running from a point which is 20 yards back from the bank, presenting them with a long angle entry into the water for bird Number 1. The other two main hazards are created by the tendency of dogs to land early when swimming toward a shoreline. On bird number 3 they must swim quite distance parallel to a bank that is only 20 feet away and lined with tempting cattails. On bird number 1, they must swim into the bank at a very tempting angle of approach. There will be a strong tendency to get out early which will probably cause them to hunt for bird number 1 on the wrong side of the guns.

Twenty dogs have been called back to participate in this test. The first dog, number 5, comes to the line. The handler with body language, shows the dog the guns. Then he signals that he is ready. The judges signal for the birds which are thrown in numerical order. Dog number 5 does a good job of retrieving the 3 birds. As in the first marking test, number 5 scoots out 8 or 10 feet as each bird is thrown. Again he scoots back beside the handler without being told, so the judges don't count him as breaking.

Dog number 11 is the next to run. Dog 5 moves over 6 feet to the left and sits beside his handler to honor dog 11, who heels to the line with his handler. Number 11's handler shows him the white-coated throwers, and then signals that he is ready. The judges signal for the birds. After the birds are down, number 11 is sent to retrieve. Just after number 11 takes off, the judges allow number 5 to leave the line. He has been required to honor for approximately 15 seconds.

After 10 dogs have run it becomes apparent that this is a difficult test. The dogs begin having a lot of trouble finding bird number 1. The trouble appears to be that when the first 4 or 5 dogs ran, as they returned with bird number 1, left a lot of duck scent in the cattails to the right of the throwers.. That made a lot of dogs hunt the cattails and hunt behind the guns. A lot of dogs have to be handled to that mark. After our twenty dogs have run, the judges conference and make the selection of which dogs will run the last test. They announce the results and we find that there will be 12 dogs running the last test which will be a water blind.

Water Blind 
The judges move to a different lake to set up the last test which will be a water blind. The judges design this test using two frequently encountered tricks to try and further separate the performances of these last 12 dogs.

They set up this water blind incorporating another long water entry with a tight angle into the water. This blind also requires that the dogs go across a point and back into the water, followed by swimming past a second point. The judges have had a birdboy drag a few duck around on the second point to make it more tempting for the dogs to hunt. The idea is to entice the dogs with duck scent to land on the point as they swim by.

The 12 remaining dogs are run on the water blind. Three of them have to be handled into the water on the initial entry. This will count heavily against them. Two dogs are handled around the first point. The judges will count this as avoiding the test and will penalize them heavily. Four dogs fall for the duck scent and head into the cattails on the scented point. Three of them get out of control in the cattails and the judges instruct their handlers to call them in. Dog number 19 is successfully handled off of the point and to the blind.

Dogs that tend to respond to duck scent by diving into the cover to hunt for a duck are at a disadvantage here.

After the dogs finish, the judges go into conference to select the winner. They have recorded every dogs performance and will now pick the winner and the placing dogs.

They select dog number 5. He has pinpointed the marked retrieves and lined the blinds. They overlook his creeping and award him 1st place.

Thus you see an retriever field trial. Lining is heavily emphasized, and tested, and valued. Obedience is not tested much at all, and is not valued highly. No evaluation is made of ability to find crippled birds. Great value is placed on a dog spending the maximum time in the water. Field trials have greatly diverged from their original function of improving the retrieving breeds as hunting dogs.

Hunting Retriever Tests 
The hunting community has become aware that something is wrong with field trials. We've seen the rise of hunting retriever competitions in the last few years. Unfortunately

The diagnosis has been off the mark. The hunting retriever community has taken the white coats off of throwers and handlers, and made a better effort at simulating hunting, but they are not quite there yet. Hunting retriever competitions are evaluating the same behaviors as field trials, just to a lesser degree. They have a strong tendency to measure dogs by lining ability, and by ability to stay in the water.

Hunting retriever competitions are not adequately testing obedience and steadiness. They also do not adequately evaluate game finding abilities of the dogs.

To improve hunting retriever competitions as a breeding selection driver, we should look back to the origins of field trials. A back-to-the-basics look would be a look at British retriever field trials.


----------



## vanman (Sep 26, 2007)

holy crap,just got home from work and diesel is 4.29 gallon!Driving to all the diff. places we train is getting expensive,butI'll pay it to keep playing with the dogs.Ill stay on the cutting edge with the training methods and equipment to make them the best they can be,no matter what the cost because i have a deep passion for hunting, love of the dogs and the game(s) no matter which one it is that im playing(am i nuts?)


