# Training for Hunting vs Field Trial...



## MNHunter (Feb 16, 2015)

This might seem a silly question but I'm wondering if a guy should follow a different training regimen if intentions were purely to develop a good hunting partner and house pet? 

There is a lot of good advice on this site but it seems like it is heavily geared toward field trial training. I'll be picking up our new black lab puppy in a couple weeks and am trying to get a game plan together. My goal is to turn him into a great waterfowl and pheasant hunter and also make him into a great house dog. (we might get into trialing as well but I'm not sure about that yet)


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

To get the most out of your dog it's best to build a solid foundation. Doing all the steps from the bottom to the top. Those steps are the same for hunting or hunt tests or field trials.

With emphasis on doing each step well if you hope to succeed in the more difficult venues.

Many hunting dogs could get by with very little training. If they'll stay with you and retrieve birds they've seen falling and bring them back to you, that would be enough for a lot of people.

If you want more, you have to put in more. 

It isn't as bad or hard as it sounds. Usually it is enjoyable for man and dog.


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

I would train a dog though the "transition" phase of a training regime like Mike Lardy's TRT. I also believe Lardy suggested training through his transition phase whether you were training for hunting or hunt tests and field trials and moving to the advanced phase as needed for the level of competition you desire. After completing the transition phase you would have a dog with obedience along with a dog that could mark multiple falls and do basic handling on blind retrieves.


----------



## swampcollielover (Nov 30, 2012)

I agree with the concept of training through the 'transition' phase, as noted above, but to start with train 'OBEDIENCE'! Without this well in place all other training is a waste of time, money, and effort. Many trainers, field and other dog trainers, have good obedience training classes or you can get one of the good DVD's on the subject...I like Bill Hillmann's, _Training a Retriever Puppy_, and Jackie Mertens, _Sound Beginnings_. You can train obedience at home, but it takes time and patients to get them 100% on these. 

Basic obedience includes, but is not limited to...getting your dog to follow these basic commands in all conditions....*Sit* (stay until released), *Down* (stay until released), *Heel,* G*ive *(some use Drop), *Leave it* (Especially good when you drop medications or run into a snake), *quite* (stop barking and/or making noise) and *Here* (come to heel now!) these are the fundamentals for not only a good hunting dog, but a good and safe pet!

Then and only then can you advance with a trainer or on your own with more advanced field training!


----------



## Ahooge (Dec 27, 2014)

swampcollielover said:


> I agree with the concept of training through the 'transition' phase, as noted above, but to start with train 'OBEDIENCE'! Without this well in place all other training is a waste of time, money, and effort. Many trainers, field and other dog trainers, have good obedience training classes or you can get one of the good DVD's on the subject...I like Bill Hillmann's, _Training a Retriever Puppy_, and Jackie Mertens, _Sound Beginnings_. You can train obedience at home, but it takes time and patients to get them 100% on these.
> 
> Basic obedience includes, but is not limited to...getting your dog to follow these basic commands in all conditions....*Sit* (stay until released), *Down* (stay until released), *Heel,* G*ive *(some use Drop), *Leave it* (Especially good when you drop medications or run into a snake), *quite* (stop barking and/or making noise) and *Here* (come to heel now!) these are the fundamentals for not only a good hunting dog, but a good and safe pet!
> 
> Then and only then can you advance with a trainer or on your own with more advanced field training!


x2 

I feel the "all conditions" is going to be the hardest if you don't take the time to take your pup out and expose him/her to other people, situations or dogs. I would call it distration proofing your dog. But not till he knows the commands.


----------



## Purpledawg (Jul 16, 2006)

Field train takes more time, smaller baby steps, laying down solid no hole(s) foundation, higher standards of how each step is met. The best at it pick and follow ONE system from beginning to end.


----------



## John Lash (Sep 19, 2006)

Be careful with the obedience too. For sure they have to be obedient and compliant. But, they have to enjoy doing the work first and foremost.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

A Field Trial training regiment won’t offer anything to help develop a pheasant dog as it is strictly a “non-slip retriever” game. In fact, some of the training tends to discourage the dog from using his nose which is the primary asset for a hunting dog.

My recommendation is that you start early developing your pups confidence in his nose by dragging scent trails for him to follow & by throwing retrieves into cover. Teach him to quarter & to use the wind to find birds early in life. Like most things, the more he does it, the better he’ll be. Take him for romps in the woods while he’s still young & slow enough that when he runs into barb wire or cactus, he doesn’t injure himself & he’ll learn to be careful. 

Put the e-collar on him every time you take him outside without turning it on to avoid him becoming collar wise. He’ll soon associate it w/ fun & reach his neck out to get it on. When he’s a little older you can use it (without saying a word) if he chases a deer or rabbit or tries to eat a cow pie. Walk into the thick cover with him & drop a dead bird for him to find there. If he starts to range too far from you, toss a dead bird while he’s not looking & call him in to find it. This will encourage him to hunt near you. Get him hunting confidently out in front before you formally teach “heel”.

The key to training an all-around hunting dog is balance. Most people on this forum view dog training from the perspective of the “games” they play and while those games are related to waterfowl hunting, they have evolved into an entity of their own. It’s heresy to some, but for a hunter there is such a thing as a “good enough” retriever. 

In the games, a dog that needs to be handled to a mark won’t be successful but in the marsh, as long as you get the duck, the difference in "pinning the mark" & a couple of casts is negligible. On the other hand, a slight superiority in a dog’s use of his nose in a pheasant field could very well make the difference between a chance at supper & just a long walk. That’s why I suggest putting the emphasis on the upland work early & building the non-slip retrieving skills to what ever degree you want later.


