# Training Retrievers The Wild Rose Way



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

Has anyone read and / or used this book for training? Is it worth the money ?


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

There are many methods in dog training that some will accept, but given the amount of success, there are those who will train that will give them that success. The odds are in their favor for their goals.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Do a search on the Wildrose Way; you'll find this subject has been discussed so often, many people think you're a troll for bringing it up again. Any method can be used to successfully train a dog if you are diligent, work the dog daily and seek experienced, hands-on hands on help when you have problems not covered in the book or DVD.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

If you are looking for something in the $30 range, I much prefer Mike Lardy's Retriever Journal Articles. Volume 1 will get you through basics as I recall. 
I have not read the Wildrose Way book, but I have viewed/used the DVD- not on any of the dogs in my signature line though.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

Captain, I notice you have the QA2 designation behind some of your dogs. Where did you find that application? I have been looking high and low on the AKC site and don't find it there.

JS


----------



## Gordy Weigel (Feb 12, 2003)

10 Minute Retriever has helped a lot of people train a working retrievers. Duck Dog Basics and DDB 2 will also get you great exposure to retriever training. These books are in the $20 - $30 range.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

JS said:


> Captain, I notice you have the QA2 designation behind some of your dogs. Where did you find that application? I have been looking high and low on the AKC site and don't find it there.
> 
> JS


See if this helps

http://www.akc.org/events/field_trials/retrievers/


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

gdgnyc said:


> See if this helps
> 
> http://www.akc.org/events/field_trials/retrievers/


Found it. Thanks.

I have been checking under "downloadable forms" where they had said it would be posted. Haven't looked for a month or so. Surprised AKC would take so long to get it up. You know, $20 application fees and all. 

JS


----------



## Lab&cockerguy (Sep 12, 2014)

quackaholic said:


> Has anyone read and / or used this book for training? Is it worth the money ?


It is a very good reference book that contains sections on dog psychology and handler-dog relationship that I found invaluable. He includes a lot of drills I've not seen elsewhere as well. I ultimately used a pro that embraces the ecollar, which wildrose is strongly averse to. However, my sense is that if you have the patience to apply the WR methodology, you can be successful.


----------



## HarryWilliams (Jan 17, 2005)

quackaholic said:


> Has anyone read and / or used this book for training? Is it worth the money ?


Water Dog is still in print. It far outnumbers the success!!! HPW


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

I've got this book, and found it a reasonable read. It goes through a nice steady progression and has some good exercises and drills in it. It's more of a coffee table book than a training manual. But I find you take different things from different trainers....


----------



## Pam Spears (Feb 25, 2010)

I haven't read it, but I'm finding out that there are lots of ways to get a dog trained. If you are interested in a casual "gentleman's" hunting dog, that might be the way to go: but, most of the competitive retrievers in the country are not trained that way. It is, in my opinion, always good to be well informed, to do research into alternative methods, and to investigate other ways of doing things. No one's saying you can't produce a retriever "the Wild Rose way," but you'll be bucking the odds. If you have any interest in competitive retrieving, I'd only consider it an alternative way of doing things.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

My intel is the Canadian edition is called Training Non-Retrievers the Multiflora Rose Way, and at least one intrepid numb-rude, er, nimrod up there plans to deploy it for training sled dogs and springer spaniels. I'll need corroboration on that, however, from at least two, maybe three of rtf's more distinguished Northern members...

MG


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

So it seems the consensus is that without force fetch and e collars, a competitive dog can not be trained. That breeding has nothing to do with success. I am not bashing methods of e collar or force fetch. But my pup seems fairly intelligent and delivers to hand without force ever having been applied. I think force may be a bit much for her. She has done very well with positive reinforcement. Just was looking into maybe alternative methods.


----------



## krakadawn (Jan 8, 2006)

'numb-rude'? Boy you're really accurate with that description MG, soon as I get an update on his progress I'll share it.......Wildrose and sled dogs......hmmmmm.....maybe got something there!

Quack.....delivering to hand with no 'pressure' is not the issue here. I suggest you goggle some of the sequential formats currently accepted by those who train their dogs. Perhaps with a little reading you'll see a bigger picture about the connection with this pressure and subsequent training and .....really.....why it's of value.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

quackaholic said:


> So it seems the consensus is that without force fetch and e collars, a competitive dog can not be trained. That breeding has nothing to do with success. I am not bashing methods of e collar or force fetch. But my pup seems fairly intelligent and delivers to hand without force ever having been applied. I think force may be a bit much for her. She has done very well with positive reinforcement. Just was looking into maybe alternative methods.


If you look at the "Are chocolates slow learners?" thread, I think you'll see that the consensus is that breeding absolutely has plenty to do with success. 

"Competitive" means lots of different things to lots of different folks. Titled status in the All Age game takes lots of resources - even with the best trained and best bred. Most folks serious about that end goal will choose a path that includes the use of an e-collar program in today's world. (maybe all)

There's no one right way or wrong way to train. If you choose to not follow methods that use an e-collar and other associated techniques, you may still achieve 100% of your goals. 

Good luck and have fun. Chris


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

quackaholic said:


> So it seems the consensus is that without force fetch and e collars, a competitive dog can not be trained. That breeding has nothing to do with success. I am not bashing methods of e collar or force fetch. But my pup seems fairly intelligent and delivers to hand without force ever having been applied. I think force may be a bit much for her. She has done very well with positive reinforcement. Just was looking into maybe alternative methods.


Dennis Voigt wrote a nice article in this quarters edition of Retrievers Online about sources of retriever training information, including DVDs, books, and internet forums. I'll make a shambles of this I'm sure, but he said something along the lines of a training DVD or book should produce success for the author as well as multiple examples of success from people who follow the book or DVD.

So, the author has been successful in marketing the DVDs, books, and even dogs. The question is, are there multiple examples of people having success training the Wildrose Way?

The answer in regards to successfully competing in field trials has been no. Not sure about hunt tests, but I'm not aware if any personally. BTW, I'd measure success in hunt tests by pass rate not just by title. There is an obvious difference between a dog passing 6 of 6 Master tests vs a dog passing 6 of 30.

Not saying there aren't people having success training the Wildrose Way, just suggesting that you may want to confirm that there are multiple examples of success before committing to a training program or philosophy.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

quackaholic said:


> *So it seems the consensus is that without force fetch and e collars, a competitive dog can not be trained.* That breeding has nothing to do with success. I am not bashing methods of e collar or force fetch. But my pup seems fairly intelligent and delivers to hand without force ever having been applied. I think force may be a bit much for her. She has done very well with positive reinforcement. Just was looking into maybe alternative methods.


I don't believe that is the consensus at all. The consensus is ... and accurately so, I believe ... that if your goals and standards are modest enough, you can train a dog with a rolled up newspaper.

You CAN train a gundog any way you want and probably get most of the birds you shoot. But if you want the dog to be the best HE can be, you will do better with a more systematic, thorough, and better thought out plan.

AND, any dog that can be trained to even a gundog level using the WR way, would probably reach that level quicker and more reliably using a more accepted (Carr based) method.

JS

And sensitive dogs are successfully trained every day using FF, e-collars and "forcing" methods and turn out to be happy, tail-wagging workers. It need not be brutal.


----------



## DSemple (Feb 16, 2008)

quackaholic said:


> So it seems the consensus is that without force fetch and e collars, a competitive dog can not be trained. That breeding has nothing to do with success. I am not bashing methods of e collar or force fetch. But my pup seems fairly intelligent and delivers to hand without force ever having been applied. I think force may be a bit much for her. She has done very well with positive reinforcement. Just was looking into maybe alternative methods.


Quack, this applies to all of us 

There are things that we all know we know
Then there are things that we all know that we don't know
Then there are things that we all think we know, but that we really don't know

And, then there are things that we all don't even know, that we don't know 


Your dog, train her however you like regards 

Don


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

captainjack said:


> Not saying there aren't people having success training the Wildrose Way, just suggesting that you may want to confirm that there are multiple examples of success before committing to a training program or philosophy.


Or before committing yourself to a cult or committing your coin to - as kennel maiden so spellbindingly summed it up - a coffee table book.

Wait a minute, "coffee table book"...Hmm, that might give Ol' Stewie yet another of his syrupy (but "$ucce$$ful") marketing soliloquies - better retract that last bit.

MG


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

quackaholic said:


> So it seems the consensus is that without force fetch and e collars, a competitive dog can not be trained. That breeding has nothing to do with success. I am not bashing methods of e collar or force fetch. But my pup seems fairly intelligent and delivers to hand without force ever having been applied. I think force may be a bit much for her. She has done very well with positive reinforcement. Just was looking into maybe alternative methods.


.
Possibly you have yet to experience the joy of discovery as to what a "competitive" retriever actually is nor exposed to the training required to be truly successful in retriever competition in the U.S. 
As you're in Easter TN you might begin the path to enlightenment by attending the spring Field Trials held near you in May. The NE Tennessee Club event is held 4 miles from Bristol Motor Speedway and the Chattanooga club runs on grounds near Birchwood, TN. If you wish to start your journey Now see if you can get an invite from a nearby training group to attend a few serious training days etc ....


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

I have pretty soft but biddable labs, but I FF because at some point, they will need to learn to deal w/ pressure... because I know they will blow me off! I've watched/worked w/ folks who could have benefited w/ FF in competition obedience too- even though a forced retrieve isn't probably necessary for many dogs (in the obed ring), but when you see those dogs run or leap out of the ring because they are stressed, it really sinks in. I want my dogs to learn at a young age to work thru a certain amount of pressure because my nerves will always run right down to my dogs. I have a 9 mo old here who is a doll, had a wonderful Hold, etc already at 4mos, but she's still going to be FFd when the time is right for her (soon, since she's thinking of being a smarty pants every so often!). I've yet to ruin a dog by doing FF properly. The key is to use the appropriate amount of pressure for the dog.


----------



## 480/277 (Jun 5, 2014)

1st decide where you want to go with the dog and what level is acceptable to you.
Then get advise from those who have achieved it , and better if they achieved it often.
And when you find that method strikes a cord with your ideals/abilities, stick with it....


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

quackaholic said:


> So it seems the consensus is that without force fetch and e collars, a competitive dog can not be trained. That breeding has nothing to do with success. I am not bashing methods of e collar or force fetch. But my pup seems fairly intelligent and delivers to hand without force ever having been applied. I think force may be a bit much for her. She has done very well with positive reinforcement. Just was looking into maybe alternative methods.


Absolutely a dog can be trained, and to the highest levels, without FF and e-collars! And there are plenty of us that have made up Field Trial Champions without the aforementioned. In the UK, those 'tools' just aren't used at all for competitive training.

What is interesting, and only an observation "looking in" as an outsider, is that in the US (and Canada?) everyone is very focussed/obsessed with being on some sort of 'programme'. ie. The Lardy program, Hillman, Smartworks or whatever. And your training is very much more structured overall. Whereas in the UK, our approach is more organic and eclectic!! 

For a newbie I think these programs offer a real sense of structure and comfort, and probably sticking to one 'method' will mean less confusion in your own head. It can be so difficult visiting various different trainers and they all tell you their way of doing things, and they are always all right!!.... but as you gain more confidence in your own abilities and learn more, then you realise there is more than one way to skin a cat, and you can start to 'pick & mix' a bit to suit the dog in front of you, rather than maintaining a rigorous regime or programme that doesn't necessarily fit your individual dog.


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

Breck said:


> .
> Possibly you have yet to experience the joy of discovery as to what a "competitive" retriever actually is nor exposed to the training required to be truly successful in retriever competition in the U.S.
> As you're in Easter TN you might begin the path to enlightenment by attending the spring Field Trials held near you in May. The NE Tennessee Club event is held 4 miles from Bristol Motor Speedway and the Chattanooga club runs on grounds near Birchwood, TN. If you wish to start your journey Now see if you can get an invite from a nearby training group to attend a few serious training days etc ....


Actually I have asked to be a part of one of the next training days in Bristol at Chad Bakers. Mark Chase is supposed to let me know. And you are absolutely correct as I have never fielded a dog in competition. I was just inquiring whether or not this training method would be useful in a softer dog. As I said earlier I am not opposed to conditioned retrieve. But in her case I am wondering if nature isn't better than nurture.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

JS said:


> I don't believe that is the consensus at all. The consensus is ... and accurately so, I believe ... that if your goals and standards are modest enough, you can train a dog with a rolled up newspaper.
> 
> You CAN train a gundog any way you want and probably get most of the birds you shoot. But if you want the dog to be the best HE can be, you will do better with a more systematic, thorough, and better thought out plan.
> 
> ...


This. Great Post.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

quackaholic said:


> Actually I have asked to be a part of one of the next training days in Bristol at Chad Bakers. Mark Chase is supposed to let me know. And you are absolutely correct as I have never fielded a dog in competition. *I was just inquiring whether or not this training method would be useful in a softer dog.* As I said earlier I am not opposed to conditioned retrieve. But in her case I am wondering if nature isn't better than nurture.


Couldn't figure out how to copy this from an old thread...

Originally posted in RTF by JusticeDog

"Mike Lardy, Andy Attar, .

Mike and Andy made their name on having fast, stylish bitches on their truck at a time when no one else in the country did... and being able to train a sensitive more intelligent dog... at a time when everyone else was talking "bottom".

then mike come out with that whole TRT collar training gig.... and let others learn his technique... often emulated, never quite duplicated.... although the others named are talented in their own right."

It is possible to train a sensitive, stylish dog using the ecollar and a force based system. It's possible also to crush a sensitive dog without the use of an ecollar. 

It's not the tool but the application that matters.


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

Now I am up to 3 pages. Wow. Probably my longest ever running thread. Thanks for all the information. It will be used wisely.


----------



## Desiree (Dec 27, 2009)

First question is what are your goals for this dog? Field trial, hunt test, hunting dog. What is the breeding/breed behind the dog? Show lines, field trial, pet shop, mix-breed. When you answer these questions you will have a better idea of what your dog may be capable of and which training method to use. 

A soft/sensitive dog may be better off with intelligent use of e-collar and FF. I have SPoodles and they are soft/sensitive dogs. I don't follow a program or use e-collars. I train for hunting, I'm not really interested in hunt tests as I'm too busy (business owner). My male non e-collar w/FF would have handled better if I had used a e-collar because he was sensitive to pressure from me and tended to blow me off at a distance. When I tried handling him into the water from land, a la Carr (e-collar conditioned) he did fantastic. He clearly understood and took off with drive and hit the water hard for the first time in his life at 3 yrs of age. 

His daughter was trained using Wildrose and Tom Quinn's Working Retriever book, no e-collar. She retrieved brilliantly until she turned 4 yrs. old and decided that running birds were more fun to play with before she retrieved them. Ten days of FF cleared that up. She also gave me her first water refusal about the same and a little stick pressure fix that. She's now 6 yrs old still a soft/sensitive dog and retrieves runners and handles land and water with no problems. So for me, the e-collar is a just another tool in my tool kit along with FF for my soft/sensitive dogs.

I have the Wildrose book and dvd's you can get a solid, calm, steady, quiet gun dog and a junior title. But you will miss important drills/concepts if you want to go further in hunt tests. Trying to fix the problems later will be very difficult a may be next to impossible if you wish to succeed at higher level hunt tests. For instance, angle backs, decheating and angle entries/exits are not covered in the Wildrose book but are needed for higher level test/trial work. Train with the end in mind! Good Luck!


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

Here is my females background






Dad is American field trial background mom is British styles


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

Don't know how my males got put on there too. Lol


----------



## Mountain Duck (Mar 7, 2010)

quackaholic, we'd love to have you come out and train with us! Mark is a good guy. I'll try to remember to shoot you a PM when we are getting together as well. Real interested to see your pup. I've seen Brady run Ty in trials and training. He is a nice dog!

Eric Rutherford


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

Thanks. I am looking forward to it.


----------



## SJLGundogs (Apr 4, 2014)

kennel maiden said:


> Absolutely a dog can be trained, and to the highest levels, without FF and e-collars! And there are plenty of us that have made up Field Trial Champions without the aforementioned. In the UK, those 'tools' just aren't used at all for competitive training.
> 
> What is interesting, and only an observation "looking in" as an outsider, is that in the US (and Canada?) everyone is very focussed/obsessed with being on some sort of 'programme'. ie. The Lardy program, Hillman, Smartworks or whatever. And your training is very much more structured overall. Whereas in the UK, our approach is more organic and eclectic!!
> 
> For a newbie I think these programs offer a real sense of structure and comfort, and probably sticking to one 'method' will mean less confusion in your own head. It can be so difficult visiting various different trainers and they all tell you their way of doing things, and they are always all right!!.... but as you gain more confidence in your own abilities and learn more, then you realise there is more than one way to skin a cat, and you can start to 'pick & mix' a bit to suit the dog in front of you, rather than maintaining a rigorous regime or programme that doesn't necessarily fit your individual dog.




Regarding FF and e collars, I do not think you can underestimate the influence that FT's in the US have had on training methods. The FT set ups now are so difficult and demanding that they require a dog that can handle a significant amount of pressure. FF is one of the first steps in that process. (And as the pros have migrated from FTs to HT's the training methods have followed as well in the past 20 years.)

I would be surprised if there were any recent FC or AFC's in the US that did not complete a FF program.

By contrast, it is the exception to the rule to see a FT champion outside of the US/Canada that has completed FF training. They only use FF if a dog has developed delivery issues that cannot be addressed by other training methods. Their FT competitions are actual walk up or driven shoots typically with live birds in real hunting situations.

So is FF necessary if your dog does nothave any delivery problems? For FT's in the US, absolutely. For the average hunter, probably not. For competing in FT in other countries, no.

I try to incorporate the best methods of training regardless of where they come from, be it other trainers in the US, other countries, other disciplines (sheepdog, protection or horses even). Ultimately, keeping an open mind makes me a better trainer and that makes my dogs better as well.


----------



## SJLGundogs (Apr 4, 2014)

quackaholic said:


> So it seems the consensus is that without force fetch and e collars, a competitive dog can not be trained. That breeding has nothing to do with success. I am not bashing methods of e collar or force fetch. But my pup seems fairly intelligent and delivers to hand without force ever having been applied. I think force may be a bit much for her. She has done very well with positive reinforcement. Just was looking into maybe alternative methods.


There are a lot more e-collars sold every year than there are people qualified to use them. A lot more.


----------



## Bubba (Jan 3, 2003)

SJLGundogs said:


> There are a lot more e-collars sold every year than there are people qualified to use them. A lot more.


So in the space provided please list your credentials and data that you used to justify such a statement <-->

Experts are like - well whatever regards

Bubba


----------



## SJLGundogs (Apr 4, 2014)

Bubba said:


> So in the space provided please list your credentials and data that you used to justify such a statement <-->
> 
> Experts are like - well whatever regards
> 
> Bubba


Since you asked so nicely, I'm a pro trainer (sponsored by an e collar company) now manager of a private plantation, I have 4 other pro trainers reporting to me. All of us are trained on how to use an e collar. As I'm sure you would agree, it's not as simple as charging the batteries and watching a DVD.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

SJLGundogs said:


> There are a lot more e-collars sold every year than there are people qualified to use them. A lot more.


That's probably a true statement.

The same can be said for automobiles. So what's your point?

I don't know of any training materials or anyone on this forum who has ever advised someone to just strap on the collar and start zapping. In fact, just the opposite is a common caveat here.