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Yep that is Milners opinion. What he fails to see is the out of control dogs typically fail. He also writes the story in such a way to predetermine the outcome to lend credibility to his story. A lot of fiction is based loosely on real events. Reminds me of a law and order episode


/Paul


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Hmm, that was a lot of "jibber-jabba" 

I don't know about you folks but, I prefer a little unruliness that is born from a fire in the belly desire to put a bird in my hand than working with a dog who is so pliable it takes constant encouragement and Bob Ross's "Happy Trees" thoughts to work up a froth....


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> I think his resume settled that. Made no FC's, just trained a few that became FC's, and last ran Q dogs in the early 80's, the boot, shoot and electrocute era. Judging I'm sure in his own venues. I wonder if they have an amateur clicker stake?


i don't fully agree with Mr. Milner, but would like to point out that there is another pro who is highly regarded by many on this forum with just about the same resume.

i don't think Milner's resume should be an issue in this discussion.

a competitive FT dog with a good bit of situation specific training for the pupose of hunting over them and a season's worth of hunting experience would most likely be a GREAT hunting dog. without that training and experience it would be likely to be a PITA on a waterfowl hunt.

great hunting dogs aren't born and neither are great FT dogs. training and experience makes them great.-Paul


----------



## Kenneth Niles Bora (Jul 1, 2004)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Great links to a book. You can't teach a dog from a book.
> 
> /Paul


 
NOT TRUE!
had a Chessie flossing with the empty bacon pac in the trash.
nailed him in the hind end with a copy of "Waterdog"
now he only goes after the sausage scraps


.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Ken Bora said:


> NOT TRUE!
> had a Chessie flossing with the empty bacon pac in the trash.
> nailed him in the hind end with a copy of "Waterdog"
> now he only goes after the sausage scraps
> ...


See? I knew it could be done!

Evan


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

paul young said:


> i don't fully agree with Mr. Milner, but would like to point out that there is another pro who is highly regarded by many on this forum with just about the same resume.
> 
> i don't think Milner's resume should be an issue in this discussion.


I agree, but at least his marketing is not based on disparaging the US venues. He has a following, especially by people training themselves. 

I do think his resume is relevant because it answers the questions how long ago he participated in field trials, how many he won, and if he judged all age stakes which is proponents were throwing out there. If he left FT training in 1982, he is out of the loop because collars have evolved a lot, more sensitive dogs are running now, and a team effort is emphasized and far more common than OOC dogs.


----------



## Byron Musick (Sep 19, 2008)

Ken Bora said:


> NOT TRUE!
> had a Chessie flossing with the empty bacon pac in the trash.
> nailed him in the hind end with a copy of "Waterdog"
> now he only goes after the sausage scraps
> ...



Well, if you had thrown a copy of Smartwork, the pup would leave the sausage alone too!


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

People can say what they want. They can have all the bias in the world.
Guys can make claims like "them dogs dont hunt"

But I bet in reality, those guys that have the average huntin dog, attend a Ft or get the chance to train with a FT capable dog, and I just bet in the back of their mind, they wished they could have a dog trained to that level.~~~~~ If theys was honest!

I have always Loved cars.

Most of my cars however have just been the type that gets me from point A to point B. Always dependable, Did the job!

I've always wanted a Testerosa! I've ACTUALLY had the chance to drive one!!
They is REALLY NICE!!
But Ya know, Ya dont really need one a them, ya cant never get it dirty, the upkeep will break ya, they get Horrible gas milage, Ya cant haul the family to the drive in and park in the Back row,, Ya,, those guys are just full a themselves. Theys over compensatin fer sumpin!!

There! I feel better.

93 Toyota regards::razz:

Gooser


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> People can say what they want. They can have all the bias in the world.
> Guys can make claims like "them dogs dont hunt"
> 
> But I bet in reality, those guys that have the average huntin dog, attend a Ft or get the chance to train with a FT capable dog, and I just bet in the back of their mind, they wished they could have a dog trained to that level.~~~~~ If theys was honest!
> ...


Let's say I race the quarter mile.

I could restore an old Camaro or buy a testerosa. Sure the old Camaro is not going to handle well at high speed, and the testerosa will win in the long run.

Does any of that matter if all I race is the quarter mile? I would be plenty happy with the Camaro. Sure it's not a Ferrari but I built it myself and heck It might even beat the Ferrari sometime in quarter.