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

I always tell folks to train their dogs the same through 2 yrs old (that would mean a FT progression to me) - then tailor the training to priorities. Problem is folks want to run master stakes, hunt their dogs, run derbies & Qs, etc before a dog is 2 yrs old. So the training gets tailored to the task & it limits the dog's versatility long term. Not saying its wrong to do those things prior to age 2, just that it usually limits versatility & varied accomplishment.


----------



## Mary Lynn Metras (Jul 6, 2010)

It is really nice to have a trained dog out hunting. One that works well, energetic & handles when you need to steer him to the duck is always a pleasure. Have not hunted a whole lot as some on here. I know from going out w/ friends how much they enjoyed hunting w/ myself & my Blackie. Lots of nice comments.


----------



## Don Lietzau (Jan 8, 2011)

Swampcollie, could you repeat that part about "to start with train 'OBEDIENCE'!".I did not hear you.:razz:
Don and Crew


----------



## MNHunter (Feb 16, 2015)

Some good info here, thanks to everybody so far. Any suggestions for a program to follow to make a great gun dog, both waterfowl and upland would be appreciated. Hopefully this program would also build a solid foundation for trialing and testing as well if I decide to pursue those avenues.


----------



## TDMITCH (Mar 24, 2006)

I'm fortunate to be able to train at times with four different pros, whether it be a gun dog, hunt test or field trial dog they are all started the same way. Iv'e shot more than a few pheasants over the years and I feel the most important is a strong here and sit the rest is an acquired talent that can be helped along. (when a birdy lab gets a nose-full of a running rooster a strong whistle sit comes in mighty handy I'm too old to try and chase them only to see 10 or more birds flush 100 yards away)


----------



## MNHunter (Feb 16, 2015)

TDMITCH said:


> I'm fortunate to be able to train at times with four different pros, whether it be a gun dog, hunt test or field trial dog they are all started the same way. Iv'e shot more than a few pheasants over the years and I feel the most important is a strong here and sit the rest is an acquired talent that can be helped along. (when a birdy lab gets a nose-full of a running rooster a strong whistle sit comes in mighty handy I'm too old to try and chase them only to see 10 or more birds flush 100 yards away)


I know you said your girl is a tremendous pheasant dog. Do you agree with one of the earlier posts that field trial oriented training might be detrimental to development of upland hunting ability?


----------



## 1tulip (Oct 22, 2009)

MNHunter said:


> This might seem a silly question but I'm wondering if a guy should follow a different training regimen if intentions were purely to develop a good hunting partner and house pet?
> 
> There is a lot of good advice on this site but it seems like it is heavily geared toward field trial training. I'll be picking up our new black lab puppy in a couple weeks and am trying to get a game plan together. My goal is to turn him into a great waterfowl and pheasant hunter and also make him into a great house dog. (we might get into trialing as well but I'm not sure about that yet)


I don't think this is a silly question at all, but it is a fundamental one. I don't hunt. My son-in-law does. But I run HT's and I know he and I are worlds apart on what constitutes a good dog. So maybe the answer to your question begins with what your definition of a good hunting partner and house pet is. If you had to make a list of the skills you want your dog to demonstrate at the end of the day (say when he is mature, around 3-4 years and at his peak), what would make the cut? If you can do that... maybe some of us could suggest where you should start and how to proceed.


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

The skills of a hunter *and* the skills of a hunting dog will change through experience in the field…from novice to hard core. 

It takes both above though to be successful.


----------



## Cass (Sep 17, 2013)

Train the same. You may not have to build up to 200 yard blinds but for the most part the further you take the training, the more you will enjoy hunting with your dog. Hunt with a well trained dog and then a buddy's who has just had the bare bones when it comes to training.... the difference will motivate you to train hard.


----------



## TDMITCH (Mar 24, 2006)

I beg to differ you need to train for 200 to 300+yard blinds. I f you don't when you need it your dog is liable to hit a wall at 100yds thinking I've never been this far from home why should I go farther?


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

MNHunter said:


> I know you said your girl is a tremendous pheasant dog. Do you agree with one of the earlier posts that field trial oriented training might be detrimental to development of upland hunting ability?


The intent of my post wasn't so much to say that Field Trial training programs are detrimental to pheasant hunting as that they don't address it at all. If you follow such a program throughout the dogs young life before introducing him to upland work, he will start well behind the curve as opposed to a dog that is introduced to upland training as a puppy.


----------



## wetdog (May 2, 2010)

MNHunter said:


> I know you said your girl is a tremendous pheasant dog. Do you agree with one of the earlier posts that field trial oriented training might be detrimental to development of upland hunting ability?


I disagree that following a basic program that takes a dog through obedience and marking and handling development is in any way detrimental to upland hunting ability. The only additional things to teach a retriever for upland work is quartering and sit to flush and both of these are pretty easy to do. The dog I have is a field trial titled dog and I can assure you, she is one hell of a good upland bird dog (I have killed a lot of pheasants, quail and sharp tail grouse over her). The converse though is true, if you do not develop a dogs eyes and marking ability early and hunt upland birds first, it can be detremental to them developing into a good waterfowl hunting dog.


----------



## MNHunter (Feb 16, 2015)

1tulip said:


> I don't think this is a silly question at all, but it is a fundamental one. I don't hunt. My son-in-law does. But I run HT's and I know he and I are worlds apart on what constitutes a good dog. So maybe the answer to your question begins with what your definition of a good hunting partner and house pet is. If you had to make a list of the skills you want your dog to demonstrate at the end of the day (say when he is mature, around 3-4 years and at his peak), what would make the cut? If you can do that... maybe some of us could suggest where you should start and how to proceed.