JS


----------



## MissSkeeter (May 17, 2013)

kennel maiden said:


> Absolutely a dog can be trained, and to the highest levels, without FF and e-collars! And there are plenty of us that have made up Field Trial Champions without the aforementioned. In the UK, those 'tools' just aren't used at all for competitive training.
> 
> What is interesting, and only an observation "looking in" as an outsider, is that in the US (and Canada?) everyone is very focussed/obsessed with being on some sort of 'programme'. ie. The Lardy program, Hillman, Smartworks or whatever. And your training is very much more structured overall. Whereas in the UK, our approach is more organic and eclectic!!
> 
> For a newbie I think these programs offer a real sense of structure and comfort, and probably sticking to one 'method' will mean less confusion in your own head. It can be so difficult visiting various different trainers and they all tell you their way of doing things, and they are always all right!!.... but as you gain more confidence in your own abilities and learn more, then you realise there is more than one way to skin a cat, and *you can start to 'pick & mix' a bit to suit the dog in front of you*, rather than maintaining a rigorous regime or programme that doesn't necessarily fit your individual dog.


"pick & mix" could be risky and confusing to the retriever especially in ecollar based training. For example, the old Dobbs school used a low-level burn and let the retriever compare the correct route (no burn) with an incorrect route (low burn). Contrast that with the indirect pressure school (sit-nick-sit, cast to correct route). Mixing both would be confusing to the retriever.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

SJLGundogs said:


> Since you asked so nicely, I'm a pro trainer (sponsored by an e collar company) now manager of a private plantation, I have 4 other pro trainers reporting to me. All of us are trained on how to use an e collar. As I'm sure you would agree, it's not as simple as charging the batteries and watching a DVD.


Credentials require a name and accomplishments.

Do you really think that FF is all about the e collar? I don't. But I am not a pro at a plantation with underling dog trainers. Whew.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

kennel maiden said:


> Absolutely a dog can be trained, and to the highest levels, without FF and e-collars! And there are plenty of us that have made up Field Trial Champions without the aforementioned. In the UK, those 'tools' just aren't used at all for competitive training.
> 
> What is interesting, and only an observation "looking in" as an outsider, is that in the US (and Canada?) everyone is very focussed/obsessed with being on some sort of 'programme'. ie. The Lardy program, Hillman, Smartworks or whatever. And your training is very much more structured overall. Whereas in the UK, our approach is more organic and eclectic!!
> 
> For a newbie I think these programs offer a real sense of structure and comfort, and probably sticking to one 'method' will mean less confusion in your own head. It can be so difficult visiting various different trainers and they all tell you their way of doing things, and they are always all right!!.... but as you gain more confidence in your own abilities and learn more, then you realise there is more than one way to skin a cat, and you can start to 'pick & mix' a bit to suit the dog in front of you, rather than maintaining a rigorous regime or programme that doesn't necessarily fit your individual dog.


The thing is, here in the states, there have been no Field Champions or Amateur Field Champions made in many years that have been trained without FF and the ecollar. And the methods employed before the ecollar such as cattle prods, rat shot, bird shot, etc. Were far worse than the modern ecollar training. 

As for our obsession with the program, the bottom line here is that there have been numerous field champions and amateur field champions made by following these programs. It is a common misconception though, that all of these programs are rigorous regimes. If you watch Lardy's short video clip and reading the training principles at the link at the top of this page, you'll see that is certainly not the case for TRT.


----------



## TexGold (Jan 27, 2009)

Quack- you certainly generated a long discussion. I think you're in the same place as I when I began training my first field dog. My experience had been in obedience. It just seemed counterintuitive to zap a dog or pinch his ear when he's doing the task asked. So, I kind of glossed over some of those steps. I wish I had not.

We have had some success, but I don't think this dog will ever reach his full potential because of these "holes" in his training. And 8 years now, it may be too late. 

So, my unsolicited advice may echo some of the others. Choose your game. If it is FT or high level HT, you gotta go with the collar. But if done correctly, your dog will be fine.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

captainjack said:


> The thing is, here in the states, there have been no Field Champions or Amateur Field Champions made in many years that have been trained without FF and the ecollar. And the methods employed before the ecollar such as cattle prods, rat shot, bird shot, etc. Were far worse than the modern ecollar training.
> 
> As for our obsession with the program, the bottom line here is that there have been numerous field champions and amateur field champions made by following these programs. It is a *common misconception though, that all of these programs are rigorous regimes*. If you watch Lardy's short video clip and reading the training principles at the link at the top of this page, you'll see that is certainly not the case for TRT.


I wasn't implying they were 'rigorous regimes', merely observing that 'your' training is - necessarily - much more structured, and people in the USA tend to 'go on a programme', whereas we don't here. Yes, your FTs are much more 'extreme' and demand more technically of a dog than our FTs, although some of our Working Tests are on a par (other than the water work).

The fact that dogs 'need' ecollar (or cattle prods etc) to make FT CH to me means the breeding is wrong!!!!  LOL - I know that will open up a whole can of worms!!  on the whole, I think our dogs are much more biddable, wanting to work with their handlers and please, rather than working in spite of them... They have strong natural hunting instinct which we have selectively cultivated too, whereas you are looking for more drivey dogs that can be 'robot controlled' for your FT.

Have a look at this video, bit poor quality, but taken at this years IGL Retriever Championship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylZGrTy_KCk&feature=youtu.be
It is hard to see as you only catch the dog when it is already 3/4s of the way up the line, but this is a blind retrieve some 250-300 yrds from over a ditch the entire length of the line. This dog is not FF or collar trained, so we still manage to maintain precision handling and drive using different methods.


----------



## labguy (Jan 17, 2006)

kennel maiden said:


> The fact that dogs 'need' ecollar (or cattle prods etc) to make FT CH to me means the breeding is wrong!!!!  LOL - I know that will open up a whole can of worms!!  on the whole, I think our dogs are much more biddable, wanting to work with their handlers and please, rather than working in spite of them... They have strong natural hunting instinct which we have selectively cultivated too, whereas you are looking for more drivey dogs that can be 'robot controlled' for your FT.




Unbelievable ignoranance and really shouldn't be dignified with a response


----------



## krakadawn (Jan 8, 2006)

kennel maiden said:


> I wasn't implying they were 'rigorous regimes', merely observing that 'your' training is - necessarily - much more structured, and people in the USA tend to 'go on a programme', whereas we don't here. Yes, your FTs are much more 'extreme' and demand more technically of a dog than our FTs, although some of our Working Tests are on a par (other than the water work).
> 
> The fact that dogs 'need' ecollar (or cattle prods etc) to make FT CH to me means the breeding is wrong!!!!  LOL - I know that will open up a whole can of worms!!  on the whole, I think our dogs are much more biddable, wanting to work with their handlers and please, rather than working in spite of them... They have strong natural hunting instinct which we have selectively cultivated too, whereas you are looking for more drivey dogs that can be 'robot controlled' for your FT.
> 
> ...


This is an unbelievable statement. With all due respect your perspective on what might be required to make a FTCH/FC is so unacceptable, it's just amazing that you would make a statement that implies the breeding is not correct or acceptable. So the breeding is 'wrong' if we have to use FF or ecollar.....unbelievable!

You imply your dogs are more biddable. Give me some evidence to support that view.

You imply your dogs have more hunting ability where as NA FT dogs are more robotic. Support that statement with some scientific evidence.

You've waded into some swampy water with those statements Kennel Maiden.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

kennel maiden said:


> Absolutely a dog can be trained, and to the highest levels, without FF and e-collars!


Not to argue but as Glen mentioned earlier, it hasn't really been accomplished in US trials for decades.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

labguy said:


> Unbelievable ignoranance and really shouldn't be dignified with a response


she's not ignorant, just from across the pond where things are done differently


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> Not to argue but as Glen mentioned earlier, it hasn't really been accomplished in US trials for decades.


I've been advised that FC AFC Hiwood Jaguar MH, whelmed in 1999, was trained by Roy McFall without the use of the ecollar, (AND WITHOUT rat shot, bird shot, cattle prod). Sorry I missed that and I'm sure there may be other examples, but still uncommon to see that in recent years. 

Thanks for the correction Bon.

EDIT: added emphasis to AND WITHOUT


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

captainjack said:


> I've been advised that FC AFC Hiwood Jaguar MH, whelmed in 1999, was trained by Roy McFall without the use of the ecollar, (rat shot, bird shot, cattle prod). Sorry I missed that and I'm sure there may be other examples, but still uncommon to see that in recent years.
> 
> Thanks for the correction Bon.



Something tells me that the OP wasn't thinking of resorting to "old school" methods LOL 

Interesting fact though. Thanks for sharing Glen.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

DarrinGreene said:


> Something tells me that the OP wasn't thinking of resorting to "old school" methods LOL
> 
> Interesting fact though. Thanks for sharing Glen.


See my edits, my post was unclear.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

_"She's not ignorant, just from across the pond where things are done differently"_

Frankly, I was "reading" with the serious intent of studying a well thought out perspective then switched over to a huge smile when KM poked a big pointed stick into the hornets' nest. 

Goading can be annoying or amusing......mostly it depends on which end of the stick you're dealing with.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

krakadawn said:


> ...With all due respect your perspective on what might be required to make a FTCH/FC is so unacceptable, it's just amazing that you would make a statement that implies the breeding is not correct or acceptable. So the breeding is 'wrong' if we have to use FF or ecollar.....unbelievable!
> 
> You imply your dogs are more biddable. Give me some evidence to support that view.
> 
> ...


Let me play mediator here. km/L: if you serve up your water work video on rft again for NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) consumption, all will be forgiven...;-) Well, almost all. Kraka's rightly incensed at the breeding imbroglio you've stirred up. Methinks you may want to reconsider if it was meant only for shock value. Earlier posts about sensitive females (Labs) and Mssrs. Lardy and Attar's success in training them with the e-collar (and sensitive and sensible use of said training tool) really is a testimony to our training - and breeding. "Biddable" goes with the training territory - and completely overrides the misbegotten notion of "robotic" and "remote controlled." Your better euphemism for it on North American terra firma (or more impressionably in the middle of all that H2O) would be cooperation, or partnership.

Nevertheless, I think your aim is to learn from our successes (and our failures) in the spirit of better retriever training, and I also believe you aren't so much wanting to engage in the ours-v.-yours-is-better repartee, just going with what you know, and using it for what you want to _*find out.*_ Which some here have "helped out" with in kind, albeit via barbed response, though these gentlemen (and women) certainly would have felt provoked before doing so.

MG


----------



## Bill Billups (Sep 13, 2003)

The difference is the water is where trials are won in the US. If our trials were all land work we wouldn't need Ff ore collars either


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

It certainly makes better viewing and more challenging than the 'CLA' Laura ? 
This is a long one so you can 'skip' to the best bits! ,But even the long dive in water is fun .
I am right that the Janitor' Mr 'Chris' also puts an appearance as commentator? 
Happy New year to y'all .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfFz_Tq2wT4


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

kennel maiden said:


> Have a look at this video, bit poor quality, but taken at this years IGL Retriever Championship. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylZGrTy_KCk&feature=youtu.be
> It is hard to see as you only catch the dog when it is already 3/4s of the way up the line, but this is a blind retrieve some 250-300 yrds from over a ditch the entire length of the line. This dog is not FF or collar trained, so we still manage to maintain precision handling and drive using different methods.


Precision handling says the handler whining about one whistling the blind yet being dropped. Off line, out of control and saved by the wind says the judges book. Might get you back in a Q if you had nice land marks 

I'll stick to my non-biddable dogs bred by stupid American breeders who obviously have no idea what they are doing since the poor animals have to be trained after they are whelped. Although I sure would like to get me one of those robot ones--one should be able to win all the time with robot control.


----------



## RetrieverNation (Jul 15, 2012)

Just had a similar conversation last week with a friend from the UK. Me: So I heard you guys don't use ecollars over there". Friend: "That's not true at all, they are just illegal to use". He went on to explain that many believe they are a necessary tool but there are too many bunny huggers to publicly admit to the use of them.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

labguy said:


> Unbelievable ignoranance and really shouldn't be dignified with a response


Oh dear Labguy, it was really a joke!! Obviously lost in translation, as I know there is always banter about our different styles of dogs... I'll leave the room I think, as our SOHs are not quite the same.


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

TexGold said:


> Quack- you certainly generated a long discussion. I think you're in the same place as I when I began training my first field dog. My experience had been in obedience. It just seemed counterintuitive to zap a dog or pinch his ear when he's doing the task asked. So, I kind of glossed over some of those steps. I wish I had not.
> 
> We have had some success, but I don't think this dog will ever reach his full potential because of these "holes" in his training. And 8 years now, it may be too late.
> U
> So, my unsolicited advice may echo some of the others. Choose your game. If it is FT or high level HT, you gotta go with the collar. But if done correctly, your dog will be fine.


I have trained a few other dogs using FF I was just thinking about this dogs biddable nature and maybe a little less pressure. She has a very high retrieve drive. But gets very sloppy if I leave a lead on her. She will mouth the bumper while a lead is on her. Take it off and she holds her head high and delivers to hand and holds without the need for encouragement. Put it on and she will hold up and mouth the bumpers. Since she is just short of five months I am only interested in her obedience foremost. But I still want to play some fetch. Just for rewards. This is why I have asked the "oops bag of worms" question. Lol.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

DoubleHaul said:


> Precision handling says the handler whining about one whistling the blind yet being dropped. Off line, out of control and saved by the wind says the judges book. Might get you back in a Q if you had nice land marks
> 
> I'll stick to my non-biddable dogs bred by stupid American breeders who obviously have no idea what they are doing since the poor animals have to be trained after they are whelped. Although I sure would like to get me one of those robot ones--one should be able to win all the time with robot control.


I'm not really sure what you are saying in the first sentence, but obviously you are trying to be rude about the retrieve?? I will explain the scenario. I only added the video to show that our dogs do make long straight line precision retrieves in a single cast. The retrieve was a blind where we weren't sure exactly where the bird was, so the judge gives you a rough 'area' to work. The handler ran the dog up to the require distance, from over a ditch as I say in a single cast. The wind was going left to right, so they stuck the dog right for wind, stopped it approximately where they judged the retrieve to be and then hunted it right by the gallery. It was a very tidy retrieve (in UK terms!! LOL) and two dogs had already failed on it, hence the round of applause from the gallery.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

RetrieverNation said:


> Just had a similar conversation last week with a friend from the UK. Me: So I heard you guys don't use ecollars over there". Friend: "That's not true at all, they are just illegal to use". He went on to explain that many believe they are a necessary tool but there are too many bunny huggers to publicly admit to the use of them.


Sorry, this is not correct at all, unless you were talking to somebody in Wales? E-collars are legal here, but banned in Wales. Still legal in Scotland and England, don't know about Ireland but I presume so too. Sadly, they are used by some as a 'last resort' or punishment method, when people have not managed to train the dog using other means - usually when dogs go wayward on shoots. There is no 'proper' training on using the device correctly, as they aren't used in any training programmes here. So, people can do a lot of damage to their dogs as they do not understand their correct use. They have failed to train the dog using conventional means, and then they fail again and likely ruin the dog forever using e-collars.

None of the top trialling guys use them in England (I wouldn't want to speak for Scotland as don't know them well enough). It's just not the way we train.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

krakadawn said:


> This is an unbelievable statement. With all due respect your perspective on what might be required to make a FTCH/FC is so unacceptable, it's just amazing that you would make a statement that implies the breeding is not correct or acceptable. So the breeding is 'wrong' if we have to use FF or ecollar.....unbelievable!
> 
> You imply your dogs are more biddable. Give me some evidence to support that view.
> 
> ...


Yes, swampy water indeed it seems! LOL Like I said, it was a bit of a jibe at an old joke that used to rage on here. 

But, there are differences. Vive la difference! It's so very hard to give evidence/comparisons, as we never park the dogs alongside each other. I wish we could! But if you look at some of our video footage of championships vs some of yours you can see that the animals are different in their demeanour, because they have evolved for what each game involves. US trials are so removed from our game now, and technical. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think you walk up several dogs in line alongside each other honouring each others retrieves, or sit them in extremely heavy drives? Or send into areas of very heavy cover where they may be flushing 100s of birds around them, which they are expected to ignore, while working on the dead or wounded bird they have been sent for? But you do send for technical multiple retrieves, with a large use of water.

Of course, you are going to selectively breed for a dog that can cope with your demands (which may mean a more hard going animal or one that can take more pressure) and we are going to select for our needs, which involve possibly more tolerance/patience to cope with all the distraction and temptation of working in our situations. Again, generalisations but the differences are there.


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

Kennel Maiden. 
I do appreciate this point of view on the subject. Because of the original intent of the thread. And I understand that there is a difference in what our breeders are looking for vs the breeders in the UK. Thank you for your insight. As I said my female is a half breed lol. Half American and half Irish.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

quackaholic said:


> Kennel Maiden.
> I do appreciate this point of view on the subject. Because of the original intent of the thread. And I understand that there is a difference in what our breeders are looking for vs the breeders in the UK. Thank you for your insight. As I said my female is a half breed lol. Half American and half Irish.


Quackaholic - good luck with your half bred! LOL  Hopefully she will be the best of both worlds  

Anyway, back to "the Wildrose Way" LOL

Happy New Year everyone!!!


----------



## Desiree (Dec 27, 2009)

quackaholic said:


> I have trained a few other dogs using FF I was just thinking about this dogs biddable nature and maybe a little less pressure. She has a very high retrieve drive. But gets very sloppy if I leave a lead on her. She will mouth the bumper while a lead is on her. Take it off and she holds her head high and delivers to hand and holds without the need for encouragement. Put it on and she will hold up and mouth the bumpers. Since she is just short of five months I am only interested in her obedience foremost. But I still want to play some fetch. Just for rewards. This is why I have asked the "oops bag of worms" question. Lol.


Hold means Hold. Leash, no leash, rain, sleet, snow, Elvis comes back from the dead etc. But your pup is still teething right now. HOLD conditioning a la Wildrose begins at 6 months on a table. And the retrieve should become the reward as your dog progresses in training.


----------



## DoubleHaul (Jul 22, 2008)

kennel maiden said:


> I'm not really sure what you are saying in the first sentence, but obviously you are trying to be rude about the retrieve?? I will explain the scenario. I only added the video to show that our dogs do make long straight line precision retrieves in a single cast. The retrieve was a blind where we weren't sure exactly where the bird was, so the judge gives you a rough 'area' to work. The handler ran the dog up to the require distance, from over a ditch as I say in a single cast. The wind was going left to right, so they stuck the dog right for wind, stopped it approximately where they judged the retrieve to be and then hunted it right by the gallery. It was a very tidy retrieve (in UK terms!! LOL) and two dogs had already failed on it, hence the round of applause from the gallery.


I figured as much from watching it. My point was--and I don't think it was made nearly as rudely as your original point--that different styles of hunting, different games, different style of dogs bred, although I think the difference on the breeding is not as much as you make out. Our FT retrievers are quite biddable or frankly they are washed out. There are a few that may be less biddable but their incredible talent in other areas allow them to do well, but those are few and for every one of those there are probably a dozen where the biddability and desire to work for the handler makes up for being less talented.

Back to the original post, though. I hold that JS said it best earlier. There are lots of ways to train a dog and most are better than Wildrose, regardless of whether you want a couch potato, hunting companion or even FT dog. If your dog is especially biddable, you will do even better going in a different direction as the dog will take to it that much faster.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

polmaise said:


> It certainly makes better viewing and more challenging than the 'CLA' Laura ?  This is a long one so you can 'skip' to the best bits! ,But even the long dive in water is fun . I am right that the Janitor' Mr 'Chris' also puts an appearance as commentator?
> Happy New year to y'all. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfFz_Tq2wT4


All well and good, Robt., and likewise on the new year, but _*that's*_ not the water video I'm asking kennel maiden for - no, I want the vid she "stars" in as a QAA-level Esther Williams...