But the guy with the Ferrari will never admit it. To him my car is just a Rat.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> But I bet in reality, those guys that have the average huntin dog, attend a Ft or get the chance to train with a FT capable dog, and I just bet in the back of their mind, they wished they could have a dog trained to that level.~~~~~ If theys was honest!
> 
> Gooser



Of course! Who wouldn't but going along with the "sports car" analogies, I could have a Corvette instead of a Camry but I would have to work two jobs and most of my time would be spent focused on keeping gas in the Corvette and washing and waxing and maintaining, buying expensive parts and upgrades etc etc. Instead I'll stick with the Camry it gets me where I need to go, doesn't cost that much doesn't take a lot to keep it up, doesn't require any special fuel or highly skilled mechanic and for the few times in a year that the Corvette would come in handy for winning a race or catching the eyes of some hotty, well I guess I'll just have to miss out.

Yep that just about sums it up for this "average" guy.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Byron Musick said:


> Well, if you had thrown a copy of Smartwork, the pup would leave the sausage alone too!


Good One!! Laughing and Laughing!!


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Pas Bon said:


> Of course! Who wouldn't but going along with the "sports car" analogies, I could have a Corvette instead of a Camry but I would have to work two jobs and most of my time would be spent focused on keeping gas in the Corvette and washing and waxing and maintaining, buying expensive parts and upgrades etc etc. Instead I'll stick with the Camry it gets me where I need to go, doesn't cost that much doesn't take a lot to keep it up, doesn't require any special fuel or highly skilled mechanic and for the few times in a year that the Corvette would come in handy for winning a race or catching the eyes of some hotty, well I guess I'll just have to miss out.
> 
> Yep that just about sums it up for this "average" guy.


One of the main problems with this analogy, is that you can get the Corvette for less than the price you would pay for a Stewart/Millner Camry.....

and you STILL have to learn to drive/maintain either one.....

Dogs are not born knowing how to do what the "average" guy wants, any more than cars roll off the line able to drive themselves through rush hour traffic. 

But don't let common sense derail this silly thing....


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

GulfCoast said:


> One of the main problems with this analogy, is that you can get the Corvette for less than the price you would pay for a Stewart/Millner Camry.....
> 
> and you STILL have to learn to drive/maintain either one.....
> 
> ...


No way would common sense get in the way! 

More so than the actual car I guess I'm mostly interested in the owners / instruction manual.;-)


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

GulfCoast said:


> One of the main problems with this analogy, is that you can get the Corvette for less than the price you would pay for a Stewart/Millner Camry.....
> 
> and you STILL have to learn to drive/maintain either one.....
> 
> ...


That is a bunch of Hogwash about the Camry. That seems to be your opinion but you are of a small group.
I don't know about Stewart but Milner is big on owners training dogs themselves to save money. Milner's pups aren't that expensive and his seminars get high reviews.
Milner is all about using common sense to train dogs. People try to over complicate dog training.
I think it is silly how irate people get on this forum over Milner!


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Gundogman said:


> That is a bunch of Hogwash about the Camry. That seems to be your opinion but you are of a small group.
> I don't know about Stewart but Milner is big on owners training dogs themselves to save money. Milner's pups aren't that expensive and his seminars get high reviews.
> Milner is all about using common sense to train dogs. People try to over complicate dog training.
> I think it is silly how irate people get on this forum over Milner!


Gundog,

GulfCoast is quite aware of both sides of the pond. No need in going there with him. 

I think he was referring to the price of the Camry as being higher than the Vet which it may be.....but I have spent a total of $100 in purchases for the two dogs to the left so I wouldn't know.


----------



## bjoiner (Feb 25, 2008)

Pas Bon said:


> Of course! Who wouldn't but going along with the "sports car" analogies, I could have a Corvette instead of a Camry but I would have to work two jobs and most of my time would be spent focused on keeping gas in the Corvette and washing and waxing and maintaining, buying expensive parts and upgrades etc etc. Instead I'll stick with the Camry it gets me where I need to go, doesn't cost that much doesn't take a lot to keep it up, doesn't require any special fuel or highly skilled mechanic and for the few times in a year that the Corvette would come in handy for winning a race or *catching the eyes of some hotty*, well I guess I'll just have to miss out.
> 
> Yep that just about sums it up for this "average" guy.


I don't care what you say, catching the eyes of some hotty is worth every penny.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

bjoiner said:


> I don't care what you say, catching the eyes of some hotty is worth every penny.



These days catching the eyes of some hotty usually just results in laughter.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

What a hoot! 