Thanks for all of the thoughtful replies, this is a fantastic forum with members who are clearly passionate and knowledgable about their dogs and their craft.

I hear what you're saying about what one may perceive as a good dog. Any dog that will charge into cold water and bring ducks back or flush and retrieve upland birds is a good dog but I expect much more. What I will strive for in my dog is solid obedience first and foremost. He should come immediately and quickly when called, sit on command from any distance, be steady in the blind, steady to shot and fall until released, maintain proper range in the field, and of course have that fire and love of the hunt and the drive to find birds, live or dead. In the house I would want what I'd imagine anybody with a big dog in the house wants, an off-switch coupled again with solid obedience.

It sounds like Hillmanns puppy training program is a good starter regardless of our final goals so that is what I'm going to start with. Once we get a handle on the fundamentals in that program I should have a better idea if I feel that we have what it takes to pursue trials/testing further.


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

MNHunter said:


> Thanks for all of the thoughtful replies, this is a fantastic forum with members who are clearly passionate and knowledgable about their dogs and their craft.
> 
> I hear what you're saying about what one may perceive as a good dog. Any dog that will charge into cold water and bring ducks back or flush and retrieve upland birds is a good dog but I expect much more. What I will strive for in my dog is solid obedience first and foremost. He should come immediately and quickly when called, sit on command from any distance, be steady in the blind, steady to shot and fall until released, maintain proper range in the field, and of course have that fire and love of the hunt and the drive to find birds, live or dead. In the house I would want what I'd imagine anybody with a big dog in the house wants, an off-switch coupled again with solid obedience.
> 
> It sounds like Hillmanns puppy training program is a good starter regardless of our final goals so that is what I'm going to start with. Once we get a handle on the fundamentals in that program I should have a better idea if I feel that we have what it takes to pursue trials/testing further.


I believe that is what we strive for what you said in your second paragraph in a perfect world. 
That is our goal.


----------



## Cass (Sep 17, 2013)

TDMITCH said:


> I beg to differ you need to train for 200 to 300+yard blinds. I f you don't when you need it your dog is liable to hit a wall at 100yds thinking I've never been this far from home why should I go farther?


To each his own. Effective shotgun range is about 40 yards. I don't do much shooting outside of that range so i have no personal reason in a hunting scenario that my dog would need to be sent 300 yards out


----------



## Captzig (Jun 14, 2013)

Cass, I'm sure you've seen a hit bird carry itself a long way before dropping. I had multiple geese go down at 200-300 yards this year. I sure was glad I didn't have to walk out to get 'em.


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

Cass said:


> To each his own. Effective shotgun range is about 40 yards. I don't do much shooting outside of that range so i have no personal reason in a hunting scenario that my dog would need to be sent 300 yards out


I understand your intent, but if you are hunting Canada's in a field and cripple one, you need a dog to be prepared to go the distance. Just saying. 

Edit to post: Captzig beat me to it.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

wetdog said:


> I disagree that following a basic program that takes a dog through obedience and marking and handling development is in any way detrimental to upland hunting ability. The only additional things to teach a retriever for upland work is quartering and sit to flush and both of these are pretty easy to do. The dog I have is a field trial titled dog and I can assure you, she is one hell of a good upland bird dog (I have killed a lot of pheasants, quail and sharp tail grouse over her). The converse though is true, if you do not develop a dogs eyes and marking ability early and hunt upland birds first, it can be detremental to them developing into a good waterfowl hunting dog.


Whatever skill is introduced first will tend to affect the other. Emphasis on control and use of eyes over nose can inhibit the upland dogs bird finding ability to the same degree. I prefer to have an exceptional pheasant finder who can pick up ducks, even though I may need to handle on some retrieves rather than a dog that can pin every (rare) triple mark but who may pass by or lose the trail of a cagey rooster because he hasn't learned to trust his nose. It's a completely individual decision but I think it's disengenuous to pretend that it only works one way.


----------



## gdgnyc (May 4, 2009)

Dave Flint said:


> Whatever skill is introduced first will tend to affect the other. Emphasis on control and use of eyes over nose can inhibit the upland dogs bird finding ability to the same degree. I prefer to have an exceptional pheasant finder who can pick up ducks, even though I may need to handle on some retrieves rather than a dog that can pin every (rare) triple mark but who may pass by or lose the trail of a cagey rooster because he hasn't learned to trust his nose. It's a completely individual decision but I think it's disengenuous to pretend that it only works one way.


I like your take on things. Also, interestingly enough I have found that almost all upland hunting dog trainers agree with you.


----------



## Cass (Sep 17, 2013)

I'm just saying in a hunting scenario its not as crucial to train for. Hell, I train for trials and it is not necessary in that scenario either (I have a spaniel, long distances are not common in that game mind you I still train for it). Sure things can happen, but not everyone who just trains a dog to hunt is going to go that extra mile in training.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

For safety reasons alone, You need to train for steadiness that far surpasses what is needed for tests and trials. Also for safety reasons, you need to be able to call your dog off a bird that it has been sent for.

You will need really good obedience around other dogs and in environments like boat ramp parking lots. These are major distractions for dogs.

Training for marks and blinds should be the same as for trials and tests.