MG


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

crackerd said:


> All well and good, Robt., and likewise on the new year, but _*that's*_ not the water video I'm asking kennel maiden for - no, I want the vid she "stars" in as a QAA-level Esther Williams...
> 
> MG


I'm aware of that MG! ...
lol .
Water work for some is very different


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

crackerd said:


> All well and good, Robt., and likewise on the new year, but _*that's*_ not the water video I'm asking kennel maiden for - no, I want the vid she "stars" in as a QAA-level Esther Williams...
> 
> MG


You are a bad man MG! As you know, the water training we do here is somewhat different!!!


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

DoubleHaul said:


> I figured as much from watching it. My point was--and I don't think it was made nearly as rudely as your original point--that different styles of hunting, different games, different style of dogs bred, although I think the difference on the breeding is not as much as you make out. Our FT retrievers are quite biddable or frankly they are washed out. There are a few that may be less biddable but their incredible talent in other areas allow them to do well, but those are few and for every one of those there are probably a dozen where the biddability and desire to work for the handler makes up for being less talented.
> 
> Back to the original post, though. I hold that JS said it best earlier. There are lots of ways to train a dog and most are better than Wildrose, regardless of whether you want a couch potato, hunting companion or even FT dog. If your dog is especially biddable, you will do even better going in a different direction as the dog will take to it that much faster.


Doublehaul - I think we speak the same language - just with different accents!!..... differences yes. 
I agree Wildrose isn't a bible by any means! LOL just another man's perspective. I enjoyed it, as it is more akin to the UK methods (apart from the ridiculous putting a dog on a table to hold something?! not sure what all that was about!!!?) than most of the US programs, which we just can't reconcile as we don't use e-collars. But I've also enjoyed Gwaltney, and then dipping into some of the drills, such as those in Cassity's workbook.


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!! And thanks for all the advice and conversation on the topic.


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

Hey, I actually understand the table. Easier on your back. It also helps to teach pup place command for the hunting blind.


----------



## 1NarlyBar (Jul 10, 2008)

*Can This SOB Thread be Killed Already???????*

stupid rhetoric


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

I'm sorry, 1NarlyBar. I didn't know the moderators were controlling your ability to not click on this thread. Some people can train dogs to have control but can't control themselves I guess.


----------



## 1NarlyBar (Jul 10, 2008)

Please, quit drinking Rob Milner's Kool-Aid.

They are great salesmen, but a dog trainer is a dog trainer, is a dog trainer. 

Bill Hickman is trying to do the same crap here on the west coast with pointers. But he is still just a regular dog trainer. 

WildRose is an old and worn out subject. A dog trainer is what they are and they should not hold themselves so highly over others when they do no have the credentials to show that to be true. One must be on the same playing field to prove that they are equal.

RG


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

Not drinking anyone's Kool Aid. (Unless it's grape). I have stated that I have used e collars and trained other labs with them and had success, at least to the point I wanted. And am not opposed to the use. It was never about that just the use of force to get her to hold an object she wants to hold already. This was the info I was seeking. And I have gotten plenty of feedback. And I have been very much interested in everything said in this thread. Pretty sure the point of the whole forum was "Retriever Training". So I really don't know what you were looking to find with this tired old rhetoric.


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

Thank God we are not dogs, otherwise their would be a lot of butt sniffing.


----------



## 1NarlyBar (Jul 10, 2008)

Quacker
I was not trying to put you on the spot. There is plenty of Rob Milner and Mike Stewart at Wildrose BS available at search on this site. But I would suggest you ask people with more long term standings here at RTF. I myself have very few posts, but that is because I choose my battles wisely(I Think). 
Look to those that have long standing and consistent views, although those do tend to change, and realize that you are training this dog and none of us will ever even get the opportunity to see you and her in action. That is unless there is video : )

RG


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

No worries. lol. I will post vids occasionally. And I really just want to hit nine pages now. Lol


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

kennel maiden said:


> I think we speak the same language - just with different accents!!..... differences yes.
> I agree Wildrose isn't a bible by any means! LOL just another man's perspective. I enjoyed it, as it is more akin to the UK methods (apart from the ridiculous putting a dog on a table to hold something?! not sure what all that was about!!!?) than most of the US programs, which we just can't reconcile as we don't use e-collars.


There you go Laura ! an e-collar programme to help reach your Goals 
Happy New Year .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wilf0X1ejlM


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

polmaise said:


> There you go Laura ! an e-collar programme to help reach your Goals :grin: Happy New Year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wilf0X1ejlM


Robt.! kennel maiden will be calling you a "bad man!" about that video - but to me, it just goes to show that them Gentleman's Goal-dawgs™ can only be rurnt by using an electric collar on them.

And also to extrapolate that David Moyes might still be employed in the Premiership if he could've got one of them thar e-collars around Wayne Rooney's neck at Old Trafford.

Of course, this latter conjecture is filtered through the prism of *Bama Gruppen AS*, main sponsor of Norway's national football side (which doesn't train with e-collars though they might be a better side if they did - with indirect pressure only, I might add)








Otherwise, this reply would've had to go in the neighbouring *college football thread* and deprived *quackaholic* at least temporarily of hitting the much-sought after nine-page thread threshold...

MG


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

Baa haa haaaa haaa!!! This might do it. LOL


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

polmaise said:


> There you go Laura ! an e-collar programme to help reach your Goals
> Happy New Year .
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wilf0X1ejlM


Wonder what the NFL players would think.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

quackaholic said:


> Actually I have asked to be a part of one of the next training days in Bristol at Chad Bakers. Mark Chase is supposed to let me know. And you are absolutely correct as I have never fielded a dog in competition. I was just inquiring whether or not this training method would be useful in a softer dog. As I said earlier I am not opposed to conditioned retrieve. But in her case I am wondering if nature isn't better than nurture.


Look, here's the deal. If you can train with Mark and others in Bristol at least 1 or 2 days a week for the next several months the questions/concerns you currently have should be answered. Right now you think you understand your dog and are forming opinions based on little experience. As the training days pile up new questions/concerns will come up you have no idea about today. As far as Milner he is of no consequence and will fade from memory quicker than a bad meal. Good luck to you and your dogs. Be prepared for an adventure if you can stick with it 
.
PS no matter how often explained those over the pond will never "get it" until attending a few US field trials. Most over here never attending a driven high bird shoot don't get most of their retriever training methodology either.


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

I wish I could train with them that much. Lol. The club only trains once a month and even then I probably can't make it to all of them. Mark doesn't live a long way from me but even then work schedules are iffy.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Breck said:


> Look, here's the deal. If you can train with Mark and others in Bristol at least 1 or 2 days a week for the next several months the questions/concerns you currently have should be answered. Right now you think you understand your dog and are forming opinions based on little experience. As the training days pile up new questions/concerns will come up you have no idea about today. As far as Milner he is of no consequence and will fade from memory quicker than a bad meal. Good luck to you and your dogs. Be prepared for an adventure if you can stick with it
> .
> PS no matter how often explained *those over the pond will never "get it" until attending a few US field trials. Most over here never attending a driven high bird shoot don't get most of their retriever training methodology either*.


Most of our UK trials (not inc. Ireland as that isn't in the UK  ) are not actually driven stakes, they are walked up..... anyway, like you say, different games (although our working tests resemble your FTs).

Ok Breck, here's an interesting/hypothetical question for you (just in the name of making this thread truly too long!! LOL and pleasing Quackaholic) :

If your new President of the USA were to ban the use of e-collars (as has been done in some countries), would any of you be able to carry on 'Field Trialling' or would the whole sport collapse or have to change?


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

kennel maiden said:


> Most of our UK trials (not inc. Ireland as that isn't in the UK  ) are not actually driven stakes, they are walked up..... anyway, like you say, different games (although our working tests resemble your FTs).
> 
> Ok Breck, here's an interesting/hypothetical question for you (just in the name of making this thread truly too long!! LOL and pleasing Quackaholic) :
> 
> *If your new President of the USA were to ban the use of e-collars (as has been done in some countries), would any of you be able to carry on 'Field Trialling' or would the whole sport collapse or have to change?*


Not Breck, but my 2 cents anyway ... within a year or two the tests would, out of necessity, become MUCH easier.

JS


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

Wow add another page. Lol. I suppose we would still be able to handle a dog. But may have to start breeding a little more for temperament than drive. Lol


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

JS said:


> Not Breck, but my 2 cents anyway ... within a year or two the tests would, out of necessity, become MUCH easier.
> 
> JS


Ok, so that's interesting. So, is that tool keeping the tests artificially extreme? And would making the tests easier, to see what the dogs (and trainers) could do without an ecollar, be a bad thing?


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

Well KM, now you've really crossed the line.......after saying this........

_"If your new President of the USA were to ban the use of e-collars (as has been done in some countries), would any of you be able to carry on 'Field Trialing' or would the whole sport collapse or have to change?"_

For some reason I think mentioning e-collars and President Obama in the same breath conjures up a picture with the caption "Deer in Headlights".









Now, this entire thread will be removed from the training forum to.....POTUS Place - For those who talk Politics in the Gallery!


----------



## swampcollielover (Nov 30, 2012)

KwickLabs said:


> Well KM, now you've really crossed the line.......after saying this........
> 
> _"If your new President of the USA were to ban the use of e-collars (as has been done in some countries), would any of you be able to carry on 'Field Trialing' or would the whole sport collapse or have to change?"_
> 
> ...


*I guess KM, even from England, knows the types of loony dictates our current PRESIDENT does on a regular basis!!?? He better be careful, or our President may try and take over England!*


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

Tests wouldn't become easier. But less dogs would make the grade. 

And no one could ever imagine Obama banning anything. Or passing laws without consulting Congress. Don't be ridiculous.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

KwickLabs said:


> Well KM, now you've really crossed the line.......after saying this........
> 
> _"If your new President of the USA were to ban the use of e-collars (as has been done in some countries), would any of you be able to carry on 'Field Trialing' or would the whole sport collapse or have to change?"_
> 
> ...


LOL, I was very careful to say NEW President?!!??......


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

Quackaholic, after reading this "loooong" thread and the process by which it has been fed, I have come to the conclusion that if a person believed in reincarnation.....you must have been a dairy farmer in a previous life.


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

That might have been lol


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

kennel maiden said:


> Most of our UK trials (not inc. Ireland as that isn't in the UK  ) are not actually driven stakes, they are walked up..... anyway, like you say, different games (although our working tests resemble your FTs).
> 
> Ok Breck, here's an interesting/hypothetical question for you (just in the name of making this thread truly too long!! LOL and pleasing Quackaholic) :
> 
> If your new President of the USA were to ban the use of e-collars (as has been done in some countries), would any of you be able to carry on 'Field Trialling' or would the whole sport collapse or have to change?


I'm not Breck, but I'll comment from my own perspective.

Did Northern Ireland separate from the UK and join with the Republic of Ireland? 

There's a saying that says "If you can't train a dog without an e-collar, you can't train a dog with one."

The e-collar is just a tool. It can be implemented in a manner that allows one to communicate with the dog and enhance performance, or it can be used to ruin a dog.

Many of us over here have trained retrievers to "handle" including fairly complex water blind retrieves, without the use of an e-collar. It is done. It can be done. 

Now that I have learned one way of proper e-collar use, I would still train dogs without the use of an e-collar, but I would not enjoy it nearly as much. 

Kennel Maiden, I spent some time in Scotland and in Northern Ireland (part of the UK still as far as I know). I had the opportunity to talk with many retriever folks about training methods and also about difference and similarities between UK and North American games. 

When we really dug into it, which frequently involved late-night chats around a table, we found that we had just as much in common as was different.

One thing I learned: Those who choose not to use an e-collar certainly do NOT necessarily train purely positively. I spoke with one trainer who admitted to me that he carried an automotive fan belt cut into a one length of belt material, curled in his training bag. He would use it to trot out to an offending dog and "correct" the dog in certain situations.

One possible scenario: The dog is running a blind retrieve. The handler tries to whistle sit the dog at a clearing.  The dog continues another 10 meters and finally comes to a stop past the clearing and in some cover, maybe after repeat whistles. The handler trots out to the dog, takes the dog to the spot he should have sat, whistle toots, then applies a "correction" with the belt. 

Here is another comment. I was loaned a trained retriever to work with and handle at the Gamefair. He was a wonderful dog, biddable, alert, and focused. But I could NOT praise him with a pat or any touching. He was extremely hand-shy. If I tried to pet him, he would duck and cower.

When I asked about this hand-shyness and his obvious avoidance of contact, I was jokingly told that a UK dog is not "fully trained" until the sole of one's boot is worn out. (implying some physical contact with the dog to make corrections.)

Kennel Maiden, I have no idea if you are aware of any of these sorts of training activities, but the examples I cited include trainers from Northern Ireland, England AND Scotland. (I don't recall having any detailed training discussions with folks from the Republic of Ireland). This is not in any way meant to imply that all trainers do such things. Clearly they would not and do not.

Kennel Maiden, we have a concept over here for those using a "modern" e-collar approach called "Indirect Pressure". This correction is used at times when a dog is fully schooled and through his transition work (after basics). An example of "indirect pressure" is again, a blind retrieve. The dog is swimming in a channel of water and looks like he wants to beach early and get on the bank. The handler blows the sit whistle and the dog turns to tread water, facing the handler. The handler gives the appropriate cast to put the dog back in the center of the channel. The dog ignores it, and digs towards the bank again.

Indirect pressure means the handler blows the whistle. The dog follows the last command which was to stop and turn and tread water. But the handler gives a "nick" with the e-collar. This is to correct for the previously un-heeded command or cast. 

What's interesting is that many folks may have trouble grasping the indirect pressure. They say "well you can't correct the dog on the sit whistle, because he did it. That makes no sense." Yet the same person may think it is appropriate to stop the dog for an infraction, run, walk, have an assistant, etc. make some sort of a correction with the dog, whether physical or verbal. 

The big difference with these is not the use of an e-collar, versus another form of pressure or correction, it is the TIMING of the correction in comparison to the timing of the infraction. I honestly believe that the mental pressure of a handler trotting out to make a field correction can be significantly more detrimental to the attitude of a retriever, than a simple, properly timed, e-collar correction with a trained retriever.

My own terminology for the "tennis shoe method of a field correction" is "indirect pressure wth pi$$-poor timing."

The games are different. There is no doubt about it. Selective breeding can be summarized by breeding winners to winners, enhancing the liklihood of creating more winners with subsequent generations. It makes total sense that selective breeding of UK Field Champions will produce a dog with different tendencies than selective breeding of North American Field Champions. 

It would be a challenge for many North American FT dogs to consistently win UK trials. Similarly it could be a challenge for many UK FT dogs to win American Trials. Is either impossible? NO! Of course not. 

But most serious trialers, at least in the Americas, puts soooooooo much resources into having a successful trial dog, that they're going to make smart choices about breeding to optimize their chances for success.

When I came over to the UK to attend some retriever events, I was told by one of our premier Field Trial pros, who had recently been to the UK the following: Expect the UK folks to handle more and handle quicker on marks than you're used to. Expect the UK folks to allow their dogs to hunt much more on blinds than you're used to. 

That was exactly what I observed. And given the nature of the UK Field Trial game, that makes sense. They're live birds falling in naturally occuring ways, with an extreme amount of randomness, uncertainty, and very little control on timing and location of falls and retrieves. 

The North American trials are different. They are significantly more uniform and more precise in their design than the UK trials. Again, neither is right. 

It's a bit like comparing cricket to baseball. Or hockey to "non-American footbal" aka "soccer". They're different games requiring different strategies, with different rules and variations in equipment used.

It's all good. 

I bet you and I know some of the same people. 

Sincerely and respectfully, Chris


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Chris is just helping Quackaholic get to 11. 
But his post is 'Spot On' ! (imo).
I would add further that there are more than one would 'think' ? that use a collar program in the games


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

kennel maiden said:


> Ok, so that's interesting. So, is that tool keeping the tests artificially extreme?


I don't really know what you mean by "artificially extreme". The tests now are extreme because if they were easier, all the dogs would smoke them. The difficulty of the testing has evolved over time and part of the reason the dogs would smoke an easier test is the skillful use of the e-collar. (Yes there are other factors, one being our superior breedings :twisted:.) Take that training tool out of the equation and judges would find fewer and fewer dogs getting out of the first series. And you know, it's always nice to have four still standing at the end.



kennel maiden said:


> And would making the tests easier, to see what the dogs (and trainers) could do without an ecollar, be a bad thing?


Why would you suggest it would be a good thing? In our trials, we are looking for the BEST PERFORMANCE that day. That includes the dog (breeding), the training (including all the techniques and tools) and the handler (skill and experience at the line). As long as any of those are not abusive to the dog ... and if they are, that is obvious in watching the dog's performance ... why would you want to put limitations on it?

If you limited NASCAR to 150 HP, would you still be showcasing the best drivers?

JS


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

Eleven Come on eleven


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

polmaise said:


> Chris is just helping Quackaholic get to 11.
> But his post is 'Spot On' ! (imo).
> I would add further that there are more than one would 'think' ? that use a collar program in the games


From a Yankee Retriever Trialer to a Fifer Retriever Trialer, I take that as a huge compliment.

P.S. if q'aholic would set posts per page to the maximum setting, he'd still be barely into page 3!


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

I used to think highly of you Chris. But some of us only use our phone.


----------



## jd6400 (Feb 23, 2009)

KwickLabs said:


> Quackaholic, after reading this "loooong" thread and the process by which it has been fed, I have come to the conclusion that if a person believed in reincarnation.....you must have been a dairy farmer in a previous life.


Milking a thread....haaa


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

Glad you got it. Lol


----------



## blind ambition (Oct 8, 2006)

kennel maiden said:


> If your new President of the USA were to ban the use of e-collars (as has been done in some countries), would any of you be able to carry on 'Field Trialling' or would the whole sport collapse or have to change?


Other methods would be employed, the game would stay pretty much the same. In a few years blinds may become a little less extreme but would return to the current level of difficulty shortly there after.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Chris Atkinson said:


> I'm not Breck, but I'll comment from my own perspective.
> 
> Did Northern Ireland separate from the UK and join with the Republic of Ireland? No, not as far as I know! But running in a N. Ireland open stake, does qualify you for the Irish Championship, whereas running in a stake in Scotland or England (or Wales) does not. And stakes in N. Ireland are not the same as those in Ireland. Different game.
> 
> ...


 
And now, it won't let me post without adding something here...


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

kennel maiden said:


> And now, it won't let me post without adding something here...


KM, you may or may not be aware that in the U.S. there are a relative few people participating in the dog games that have or will put a Field Champion and/or Amateur Field Champion title on a dog. If you take out from that group those who have done so without extensive amounts of the dog's training having been done by professionals, you have only a tiny percentage remaining. 

Yet, there is certainly no shortage of positive only or mostly positive trainers that come along and tell the forced based trainers that they are doing it all wrong. Or, if you only had better breeding, you could title the dogs with all positive or mostly positive methods. Yet, these positive and mostly positive experts have never actually titled a dog. 

So, I am curious...

You obviously have extensive expertise in these other methods and you have the better breedings, so...

How many dogs have you personally titled as field trial champions? 

What percentage of field trial champions on your side of the pond would you guess are trained by positive only or mostly positive methods?

What percentage of field trial champions on your side of the pond would you guess are titled without extensive use of a professional trainer?

Thanks!

Edit: I'm one of the force based, amateur FIeld Trial participants who does all of my own training and have not and may never titled a dog.


----------



## JS (Oct 27, 2003)

captainjack said:


> KM, you may or may not be aware that *in the U.S. there are a relative few people participating in the dog games that have or will put a Field Champion and/or Amateur Field Champion title on a dog.*
> 
> .....
> 
> .....


To expand a little on this and put it into some perspective for kennel maiden; 

There are roughly somewhere between 220 - 250 Field trials held each year in the US. (3000 miles coast to coast, 1500 miles north to south. ;-))

Entries in each of the championship stakes average somewhere around 75. I have run opens with 112 and 123 entries.