Wildrose: $1,250 to 1,500.00 for dogs from untitled parents (you pay more for a chocolate).
Millner: quoted me $1,200 for a puppy from one titled parent. He was selling "untitled" x "untitled" for $1k, unless the economy made him drop. 

If I wanted, I could get excellent litters from us FT bred/HT bred dogs for $800.00 all day, every day, from TITLED parents. I passed on an AFC x MH puppy for $700.00 last year. And you can find them with actual health clearances you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to find, if they exist. 

I own a HRCH MH british bitch, that I trained myself, qualified for the MN, that has picked up over 2K ducks in the blind. And has placements in the "UK style" trials, running under the vaunted Mr. Millner. Mine will soon be running in the Q. I have played both games, and trained both ways. 

I have no beef with "british dogs." I own a fairly nice one. Someone can say nice things about them all day, it won't bug me at all. Millner seems like a decent guy in person, having met him a few times. However, I have a huge problem with the trashing of really nice US bred dogs, since its a crock of crap. I have trained and hunted with those, too. 

And I have been duck hunting for 30 something years, so I have a pretty damn good idea what "Joe Duckhunter" wants and needs. 

Yeah, you can get the so called "corvette" cheaper than the so called "camry." And you still have to learn to drive either one. Unless you have a really big pocket to hold rocks.....


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Pas Bon said:


> Gundog,
> 
> I have spent a total of $100 in purchases for the two dogs to the left so I wouldn't know.


You should invest in stocks! ;-)


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

GulfCoast said:


> *I* could get excellent litters from us FT bred/HT bred dogs for $800.00 all day, every day, from TITLED parents. I passed on an AFC x MH puppy for $700.00 last year.


You play the game. 

Call the breeder and tell them you just want a good meat dog.

A dog that produces all MH is worth more money. Do breeders target competitors or hunters? 

Could that be why they sell more dogs to hunters? 

I remember seeing one breeder in Forbes Magazine. Someone is doing something right.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

*Gulfcoast said:*

*But don't let common sense derail this silly thing.... :wink:*


PARTY POOPER!!!

Most anything that comes out of Goosers mouth has nothin to do with common sense!!

Guess I'll just quit postin on this thread!

93 toyota PICK UP regards:
2 wheel drive also!
Rusted also!
bald tires also!
Kint get my dog to pass Senior itheres!

Gooser

I'd really like to own a Testerosa,, and Eds dog Holland!:razz:

Gooser suckin up!


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

MooseGooser said:


> *Gulfcoast said:*
> 
> *But don't let common sense derail this silly thing.... :wink:*
> 
> ...


Oh Yeah well my Honda will smoke your Toyota!


----------



## Gundogman (May 1, 2011)

GulfCoast said:


> What a hoot!
> 
> Wildrose: $1,250 to 1,500.00 for dogs from untitled parents (you pay more for a chocolate).
> Millner: quoted me $1,200 for a puppy from one titled parent. He was selling "untitled" x "untitled" for $1k, unless the economy made him drop.
> ...


Milner starts at $800 for well bred pups which is very reasonable. 
http://www.duckhillkennels.com/dogs/puppies.php
He only charges $400 for his puppy headstart program which is a two month program. It is a heck of a deal. http://www.duckhillkennels.com/dogs/headstart.php
*Colonel Milner is entitled to have an opinion or theory- he has earned it. *


----------



## Jason Glavich (Apr 10, 2008)

Everyone can have an opinion or theory he has earned no more of a right to have one than anyone else on this board or in America. Even you have can have your opinion of your hero. 

A theory is usually backed up by fact, or is someway provable or dissproven, I would say it is more of an observation or opinion in his case. Success is measured a lot of different ways.

Just like his example of field trials that Pas Bon posted, his example showed almost every dog creeping, is that always the case? Do his dogs come out of the box non creeping. Once again just his opinion or ideas. Heck some people still think the moon landing was faked and they can have that "theory" but if fact proves them wrong they should accept it.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

Yup he is entitled to his own opinion- but not his own facts.

Sure am sorry I got into this sorry mess regards

Bubba


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

MooseGooser said:


> People can say what they want. They can have all the bias in the world.
> Guys can make claims like "them dogs dont hunt"
> 
> But I bet in reality, those guys that have the average huntin dog, attend a Ft or get the chance to train with a FT capable dog, and I just bet in the back of their mind, they wished they could have a dog trained to that level.~~~~~ If theys was honest!
> ...


ya got it all wrong Gooser! the point was that in 1982 a Ferrari's performance is about equal to today's Mustang GT........