My post assumes waterfowl hunting is your focus. Good luck!-Paul


----------



## swampcollielover (Nov 30, 2012)

Don Lietzau said:


> Swampcollie, could you repeat that part about "to start with train 'OBEDIENCE'!".I did not hear you.
> Don and Crew


I understand your confusion.....you own Drahthaars!!?? Not sure I can help! 

Sorry, you asked for that one:razz:


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Cass said:


> To each his own. Effective shotgun range is about 40 yards. I don't do much shooting outside of that range so i have no personal reason in a hunting scenario that my dog would need to be sent 300 yards out


Famous last words!


----------



## kcbullets (Feb 10, 2015)

You might consider George Hickox Great Beginings , Training the Upland Retriever. Good video regarding Intro to upland birds. A lot of overlap regarding OB, yard work, and gun Intro to other dvd's but differs in upland work.


----------



## Purpledawg (Jul 16, 2006)

sit to flush, Obedience is more important to a upland hunter than cultivating a retrievers nose. Folks try to make sure a dog is running blinds without their noses in training, than a dog with his nose to the ground, or air scenting on the way to the blind. A dog working for himself isnt a team player. 

All that aside, you have a young pup at home, and Starting with the Hillmann is a great choice. Take your time and enjoy your dog


----------



## DarrinGreene (Feb 8, 2007)

I do it quite a bit differently, especially if you want to have a high drive dog in the house. There are a lot of additional things to be done that aren't in any of the programs you'll find (that I've seen) focused on hunting tests or FT, including Hillman's. 

I train basic obedience and house manners full time and hunt both ducks and upland with my dogs. On the hunting end I took this last one through pattern blinds and basic 150 yard cold blinds. Blinds don't need to be all that great, just OK. Most of the time she can't see me from more than 50 yards away anyhow on a hunt. Upland is fairly simple also if your dog knows it's "overs" and is conditioned to look back at you when you whistle. 

The house manners part is a bit challenging with a high drive pup and I don't like to use a lot of pressure for it. The house should be time to relax. I want primarily treat based training there. Throwing a ball around as a reward can be hard on the nick knacks. I don't like to use a lot of collar pressure in the house either. That is reserved for work in my book. Things like leave it, drop it, go settle on your bed and such take on a much bigger role than is covered in most HT/FT programs. I don't think I've seen a good one for treat based obedience with a retriever. I have never seen Mertens but have reviewed most of the other popular stuff.

If you would like to try out my basic treat based teaching outline, I have it available in outline form and would be willing to answer questions. We will be working on a series of videos to go with it but it will be a while before those are ready.

Let me know and I'll link you up to it.


----------



## Steen.D (Apr 20, 2013)

Train your dog to pass a senior hunt test, and your hunting buddies will drool. The dog will take care off all of your hunting needs.

However, as far as training goes, same program. Follow the proven road others have paved for you. But you need not worry about a lot of stuff that does produce a good dog, but probably fits the competitive venue a little more. Such as inlines, hip pockets, check downs blah blah blah. There is a lot of stuff that is overkill for the hunter, but necessary for the competitor. But this is stuff you will know when you get there...


----------



## MNHunter (Feb 16, 2015)

I appreciate all the input. I want to do the right things so that my pup is prepared in case I do decide to pursue the Trial game but I also want to ensure that I am doing all I can to make him a great hunter and house pet because he will be both of those things for certain.


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

Training for field trials, has no negative impact on the quality of house dog or pheasant hunter your dog will be.
One doesn't conflict with the other. Why shouldn't you train your buddy to be the whole enchilada?


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Cass said:


> I'm just saying in a hunting scenario its not as crucial to train for. Hell, I train for trials and it is not necessary in that scenario either (I have a spaniel, long distances are not common in that game mind you I still train for it). Sure things can happen, but not everyone who just trains a dog to hunt is going to go that extra mile in training.


You are probably right, may not be worth the extra training in your case, but it is a neat skill to have on those rare situations. I duck hunt 80%-20% over pheasant hunting. I hunt two to three days a week when the ducks are in and weather is good. Off the top of my head, between steel shot and my partners poor shooting (just kidding Neil), we probably have one 200-300 yard retrieve every three hunts, sometimes more than one a hunt. It's actually a fairly common occurrence. 

Pheasant hunting is another story, but one time I was hunting with Alex, flushed a rooster shot and hit the bird, but it just kept flying and flying and flying. The bird seemingly unhurt flew over a quarter mile with Me and Alex standing there watching it, then it just fell out of the sky like a stone. I marked the spot expecting to walk Alex out there to hunt it up, but I saw Alex was sitting stock still eyes boring into that mark, so I just said "Alex!" And he was off. Darned if he didn't run right to that spot a dig out that bird. To say my hunting buddies were impressed would be an understatement.


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

MNHunter said:


> I appreciate all the input. I want to do the right things so that my pup is prepared in case I do decide to pursue the Trial game but I also want to ensure that I am doing all I can to make him a great hunter and house pet because he will be both of those things for certain.


Lardy makes a good point in his videos, basic training for field trials, hunt test and hunting dogs is the same. Build a solid foundation and leave your options open. For twenty years I have been 100% field trial training, yet I take every hunting season off from October to January. My dogs live in the house, one sleeps on our bed, the other on the floor next to the bed. Our dogs are very calm in the house, wonderful hunters and love to train and run trials. They know when to turn it on and off, they know the difference between walking from the holding blind to the line in a trial and jumping into my boat to head out to the duck blind, and they act accordingly.