Each year, somewhere between 50 - 60 dogs achieve FC the title. Most of those will be trained or partly trained by pro trainers. Those amateurs who do succeed are extremely talented and dedicated, own or have access to great training properties, start with the finest dogs, and work at it most of their waking hours. (I do know one guy who was just lucky! )

I don't know how this compares with the competitions on the UK but it gives you an idea of the competitiveness here and why the testing needs to be extreme and the judging rigorous. And consequently, why the training needs to be intense.

And please pardon my sloppy statistics ... these numbers are off the top of my head, and I'm sure someone will come along and "refine" them, but they are in the ball park.

JS


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

kennel maiden said:


> *Most of our UK trials (not inc. Ireland as that isn't in the UK * ) are not actually driven stakes, they are walked up..... anyway, like you say, different games (although our working tests resemble your FTs).
> 
> Ok Breck, here's an interesting/hypothetical question for you (just in the name of making this thread truly too long!! LOL and pleasing Quackaholic) :
> 
> If your new President of the USA were to ban the use of e-collars (as has been done in some countries), would any of you be able to carry on 'Field Trialling' or would the whole sport collapse or have to change?


KM, My point was that Northern Ireland is part of the UK.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Captainjack - I've personally made up three Field Trial Champions and a few winners since I started trialling in 2005. 

I don't know what percentage of FTCHs are made up using positive methods, but I would guess it isn't the majority!! This may change over time though as there is definitely more of a move here to train in line with modern methods, as used by other dog sports in the UK. Also with more women coming into the sport I think methods are changing, and we are also breeding softer dogs to suit our handling. 

Virtually all FTCHs are trained and made up by their owner handlers. We tend to train our own dogs here rather than hand them over to a professional. There are only a couple of professional handlers on the retriever circuit that handle dogs for other owners. So, we go to other trainers to learn more about how to train our own dogs. But we don't hand our dogs over to them. So, a different set up I know. But for me the enjoyment is in the training of my own dog.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Chris Atkinson said:


> KM, My point was that Northern Ireland is part of the UK.


Lol, yes but Ireland isn't!!


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

JS - to give you a comparison in the UK, usually around 15-20 FTCHs are made up each year. I won't bore with the details of the tortuous route of getting there, but suffice to say it's not exactly a walk in the park!!....


----------



## DFB (May 5, 2014)

I see a new trial circuit in the making (WFC) World Field Champion. Test held alternating between the U.S. And Europe. It'll be like the Ryder Cup for retrievers. Eight dog teams for each side. One day of Pairs high score (best ball). One day of alternating retrieves with two dog teams (alternating shot) and finally head to head singles matches (match play). Have judges from South Africa and the home team sets up the test. All eight dogs on the winning side get their WFC title.


----------



## truthseeker (Feb 2, 2012)

DFB said:


> I see a new trial circuit in the making (WFC) World Field Champion. Test held alternating between the U.S. And Europe. It'll be like the Ryder Cup for retrievers. Eight dog teams for each side. One day of Pairs high score (best ball). One day of alternating retrieves with two dog teams (alternating shot) and finally head to head singles matches (match play). Have judges from South Africa and the home team sets up the test. All eight dogs on the winning side get their WFC title.


I was just thinking the same thing. Sound like fun.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

truthseeker said:


> I was just thinking the same thing. Sound like fun.


Teams from the U.S. And Canada have participated in the U.K. Events. Chris can expound or I think there was a previous thread on the event.


----------



## truthseeker (Feb 2, 2012)

captainjack said:


> Teams from the U.S. And Canada have participated in the U.K. Events. Chris can expound or I think there was a previous thread on the event.


I don't think it would take to long, to condition our dogs to do a UK retriever trial, but how about the other way around? 

No matter where it was held, in the US. I would put on may USA tee shirt and cheer everyone on.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

kennel maiden said:


> Captainjack - I've personally made up three Field Trial Champions and a few winners since I started trialling in 2005.
> ...
> But we don't hand our dogs over to them. So, a different set up I know. But for me the enjoyment is in the training of my own dog.


Congratulations! That is unheard of in the U.S. In fact, I'm unaware of any positive trainers that have even finished a Championship stake since 2005. Maybe someone following this thread knows of some that have. There are no rules against it though, so anyone can enter a dog and compete if they want to give it a go.

And I also find the enjoyment is in the training of my own dogs. To me it makes the finishes that much sweeter. But I don't begrudge those that do use a professional. If I had the means, I may have done the same.


----------



## DFB (May 5, 2014)

I can see some face painted, USA chanting, beer swilling crowds being hushed by the judges when the dogs are about to come to the line. I'll dream about this tonight. If this happens in our lifetime I want you all to remember who planted the seeds. I should get an honorary captainship of the inaugural team USA (ceremonial post only) or at least free tickets. Haha


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

kennel maiden said:


> JS - to give you a comparison in the UK, usually around 15-20 FTCHs are made up each year. I won't bore with the details of the tortuous route of getting there, but *suffice to say it's not exactly a walk in the park!!....* :wink:


But it's often a walk-_*up*_ in the park, km, right? Don't have those in our FTs, either!



> Originally Posted by *Chris Atkinson and kennel maiden*
> 
> Did Northern Ireland separate from the UK and join with the Republic of Ireland? No, not as far as I know! But running in a N. Ireland open stake, does qualify you for the Irish Championship, whereas running in a stake in Scotland or England (or Wales) does not. And stakes in N. Ireland are not the same as those in Ireland. Different game.


L, can you explain the requirements/qualifications/"ennobling" through which one puts an Int. FTCh (International Field Trial Champion) title on your retrievers (or spaniels)? What countries' FTChs are considered and how many FTWs in each country one must have to make up an Int. FTCh? Was struck by that title, prefixing one of the runners in the Irish champs a couple of weeks back.

By the way, you came to mind yesterday whilst watching "The Courage of Lassie" on the telly - particularly the handling (but not water) work involved. Sort of daydreamt that you were in the Elizabeth Taylor role and Dave Elliot was just off-camera giving you the lowdown on handling Lassie amongst his sheep. Only the reality was, from what I've seen, you're a lot better in the water than Liz Taylor:wink:, and Lassie in this movie is actually a *lad* called "Bill." And then called "Duke" when he goes to war in the Pacific during WWII. Before becoming Bill again when he's reunited with Liz after overcoming PTSD. Anyhow, here's hoping the Dave Elliot reference makes comity and common ground (or water) for both sides.



jd6400 said:


> Milking a thread....haaa


The big question, insofar as the huckster whose "way" is cited in the thread title, is: Is it buttermilk or sweet whole milk? Or maybe it's all milk to him regardless of many knowledgeable retriever folks herein curdling his "way" agin' him on how the OP might want to train.

MG


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

I think that's me over and out now MG!

int FT CH of a dog running in Irish champs usually means it has won an Open in UK, or other country as well as being made up in Ireland. But the route to making up a FTCH in Ireland is v different to UK. It is a points system I think whereby not only first places count, and there are no two day trials. Different ball game again. 

Yes, usa came to UK to take part at Highclere/Sherbourne a while back, but that wasn't a field trial. It was a working test on dummies/bumpers, which is what we train on in summer.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

kennel maiden said:


> Captainjack - I've personally made up three Field Trial Champions and a few winners since I started trialling in 2005.
> 
> I don't know what percentage of FTCHs are made up using positive methods, but I would guess it isn't the majority!! This may change over time though as there is definitely more of a move here to train in line with modern methods, as used by other dog sports in the UK. Also with more women coming into the sport I think methods are changing, and we are also breeding softer dogs to suit our handling.
> 
> Virtually all FTCHs are trained and made up by their owner handlers. We tend to train our own dogs here rather than hand them over to a professional. There are only a couple of professional handlers on the retriever circuit that handle dogs for other owners. So, we go to other trainers to learn more about how to train our own dogs. But we don't hand our dogs over to them. So, a different set up I know. But for me the enjoyment is in the training of my own dog.


Kennel Maiden wonder what more women coming into the sport have to do w/ training methods? 

I, like you, train my own dog for the enjoyment. Always wishing for more money!!


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

kennel maiden said:


> I think that's me over and out now MG!
> 
> int FT CH of a dog running in Irish champs usually means it has won an Open in UK, or other country as well as being made up in Ireland. But the route to making up a FTCH in Ireland is v different to UK. It is a points system I think whereby not only first places count, and there are no two day trials. Different ball game again.


Before you bow out, L, would a dog be "entitled" to carry the Int. FTCh prefix in the IGL champs if it was made up as FTCh in Ireland (or any other European country) in addition to being FTCh in the UK? And does the IGL winner get an additional title in its pedigree and further pedigrees it might play a part in as sire or dam, like our NFC (National Field Champion)?

By the way, several on rtf participated in the working test at Sherborne that you alluded to, from both Canada and the US.

Another contingent of Yanks participated in a smaller such event in Ireland a little earlier - and "won" it. That team, if I recall correctly, was "captained" by the owner of this thread's namesake "way" - a prominent trafficker in










"the milk of human _*marketing*_" more than at making better retrievers.

MG


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

captainjack said:


> Teams from the U.S. And Canada have participated in the U.K. Events. Chris can expound or I think there was a previous thread on the event.


ha! I could expound some, but don't think I have the time or desire to type a whole lot.

2 Teams went over, I believe in the Spring/Summer of 2006. One group to Northern Ireland, one group to England. They both participated in some competitions. One of the key changes was that of "passporting" for dogs, which allowed dogs to enter the UK without the prior lengthy requirement for quarantine. 

Logistic$ and other challenges will be a limitation in having a reasonable way to do this stuff.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

If I'm not mistaken in the US anyone with a dog registered with the Kennel Club may enter a championship stake ( with some minor restrictions, Limited etc)
But in the UK Field Trials are limited to a handful of entries (certainly not 80 or 100 like here). So they have a lottery or a " good old boy network" determining who can or won't run a particular trial.
Guess my point is in the US there are unlimited possibilities to run trials to make up FC's but in the UK much more restricted. Here one can easily run 20+ Trials annually.
How many over there?


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

20 chances to compete against 80-100 dogs or 4-5 chances to compete against 20 or so dogs. Hmmmmm


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Ok, I wasn't going to continue to comment as never wanted this to be a battle of 'mine is better than yours', but feel I should before you perpetuate myth and untruths about UK Field Trials. So, for those of you who are genuinely interested (and not just those who are poo-pooing "4 chances to compete against 20 dogs. Hmmmm!" Of course our FTs are vastly inferior to yours, and there are only 20 dogs to compete against, etc etc....

Our Field Trial community is made up of 100s and 1000s of dogs and handlers of all abilities. Before you can compete in an Open Stake, which is the only way to go towards making up a FT champion up, you have to win a Novice Stake. As Breck has correctly stated, all our Field Trials are hugely over-subscribed, so clubs operate a ballot system. For example, I entered a Novice Stake this year in the centre of England (so a club with a lot of members) and for the 12 places there were 105 applicants (I didn't get a run). Consequently, we have to be a member of a lot of clubs just to give us a chance of getting a run. You probably have a 1/5 to 1/8 chance of getting a run in any given stake.

Okay, eventually you get a run or a handful of runs if you are lucky, and you place but you have to actually win to get out of Novice. So, this may take a few (or several) attempts. Novice stakes are all one day stakes, and will have 12-16 dogs in each depending on the time of year/ground etc.

Once you are in Open Stakes, you are only competing against dogs that have all won a Novice Stake, so the dogs are all of an 'open' standard. These stakes are either two day stakes for 24 dogs or some one day stakes for 12 dogs. Across the whole of the UK there are about 70 of these stakes a season in total. Those of us with good open dogs would probably be in 50+ clubs to try and ensure a handful of runs during the season for our open dogs. If you are lucky (and a member of enough clubs and prepared to drive the entire length and breadth of the country) you may get runs in about 6-8 stakes during the season. If you win a two-day open stake this qualifies you for the IGL Retriever Championship, which is something we all aspire to run in. To make up a FT champion requires 2 x two day wins, 3 x one day wins, or 1 x two day and 1 x one day win. It all sounds so easy!! LOL but once you are in Opens you are competing against the best dogs in the country, all vying for those coveted awards. 

The season only runs from Mid-August (grouse trials), through Sept (partridge starts), Oct (pheasant starts) and to end of January. The Championship is held at the beginning of Dec, so all qualifying open stakes are run before then. So, there are a lot of stakes concentrated in to a short amount of time over the country, and often the dates of these stakes overlap. It is not unusual to have three or four clubs with their stakes on the same or overlapping dates. This is frustrating in one respect as it means you only have the chance in running in one out of the four of those stakes. But it does increase your chances of getting a run on that date as more people will obviously get a run.

In the close season, we do Working Tests. These are supposed to be a means to an end and not an end in themselves, as they are only run on dummies/bumpers or cold game. But for some these have become a sport in their own right. There are no working test champions though! They are meant to 'test' where your training is at. But as I say, they have become a bit more than that in a way, with "International" team competitions set up. A bit of fun. These are more technical tests, necessarily, as it is very hard to test game finding ability on a piece of canvas!!

Going back to Field Trials, it is also worth noting that it is the owner of the dog that gets the run, not the dog. So, some folk like me, who may have more than one open dog, will have to choose which dog they put in the stake, and share those few runs they get between the dogs. It is possible to put both dogs down on the form, one as a substitution dog, so that if you win out with one, or it is injured (or your female comes into season) you can substitute the other into that place and not miss out entirely. It's quite a frustrating set up. We train so hard all year for this, and so have to really try and make sure we capitalise on any runs we have. 

Like I say, I really didn't want to get into a 'mine is better than yours' debate. Our FTs are really not comparable to yours in any shape or form. I would say our Working Tests are more similar to your Field Trials in the set up of the tests (our trials aren't 'set up'. They are totally natural shooting situations). But that's about it.

So, now over to you.....
If you have 70-80 dogs in one of your stakes, do they have to prequalify to be there (by winning in a lower category), or can anyone enter?

Edited to add: our working tests are unlimited in number, like your trials. And some Open working tests allow non-qualified dogs to enter too, but some require that a dog must have had a place or win in a novice test (not trial) to enter. Once you have had a place in a Novice Field Trial then you can ONLY enter Open Working Tests.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Not trying to perpetuate a myth KM. Just pondering...

Would the (notice I didn't say my) odds of placing in an open (or US limited or Special) stake be better if running 5 trials against 23 other Qualified dogs vs running 20 trials against 74 other Qualified dogs? Too many variables to answer I know, but just thinking...

The first series of a 100 dog All Age trial in the US has been described to me by a great Amateur owner/handler and Hall of Famer as like standing in front of a firing squad and hoping they miss. The tests are difficult and they are judged stringently. I've not run many that big, but I have run the several of the 75ish entry trials and I like the odds a lot better when I still have a dog in the trial and those 75 starters have been chopped down to 30 or less after the 1st series smoke has settled. 

Just pondering...


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

I find it unfortunate that the folks across the pond have not reciprocated and entered one of our tests. Too bad, as I think that would be very interesting to watch.-Paul


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

captainjack said:


> Not trying to perpetuate a myth KM. Just pondering...
> 
> Would the (notice I didn't say my) odds of placing in an open (or US limited or Special) stake be better if *running 5 trials against 23 other Qualified dogs *vs running 20 trials against 74 other Qualified dogs? Too many variables to answer I know, but just thinking...
> 
> ...


It just isn't comparable I'm afraid. If you get a run in one trial you run against 23 other dogs, and then next trial it may be 23 different dogs, or a couple of the same. But, ultimately you are not competing against those other dogs, but as one season trialler explained it to me years ago "against the bird". You have to pick every one of your retrieves cleanly, and there are other factors that can give you some credit (such as picking a nice runner, or eye-wiping other competitors). There is another saying in our trialling, that you are only as good as your last retrieve. It only takes one bad one and you go out, or will not get a high award. Good work doesn't expunge bad work. 

Also, with your trials I think each dog gets pretty much the same retrieve(s) as much as you can make that so. But in ours, every single retrieve in a field trial is unique. So, no two dogs will get the same retrieve. And each is judged accordingly. However, in our working tests they are like yours, in that there are static tests which all of the dogs run through and get points (marked out of 20 for each test). So, they are much 'fairer' in that you are giving each dog the same test. But these type of tests just can't test the game finding ability of dogs, which is the ultimate aim of our gundog scene.

As I say, tests are unlimited in numbers, so you will get a lot more dogs entering and running, with the card typically reaching 30-40 dogs for each class.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

paul young said:


> I find it unfortunate that the folks across the pond have not reciprocated and entered one of our tests. Too bad, as I think that would be very interesting to watch.-Paul



Indeed, I'd love to have a go, for better or for worse! Although I know my dogs would not be adequately prepared or capable for the water-work that you do. 

I am possibly coming over to the States at some point to give a seminar, but I very much doubt I would go to the trouble and expense of bringing a dog over with me. It is just too much hassle.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

km/L after you answer my question, 



crackerd said:


> ...would a dog be "entitled" to carry the Int. FTCh prefix in the IGL champs if it was made up as FTCh in Ireland (or any other European country) in addition to being FTCh in the UK? And does the IGL winner get an additional title in its pedigree and further pedigrees it might play a part in as sire or dam, like our NFC (National Field Champion)?


give us a commentary on the UK's new version of Entry Express and how it affects your "subscribing to" (entering) field trials. Also, how many subs (club memberships) have you paid in the past in hopes of getting drawn at having a run? Friends have told me that they belonged to up to 25 retriever clubs (!!!) a year just so they could get their name in the hat for each club's trial.

Also, is your electronic entry service available for working tests over there too? Which reminds me to expound that Paul Young's comment on British entries for our hunt tests (or field trials) would be a h*lluva lot easier administratively than vice versa - what with no quarantine for dogs (or handlers) coming into this country (or this continent if you were thinking about Canadian tests and trials).

MG


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

crackerd said:


> km/L
> Which reminds me to expound that Paul Young's comment on British entries for our hunt tests (or field trials) would be a h*lluva lot easier administratively than vice versa - what with no quarantine for dogs (or handlers) coming into this country (or this continent if you were thinking about Canadian tests and trials).
> 
> MG



wouldnt that make her dog automatic citizen under Obama/homeland security immigration policy. LOL


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

crackerd said:


> km/L after you answer my question,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Right, the Int. FT CH thing sounds really grand, but 'just' means that the dog has been made up to FT CH in one country, and then won again in another I think. Of course, not all European FTs are equal (without wanting to offend any particular country here!! LOL but some are run more as cold game tests, some are allowed to keep leads on when the dogs are in line, and some work on a points system whereby the achievement of a place in a trial, rather than a win, qualify towards FTCH). So, in theory an Int. FT CH can be made up having won in Italy and Holland. You do see a few of the Irish dogs with this title, as they have made the dog up in Ireland, and then presumably had a win in UK too.

No, the winner of the Retriever Championship doesn't get any more titles, just the kudos of the win and £100 prize money (it costs £75 to enter!!! LOL).

Yes, club subs are about £10 a year to just belong to a club, and you have to be a member to go in the ballot to get a chance of a run. I am in around 45 clubs (I don't belong to any in Scotland as it is too far to travel, although I may need to rethink this strategy soon...). Quite often there is then a nomination fee of £2-5 to go in the draw, and if you secure a run then that costs anything from £35-55 for each stake. In addition, you obviously have your diesel costs and overnight accommodation. So, all adds up.

Traditionally entries have been via post/paper and cheques. Europe has moved to online entry system, and we are trailing woefully behind as not everyone that trials even has a computer.... There is one online entry system in use already, but only a handful of clubs signed up to it, and the KC has just now launched their own option. Online entry has to be the way forward as it simplifies the incredibly tedious process of form filling, but it is hard to get FT secretaries to all get on board - and it is them that have to do the work, largely as unpaid volunteers for the clubs. FTMS (field trial management system) does accept online entries for tests too, but only if the clubs are signed up, so again only a few.