1991 Civic to work- F-350 7.3L to play.....


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

What we need here is some perspective. 

In this moment, I have a few choices. One is to go out in the garage and glue some Hydro Turf on the flat surfaces of my duck boat. They are all cut to fit.....but it is not above 65°. The Parabond M250 instructions clearly state this can be a big issue. Well, not exactly in those terms. The second is I need to run a set of singles with my dogs......sometime today......but it will be warmer this afternoon.

Another possibility might have been to plant Cannas tubers, but the ground is a bit too cold. I mowed part of the the lawn yesterday and noticed the aspargus patch is tall enough for a first cut. Apparantly, my present perspectives are greatly influenced by the weather. 

Sorry, what were we discussing? 

Oh, now I remember........perspective. First of all there is nothing wrong with being average. There will always be 50% in the average range. Therefore, there's always going to be a market for the average. Of course this market will be driven by vigorous attempts to define the parameters of average and the "pitfalls" of not being average. 

I don't consider myself as average, but I'm assuming 50% of the posters on this thread are average (according to the marketing mantra). Of course there is a statistical issue here that avoids the fact that 99% (or higher) of all the people "out there" have no clue of what RTF is. 

Anyway before I loose my somehat cryptic train of thought, if we eliminated 50% of the posts, this thread would be a lot shorter. Afterall, "them vs. us" threads are always longer. In fact, if we always agreed that could prove to be totally boring. The remaining, above average posters, would have no reason to continue. Of course that could be reversed, but RTF is not noted for having mostly threads perpetuated by....well, on second thought I won't go there....."seating on ducks", ropes and "nipple wrenches" come to mind. 

To finalize, the key to my perspective is to just accept the premise that there is an "average Joe duckhunter" that will buy into anything that supports that life style. It's OK and a normal, healthy part of society. 

In conclusion, if you're average.....good for you.

Now I will go out and throw some marks for my dogs. One is by an NFC stud, two are by an FC AFC stud and the fourth has her HRCH & MH titles. They are presently sleeping in the living room and I should mention that in three of the pedigrees there is a distant FTCH. 

If it is too easy.....it "ain't" fun regards, Jim


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

KwickLabs said:


> What we need here is some perspective.
> 
> If it is too easy.....it "ain't" fun regards, Jim


It's easier for me to send my dog after a few dead ducks than it is to walk 3 miles on a pheasant hunt.

Just saying, from my perspective.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

PackLeader said:


> Call the breeder and tell them you just want a good meat dog.


Exactly. This is what I don't get with his whole "overdogged" argument. Average Joe may in fact be overdogged, but it has nothing to do with HTs, FTs or American dogs. It has to do with Joe's ego.

In any litter the pups will vary. While a firebreather x firebreather litter may skew that way, not all will be firebreathers. If you are buying from a good breeder and are honest with them about what you want in your dog, you will usually get that. Don't tell the breeder that you eventually want to run opens if all it really is going to do is sleep in front of the TV most of the year and go duck hunting with you a few times a season. You can find a good dog for that and more from lots of breeders if you are honest about your intentions.

If you are on a big ego trip about all the FCs in you dogs pedigree and you can't train it, then it is entirely your fault if you get a dog you can't handle. The whole positioning of Milner's marketing seems to be to play to the ego of this target market--he charges more for dogs so that his customers can brag that they are somehow better than their buddies' American dogs when in fact they are not.


----------



## Byron Musick (Sep 19, 2008)

First you say;



KwickLabs said:


> on second thought I won't go there.....


Then you go there! 



KwickLabs said:


> "seating on ducks", ropes and "nipple wrenches" come to mind.


Wow, this is an amazing thread!


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

> Wow, this is an amazing thread!


Funny, I had just the opposite opinion.


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

DoubleHaul said:


> Exactly. This is what I don't get with his whole "overdogged" argument. Average Joe may in fact be overdogged, but it has nothing to do with HTs, FTs or American dogs. It has to do with Joe's ego.
> 
> In any litter the pups will vary. While a firebreather x firebreather litter may skew that way, not all will be firebreathers. If you are buying from a good breeder and are honest with them about what you want in your dog, you will usually get that. Don't tell the breeder that you eventually want to run opens if all it really is going to do is sleep in front of the TV most of the year and go duck hunting with you a few times a season. You can find a good dog for that and more from lots of breeders if you are honest about your intentions.
> 
> If you are on a big ego trip about all the FCs in you dogs pedigree and you can't train it, then it is entirely your fault if you get a dog you can't handle. The whole positioning of Milner's marketing seems to be to play to the ego of this target market--he charges more for dogs so that his customers can brag that they are somehow better than their buddies' American dogs when in fact they are not.