----------



## Ikanizer (Jul 22, 2013)

I am on my third hunting retriever. All have been black male labs. 
The first one I trained myself using Water Dog. Now I realize he really trained me. He retrieved birds he saw, was not steady and throwing empty hulls or rocks was our system for blinds/hand signals. Not good unless you don't know any better. 
The second one was a 1 yr old "wash-out" I bought from a pro trainer. I made a deal with the pro to get him a SH title before the sale was complete (he got it at 18 months). That dog hunted with me until he was 14 and he was way better than any dog a typical duck/goose hunter has ever seen. 
My current dog is a field trial bred dog with a good pedigree. A pro trainer helped me pick him out. I sent him to the pro for 3 months when he was about 4 months old for obedience and FF. When I got him back I trained him myself for hunting. He is a much better hunting dog than the SH. Smarter and more aggressive. I didn't exclusively follow any of the systems that you read about on this forum but I have plenty of books and DVD's and patience. Most of the people I hunt with think my dog is the greatest retriever they have ever seen and I am a genius dog trainer. They just don't know any better and have not seen the kinds of dogs you read about on this forum.
A dog that is absolutely steady when the guns start going off and obedient to whistle and hand signals will be better than 90 percent of the hunting dogs you see and you can get that without doing extensive field trial/hunt test training.


----------



## joeyrhoades (Feb 23, 2015)

Ikanizer said:


> I am on my third hunting retriever. All have been black male labs.
> The first one I trained myself using Water Dog. Now I realize he really trained me. He retrieved birds he saw, was not steady and throwing empty hulls or rocks was our system for blinds/hand signals. Not good unless you don't know any better.
> The second one was a 1 yr old "wash-out" I bought from a pro trainer. I made a deal with the pro to get him a SH title before the sale was complete (he got it at 18 months). That dog hunted with me until he was 14 and he was way better than any dog a typical duck/goose hunter has ever seen.
> My current dog is a field trial bred dog with a good pedigree. A pro trainer helped me pick him out. I sent him to the pro for 3 months when he was about 4 months old for obedience and FF. When I got him back I trained him myself for hunting. He is a much better hunting dog than the SH. Smarter and more aggressive. I didn't exclusively follow any of the systems that you read about on this forum but I have plenty of books and DVD's and patience. Most of the people I hunt with think my dog is the greatest retriever they have ever seen and I am a genius dog trainer. They just don't know any better and have not seen the kinds of dogs you read about on this forum.
> A dog that is absolutely steady when the guns start going off and obedient to whistle and hand signals will be better than 90 percent of the hunting dogs you see and you can get that without doing extensive field trial/hunt test training.


I agree 100% with this.

I am about to venture out on my second dog to train. I am fairly certain that I screwed up the first. Great bloodlines, but not steady worth a damn. The dog drives me bannanas every time I hunt her. And this year for some reason, when I was in a duck blind and shot one, the damn dog went right out and retrieved the shotgun shell. Once I told her good girl and told her to fetch the bird, she rarely was even remotely out of place. I only corrected once all season for a bird that she watched fall. Now on blind retrieves, that is a whole different story. I handled her all over the bird and she wanted nothing to do with it. Finally had to shoot the wounded duck and then it was game on. Dead on retrieve. And I did send her to be trained by a professional, but he could not even slow her down. way too much drive and spunk. not a good first dog. The mom was an absolute beast in the field, but would not move off of a pillow in the house. The dad toured the field trial circuit for a long time.

I am seriously thinking about going to work with her (6 year old) on obedience again. She understands it and will obey when forced, but ignores me a lot. I use a e-collar on her and she ignores it until i crank it way up to get her attention. after a few of those, i can turn it back down and she responds well. I have actually taken her out to throw bumpers to her and she will just walk around with no care. Then I heel her back and regain her attention and from then on, she cannot even sit hardly waiting for the next one.

This next dog, i want to work obedience on her and make sure she understands and responds to it. I know that I cannot be too rough on her but make it a game for a while. I just want to make sure that this dog is way more behaved than the last.

What is a good time to start with obedience? And when do you change it from a game to a serious business?

Thanks.


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

joeyrhoades said:


> I agree 100% with this.
> 
> I am about to venture out on my second dog to train. I am fairly certain that I screwed up the first. Great bloodlines, but not steady worth a damn. The dog drives me bannanas every time I hunt her. And this year for some reason, when I was in a duck blind and shot one, the damn dog went right out and retrieved the shotgun shell. Once I told her good girl and told her to fetch the bird, she rarely was even remotely out of place. I only corrected once all season for a bird that she watched fall. Now on blind retrieves, that is a whole different story. I handled her all over the bird and she wanted nothing to do with it. Finally had to shoot the wounded duck and then it was game on. Dead on retrieve. And I did send her to be trained by a professional, but he could not even slow her down. way too much drive and spunk. not a good first dog. The mom was an absolute beast in the field, but would not move off of a pillow in the house. The dad toured the field trial circuit for a long time.
> 
> ...


By your description, you are nagging the 6 year-old with the e-collar. If it takes, say, a 4 high to get her behavior to change to your standard, that's what you use. If you don't, that's basically the same thing as issuing 3 commands and only enforcing the 3rd one.-Paul


----------



## joeyrhoades (Feb 23, 2015)

so, basically stick with the one setting.