Our trials are getting increasing entries from European entrants (particularly as more and more are coming over here now to train), but they do have to be members of the clubs and pay their annual subs.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Here you need not belong to a single club to run field trials. You may freely enter as many dogs in as many trials as you like with either the dogs owner or trainer as handler or your friend or your whatever. $100 per dog per stake. Many dogs are double staked each weekend running open & Amateur stakes.
Basically to make up FC = 10 Points (1 Open Win(5) + 5 other points. AFC = 15 Points (1 Win(5)+ 10 other points
Our field trial season is not restricted by "game" seasons. Trials are held year round except for lull periods around months of Dec and July. 
Dogs in full competition mode follow the seasons moving from northern and southern states avoiding extreme winter/summer.


----------



## jhnnythndr (Aug 11, 2011)

Edited for content


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Breck said:


> Here you need not belong to a single club to run field trials. You may freely enter as many dogs in as many trials as you like with either the dogs owner or trainer as handler or your friend or your whatever. $100 per dog per stake. Many dogs are double staked each weekend running open & Amateur stakes.
> Basically to make up FC = 10 Points (1 Open Win(5) + 5 other points. AFC = 15 Points (1 Win(5)+ 10 other points
> Our field trial season is not restricted by "game" seasons. Trials are held year round except for lull periods around months of Dec and July.
> Dogs in full competition mode follow the seasons moving from northern and southern states avoiding extreme winter/summer.


Wow, that sounds much better! So, can anyone enter in an open stake (or does the dog need to prequalify?)?
I like the idea of points to qualify, as you do get some very consistent dogs that always pull a place but just don't quite make that win, and you kind of feel that consistency deserves recognition...


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

kennel maiden said:


> Wow, that sounds much better! So, can anyone enter in an open stake (or does the dog need to prequalify?)?
> I like the idea of points to qualify, as you do get some very consistent dogs that always pull a place but just don't quite make that win, and you kind of feel that consistency deserves recognition...


Any dog over six months old can be entered in an Open All-Age (AA) stake, however at least 12 of the dogs must be "Qualified" for championship points to be awarded.
We have Limited AA stakes were all entered dogs must be qualified.
We have Special AA stakes were the entered dog must have Qualified within the current or immediate preceding year.
We have Restricted AA a Stakes were the Qualified dog must have earned its Qualification by placed in an Amateur All-Age stake or placement or Judges Award of Merit (JAM) in an open AA or limited AA stake. To receive a JAM, you must complete all series in the stake but not place 1-4. Not all finishers earn a JAM it's up to the judges.

To be Qualified requires a win or 2nd place finish in a Qualifying stake, a placement in an Amateur AA stake, or a JAM or placement in an Open stake. 

This should be fairly accurate.

Edit: "Amateuer" refers to the status of the handler and simply means they do not receive payment from others for training or handling their dogs. It does not mean they are not as good or better trainers/handlers than professionals, and it doesn't mean that they spend less time training and competing their dogs than a professional. We also have Owner/Handler Amateur AA and Qualifying stakes, were the handler must also be an owner of the dog. The Owner/Handler requirement does not affect "Qualifying" requirements - wins or placements here count the same as non-O/H stakes.


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

I believe that a club must have had a certain number of entries (65?) in the previous event in order to hold a Limited, Special,or Restricted stake. Or, is that to HS an O/H Amateur stake? Can anyone elaborate? Both O/H and tbe others are used to keep entry numbers down a bit.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Thanks. That's interesting, and puts the 100 odd entries a bit more into perspective, as they could be anyone from 6 month old pup up. Whereas our Working Tests are segregated, and classified: puppy (6 -18 months), novice (not having had a first in novice or first, second or third in open, or a place in a field trial) and open (literally open to anyone, but usually those that have qualified out of novice). And in our Field Trials you have to win a novice before you can gain a place in open, so all dogs in open are of a high standard (or should be....).


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

You do not have a perspective if what is, only what is allowed. So before you perpetuate the "myth" that opens have a bunch of six month old puppies running around...

Being Open to all dogs six month old and older should not be interpreted to mean that they are being entered in opens, only that they are allowed. We also have Derby stakes for dogs up to 2 years old, and Qualifying stakes for those who have yet to place in an AA stake or win 2 Qualifying stakes. Additionally, don't gloss over the fact that all Opens will have a minimum of 12 Qualified dogs. These 12 dogs could make up your 1 day trial's entire field.

Not sure if you can view this link but...
https://www.entryexpress.net/loggedIn/viewevent.aspx?eid=6771
This trial had 77 entries- all dogs are "Qualified" and over 20 are field champion or amateur field champion champions and one is a National champion. Oh and at least one member of the NationalRetriever Hall of Fame.


----------



## jhnnythndr (Aug 11, 2011)

Alright. I'm saying my piece. The uk ft-


It almost sound alike our mh. Walkups, not real technical, and impossible to get into.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

captainjack said:


> You do not have a perspective if what is, only what is allowed. So before you perpetuate the "myth" that opens have a bunch of six month old puppies running around...
> 
> Being Open to all dogs six month old and older should not be interpreted to mean that they are being entered in opens, only that they are allowed. We also have Derby stakes for dogs up to 2 years old, and Qualifying stakes for those who have yet to place in an AA stake or win 2 Qualifying stakes. Additionally, don't gloss over the fact that all Opens will have a minimum of 12 Qualified dogs. These 12 dogs could make up your 1 day trial's entire field.
> 
> ...


Gosh, you really are touchy!! LOL It was okay for you to belittle our trials by saying four chances to compete against only 20 dogs is much easier than your gi-normous entry all singing all dancing wonderbar 100+ entry stakes??!! 
I was just pointing out they are NOT the same!! Different, different, different.
I get that there are qualified dogs and then young dogs in your stakes. So, not 100 qualified dogs necessarily running in each stake.
Whereas our Open Stakes have to be qualified dogs and usually there are quite a few Champions running too, to try and get into the Championship.

Like I say, I really didn't want to get into this "mine is better than yours" as clearly it is not a battle I would win!! LOL 

Two entirely different games. We have to accept that.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

jhnnythndr said:


> Alright. I'm saying my piece. The uk ft-
> 
> 
> It almost sound alike our mh. Walkups, not real technical, and impossible to get into.


Quite possibly. Definitely difficult to get a run, but not impossible. We do do walk up, and driven, and a mix of walk up and mini drives. It is a natural shooting day. So, no set ups, and no two retrieves the same usually, unless you are sending dogs to pick off a drive when it is likely that some dogs will get similar retrieves. But in walk up it is spontaneous, so one dog might be sent for a partridge that it has marked falling into sugar beet, another dog may be sent for a hare, as a blind through a hedge and out onto plough, another dog may get a towered pheasant into a maize strip. The possibilities are endless.


----------



## jhnnythndr (Aug 11, 2011)

kennel maiden said:


> Gosh, you really are touchy!! LOL It was okay for you to belittle our trials by saying four chances to compete against only 20 dogs is much easier than your gi-normous entry all singing all dancing wonderbar 100+ entry stakes??!!
> I was just pointing out they are NOT the same!! Different, different, different.
> I get that there are qualified dogs and then young dogs in your stakes. So, not 100 qualified dogs necessarily running in each stake.
> Whereas our Open Stakes have to be qualified dogs and usually there are quite a few Champions running too, to try and get into the Championship.
> ...



I believe you missed glens point. And have gotten quite contentious in your own right, as the result of your error. 

Which odds do you prefer- 5 chances runnin against 20 dogs or 20 chances running against 100? He didn't belittle your events- he merely pointed out that your odds of turning in a performance that matters over the course of a year are similar.... Sort of. 


I find it curious that your "open" trials have so many limitations on who can run. We call events which are limited to a specific number or type of participant "limited" as opposed to "open."


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

She's not being contentious, she's contending what her trials embody, and there is a difference. Laura's been there and done that - succeeding as she went - in order to share her knowledge with us. The problem here is all down to nuance in communicating, or lack thereof on the internet. Like, although 6 mos. is the minimum age for competing in US field trials, the *average age* for All-Age dogs in our FTs is something like 71/2 years old. And yet I've run dogs (not very well, I might add in advance) in AA stakes at 14 months old that weren't QAA but still managed to get a fer piece into an open trial. That's because I don't really run Qs, choosing instead to parlay our "democratic" tenet that goes "You pays yer money, you takes yer chances" on the big time (all-age trials).

I don't have to belong to 45 retriever clubs in order to get myself some good odds on getting a run - hell, as of this year, I don't belong to _*any*_ clubs (not any more). But I can still enter FTs of any club in the US or Canada that I choose if I plunk down an entry fee.

Bottom line is some of us might want to be a little more appreciative to kennel maiden for articulating her viva la difference thoughts on this thread, and in return getting some helpful insights as to what we've got going on in North American field trials.

MG


----------



## Willie Alderson (Jan 26, 2011)

jhnnythndr said:


> Alright. I'm saying my piece. The uk ft-
> 
> 
> It almost sound alike our mh. Walkups, not real technical, and impossible to get into.


Funny, I see plenty of FC dogs FAIL a master test. That means it's not technical at all. And it's not impossible to get into a master stake. It's a regional issue, and even then it's not impossible. You just have to sit at the computer every waking hour to wait until event opens. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Hey Laura, Here's a grand idea for you.
To date there has never been a UK bred retriever whelped in the UK that has won a US field trial nor made field champion.
A small handful of US bred "British" dogs have won our Qualifying Stakes (=Novice) and maybe finished an all-age stake with merit but that's as far as any have made it.
So, select one of your well bred puppies and send him/her over to the US at about 10 weeks of age. You raise puppies differently so better for puppy never to have tasted pudding. lol
Dog would be placed in boarding school with a top professional. (Basically $1,000/month for training/board/bird fees) (when dog is ready for trials add a few hundred/month)
You can have a "co-owner" over there to share costs and one here to look after dog when not with pro and handle dog in amateur stakes etc if needed. Pro could keep dog year round too.
If successful, you could make history being the first owner/dog team from UK to make up an FC in the US.

PS
Ideally select a breeding that you normally would dismiss over there like a bird crazy vocal sire with lots of Go Power bred to an FC bitch who's bitch side pedigree is nothing but FC's 3 or 4 generations back. (no winners only)


----------



## jhnnythndr (Aug 11, 2011)

Willie Alderson said:


> Funny, I see plenty of FC dogs FAIL a master test. That means it's not technical at all. And it's not impossible to get into a master stake. It's a regional issue, and even then it's not impossible. You just have to sit at the computer every waking hour to wait until event opens. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no.



It's all tongue and cheek. I don't have dog to run master even if I had the inside track in when to sign up... As I read her description of what it takes to run- my eyes glazed over as my mind began to drift to all the "masters filled in 7 minutes" threads.


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

I don't know much about the Wild Rose way of training, viewed some items on RTF and went to a Web Site. I do know a little about the 2004 Skinners International Retriever Event May 30-31 in Dorset. I am familiar with Dr. Brad Bowyer, judged with him here, have a puppy now an adult dog, out of his bitch FC/AFC Minare Risqué of Buckshot that I put on the Derby List with some Quals then sold to Brad she is known as Minnie. Andy Attar took over her training. Brad ran FC/AFC Maple Creek's Maggie May at the International Retriever event at Sherborne Castle. Talked to Brad at length and the trials in the UK compared to the U.S. are apples and oranges. Stricter obedience, noise, jumping over fences, walk-ups are multiple dogs in a line, Maggie got a 0 for poor heelwork in one test. I think for what it's worth the "Grand" in UKC would be a little closer to the UK tests with flushing and obedience in my opinion. In the UK land is at a premium, laws are much more restrictive, whereas, in the U.S. we have states that have nearly "frontier" population and much open space as an example. Our own On-Line editor and DVD guy was there and he could respond accordingly. I didn't read Kennel Maiden response as them vrs us , but, I do tend to have a open mind that clouded the issue. Only, she was trying to explain, in her own way, what the trials are like in the U.K. I think the Wild Rose "thing" gets in the way, it must be a real touchy subject with some folks?

The same issues arise with American Hunt Tests vrs Field trials, again apples and oranges. General information is thrown about with less then ideal samplings of knowledge of the two venues. Some folks have never placed their hand in front of a American Field Champion and some not placed their hand in front of a Master Hunter, MN,HRCH or HRCH Grand dog. Unless you have run and trained all three I think it is unfair to make or compare the different venues. An example, I ran the first Master National Invitational, the forerunner of the Master National in 1991. They had multiple dog walk-ups, trailing tests, multiple dog honors, no NO birds, dog is sent for bird and then handled if need be, even if it doesn't get the bird etc. One could say the tests , in principal, were similar to what Kennel Maiden described? The bottom line a FC/AFC ran as test dog through the entire stake. This dog had just won a large Open in Arizona and failed almost at every turn of the event. Of course everyone started to snicker and talk about those "trial dogs" couldn't do hunting like tests or the like. In defense of the dog it was something he had never seen. Some minor training, a twist here and a twist there , later on in the next month or so he caught on fine. Fast forward today. for the most part, many field trial dogs have had very successful Hunt Test careers, and the few that "failed tests" could easily be trained to pass most hunt tests. The adage or joke by the uninformed, "most field trials dogs can't hunt or do a days work in the blind" is without substance I assure you! Just one man's opinion with a minus two and windchill of minus 11 today...Thanks for reading if you got this far.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

Interesting reading. I think we can aii agree whether you have an FC in the US or a FT CH in another part of the world you have made quite an accomplishment.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Great stuff, Earl - only gotta say my boy Breck got there first about comparisons with the Grand



Breck said:


> Hey Laura, Here's a grand idea for you.


Wait a minute, upon further review as they're likely to say at Lambeau Sunday afternoon, Breck's was a lower-case "grand" idea.

So you were at the first Master National held where, exactly, if you'll refresh our memory? The state that has all of three (count'em) counties, and those three shires being known as Kent, Sussex and New Castle? Hmm, that's almost British enough right there to get kennel maiden's attention for Breck's "grand idea."



jhnnythndr said:


> ...As I read her description of what it takes to run- my eyes glazed over as my mind began to drift to all the "masters filled in 7 minutes" threads.


Jhnny, Laura's cross to bear a la the MH idiocy on these shores is having to join 45 retriever clubs a year for bettering her chances for getting a run in a field trial. Her checkbook - sorry, chequebook - must glaze over...

MG


----------



## Criquetpas (Sep 14, 2004)

It was called the Master Invitational and you had to qualify with several passes for the year (don't remember exact number 1990) I ran the invitational in Madison, Wisconsin. I believe there was another on the East Coast, Delaware maybe LOL. The following the real deal, Master National was born, 1991. My dog at the time was Marshland's Shotzy CDX MH Qualified all-age pointed U.S. and Canada LOL a Golden, forgot the stars too*** , seriously he was a very nice dog. Ray Muth, now deceased , came up , shook my hand and told me Shotzy was the only dog that didn't handle on 27 marks....When I got his ribbon it was the same color as other dogs that handled...Hello Earl, welcome to Hunt Tests! He was retired just after running it and short of his 10th birthday, he had a Amateur all-age win (all-breed) a second amateur all-age place, some lesser ones and a basket full of green ribbons. He had epilepsy , with occasional seizures had to carry him off the line a couple times in the last series, or he may have drowned. That probably cost him his AFC. Made a vow never to own another Golden...until little Jeebs, co-owner, made the Derby List this year.


----------



## Bill Billups (Sep 13, 2003)

How is the "draw" done for UK trials? Is it by computer, or is it by the members of a given club?


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Bill Billups said:


> How is the "draw" done for UK trials? Is it by computer, or is it by the members of a given club?


A ''draw'' is only necessary when there is more entries than the stake dictates ie (12 dog novice or 24 dog open etc) 
The ''draw'' is then held by the appointed Field trial secretary of the club holding the trial at a pre -publicised place and time.
The exception to this is ''Scotland'' where 'Retriever Only' draws when number of entries exceed the nominated number then the KC will hold the draw.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

John Lash said:


> Interesting reading. I think we can aii agree whether you have an FC in the US or a FT CH in another part of the world you have made quite an accomplishment.


Very true. I don't think they grow on trees anywhere in the world!!....


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Breck said:


> Hey Laura, Here's a grand idea for you.
> To date there has never been a UK bred retriever whelped in the UK that has won a US field trial nor made field champion.
> A small handful of US bred "British" dogs have won our Qualifying Stakes (=Novice) and maybe finished an all-age stake with merit but that's as far as any have made it.
> So, select one of your well bred puppies and send him/her over to the US at about 10 weeks of age. You raise puppies differently so better for puppy never to have tasted pudding. lol
> ...


To be quite honest, and I know some say there isn't any difference in the breeding of our dogs, I genuinely believe there IS. And, I don't think that a dog that I bred, for the purposes of field trials over here, would be the best sort of dog for your field trials. I believe you could take a UK bred dog, one that excels at Working Tests, and possibly win with it. But even here, the dogs that look lovely and fast and stylish on dummies are usually too much of a handful and bubble over on our game game! And vice versa, those that excel in trials often don't look so motivated or stylish on dummies, as it is game that floats their boat, and they are more level headed and calm dogs.

So, in short, it probably wouldn't be a dog from my kennel that came to US and won in your FTs unfortunately! As I select for what I want, and I'd rather (try to) make up my own Field Trial Champion.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Bill Billups said:


> How is the "draw" done for UK trials? Is it by computer, or is it by the members of a given club?



Quite a few of the retriever draws are now done by computer, random number generation.
As Robert says, spaniel trials are usually not so over subscribed (and there are far less in the draws for Scottish trials too).


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

John Lash said:


> ...I think we can all agree whether you have an FC in the US or a FT CH in another part of the world you have made quite an accomplishment.





kennel maiden said:


> Very true. I don't think they grow on trees anywhere in the world!!....


Oh, yes, they do: in the US pointing dog world, a new FC/FTCh is whelped every 25 seconds. Usually a Brittany and grown in the vicinity of pine trees. And if a bird's shot out of or beneath that pine tree, the Brittany only had to point it, not pick it up, to earn that FC/FTCh, and did _*that*_ competing only against other Brittanies. (I.e., breed-exclusive and non-retrieving trials = one FC/FTCh sure to come your way soon.)

MG


----------



## Kirk Keene (Jul 20, 2009)

_"To be quite honest, and I know some say there isn't any difference in the breeding of our dogs, I genuinely believe there IS. And, I don't think that a dog that I bred, for the purposes of field trials over here, would be the best sort of dog for your field trials. I believe you could take a UK bred dog, one that excels at Working Tests, and possibly win with it. But even here, the dogs that look lovely and fast and stylish on dummies are usually too much of a handful and bubble over on our game game! And vice versa, those that excel in trials often don't look so motivated or stylish on dummies, as it is game that floats their boat, and they are more level headed and calm dogs.

So, in short, it probably wouldn't be a dog from my kennel that came to US and won in your FTs unfortunately! As I select for what I want, and I'd rather (try to) make up my own Field Trial Champion." _

Laura, I would be in total agreement with you. Most of my personal dogs are of UK-ancestry, and based on my observations, they do not posses the marking skills required for our American FT's. However, I do run them in Hunt Test's (shorter marks) and they perform quite well in that venue.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

They even have different tails. chalk and cheese, regards.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Kirk Keene said:


> _"To be quite honest, and I know some say there isn't any difference in the breeding of our dogs, I genuinely believe there IS. And, I don't think that a dog that I bred, for the purposes of field trials over here, would be the best sort of dog for your field trials. I believe you could take a UK bred dog, one that excels at Working Tests, and possibly win with it. But even here, the dogs that look lovely and fast and stylish on dummies are usually too much of a handful and bubble over on our game game! And vice versa, those that excel in trials often don't look so motivated or stylish on dummies, as it is game that floats their boat, and they are more level headed and calm dogs.
> 
> So, in short, it probably wouldn't be a dog from my kennel that came to US and won in your FTs unfortunately! As I select for what I want, and I'd rather (try to) make up my own Field Trial Champion." _
> 
> Laura, I would be in total agreement with you. Most of my personal dogs are of UK-ancestry, and based on my observations, they *do not posses the marking skills required *for our American FT's. However, I do run them in Hunt Test's (shorter marks) and they perform quite well in that venue.