I think there are two types of hunters that buy labs. Those that want a good upland dog, and those that want a good water dog. Your typical upland hunter don't care about water dog titles in the least. They target those hunters.

That is how they sell so many untitled dogs.

I will take a fire breather from any side of the pond. They got it or they don't.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

PackLeader said:


> I think there are two types of hunters that buy labs. Those that want a good upland dog, and those that want a good water dog. Your typical upland hunter don't care about water dog titles in the least. They target those hunters.
> 
> That is how they sell so many untitled dogs.
> 
> I will take a fire breather from any side of the pond. They got it or they don't.


No disrespect but I don't think that has anything to do with how or why it's marketed the way it is nor do I believe your definition of 'two types of lab buyers' is remotely accurate. Many buy the Lab for the same reason I did - the versatility of both venues in many, but not all parts of the country.

If your theory were true - wouldn't it be Pheasant Hill Kennels?


----------



## PackLeader (Jan 12, 2009)

HNTFSH said:


> No disrespect but I don't think that has anything to do with how or why it's marketed the way it is nor do I believe your definition of 'two types of lab buyers' is remotely accurate. Many buy the Lab for the same reason I did - the versatility of both venues in many, but not all parts of the country.
> 
> If your theory were true - wouldn't it be Pheasant Hill Kennels?


I was referring more to wild rose. 

Text from their training material.

Advanced Gundog Training
Open to all breeds this course builds upon the principles presented in our basic training course, training developed specifically for the needs of the wingshooter: upland and waterfowl. Unique methods to get results the positive way: reading your dog, steadiness, building memory through TDMs and permanent blinds, quartering, how to gain and reestablish focus: resets and re-directs. Our concept develops superb relationships between hunters and gundogs resulting in a calm, effective retriever/flusher to be envied.

Most FT breeders don't advertise quatering/flushing in their advertising. 

They also talk about the drills needed to be competitive in FT and how it can take the hunt out of a dog. I agree with that, if you don't that's fine.

IMO you can't have total control on a 300 yard blind on Monday then on Tuesday have a free wheeling quatering machine.

I think anyone who says you can is trying to sell you something. Not the other way around.

A dog can definitely hunt ducks and pheasant well. But you need balance in your training. You don't put a flushing dog through a "Total Retriever Training" type of program. That's not balance that's one sided.

Fact is their is no quatering drills in the program. Try telling an upland guy that his dog doesn't need any training they hunt naturally and see what they say.

That's like saying a duck dog doesn't need any training they do it naturally.

To do both well you need Balence. There is a good reason why a WR dog wouldnt be competitive in american FT. They were never trying to meet that standard with their training.

That is a duck dog standard. 

Read their homepage "Multi-purpose retriever equally proficient on dove, duck, quail and pheasant".


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

I wonder how many Milner/Stewart bred dogs are in the Marines? It is a wonder to me that there are so very many of our FT dogs over there, what with them being so wild and hard to train because of the FT imperatives. The Times article must have been talking about some other dogs.
(I could not help myself:evilbat::evilbat::evilbat


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Always amazes me how Goggle has made some expert dog trainers. Really pathetic that those who think a dog under control on a blind can't quarter during a hunt. Just tells us that you don't have a clue.

Well I am off to google flying jet planes, I should be an expert within the next hour. Sorry for perpetuating this truly awesome crap fest.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Pals said:


> Always amazes me how Goggle has made some expert dog trainers. Really pathetic that those who think a dog under control on a blind can't quarter during a hunt. Just tells us that you don't have a clue.
> 
> Well I am off to google flying jet planes, I should be an expert within the next hour. Sorry for perpetuating this truly awesome crap fest.


I couldn't count the quartering dogs I know of who have been through the Lardy Basics program... 


And the idea that these drills take "take the hunt out of them" makes my head hurt. I wonder how much upland hunting the folks have done that were throwing up pictures of those "complex" quartering patterns earlier in this thread. Good Lord, when the dogs get experienced, you just cut them loose and they will take you to where the birds are.

I was equally amazed to see the Milner article state that blind work teaches the dogs to stay out of heavy cover. It's experience and GUTS & DESIRE for the bird that will take a dog into heavy cover when hunting.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

KwickLabs said:


> What we need here is some perspective.
> 
> .... there is nothing wrong with being average. There will always be 50% in the average range. Therefore, there's always going to be a market for the average. Of course this market will be driven by vigorous attempts to define the parameters of average and the "pitfalls" of not being average.