I have the Dogtra NCP brand. I has a 1-120something setting. A 90 will get the attention, but after that 70 is all I ever need. I guess what I am saying is the 90 reminds her I am the boss and the 70 keeps her in check. Should I just stick with one setting and let it roll?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Just another anecdotal comment. Several years ago, I took 5 FT trained Labs on a 4 week freelance trip to Manitoba, Saskatchewan, ND & SD. Initial hunting was for Canada geese & ducks, then some upland hunting for partridge & grouse (US residents can't hunt pheasants), then ducks & specklebelly geese. Then pheasants & ducks in ND & finally pheasants & grouse in SD. None of my dogs had ever done any upland hunting but they knew to sit on a whistle & they were/are birdy. Two of us hunted one dog at a time & each dog learned to quarter effectively within the first hour of hunting & they were more & more effective with every hunt. In all areas after others hunters we encountered saw how effective the dogs were, I had no trouble getting to hunt with parties I didn't even know. Hunting everyday for 30 days can make well-trained dogs good hunters & very adaptable to forms of hunting that they are not specifically trained for when they are back home. All that to say, stick to the course & follow a young dog (retriever) training program like that of Lardy or Graham. Then adapt to your favorite hunting circumstance - anything else & you limit the dog's versatility. JMO........


----------



## swampcollielover (Nov 30, 2012)

Ikanizer said:


> I am on my third hunting retriever. All have been black male labs.
> The first one I trained myself using Water Dog. Now I realize he really trained me. He retrieved birds he saw, was not steady and throwing empty hulls or rocks was our system for blinds/hand signals. Not good unless you don't know any better.
> The second one was a 1 yr old "wash-out" I bought from a pro trainer. I made a deal with the pro to get him a SH title before the sale was complete (he got it at 18 months). That dog hunted with me until he was 14 and he was way better than any dog a typical duck/goose hunter has ever seen.
> My current dog is a field trial bred dog with a good pedigree. A pro trainer helped me pick him out. I sent him to the pro for 3 months when he was about 4 months old for obedience and FF. When I got him back I trained him myself for hunting. He is a much better hunting dog than the SH. Smarter and more aggressive. I didn't exclusively follow any of the systems that you read about on this forum but I have plenty of books and DVD's and patience. Most of the people I hunt with think my dog is the greatest retriever they have ever seen and I am a genius dog trainer. They just don't know any better and have not seen the kinds of dogs you read about on this forum.
> A dog that is absolutely steady when the guns start going off and obedient to whistle and hand signals will be better than 90 percent of the hunting dogs you see and you can get that without doing extensive field trial/hunt test training.


X3.....Best Post On this Topic....for my money!


----------



## daddymallard (Aug 6, 2009)

Lovin the info!


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

I don't know you or your dog or how you have trained her beyond what you have written on this thread. 

But, my point is that I think you could be more consistent in your corrections and that if you were, you would probably need fewer corrections and the dog would benefit from that consistency. I am not advocating making things really painful or unduly stressful for your dog.

At the end of the day, she's your dog and you are the trainer. What you do is your business. Good luck!


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

joeyrhoades said:


> so, basically stick with the one setting.
> 
> I have the Dogtra NCP brand. I has a 1-120something setting. A 90 will get the attention, but after that 70 is all I ever need. I guess what I am saying is the 90 reminds her I am the boss and the 70 keeps her in check. Should I just stick with one setting and let it roll?


It sounds to me that you are not getting all you can out of the e-collar. The goal is to teach the dog to comply by habit, so much so that the e-collar is rarely needed in the well trained dog. My dog wears her e-collar all the time while training, but I can't remember the last time I actually had to use it. It sounds to me that your dog is habitually disobedient and that you resort to the e-collar with escalating consequences after it has disobeyed you several times.


----------



## jermoatc (May 28, 2014)

Can anyone give me a resource or tip on how to best train a lab to find pheasants??


----------



## Steve Shaver (Jan 9, 2003)

jermoatc said:


> Can anyone give me a resource or tip on how to best train a lab to find pheasants??



If he likes birds and has had obedience training just take him hunting, he'll figure it out.


----------



## RookieTrainer (Mar 11, 2011)

joeyrhoades said:


> so, basically stick with the one setting.
> 
> I have the Dogtra NCP brand. I has a 1-120something setting. A 90 will get the attention, but after that 70 is all I ever need. I guess what I am saying is the 90 reminds her I am the boss and the 70 keeps her in check. Should I just stick with one setting and let it roll?


When I started training my heathen (first dog) I was told that "dogs can count to three". Now I know what he meant. How many times did I say "Sit. Sit! SITTTTTTT!!!!!!! *swat with heeling stick*/*burn*"? All the while teaching my dog he could completely ignore me without consequence until the third time I gave a command. I am still shaking my head at the lack of common sense that one yellow Lab could expose. I didn't have children, so maybe this was my way to learn all those lessons.

Do it the first time you get disobedience and make it count, and use the level that the dog respects enough to change the behavior. You can avoid a lot of yelling, burning, and disobedience this way.

I would also disagree that the type of dog you and I have are not good first dogs. They are great first dogs. They can absorb your mistakes with corrections and keep right on going, and you get a good dose of just exactly what "sit means sit" is REALLY supposed to mean, along with many other OB standard lessons.

Just my $0.02. YMMV.


----------



## Brian Urban (Jan 17, 2012)

IMHO, the "stuff" that make a great hunting dog and the "stuff" that makes a FT dog is not necessarily the same "stuff".This is even true is you look at the difference between a hunt test dog and a good hunting dog.

If you were to build the perfect field trail dog, its genetic components may include the predisposition to run in straight line at high speeds, have a personality that is wired to be able to handle the pressure of intense training and correction, have a very light coat to deal with the heat of hot summer training sessions. Eyesight, memory and intensity would be important. Nose, independence on a trail and hardness to deal with heavy upland cover or icy weather wouldn't even be considered in a breeding program.