Ah, now that bit, I'm afraid I don't agree with you on!!  I've got some superb marking dogs, and some less able, but I actually think it is down to the way they were initially trained. After all, it is just eye sight and then the ability to judge a distance, or take a photographic image, store it, retain it and run to it. I train in a very different way now on marks, and it is successful. The dogs I have now are far better at marking than the dogs I had a few years ago. 

The difference is, you can still 'get by' with a dog that isn't so great at marking in our field trials, but at Open level, that weakness will find you out and be penalised. In our working tests you will be penalised if your dog doesn't mark, and all you can do is damage limitation with great handling!!


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

kennel maiden said:


> Ah, now that bit, I'm afraid I don't agree with you on!!  I've got some superb marking dogs, and some less able, but I actually think it is down to the way they were initially trained. After all, it is just eye sight and then the ability to judge a distance, or take a photographic image, store it, retain it and run to it. I train in a very different way now on marks, and it is successful. The dogs I have now are far better at marking than the dogs I had a few years ago.
> 
> The difference is, you can still 'get by' with a dog that isn't so great at marking in our field trials, but at Open level, that weakness will find you out and be penalised. In our working tests you will be penalised if your dog doesn't mark, and all you can do is damage limitation with great handling!!


Kennel Maiden, In your quote you stopped the bold portion just a few words short of what Brother Keene intended.

He finished that lick with "for our American FT's". 

The context in which he wrote and your response with the disagreement are different.

Chris


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

As far as marking ability, over here in Open & Amateur our dogs need to "count to 4" both on land marking series and water marking series. Watch 4 birds go down remember them all and retrieve all without a whistle and without much hunting for birds. More than 1 pass in area of fall to find 1 or 2 of the 4 birds down, with otherwise stellar performance, may send dog home with Merit ribbon but no win. 
By rule Marking is of Primary Importance and normally judged so 
.
In a trial over there when judges have you send your dog to retrieve, how many birds will he pick up before he's done?


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Ah, I see, our dogs can only count to three!!! LOL


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Breck said:


> ...
> In a trial over there when judges have you send your dog to retrieve, how many birds will he pick up before he's done?





kennel maiden said:


> Ah, I see, our dogs can only count to three!!! LOL


LOL? ....

I notice the question was not answered. It is not accusation that your dogs cannot count beyond 3. Simply a question to further understand your game. 

Quads are typical here in the Open, and dogs that hunt (more than a couple of tight loops in the area) more than one bird are often eliminated. This doesn't mean that your dogs can't or don't do it. It's just given for a point of reference. 

And even if quads aren't typical in your trials, I'm certain the dogs could be trained to do them.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

captainjack said:


> I notice the question was not answered. It is not accusation that your dogs cannot count beyond 3. Simply a question to further understand your game.
> 
> Quads are typical here in the Open, and dogs that hunt (more than a couple of tight loops in the area) more than one bird are often eliminated. This doesn't mean that your dogs can't or don't do it. It's just given for a point of reference.
> 
> And even if quads aren't typical in your trials, I'm certain the dogs could be trained to do them.


I think KM ,was being 'jovial' hence the lol and wink.
The difference or differences as has been mentioned before, in this instance you seek to gain learning from, the dog may well get more than 3 0r 4 and in some cases 10-12 marks in the case of a duck drive,or driven trial ,even on a walked up trial there can be more than one bird shot by 4 guns at the same time,but you only have one chance to get the 'right one' .lol


----------



## Bill Billups (Sep 13, 2003)

It's not simply natural marking ability and counting birds. Even with a good marker it's tough to do that middle distance retired with the flyer close by. Or that momma poppa with the flyer deep to it. Even with generations of divergence from UK roots the vast majority of US well bred dogs can't do it consistently either. It's very very hard to win an open even with a very good marker that can count.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

captainjack said:


> LOL? ....
> 
> I notice the question was not answered. It is not accusation that your dogs cannot count beyond 3. Simply a question to further understand your game.
> 
> ...


Oh gosh, I'm so sorry Captain Jack, no I didn't answer your question. Our trials are different. I think Polmaise has now adequately summed that up. The dog can be required to remember any number of marks between one and 20+ !! It's just not the same. But the distances involved will not be as long (I think we have been down this road before!?...), but the distraction involved and sorts of cover and obstacles may be a lot worse (multiple fences, stone walls, cover crops, woods etc - but not so much water) etc, etc.

My point was that both marking ability and memory are things that can be trained and improved in a dog. Some dogs are more naturally gifted at marking, yes. But it is also down to training. What you are describing in quads, isn't so much direct marking ability, but memory marking.

What I don't think is so easy to train into a dog is temperament and disposition, and that is where breeding comes in.


----------



## Bill Billups (Sep 13, 2003)

I have been around a lot of UK bred dogs. I think some could with the right start and training might be able to compete in AA land work.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

kennel maiden said:


> This may change over time though as there is definitely more of a move here to train in line with modern methods, as used by other dog sports in the UK.


Would you quit calling classical conditioning modern please?


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Kirk Keene said:


> Most of my personal dogs are of UK-ancestry, and based on my observations, they do not posses the marking skills required for our American FT's. However, I do run them in Hunt Test's (shorter marks) and they perform quite well in that venue.





Kirk Keene said:


> _"To be quite honest, and I know some say there isn't any difference in the breeding of our dogs, *I genuinely believe there IS.* And, I don't think that a dog that I bred, for the purposes of field trials over here, would be the best sort of dog for your field trials. I believe you could take a UK bred dog, one that excels at Working Tests, and possibly win with it. But even here, the dogs that look lovely and fast and stylish on dummies are usually too much of a handful and bubble over on our game game! And vice versa, those that excel in trials often don't look so motivated or stylish on dummies, *as it is game that floats their boat, and they are more level headed and calm dogs.*
> 
> 
> Laura, I would be in total agreement with you. Most of my personal dogs are of UK-ancestry, and based on my observations, they do not posses the marking skills required for our American FT's. However, I do run them in Hunt Test's (shorter marks) and they perform quite well in that venue._


_

Hmmm!? 
I personally don't believe there is a difference in the 'breeding' ? But there is a difference in the 'Training' . Marking for example isn't a god given talent or a hereditary trait (other than healthy eyes ). KM , Does however ,make a very important distinction (imo) between dogs over here who excel on 'bumper work' or even those on 'cold game tests' with shot are more stylish and confident with 'set up's' !?....Unknown scenarios such as ''A normal shooting day or a UK Field trial'' ,many of these 'stylish' flashy dogs look 'out of water' ? pardon the pun ..which KM also mentioned as a 'lack' or 'less accomplished' that the Retriever in the UK is competed to >?._


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

DarrinGreene said:


> Would you quite calling classical conditioning modern please?


No I wouldn't! What I should have spelled out more eruditely perhaps was a move towards more modern gundog training rather than the traditional harsh methods of 'breaking' a dog of yesteryear. As people have pointed out before, there was an old-school method of harshly punishing dogs in the name of 'training' them. But now, thankfully, there is a move to train with more kindness.

So, yes classical conditioning, operant conditioning and all the other fancy phrases associated with animal behaviour/training have been around a long time, and are not new. It is just that this seems to be new or modern in terms of our UK gundog training.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

Nothing modern, or more advanced about removing half the training system (the punishment aspects) and leaving half in place, especially when the half in question has been documented back into the mid 1800's. 

I call it "politically correct" training and there's not a thing modern about it. 

Over here they call it "modern science based" training... Well... If e-collars aren't more modern and science based than treats I don't know what is! 

Playing with people's emotions for financial gain is really all it is and frankly, at least in the pet world, it's leading to more and more shelter dogs than ever before if you ask me.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

polmaise said:


> Hmmm!?
> I personally don't believe there is a difference in the 'breeding' ? But there is a difference in the 'Training' . Marking for example isn't a god given talent or a hereditary trait (other than healthy eyes ). KM , Does however ,make a very important distinction (imo) between dogs over here who excel on 'bumper work' or even those on 'cold game tests' with shot are more stylish and confident with 'set up's' !?....Unknown scenarios such as ''A normal shooting day or a UK Field trial'' ,many of these 'stylish' flashy dogs look 'out of water' ? pardon the pun ..which KM also mentioned as a 'lack' or 'less accomplished' that the Retriever in the UK is competed to >?.


LOL Polmaise, we are agreeing and disagreeing all over the place on different and same things!! Must be that subtle north/south difference in language!  

Agree on the eyes/memory thing as I said earlier being down to training, although I do think maybe some dogs are better at marking naturally than others. Maybe more attentive/pay more attention? But disagree in that I think temperament/disposition/biddability is a bred-in trait rather than a trained in one. It's very hard to change the 'nature' of the dog with training. It's that underlying material.

Agree on the UK tests vs trials dogs - but for different reasons!! I haven't really noticed that 'fish out of water' thing particularly when the scenarios aren't set up, but it is a valid point. But for me those head strong stylish dogs that look a million dogs on dummy tests, you just know are going to be a nightmare to trial as they come up even more gears and you can't contain them!!


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

DarrinGreene said:


> Nothing modern, or more advanced about removing half the training system (the punishment aspects) and leaving half in place, especially when the half in question has been documented back into the mid 1800's.
> 
> I call it "politically correct" training and there's not a thing modern about it.
> 
> ...


I still think you are missing the point (or just wanting to argue?). I was just saying that gundog training in the UK is starting to catch up with other UK dog training disciplines whereby for some it is becoming more reward based than it previously was. This is not to say that people don't use negatives? Most of us use reward and correction, to mark desirable and non-desirable behaviour. But we don't 'train' with fear and repression, which is how things used to be done in 'the olden days'.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

kennel maiden said:


> It's very hard to change the 'nature' of the dog with training. It's that underlying material.


Don't say that !..... It's the very basis of everything the snake oil pedlars sell from wonder leads to back packs and DVD'S and clickers ..Lol


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

kennel maiden said:


> LOL Polmaise, we are agreeing and disagreeing all over the place on different and same things!! Must be that subtle north/south difference in language!
> 
> Agree on the eyes/memory thing as I said earlier being down to training, although I do think maybe some dogs are better at marking naturally than others. Maybe more attentive/pay more attention? *But disagree in that I think temperament/disposition/biddability is a bred-in trait rather than a trained in one. It's very hard to change the 'nature' of the dog with training. It's that underlying material.*
> 
> Agree on the UK tests vs trials dogs - but for different reasons!! I haven't really noticed that 'fish out of water' thing particularly when the scenarios aren't set up, but it is a valid point. But for me those head strong stylish dogs that look a million dogs on dummy tests, you just know are going to be a nightmare to trial as they come up even more gears and you can't contain them!!


I like this one and have left it as a whole quote, but bolded the portion I'm interested in discussing.

This is nothing more than selective breeding. That's all that it is. The rules and strategies of today's UK/Irish/EU game are quite different than that of the North American game.

We will breed winners to winners. We will selectively breed. It only makes total and logical sense that the offspring will begin to require less compromise on their end, to meet what their trainer handler wants on the human end. 

The best performing dogs are certainly credited some to the trainer. But most all trainers should agree that the dogs they love are the dogs that naturally "get it". The dogs that naturally fall into the program and exhibit desirable responses are those that we as trainers tend to love to train.

My own description is "compromise". Whether it's a marriage, a business negotiation, an international trade agreement, or dog training....compromise is a factor.

The more the dog naturally already wants to do on its own, the less refinement the handler has to do to reach the compromise between dog wishes and trainer wishes. 

It is common sense that today's winning UK trial dogs exhibit different traits than today's winning NA dogs. There is no "right" there is no "wrong". 

Kennel Maiden, back when this whole discussion first started, I believe there was a comment you made with "smiley faces" that changed the tempo of this thread to a certain degree. 

http://www.retrievertraining.net/fo...ild-Rose-Way&p=1284602&viewfull=1#post1284602

I know you were joking, but it did shift the tone of the many posts that have occured here. It's all good.

Selective Breeding is a wonderful thing. (or can be) 

Chris


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

kennel maiden said:


> ....My point was that both marking ability and memory are things that can be trained and improved in a dog. Some dogs are more naturally gifted at marking, yes. But it is also down to training....


 Being able to see well, is genetic.
Being able to think, and remember, is genetic.
Trainability, is just as genetic as having a good nose.

You can't train a person that actually is dumb, to be smart. 
And you can't do it with a dog either.

Because the ability to learn, lies in the animal's DNA.


----------



## truthseeker (Feb 2, 2012)

DarrinGreene said:


> Nothing modern, or more advanced about removing half the training system (the punishment aspects) and leaving half in place, especially when the half in question has been documented back into the mid 1800's.
> 
> I call it "politically correct" training and there's not a thing modern about it.
> 
> ...


PC trainers have been playing this game for awhile now. Taking a worn out and incomplete method and making it seem like something new. They think, that it makes the dog feel better, but all it dose is make them feel better about themselves and actually is a counterproductive way to train. 

Keith


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Chris Atkinson said:


> I like this one and have left it as a whole quote, but bolded the portion I'm interested in discussing.
> 
> This is nothing more than selective breeding. That's all that it is. The rules and strategies of today's UK/Irish/EU game are quite different than that of the North American game.
> 
> ...


Chris, I totally and absolutely agree!! Nail on the head. We have selectively bred for our own games.


----------



## Kirk Keene (Jul 20, 2009)

_"It is common sense that today's winning UK trial dogs exhibit different traits than today's winning NA dogs. There is no "right" there is no "wrong"."_

Absolutely! Train enough dogs from each gene pool and the general differences become obvious. Doesn't make one group "better" than the other...they simply show different inherited characteristics.

And Laura...I'll stick to my belief that most well-bred American FT dogs can mark more precisely (at greater distances) than a UK-bred dog. In training my UK-bred dogs, precision marking and holding a line are by far the most difficult aspects that I have to overcome. In my opinion, this is the main reason I doubt you'll ever see a 100% UK-bred dog achieve FC or AFC status.


----------



## truthseeker (Feb 2, 2012)

kennel maiden said:


> Chris, I totally and absolutely agree!! Nail on the head. We have selectively bred for our own games.


Even though your answer is most diffidently true. It's not what I want to hear. I feel that our every day Joe ( meat dogs) can be trained to the level of your competition, with the methods that we use. Can that be said, the other way around?

Keith


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

truthseeker said:


> Even though your answer is most diffidently true. It's not what I want to hear. I feel that our every day Joe ( meat dogs) can be trained to the level of your competition, with the methods that we use. Can that be said, the other way around?
> 
> Keith


My own reply ,although your question was directed to an individual.
Keith,Your comments come across as 'them and us' and 'right or wrong' 'Best or Better'. I read many of the posts from the owner/handler of 'Every day Joe' on both sides of the pond and going by what they post I doubt the dogs are capable of competing in competition 'without training for competition' whatever methods are used.
As far as the statement *"I feel that our every day Joe ( meat dogs) can be trained to the level of your competition, with the methods that we use"* I believe they could!but probably be eliminated at the first attempt with one of the eliminating faults that are a by-product of the methods 'You' use. That doesn't mean that the methods are wrong, but for the means to the end of winning or completing the competition within the rules results in 'sent home'. Kirk Keene mentioned earlier that 'Marking' was something found 'lacking' in the scenario of 'Other way round'? meaning British Bred dog competing in the USA and he already proved that he was successful at Hunt test level? There are also many UK bred dogs already successfully performing along side these 'meat dogs' as you put it. I ask 'You' .How many US dogs are over in the UK competing or even working in the shooting field?
I'm all for the American Dream'!...Let's just learn from the differences and enjoy them?. Personally I have 3 retrievers right now following a US Program/guidance So I'll let you know how that pans out !


----------



## Kirk Keene (Jul 20, 2009)

truthseeker said:


> Even though your answer is most diffidently true. It's not what I want to hear. I feel that our every day Joe ( meat dogs) can be trained to the level of your competition, with the methods that we use. Can that be said, the other way around?
> 
> Keith


Keith, I'd have to disagree with you on the premise that our US-bred "meat dogs" can be trained to the UK level of competition, using our Carr-based training methods. I still occasionally run a UK-style trial, and I can confirm that after a few series, even the steadiest dogs can get on their toes...or worse.

I've got a little Yellow female that's a few passes shy of her HRCH. She's rock-steady on honor and diversions, and I never bother to watch her as marks are falling. I'm THAT confident she's not going to break. Last UK-style trial we ran, I had to resort to whispering "Heel!" to keep her from breaking. Loads of close-range flyers and guns in a line can do crazy things to a dog.

Again, I think there's much more to it than simply "training for the venue".


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Keith, as Polmaise has said, and I have to agree, that unfortunately I think your 'meat dogs' (not sure what they are?) would probably fail at the first hurdle and be put out for an eliminating fault (such as making a noise or moving/unsteadiness) before they even got the retrieve element. Like Polmaise says, that is not a criticism, just one of the differences. I don't really want to go back to that comparison of ours vs yours again, as I think we have probably done it to death. But, I think there is probably more chance of someone taking a UK dog and training it successfully for your competitions than vice versa.....? But if I see any US retrievers that look like they are going well over here I will certainly eat those words!!


----------



## truthseeker (Feb 2, 2012)

polmaise said:


> My own reply ,although your question was directed to an individual.
> Keith,Your comments come across as 'them and us' and 'right or wrong' 'Best or Better'. I read many of the posts from the owner/handler of 'Every day Joe' on both sides of the pond and going by what they post I doubt the dogs are capable of competing in competition 'without training for competition' whatever methods are used.
> As far as the statement *"I feel that our every day Joe ( meat dogs) can be trained to the level of your competition, with the methods that we use"* I believe they could!but probably be eliminated at the first attempt with one of the eliminating faults that are a by-product of the methods 'You' use. That doesn't mean that the methods are wrong, but for the means to the end of winning or completing the competition within the rules results in 'sent home'. Kirk Keene mentioned earlier that 'Marking' was something found 'lacking' in the scenario of 'Other way round'? meaning British Bred dog competing in the USA and he already proved that he was successful at Hunt test level? There are also many UK bred dogs already successfully performing along side these 'meat dogs' as you put it. I ask 'You' .How many US dogs are over in the UK competing or even working in the shooting field?
> I'm all for the American Dream'!...Let's just learn from the differences and enjoy them?. Personally I have 3 retrievers right now following a US Program/guidance So I'll let you know how that pans out !


I am looking forward to your post on how your dogs are doing. My post was more along the lines of level of competition, not the differences. Sure you have to train them for what they are doing and give them the random shoot birds, over different course conditions.

BTW, whats faults would they be dismissed for. Dose it have something to do with OB. If so, not a problem. 

Keith


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Kirk Keene said:


> Keith, I'd have to disagree with you on the premise that our US-bred "meat dogs" can be trained to the UK level of competition, using our Carr-based training methods. I still occasionally run a UK-style trial, and I can confirm that after a few series, even the steadiest dogs can get on their toes...or worse.
> 
> I've got a little Yellow female that's a few passes shy of her HRCH. She's rock-steady on honor and diversions, and I never bother to watch her as marks are falling. I'm THAT confident she's not going to break. Last UK-style trial we ran, I had to resort to whispering "Heel!" to keep her from breaking. Loads of close-range flyers and guns in a line can do crazy things to a dog.
> 
> Again, I think there's much more to it than simply "training for the venue".