While I agree with the above, Jim failed to mention that probably 95 percent of "average" and 100 percent of "below average" view themselves as well above and beyond "average" and are more than willing to buy into marketing hype that owning a British dog that comes out of the womb trained will give them instant cachet and superiority over average. They have no problem shelling out big bucks for such a dog and don't know or care if they're buying hype rather than a history of proven performance in the pedigree.

Nor does Joe Average or Bubba Below Average understand that said purchase is in fact, actually going to require as much training as any other hunting dog, especially one of those hyper, out of control and/or robotic American field bred Lab. In fact they probably think owning a Brit dog will also make people overlook their bad grammar, white trash background, body odor and crotch-scratching, too. Absolutely genius marketing! Those of you bitching about the trashing of U.S.-bred field Labs over UK gentlemen's shooting dogs are just jealous. ;-)


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Buzz said:


> I couldn't count the quartering dogs I know of who have been through the Lardy Basics program...
> 
> 
> And the idea that these drills take "take the hunt out of them" makes my head hurt. I wonder how much upland hunting the folks have done that were throwing up pictures of those "complex" quartering patterns earlier in this thread. Good Lord, when the dogs get experienced, you just cut them loose and they will take you to where the birds are.
> ...


This is not only correct, its profoundly correct!


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

It really is amazing that a guy that is SO WRONG about dog training can be SO SUCCESSFUL by pulling the wool over so many peoples eyes. One would think that eventually someone would let the cat out of the bag and such a poorly crafted scheme would fall flat on it's face? I mean how can someone be so wrong on so many levels and still stay in business, I guess there are enough stupid people out there to keep buying into the BS. Soon enough there will be a flood of people coming out and telling their story about how they tried these methods and the end result was complete failure. I guess the pig is still passing through the python.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Well Pas, old buddy old pal, I did it the Millner/UK way. And then I went back and redid it the Lardy way. And there IS a reason for that. And it was NOT hunt tests and field trials looming on the horizon.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

GulfCoast said:


> Well Pas, old buddy old pal, I did it the Millner/UK way. And then I went back and redid it the Lardy way. And there IS a reason for that. And it was NOT hunt tests and field trials looming on the horizon.


Well of course I was being a bit sarcastic and I am curious of the pitfalls you encountered.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Pas Bon said:


> It really is amazing that a guy that is SO WRONG about dog training can be SO SUCCESSFUL by pulling the wool over so many peoples eyes. One would think that eventually someone would let the cat out of the bag and such a poorly crafted scheme would fall flat on it's face? I mean how can someone be so wrong on so many levels and still stay in business, I guess there are enough stupid people out there to keep buying into the BS. Soon enough there will be a flood of people coming out and telling their story about how they tried these methods and the end result was complete failure. I guess the pig is still passing through the python.


I wonder how many orange bumpers are sold each year because the new trainer feels his young pup will see it better.


----------



## HNTFSH (Feb 7, 2009)

Buzz said:


> I couldn't count the quartering dogs I know of who have been through the Lardy Basics program...


It is disturbing to learn that one cannot have a good upland dog and also run proficient blinds and complete complex tasks.


----------



## Warren Flynt (Nov 14, 2007)

Pas Bon said:


> It really is amazing that a guy that is SO WRONG about dog training can be SO SUCCESSFUL by pulling the wool over so many peoples eyes. One would think that eventually someone would let the cat out of the bag and such a poorly crafted scheme would fall flat on it's face? I mean how can someone be so wrong on so many levels and still stay in business, I guess there are enough stupid people out there to keep buying into the BS. Soon enough there will be a flood of people coming out and telling their story about how they tried these methods and the end result was complete failure. I guess the pig is still passing through the python.


There are inefficiencies in all markets. some more than others. In theory, he would be sorted out with the rest of the glossy ads and waxed canvas dummy tote bags as a mere marketing genius, and all the money and attention would be pointed elsewhere. But that theory suggests all people are rational, and, well, we know thats not true- now don't we.

People buy - and buy into- what makes them _feel_ good. I know this mainly because I work in an industry where logic and emotion often create interesting relationships.