You can't teach a dog to hunt. You can expose it to game and work it on tracks but unless it comes wired to independently find birds, you may as well tie a bandana around the neck of your neighbors Bernese mountain dog and take it for a walk in the woods.There is a thread on this site dealing with the unwillingness of a lab to work heavy cover. To me, this is not a surprise. If it's from field trail lines, the ability to work heavy cover and track running pheasants isn't even considered in a breeding program. Why would it necessarily be "in there"? Some would argue that if you could do away with the dog's nose, it would be a better field trial dog. A dog without a good nose is an absolutely horrid hunting dog.

Even a spaniel hunt test where the dogs run at full speed while quarting a field in pursuit of pen raised birds isn't hunting. It does look like fun though!

The perfect hunting dog has a great nose, and intense birdiness and drive to follow a trail, the correct coat to protect it while duck hunting and from blackberry thickets and MOST of all...drive and endurance to go out and find birds late in the season when pickings are slim. A dog running at high speed in a windshield wiper pattern is fun to see. But, it doesn't necessarily produce late season pheasants.

Ridiculously long blind retrieves during which the dog is expected to follow hand signals without using its nose may look impressive and make the handler swell with pride with his buddies but, in reality, a dog that takes over once it hits scent and doesn't stop tracking until it brings back the bird is the dog that belongs in a duck blind. It is a conservation tool. Give me an atta boy when the dog uses its nose to bring it back on his own. I don't know where the bird is. That's why I brought the dog.

Late season pheasant hunting isn't an hour long event in which dogs are used as beaters to quarter fields to flush brain dead pen raised birds. It is work during which the dog and hunter work as a team to pin birds between them, using the wind and natural boundaries to force a gun-wise running roosters airborne. A dog that does nothing more than quarter a field and won't break its pattern when it hits scent and then go into track mode, stopping to whistle if it is tracking a bird out of gun range is worthless.

Maybe you lucked out. Maybe that stuff that hunting dogs need will be in your dog. If ou dog is soley from FT lines ou'll be hard pressed to find the title on the pedigree that shows you that its parents could track or had great noses. It is possible that it came along for the ride. But, given the fact that no one's really breeding for that stuff, it may be difficult to guarantee.

What do you do to bring it out? Easy. When you first bring the puppy home, lay hot dog scent tracks across the kitchen floor, down the hallway, and tuck them under carpets. Start out easy. Build on the difficulty as it gains success. Do whatever you can to bring out the dogs natural instincts to follow a track. Make a game of it. As the dog gets older, do the same thing with real dead birds, praising the bejesus out of it if it shows independence to ignores you to follow the scent.

When it is young, expose it to game. Go to shooting preserves...get it on some tracks and see if you can trigger the desire to hunt. Encourage the dog to follow rabbit tracks in the evening when you take the dog out to do its business.

When you train the dog to retrieve, also teach the dog to hunt-dead. Make a game out of tossing a dead pheasant or quail into heavy cover and encouraging the dog to use its nose to find it. Act like the dog solve world hunger every single time. You want the dog to be independent and to bring out its natural ability to hunt. Shut up and follow the dog. Mind the wind and watch your dog's reaction as you work it into the wind and into the dead birds. Don't insist on parade ground quarting. Turn it by the whistle and hand signal if you must. But remember you're teaching the dogs to use its instincts instead of playing a game of running full speed to get pen raised birds airborne. You are trying to develop a hunting dog.

Once you've established the fact that the dog will hunt independently, now you can instill control. Teach a dog to sit with a hand signal and a whistle command. It's pretty easy to do to call the dog to you and to put your hand up and hit the whistle and have them stop. Then, over a period of weeks...introducing a retrieving dummy into the mix, and blowing the sit whistle whistle, work to teach the dog to sit immediately when it hears that whistle. There's your control. Once you reach this phase, you should be able to stop a dog no matter the distraction. Keep progressing forward so the dog is encouraged to sit if a dummy or bird is in the air. Easy.

As you progress and a hunting dog develops, work as a team by using the wind and cover and by reading your dog. On late season birds, work yourself in front of the dog so that birds are pinned between the two of you.

As the dog gains experience... and as the two of you get used to each other, magic happens As my dad told me when I asked him why he always had good hunting dogs: "Put that frigg'n whistle away. Stop trying to guide the dog to where you think the birds are. Shut up and follow the dog into the wind. It knows with the birds are. It has the nose. "


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> If you were to build the perfect field trail (trial) dog, its genetic components may include the predisposition to *run in straight line at high speeds*, *have a personality that is wired to be able to handle the pressure *of intense training and correction,


Both of these are fallacies. HT and FT are not timed events so we are not concerned with speed. Wired to handle pressure? I don't think that is true at all. Handling pressure has to do with training and a dog doesn't have to be wired to handle correction.


----------



## Brian Urban (Jan 17, 2012)

A dog from a lineage selected to be able to take a line and follow it without casting would be a good trait to pass on for a dog bred for FTs. Fast water entries are a beautiful thing to see and from what I've witnessed get the most attention. 

By "wired" I don't mean "hyper"...I meant hardwired with a disposition that doesn't sulk or take correction personally but bounces back quickly and is ready for more training.

I've been around great hunting dogs that take everything personally and apologize for everything. That personality type can be acceptable for a family hunting dog but wouldn't make a pro trainer's job easy on the field trail circuit.