Hell yea! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VanUIPniNhc


----------



## truthseeker (Feb 2, 2012)

polmaise said:


> Hell yea! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VanUIPniNhc


I not saying that it dose not take work,but is that all there is to it.

Keith


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

truthseeker said:


> I not saying that it dose not take work,but is that all there is to it.
> 
> Keith


No, they have to retrieve them . but only the ones they are told to . lol


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Hmm A lot of pages here, I'm not sure you can compare U.S. vs. U.K. The U.K. can't use the e-collar, this is not a choice nor a moral decision, this is Law. The result is they have to do most of their training in other-ways. How can one argue that one methodology is better than the other, when one side doesn't have a choice? In the U.S. we have the choice, and yes the e-collar is the choice for most upper level trainers, it's a powerful tool. This doesn't mean the dogs couldn't be trained to the same level without the collar; it would just take much more time. The comments on U.K. vs U.S. training methods, and test strategies, only aid in perpetrating generalities (FT dogs are ill mannered, UK dogs are soft, incapable of higher level training, mine is better than yours etc. etc.), Such generalities have time and again been proven false. I'm sure the U.K. peeps are very good with their methods, and must be very devoted to put so much physical effort & time into their dogs. How many of us would continue training or could get anywhere close to our usual level if we couldn't use an e-collar?


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

truthseeker said:


> I not saying that it dose not take work,but is that all there is to it.
> 
> Keith


No, that's just an average day picking up for Robert I imagine. If that were a trial on the first drive all 24 dogs would be standing in line with their handlers all watching and honouring the marks off lead. So there is then the added pressure of the competition of the other dogs getting retrieves in front of them. Like we say, not necessarily more difficult if you train for it, but just v different to your own trials.


----------



## Kirk Keene (Jul 20, 2009)

_"The comments on U.K. vs U.S. training methods, and test strategies, only aid in perpetrating generalities (FT dogs are ill mannered, UK dogs are soft, incapable of higher level training, mine is better than yours etc. etc.), Such generalities have time and again been proven false." _ 

So you're stating there are no differences in the general abilities of each gene pool?


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

KM when the dogs are at a trial "standing in line" together, does one dog do multlple retrieves?


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Hmm A lot of pages here, I'm not sure you can compare U.S. vs. U.K. *The U.K. can't use the e-collar, this is not a choice nor a moral decision, this is Law*. The result is they have to do most of their training in other-ways. How can one argue that one methodology is better than the other, when one side doesn't have a choice? In the U.S. we have the choice, and yes the e-collar is the choice for most upper level trainers, it's a powerful tool. This doesn't mean the dogs couldn't be trained to the same level without the collar; it would just take much more time. The comments on U.K. vs U.S. training methods, and test strategies, only aid in perpetrating generalities (FT dogs are ill mannered, UK dogs are soft, incapable of higher level training, mine is better than yours etc. etc.), Such generalities have time and again been proven false. I'm sure the U.K. peeps are very good with their methods, and must be very devoted to put so much physical effort & time into their dogs. How many of us would continue training or could get anywhere close to our usual level if we couldn't use an e-collar?


That's not true, I'm afraid. The e-collar is only banned in Wales! For the most of us, we choose not to use an e-collar to train with.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

John Lash said:


> KM when the dogs are at a trial "standing in line" together, does one dog do multlple retrieves?


Define "multiple retrieves," John. Few years ago at the IGL Champs, one of the dogs made a "multiple retrieve" (brought back two birds at once) and got put out of the trial for so doing.

Not 100% sure of it, but would wager this is as close as trials over there come to "multiple retrieves" other than stacking up singles over the course of the trial.

MG


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

John Lash said:


> KM when the dogs are at a trial "standing in line" together, does one dog do multlple retrieves?


Sorry, if the dogs are in a drive they are actually sitting, and the handlers are standing. Yes, if they survive the first round each dog would have two retrieves in that first round. Those two retrieves will usually be separated by one or more dogs being sent in between them for their retrieves, which is an added distraction. Only if they 'eye wipe' their partner dog would they have two retrieves on the bounce so to speak. And now it all gets way too technical!!... and I'm off to bed


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

kennel maiden said:


> No, that's just an average day picking up for Robert I imagine. If that were a trial on the first drive all 24 dogs would be standing in line with their handlers all watching and honouring the marks off lead. So there is then the added pressure of the competition of the other dogs getting retrieves in front of them. Like we say, not necessarily more difficult if you train for it, but just v different to your own trials.


It is as KM say's an average day picking up. I was making comparison as near as I could to 'meat dog' for our American friends.


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Darn! km didn't take the bait, John. I was going to say that the dog put out for making a multiple retrieve was trying to impress the judges that it could count higher than one, but the judges wouldn't allow it. And in fairness - right, km? - those two cock pheasants the dog retrieved fell atop one another and made for conundrum for the dog on its turn to retrieve.

MG


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

Just wondered if the dogs ever had to do doubles or triples.


----------



## truthseeker (Feb 2, 2012)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Hmm A lot of pages here, I'm not sure you can compare U.S. vs. U.K. The U.K. can't use the e-collar, this is not a choice nor a moral decision, this is Law. The result is they have to do most of their training in other-ways. How can one argue that one methodology is better than the other, when one side doesn't have a choice? In the U.S. we have the choice, and yes the e-collar is the choice for most upper level trainers, it's a powerful tool. This doesn't mean the dogs couldn't be trained to the same level without the collar; it would just take much more time. The comments on U.K. vs U.S. training methods, and test strategies, only aid in perpetrating generalities (FT dogs are ill mannered, UK dogs are soft, incapable of higher level training, mine is better than yours etc. etc.), Such generalities have time and again been proven false. I'm sure the U.K. peeps are very good with their methods, and must be very devoted to put so much physical effort & time into their dogs. How many of us would continue training or could get anywhere close to our usual level if we couldn't use an e-collar?


This is not exactly, but close to the answer I would expect to be honest. 

Keith


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

John Lash said:


> Just wondered if the dogs ever had to do doubles or triples.


They often do doubles in 'tests' (that's with bumpers) but rarely triples! (probably why the question was raised regarding 'can they count?) .Our shooting is mostly with a 'double barrel' .lol 
Anything else is just 'showboating'


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Kirk Keene said:


> _"The comments on U.K. vs U.S. training methods, and test strategies, only aid in perpetrating generalities (FT dogs are ill mannered, UK dogs are soft, incapable of higher level training, mine is better than yours etc. etc.), Such generalities have time and again been proven false." _
> 
> So you're stating there are no differences in the general abilities of each gene pool?


Unless they've opened the studbook since the Labrador was recognized as a Breed, they are the same Gene pool.  They can cross back and forth and the lines all come from the same foundational stock, with the same pool of genetic potential, for the good or the bad. Simple fact of the matter is; It takes basic characteristics for a dog to be able to be trained, particular characteristics for a dog to be good at any occupation, these traits are the same, regardless of where they hail from, or which games they play. Intelligence, Tractability-adaptability, eagerness to please stated in the US standard. Intelligent, keen-biddable, with a strong will to please stated in the UK standard. Same breed, same words, perhaps different games, focus, methods, goals. Still if you were to look, you'd be able to find all the variation of traits and talent within the population regardless of geography. Both sides have solid gentleman gun dogs, both have extremely driven, hard running, prone to breaking dogs. Both have plodders that couldn't hunt their way out of a paper-bag. Both have dogs with the capability to be trained to do most anything, and put on a good showing. Yet we seem to focus on how "our dogs, games, training" are different, how "our dogs,games training" are better how "their dogs,games,training" are easier, inferior...how their "dogs training etc.. couldn't work for "our" game. When in reality it's all dogs picking up stuff simply because someone asked them to do it and showed them a proper way to do it.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> [Unless they've opened the studbook since the Labrador was recognized as a Breed, they are the same Gene pool. :wink: They can cross back and forth and the lines all come from the same foundational stock, with the same pool of genetic potential, for the good or the bad. Simple fact of the matter is; It takes basic characteristics for a dog to be able to be trained, particular characteristics for a dog to be good at any occupation, these traits are the same, regardless of where they hail from, or which games they play./QUOTE]
> 
> Does this include show dogs,,after all they are still Labradors ,, Do you think the show fanciers have emphasized certain genes? Do you think the Europeans have emphasized certain genes? Do you think people who breed dogs for color emphasize certain genes. Noise may be more prevalent in our dogs ,why? Same genes from the beggining ,,,right?


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> ...
> Yet we seem to focus on how "our dogs, games, training" are different, how "our dogs,games training" are better how "their dogs,games,training" are easier, inferior...*how their "dogs training etc.. couldn't work for "our" game. *When in reality it's all dogs picking up stuff simply because someone asked them to do it and showed them a proper way to do it.


I don't know what "their dogs training etc." is. But, if "their dogs training etc." is positive only training (not just non-ecollar) or the Wild Rose Way of training, and it's just dogs picking up stuff, then why can no one name a single dog that has achieved it's FC or AFC title here in the U.S. following those methods (again I'm talking about positive only not just non ecollar)? Until someone does it, you have to say their way won't work for "our" game. 

And it doesn't matter whether here is here or here is there because the same holds true. Until someone uses force-based training methods to title a dog over there, you have to say that our methods don't work for "their" game.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Unless they've opened the studbook since the Labrador was recognized as a Breed, they are the same Gene pool.  They can cross back and forth and the lines all come from the same foundational stock, with the same pool of genetic potential, for the good or the bad. Simple fact of the matter is; It takes basic characteristics for a dog to be able to be trained, particular characteristics for a dog to be good at any occupation, these traits are the same, regardless of where they hail from, or which games they play. Intelligence, Tractability-adaptability, eagerness to please stated in the US standard. Intelligent, keen-biddable, with a strong will to please stated in the UK standard. Same breed, same words, perhaps different games, focus, methods, goals. Still if you were to look, you'd be able to find all the variation of traits and talent within the population regardless of geography. Both sides have solid gentleman gun dogs, both have extremely driven, hard running, prone to breaking dogs. Both have plodders that couldn't hunt their way out of a paper-bag. Both have dogs with the capability to be trained to do most anything, and put on a good showing. Yet we seem to focus on how "our dogs, games, training" are different, how "our dogs,games training" are better how "their dogs,games,training" are easier, inferior...how their "dogs training etc.. couldn't work for "our" game. When in reality it's all dogs picking up stuff simply because someone asked them to do it and showed them a proper way to do it.


This is nice thought, but in reality the working and show bred Labrador have diverged so much in the UK that they almost look like different breeds, and currently there is no show bred lab that is capable of winning an open stake, just as there is no FT bred lab that is capable of winning in the ring. So, we have bred for our needs, selecting for the things we want and discarding those we don't. Show folk have kept and enhanced the bits that look nice, and selected for biddability and athleticism. Likewise in the States, I imagine you have selected for the parts that fit your US game.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

captainjack said:


> I don't know what "their dogs training etc." is. But, if "their dogs training etc." is positive only training (not just non-ecollar) or the Wild Rose Way of training, and it's just dogs picking up stuff, then why can no one name a single dog that has achieved it's FC or AFC title here in the U.S. following those methods (again I'm talking about positive only not just non ecollar)? Until someone does it, you have to say their way won't work for "our" game.
> 
> And it doesn't matter whether here is here or here is there because the same holds true. Until someone uses force-based training methods to title a dog over there, you have to say that our methods don't work for "their" game.


It's not positive only by any means on the whole, but I would say there are elements that are very similar to the 'Wildrose Way' as that just looks like mostly UK based training methods to me, other than the standing the dog on the table thing, which we don't do?!!


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Pete said:


> > [Unless they've opened the studbook since the Labrador was recognized as a Breed, they are the same Gene pool. :wink: They can cross back and forth and the lines all come from the same foundational stock, with the same pool of genetic potential, for the good or the bad. Simple fact of the matter is; It takes basic characteristics for a dog to be able to be trained, particular characteristics for a dog to be good at any occupation, these traits are the same, regardless of where they hail from, or which games they play./QUOTE]
> >
> > Does this include show dogs,,after all they are still Labradors ,, *Do you think the show fanciers have emphasized certain genes? Do you think the Europeans have emphasized certain genes? Do you think people who breed dogs for color emphasize certain genes. Noise may be more prevalent in our dogs ,why? Same genes from the beggining ,,,right*?
> 
> ...


----------



## Colonel Blimp (Jun 1, 2004)

> Until someone uses force-based training methods to title a dog over there, you have to say that our methods don't work for "their" game.


Actually, no. You can't say something has or hasn't worked until you've tested it, and to the best of my knowledge no one in UK has ever used a Carr based program with the aim of entering Field Trials. 

As regards The Wildrose Way, I haven't seen the written stuff but I do have the DVD. It seems to me to be deficient in teaching and demonstrating the obedience tasks, but then so does the Carr based stuff I've seen. IMO if you got the obedience down and then followed Wildrose with intelligence and a degree of application you should wind up with a useful hunting dog. It isn't and doesn't pretend to be a training regime for US FTs so criticising it on that basis just seems silly. Neither is it "positive only".

Eug


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

kennel maiden said:


> I still think you are missing the point (or just wanting to argue?). I was just saying that gundog training in the UK is starting to catch up with other UK dog training disciplines whereby for some it is becoming more reward based than it previously was. This is not to say that people don't use negatives? Most of us use reward and correction, to mark desirable and non-desirable behaviour. But we don't 'train' with fear and repression, which is how things used to be done in 'the olden days'.


Not "wanting to argue" or "missing the point" the fact is, and this is simple... There was always retrieving involved in all of this "fear and repression" training everyone talks about, so... there have always been rewards used in training. Puppies have always been started with lots of rewards and very little discipline (at least over here). 

Everyone has always used correction and rewards, therefore. 

The "advancement" if you want to call it that, is in the development of technology and gentle application of the e-collar where whips and bats and rat shot and beatings were used in the past to accomplish the task.

Rewards have always been there and still are, pretty much in their same form (food or retrieving). Haven't changed much for most US retriever trainers.

A minority have eliminated correction in any form and have yet to succeed at anything other than the lowest level of competition. 

I don't see that as advancement, rather, I see it as regression. 

In the pet world this regression is clearly leading to a reduction in control and an increase in bad behavior, which , if you understand the mindset of a lot of people over here, clearly means more dogs in shelters.

They don't want to "hurt" the dog (in training) but will rationalize surrendering it when it won't comply. It's quite a sad situation that could be changed if the cookie pushers would realize what they are really doing in the name of "modern science based training".


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

DarrinGreene said:


> Not "wanting to argue" or "missing the point" the fact is, and this is simple... There was always retrieving involved in all of this "fear and repression" training everyone talks about, so... there have always been rewards used in training. Puppies have always been started with lots of rewards and very little discipline (at least over here).
> 
> Everyone has always used correction and rewards, therefore.
> 
> ...


Again, I wasn't talking about USA 'modern' training. I really can't comment on that. I was just saying that over here, in UK, there is a move to make gundog training less aversive than before. Where it was primarily 'dog breaking' and a lot of schooling was through fear or punishment, and treats were thought of as a major no-no and frowned upon by old school gundog trainers.

I don't think that you can properly train a FT dog to the highest level using just clicker training. As far as I can see, that is just not compatible with the demands of the sport (ie. working the dogs at extreme distances), and for me whilst the clicker is a great and positive tool for teaching some of the obedience elements, I do think it is much faster and aids the learning of the dog, if you use a non-reward marker as well. So the dog has a clue what is not desirable behaviour as well as a clue as to what is. Ultimately clicker training was founded in the training of dolphins, whereby trainers wanted the animals to innovate and come up with all sorts of new behaviours and positions. But for me, I don't particularly want my gundog to innovate!! So, that is not so appropriate. I want to help it understand what I want from it.

I do see the change towards training our dogs, over here, in a more positive and humane manner as progress. You may not agree. But anything that helps dogs to learn, and trainers/handlers to improve the communication between dog and handler for me is a good thing.

You are derogatory about the so-called 'cookie pushers' but actually it is not that they are using rewards that is wrong, but that they are poor trainers and using them ineffectively. Just as there are those poor trainers too that use an e-collar to zap a dog inappropriately and end up ruining it. Or beating it....

It is not so much the tools that are to blame, but those that are using them.


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

kennel maiden said:


> Again, I wasn't talking about USA 'modern' training. I really can't comment on that. I was just saying that over here, in UK, there is a move to make gundog training less aversive than before. Where it was primarily 'dog breaking' and a lot of schooling was through fear or punishment, and treats were thought of as a major no-no and frowned upon by old school gundog trainers.
> 
> I don't think that you can properly train a FT dog to the highest level using just clicker training. As far as I can see, that is just not compatible with the demands of the sport (ie. working the dogs at extreme distances), and for me whilst the clicker is a great and positive tool for teaching some of the obedience elements, I do think it is much faster and aids the learning of the dog, if you use a non-reward marker as well. So the dog has a clue what is not desirable behaviour as well as a clue as to what is. Ultimately clicker training was founded in the training of dolphins, whereby trainers wanted the animals to innovate and come up with all sorts of new behaviours and positions. But for me, I don't particularly want my gundog to innovate!! So, that is not so appropriate. I want to help it understand what I want from it.
> 
> ...


I realized re-reading this that we are, in fact talking about to different things. Hillman has taken a lead over here on a more thoughtful way of training a retriever and I think most people would call that "advancement" because by nature, we do not want to hurt these creatures that are such a big part of our lives. 

As for cookie pushers being bad at a valid protocol, I respectfully submit that they and you are both wrong. There are few dogs that will reliably perform under distraction with nothing but cookies for motivation. Maybe some high level competitive obedience people can pull it off with a biddable and food motivated dog, but the average owner over here has little chance and pulling of the complexity and required repetition/structure to make that a reality. 

It's unfortunate but some level of correction benefits pretty much every dog I come across where the owner is a normal human (not a dog training hobbyist).

As to Wildrose and Duckhill (same thing) I think the average guy may enjoy his hunting dog trained with these methods, depending on his expectation however, there aren't any that I've seen succeeding in either our certification tests or our competitive events. That demonstrates the weaknesses in the program IMHO.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

DarrinGreene said:


> I realized re-reading this that we are, in fact talking about to different things. Hillman has taken a lead over here on a more thoughtful way of training a retriever and I think most people would call that "advancement" because by nature, we do not want to hurt these creatures that are such a big part of our lives.
> 
> As for cookie pushers being bad at a valid protocol, I respectfully submit that they and you are both wrong. There are few dogs that will reliably perform under distraction with nothing but cookies for motivation. Maybe some high level competitive obedience people can pull it off with a biddable and food motivated dog, but the average owner over here has little chance and pulling of the complexity and required repetition/structure to make that a reality.
> 
> ...


I actually think we are saying the same thing! There has to be right and wrong, and for the dog (similarly for a child) to know what is right and wrong, so that they can make their behaviour choices accordingly.

Having said that, I train my heelwork with my baby pups using only treats ("cookies"!) with a neat little method that I have developed whereby I teach them to heel brilliantly off the lead, before a lead ever goes on them. They are then holding a perfect heelwork position before the lead even enters the equation, and voila no pulling issues. I do use food rewards for obedience work, as I think it is damned boring and totally non-rewarding for the dog, so this is reward/payment for good work. Later on, the retrieve is obviously the reward.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> _The comments on U.K. vs U.S. training methods, and test strategies, only aid in perpetrating generalities (FT dogs are ill mannered, UK dogs are soft, incapable of higher level training, mine is better than yours etc. etc.), Such generalities have time and again been proven false."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## truthseeker (Feb 2, 2012)

kennel maiden said:


> Keith, as Polmaise has said, and I have to agree, that unfortunately I think your 'meat dogs' (not sure what they are?) would probably fail at the first hurdle and be put out for an eliminating fault (such as making a noise or moving/unsteadiness) before they even got the retrieve element. Like Polmaise says, that is not a criticism, just one of the differences. I don't really want to go back to that comparison of ours vs yours again, as I think we have probably done it to death. But, I think there is probably more chance of someone taking a UK dog and training it successfully for your competitions than vice versa.....? But if I see any US retrievers that look like they are going well over here I will certainly eat those words!!