When I buy something, whether its for a client or myself, one of my research points is if and how that 'group' advertises. Most of the 'groups' we use don't advertise- they don't need to print glossy ads, nor do they speak negatively of contra-firms, comparing their styles to others and trying to redefine entire paradigms; after all, why would they want to give away the knowledge to what they *know* is correct, and tip off the competition? A great example of success in the dog training world is Ronnie Lee. If you're from the South, you know he is a very successful HT trainer. He doesnt, however, have a website or write articles 'bad mouthing' others techniques. He doesn't have to. He has a phone, and people call him because others _know_ he is successful.

We're all buying into something, whether we think are or arent. I'll let him write his articles, while I train and treat my dogs just as humanely and intelligently as Mr. Milner himself.


----------



## Pas Bon (Nov 11, 2009)

Warren Flynt said:


> why would they want to give away the knowledge to what they *know* is correct, and tip off the competition?


Well both Mr. Milner and Evan Graham give away lots of free info. Why? Nice guys that believe in what they do and wish to promote their styles or product. 




Warren Flynt said:


> I'll let him write his articles,


I'm sure he appreciates you letting him write his articles.


----------



## Warren Flynt (Nov 14, 2007)

Pas Bon said:


> Well both Mr. Milner and Evan Graham give away lots of free info. Why? Nice guys that believe in what they do and wish to promote their styles or product.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


fair enough. In the end, its all about the dogs and the folks. I try (in my tight schedule) to promote all the dog games. Would have been to a british event this Spring with my hot little AFC x GRHRCH UH female, but time didn't allow. Looked like alot of fun. It would be cool if Mr. Milner did try to understand the 'American way', instead of drawing conclusions.
Regardless, its all about dogs and folks.


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

Pas Bon said:


> It really is amazing that a guy that is SO WRONG about dog training can be SO SUCCESSFUL by pulling the wool over so many peoples eyes. One would think that eventually someone would let the cat out of the bag and such a poorly crafted scheme would fall flat on it's face? I mean how can someone be so wrong on so many levels and still stay in business, I guess there are enough stupid people out there to keep buying into the BS. Soon enough there will be a flood of people coming out and telling their story about how they tried these methods and the end result was complete failure. I guess the pig is still passing through the python.


Cause noone wants to admit they bought a dog that is simply a pet.

Busted bubble regards,


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

Buzz said:


> I couldn't count the quartering dogs I know of who have been through the Lardy Basics program...
> 
> And the idea that these drills take "take the hunt out of them" makes my head hurt. I wonder how much upland hunting the folks have done that were throwing up pictures of those "complex" quartering patterns earlier in this thread. Good Lord, when the dogs get experienced, you just cut them loose and they will take you to where the birds are.


 Well since I posted the “Using the Wind” article that you found too “complex”, I guess you’re questioning my upland hunting experience. The answer is that I’ve hunted my whole life over everything from mixed bred “meat dogs” to field champions from horseback trials, NSTRA events and AKC Springer & Cocker trials but until I began training for and gunning Springer field trials, I didn’t really appreciate the advantage of a dog that uses the wind intelligently either. 

By “intelligent”, I’m talking about a dog that runs so his nose is consistently perpendicular to the wind direction who knows from experience just how much ground he can take w/ each cast so he doesn’t miss a bird. A well trained flushing dog can cover the same amount of ground w/a fraction of the effort required of a dog that runs a random pattern. The more ground you cover, the better your chances of finding wild birds.

Because I split my time between spaniel trainers and a retriever group I can tell you that many spaniel trainers don’t really do much in the way of formal retriever drills. They generally think that shooting birds over their dogs is sufficient retriever training-a perspective that most on this list would find absurd. On the other hand, I find that most retriever owners don’t appreciate what separates a top quality upland performer from a dog that simply ambles around in gun range, hopefully bumping a bird or two. 

As to the question of how “control” impacts “hunt”, I believe that most spaniel trainers and virtually all pointing dog trainers think it does. My own experience is that I’ve produced some stylish and effective upland retrievers that could pass MH/Finished tests and a couple of Springers that could do something above seasoned retriever work while still being competitive in field trials. I’ve also shot over a dog owned by George Kieller of Houston that earned his FC/AFC in Springer field trials as well as an HRCH retriever title. It really depends on what your standards are for both retriever work and upland work. My personal standards are for retriever work that approaches the MH/Finished hunt test level & upland work of the quality of a field trial spaniel.

If all you want is to “cut em loose” & let nature take it’s course, you’ve at least got to admit the irony of that position in a 30+ page thread committed to bashing the concept that someone could be “overdogged”.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Mr. Milner,

I bet you are getting more exposure from this thread than you got from the article!

Chris


----------