So the scenario is, The four of us are out quail hunting. My retriever is next to me, my Spaniel flushes a covey---- we shoot 4 or 5 while my retriever sit there quietly. after the shooting, I send my retriever for them while my Spaniel sits there quietly. Is this about it, but with 23 more dog sitting around waiting for their turn. My lab is my meat dog. She is nothing fancy, just loves to bring home the bacon.

Keith


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Kennel Maiden said:

" But, I think there is probably more chance of someone taking a UK dog and training it successfully for your competitions than vice versa.....? " 

I'm wondering what you are basing this opinion on? 

For what it's worth, I have seen MANY really talented U.S. dogs that could not make the grade in All-Age retriever trials. I don't think the odds would be any better for a talented UK dog.-Paul


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

paul young said:


> Kennel Maiden said:
> 
> " But, I think there is probably more chance of someone taking a UK dog and training it successfully for your competitions than vice versa.....? "
> 
> ...


Paul, I'm simpatico with you on this to the point of going vice versa against kennel maiden's comment. Here's why: If we got the steadiness (and calmness) of our retrievers down first, and the obedience of course, and didn't introduce them to birds until they were, what, km?, 16-18 mos. old, and after withholding retrieves of (dummies) from them throughout their lives, and did all this with the expectation that they would retrieve only singles for the rest of their competitive lives with rudimentary handling thrown into the mix, yes, I'm convinced a North American Lab could readily succeed at the UK games.

By the way, I run a British(-American) Lab in AA trials, and while she's not a barn-burner, I've never once gone into a trial thinking she wasn't an positive adherent to the old saw that "every dog has its day" (which is pretty much the most optimistic outlook a duffer like me can have). She's been a lovely animal to train and at doing the work for me, and also happens to be the "wateriest" dog I've ever had, _*despite *_her breeding. And yes, she was trained with the e-collar, and very accepting of it.

MG


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

truthseeker said:


> So the scenario is, The four of us are out quail hunting. My retriever is next to me, my Spaniel flushes a covey---- we shoot 4 or 5 while my retriever sit there quietly. after the shooting, I send my retriever for them while my Spaniel sits there quietly. Is this about it, but with 23 more dog sitting around waiting for their turn. My lab is my meat dog. She is nothing fancy, just loves to bring home the bacon.
> 
> Keith


Yup, sounds like a good start to me. Now you just need a plane ticket?!


----------



## dpate (Mar 16, 2011)

I don't know how Dutch FTs compare to the UK but the Calverts have placed an American bred dog (Chance pup) in The Netherlands who is a FT champion. (Sorry to perpetuate this thread even further)

http://www.jazztimelabs.com/MM.htm


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

dpate said:


> I don't know how Dutch FTs compare to the UK but the Calverts have placed an American bred dog (Chance pup) in The Netherlands who is a FT champion. (Sorry to perpetuate this thread even further)
> 
> http://www.jazztimelabs.com/MM.htm


Like apples and bananas!! LOL


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Or maybe apples and tulips, km - hey, speaking of the Netherlands and all that water they've "tamed," where's your water work video? I call your extraordinary "spectacle," and raise you one Dutch shooting video.

MG


----------



## dpate (Mar 16, 2011)

kennel maiden said:


> Like apples and bananas!! LOL


That's what I figured...


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

I love how comparing two entirely different FT styles, hunting styles turns into this is better than that. Some of you seem to forget that Mike Lardy (for those of you living under a rock he's a pretty decent trainer here in the US) spent a year working with US FT bred dogs and flew them to the UK to compete. The dogs did pretty well considering they only had a year to prepare. Training methods vary to get the best out of the dog for whatever particular game people want to play. They also selectively breed dogs to fit that game. 

For the record, Womens Tennis is way better than Canadian Hockey. 

/Paul


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> For the record, Womens Tennis is way better than Canadian Hockey.
> 
> /Paul


for the record they both suck and so does soccer. I'd rather watch paint dry.


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

crackerd said:


> Or maybe apples and tulips, km - hey, speaking of the Netherlands and all that water they've "tamed," where's your water work video? I call your extraordinary "spectacle," and raise you one Dutch shooting video.
> 
> MG


It's winter, we're not swimming now. We're doing this instead:


----------



## kennel maiden (Jun 11, 2012)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> I love how comparing two entirely different FT styles, hunting styles turns into this is better than that. Some of you seem to forget that Mike Lardy (for those of you living under a rock he's a pretty decent trainer here in the US) spent a year working with US FT bred dogs and flew them to the UK to compete. The dogs did pretty well considering they only had a year to prepare. Training methods vary to get the best out of the dog for whatever particular game people want to play. They also selectively breed dogs to fit that game.
> 
> For the record, Womens Tennis is way better than Canadian Hockey.
> 
> /Paul


I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong  but I would imagine they came to compete in our working tests (which are a whole different ball game, or Canadian Hockey match?!) to our field trials. So, different again!!
Like you say, lets not do the 'better' thing. Just stick to 'different'. This thread has certainly created some great debate on a variety of areas.


----------



## Kirk Keene (Jul 20, 2009)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> Unless they've opened the studbook since the Labrador was recognized as a Breed, they are the same Gene pool.  They can cross back and forth and the lines all come from the same foundational stock, with the same pool of genetic potential, for the good or the bad. Simple fact of the matter is; It takes basic characteristics for a dog to be able to be trained, particular characteristics for a dog to be good at any occupation, these traits are the same, regardless of where they hail from, or which games they play. Intelligence, Tractability-adaptability, eagerness to please stated in the US standard. Intelligent, keen-biddable, with a strong will to please stated in the UK standard. Same breed, same words, perhaps different games, focus, methods, goals. Still if you were to look, you'd be able to find all the variation of traits and talent within the population regardless of geography. Both sides have solid gentleman gun dogs, both have extremely driven, hard running, prone to breaking dogs. Both have plodders that couldn't hunt their way out of a paper-bag. Both have dogs with the capability to be trained to do most anything, and put on a good showing. Yet we seem to focus on how "our dogs, games, training" are different, how "our dogs,games training" are better how "their dogs,games,training" are easier, inferior...how their "dogs training etc.. couldn't work for "our" game. When in reality it's all dogs picking up stuff simply because someone asked them to do it and showed them a proper way to do it.


OK, let's look at it from another perspective, using a different species. Angus and Holsteins are both domestic cattle, derived from the same foundation stock. Generations of selectively breeding for specific traits have given us two distinct breeds, within the same species. While I can still choose to raise a Holstein steer for meat, it would not be the most feasible choice. Likewise with the Angus as a milk producer. Both are domestic cattle, but both are very distinct in their purpose. Selective breeding has driven each type of cow towards a specific goal. If we can agree on this, why is it so difficult to accept that our lines of Labradors (which have decidedly been bred with different games in mind) will invariably exhibit different physical and/or behavioral characteristics?

I'll go one step further and ask, if your premise is correct, why in the world would _any_ of us spend top-dollar for a pup from a particular breeding? If the gene pool is unrefined, why not just buy the proverbial "$200 pup" from the local newspaper and campaign it instead?

I get your suggestion that the traits are all intact within the overall Labrador gene pool, but I think you're failing to take into consideration that these traits have been refined for each venue, be it a American field trial, UK field trial, or show ring.


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

And to think.... All I wanted was to know if I could get away without FF my pup. We have started this phase (and the jury is still out), but only because I am unsure of intentions. The question really lays within myself as to whether I have time or resources to even put a SH behind her name. If that is the intent then I see the usefulness of it. Although some responses made me wonder if they knew the usefulness of it or just blindly followed "the program of choice". But if I just use her to get game??? Hung jury.


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

Winter in the Midwest was never dull when "doing" a Faux Euro Hunt better known as a "tower shoot". This was Kooly's day in the field (several years ago). It wasn't unusual to pickup 50-80 pheasants in a morning of close up/"in your face"/non-stop action. Dogs were assigned to their own areas (which always seemed to overlap) plus there were fences to deal with. 

*Kooly's Euro (YouTube - link)*

Most inexperienced dogs completely lost their minds on the "first go". However, they all seemed to adjust......eventually. Running a cold blind with a poison flyer or three in the same area with continuous shooting and scent EVERYWHERE was.....ah.....er.....challenging.









Expectations have a way of eventually producing results.....and depend more on the desired performance. 

note: Kooly is from a high rolling field trial breeding - an NFC out of a "hot" Lean Mac bitch, but he never seemed to be "out of sorts" with this kind of action. 

At a Euro, he was exceptionally stable and a thrill to run. Shoot a flyer in a hunt test........not so "kool".


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Kirk Keene said:


> OK, let's look at it from another perspective, using a different species. Angus and Holsteins are both domestic cattle, derived from the same foundation stock. Generations of selectively breeding for specific traits have given us two distinct breeds, within the same species. While I can still choose to raise a Holstein steer for meat, it would not be the most feasible choice. Likewise with the Angus as a milk producer. Both are domestic cattle, but both are very distinct in their purpose. Selective breeding has driven each type of cow towards a specific goal. If we can agree on this, why is it so difficult to accept that our lines of Labradors (which have decidedly been bred with different games in mind) will invariably exhibit different physical and/or behavioral characteristics)?


Kirk, my only quibble with your analogy is, you cited Holsteins, but you left out Friesians - which, if you want to take up your analogy again, are pretty good around water, as dairy cows go.

MG


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

This thread is no longer anything to do with the 'Wild rose way'. 
Probably never was.


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

polmaise said:


> This thread is no longer anything to do with the 'Wild rose way'.
> Probably never was.


Didn't take long to take a dirt road. Lol


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

polmaise said:


> This thread is no longer anything to do with the 'Wild rose way'.
> Probably never was.


Now Robt., was there ever such a thing to begin with that weren't "Training Retrievers The *British* Way" copywright infringed-upon? But you gotta give him credit: Unlike the Colonel (Milner), ol' Stewie's got that sickly-sweet Suth'n blarney thing working all the way to the bank.

MG


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

crackerd said:


> Now Robt., was there ever such a thing to begin with that weren't "Training Retrievers The *British* Way" copywright infringed-upon? But you gotta give him credit: Unlike the Colonel (Milner), ol' Stewie's got that sickly-sweet Suth'n blarney thing working all the way to the bank.
> 
> MG


It appears somebody somewhere is selling something sometime no matter where you are. Now that is 'No difference' between there or here . lol


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

_"But if I just use her to get game?"_

Please, describe what you would expect your trained dog to be able to do....if she were just used "to get game".


----------



## Kirk Keene (Jul 20, 2009)

Pete said:


> > _The comments on U.K. vs U.S. training methods, and test strategies, only aid in perpetrating generalities (FT dogs are ill mannered, UK dogs are soft, incapable of higher level training, mine is better than yours etc. etc.), Such generalities have time and again been proven false." _
> >
> >
> > I would like to know what Imperial Retrievers opinion is on this matter.
> ...


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

KwickLabs said:


> _"But if I just use her to get game?"_
> 
> Please, describe what you would expect your trained dog to be able to do....if she were just used "to get game".


I guess you would have to understand most of my hunting is in E TN. Not necessarily the duck Mecca. I mostly need a calm dog who will retrieve geese in fields. Where most multiples will still be close and very visible. Water work will also be mostly close and very few triples. Does that make sense. Of course not. But I still do it. Lol. My older dog does it with very little training. Even though I Force Fetch trained him I have yet to see that it was necessary in my hunting for it to have been done. How ever he does come unglued early in the season when multiple geese fall. And sometimes he breaks when it happens. But a toot on whistle usually snaps him back. 
With her she will not be required to do much different. So goes with my hunting. And really why I would like to run hunt tests. So she could be more. And used to full potential. 
But if it's going to be hard to actually get a spot then....


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

Kirk Keene said:


> I'll go one step further and ask, if your premise is correct, why in the world would _any_ of us spend top-dollar for a pup from a particular breeding? If the gene pool is unrefined, why not just buy the proverbial "$200 pup" from the local newspaper and campaign it instead?
> .


Well as I have the $200 penny-saver pup, that I've trained myself and puts up a pretty good standing in everything I've put her in. Same dog that is one of the most solid, instinctual, best hunting dogs Upland-Waterfowl, Blood tracking that I've been familiar with. While I've seen countless high dollar pups out of the who's who of whatever venue, costing $$$$ be washed out prior to doing anything, who I'd refuse to hunt with. I'll stand-by the premise that variation of talent can still be found within the population anywhere, that it is the character of a dog itself that makes it exceptional; whether it has the highest blood lines, or the lowest. 

I don't know why other people do things but I myself wouldn't spend high dollar on a pup, simply because it comes from this or that stock, nor would I spend high dollar on stock simply because of a reputation, titles, etc of a parent. I would spend $ on stock; I personally knew to have the traits I want; out of dogs (both the male & the female) I personally liked and wouldn't mind owning. Then I'd hope their get takes after them; but there's never a Guarantee. I could pick the 1 great out of 11 duds, or the 1 dud out of 11 superstars. I could do this in any litter; Regardless of where they come from, what titles the parents have, or whether they cost $200 or $5000. Now will these pups most likely be out of parents with titles, with pedigrees etc. Of course they will; I'm pretty active in the field world, those are the dogs I'm most familiar with. I see a bunch of dogs, and have a few select ones, spanning a variety of different disciplines including a few UK field imports; that I really like. Still I'll choose a breeding-pup because I personally like the character of the parents, and character of the pup not because they're out of particular venue specific stock, that are generally believed to be this or that way .


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

kennel maiden said:


> So, we have bred for our needs, selecting for the things we want and discarding those we don't. Show folk have kept and enhanced the bits that look nice, and selected for biddability and athleticism. Likewise in the States, I imagine you have selected for the parts that fit your US game.


Ok , So I'll chip in' with this thread again,although I think 'Chris' should perhaps split it or redefine?..(That would be difficult,as I think it has taken many dirt roads from the high way) But many are 'useful and learning' .
I challenge my 'country woman' and learned friend! ..'We' as in the UK' have had over 100 years to breed for the things we want and discarding those we don't? So why isn't every pup a FTCH from that breed line?
The numbers don't stack up! ..95 % of all the registered Retrievers with the UK kennel club OF ALL working lines never make it past Novice level in a field trial.
It's a very small market feeding a very big market.
Yes ,you have to start with something that has at least the basics that requires the ability to do what is intended.
To profess that selected breeding over ones own lifetime has any bearing on the lineage of the retriever in front of you is short sighted at the very least.
What one does with what is in front of you is down to training and tapping in to the breeding before. Many can't do that .and many buy on the premise that they can because of the breeding.
Like wise the US, where a dog and bitch is a good marker ,so the expectation that the pups from these will be good markers is just short of blindness (imo).
Now before 'Y'all start saying things like 'well let's get a dog from the pound and make it a ftch?..I'm not saying that (too many other factors) , But in the same vein, let's not be blinded by the fact that two good dogs make a great dog !...I could prove that !..send me over the most titled dog in the US ,and within 3 months I'll send it back worthless ...Doing it the other way round takes a whole lot longer !.Just saying .


----------



## KwickLabs (Jan 3, 2003)

_"I mostly need a calm dog who will retrieve geese in fields. Where most multiples will still be close and very visible. Water work will also be mostly close and very few triples. Does that make sense?"_

Actually,......it does.

For many years, I've run my dogs in hunt tests because there is not much else to do seven months out of the year. We train regularly, run in tests to measure true skill levels and don't hunt until they are "ready". That means FF, well into transition and a steady diet of skill development. 

I recently searched for why individuals are motivated to pursue excellence in sports. The results were not all that surprising. #1 was the challenge and love of competition, #2 the desire to be successful, #3 the need for a competitive outlet, #4 the fun, #5 the intrinsic value of the sport and #6 the acquisition of skills. 

My first two retrievers (long ago) were not FF and we "got by" with hunting while learning on the job. I'd never go back to that process because it doesn't fit my needs. Does that make sense?


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

polmaise said:


> ...So why isn't every pup a FTCH from that breed line?.


 For the most part, the traits that we are selecting for, (and against) are Polygenic.

We have certainly been successful in changing the average. 

That's why there is an easily recognizable split between Field and Bench lines. 
In all breeds, and across all borders.

However, since we only possess a small percentage of the information required to fully solve the equation, we still produce dogs that lack the talent to make the grade, and/or have health problems like Hip Dysplasia.


----------



## quackaholic (Aug 26, 2013)

Absolutely makes sense. That's why I still am working on FF. Just in case.


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> However, since we only possess a small percentage of the information required to fully solve the equation, we still produce dogs that lack the talent to make the grade, and/or have health problems like Hip Dysplasia.


Is my point! . 100 years of selective breeding has produced field trial dogs producing health problems just as much as any other field , and producing just as many not making the grade as any other. The successful handler/trainers in competition however are being successful in competition.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

polmaise said:


> Is my point! . 100 years of selective breeding has produced field trial dogs producing health problems just as much as any other field , and producing just as many not making the grade as any other. The successful handler/trainers in competition however are being successful in competition.


 Just as many?
No, I don't think so.

We have definitely changed the average. 
If we hadn't, you wouldn't see a difference between "lines".

And there is most definitely a difference. A big difference.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

copterdoc said:


> Just as many?
> No, I don't think so.
> 
> We have definitely changed the average.
> ...


Robert needs to come on over to North America and attend an All Age trial or two. This should help reveal some cool stuff that will help one understand that selective breeding is alive and well.

Or, conversely, some of the North American folks who think the average "meat dog" can excel with some basic training in the UK games might be well-served to observe.

Either way, getting the other side's sand in your shoes can be much more revealing than what we imagine from TV, email, internet, video.....

The games are different. The strategies and objectives are different. 

It is only logical that if you breed winners to winners repeatedly, selective breeding will occur and some of the pups produced will be naturally more inclined to do the desired tasks without too much compromise.

Chris


----------



## crackerd (Feb 21, 2003)

Chris Atkinson said:


> It is only logical that if you breed winners to winners repeatedly, selective breeding will occur and some of the pups produced will be naturally more inclined to do the desired tasks without too much compromise.


Excellent exegesis. Yet it also behooves to give the *show* side of selective breeding for Labradors, and, presto!, with on the spot serendipity, there's a reference this morning to those folks' lodestar in a New York Times' article on the threat of extinction. And to make that a bipartisan thing, the Times' article linked to Encyclop_*ae*_dia Brittanica for the reveal.

MG


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Robert needs to come on over to North America and attend an All Age trial or two. This should help reveal some cool stuff that will help one understand that selective breeding is alive and well.
> 
> Or, conversely, some of the North American folks who think the average "meat dog" can excel with some basic training in the UK games might be well-served to observe.
> 
> ...


It's on my wish list Chris !..There is a few friends I would hook up with for sure


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

polmaise said:


> It's on my wish list Chris !..There is a few friends I would hook up with for sure


Come from Jan-Apr to Florida and we'll show you some good stuff. You can do a Florida McNab-a brace of dove, a crappie on a fly and trophy cotton-tail rabbit I'll swap for a Scottish real McNab!!!


----------



## polmaise (Jan 6, 2009)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> Come from Jan-Apr to Florida and we'll show you some good stuff. You can do a Florida McNab-a brace of dove, a crappie on a fly and trophy cotton-tail rabbit I'll swap for a Scottish real McNab!!!


I bet you are good at Poker too Dennis !!


----------