----------



## WillMoncrief (Dec 1, 2014)

Have you ever spent any time around field trial dogs? I am very new to this game and every criticism I have read so far can be proven false by watching a field trial or spending a day with a good trainer. I have noticed that people who don't participate are quick to point out flaws in trial dogs that for the most part aren't true. I don't mean to be rude because this was somewhat my mentality when I first got my dog.


----------



## Brian Urban (Jan 17, 2012)

Are you saying that there are FT breeders that breeds dogs for their tracking ability and the quality of their nose?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

WillMoncrief said:


> Have you ever spent any time around field trial dogs? I am very new to this game and every criticism I have read so far can be proven false by watching a field trial or spending a day with a good trainer. I have noticed that people who don't participate are quick to point out flaws in trial dogs that for the most part aren't true.


Exactly. Just like this statement "Fast water entries are a beautiful thing to see and from what I've witnessed get the most attention." Attention by whom and how does it fit into the rules? I would sit down and read over the rules before commenting. "A dog from a lineage selected to be able to take a line and follow it without casting would be a good trait to pass on for a dog bred for FTs" The rulebook states that blinds are to be set up so that the dog finds it difficult to line the blind. How many field trials have you observed?


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

WillMoncrief said:


> Have you ever spent any time around field trial dogs? I am very new to this game and every criticism I have read so far can be proven false by watching a field trial or spending a day with a good trainer. I have noticed that people who don't participate are quick to point out flaws in trial dogs that for the most part aren't true. I don't mean to be rude because this was somewhat my mentality when I first got my dog.


You may be new, Grasshopper; but you show wisdom beyond your years


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Brian Urban said:


> IMHO, the "stuff" that make a great hunting dog and the "stuff" that makes a FT dog is not necessarily the same "stuff".This is even true is you look at the difference between a hunt test dog and a good hunting dog.
> 
> If you were to build the perfect field trail dog, its genetic components may include the predisposition to run in straight line at high speeds, have a personality that is wired to be able to handle the pressure of intense training and correction, have a very light coat to deal with the heat of hot summer training sessions. Eyesight, memory and intensity would be important. Nose, independence on a trail and hardness to deal with heavy upland cover or icy weather wouldn't even be considered in a breeding program.
> 
> ...


You could have used a lot fewer words and still proven that you know very little about FT dogs


----------



## WillMoncrief (Dec 1, 2014)

I am saying that first off, "tracking ability" seems to me to be just a trained extension of how good a dogs nose is, but then again I am a lab owner and not a versatile dog owner. And if you observe field trial dogs, the best dogs seem to be good markers with their eyes and use their noses effectively at the area of fall , so yes I do think that dogs with good noses are more desirable.


----------



## Brian Urban (Jan 17, 2012)

What tests in a field trial favors a dog with the best tracking ability?


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

Brian Urban said:


> IMHO, the "stuff" that make a great hunting dog and the "stuff" that makes a FT dog is not necessarily the same "stuff".This is even true is you look at the difference between a hunt test dog and a good hunting dog.
> 
> If you were to build the perfect field trail dog, its genetic components may include the predisposition to run in straight line at high speeds, have a personality that is wired to be able to handle the pressure of intense training and correction, have a very light coat to deal with the heat of hot summer training sessions. Eyesight, memory and intensity would be important. Nose, independence on a trail and hardness to deal with heavy upland cover or icy weather wouldn't even be considered in a breeding program.
> 
> ...


Your Dad is cast from the same stone as I. 
It would be a privileged to hunt with him.
I believe some folks forget what their purpose or end result is and loose that.


----------



## Brian Urban (Jan 17, 2012)

What test in a field trail demonstrate a dog's willingness to follow a track and not give up on a wounded bird?

You can be mean and try to insult me but all that I'm saying is hunting is different than field trails. The traits that I want in a hunting dog are not necessarily bred for in a field trail dog.

I'm not saying one is inferior to another. I'm saying that they're bred for different things.


----------



## Brian Urban (Jan 17, 2012)

mjh345 said:


> You could have used a lot fewer words and still proven that you know very little about FT dogs


And you could have been a little less condescending and offer something of value instead of acting that way.


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

Brian Urban said:


> What test in a field trail demonstrate a dog's willingness to follow a track and not give up on a wounded bird?
> 
> You can be mean and try to insult me but all that I'm saying is hunting is different than field trails. The traits that I want in a hunting dog are not necessarily bred for in a field trail dog.
> 
> I'm not saying one is inferior to another. I'm saying that they're bred for different things.


Also remember Brian that there are field trials in the pointer arena as well and there is criteria to follow with their rules or expectations.

Just saying.


----------



## Breck (Jul 1, 2003)

Brian Urban said:


> What test in a field trail demonstrate a dog's willingness to follow a track and not give up on a wounded bird?
> 
> You can be mean and try to insult me but all that I'm saying is hunting is different than field trails. The traits that I want in a hunting dog are not necessarily bred for in a field trail dog.
> 
> I'm not saying one is inferior to another. I'm saying that they're bred for different things.


. 
Don't feel like writing book but you have zero clue regarding US field trial dogs.


----------



## Brian Urban (Jan 17, 2012)

That was helpful. Thank you.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Brian Urban said:


> Are you saying that there are FT breeders that breeds dogs for their tracking ability and the quality of their nose?


The dogs that win the trials have superior noses. How do you think they find a bird 400 yards away???
The dogs that win the trials have superior perseverance. How do you think they find the birds?
The dogs that win the trials have a high tolerance to cold water. How do you think they manage to do those long swims in the cold weather and the cold water? It is not ice, but it is sometimes verrrrry cold.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> I'm not saying one is inferior to another. I'm saying that they're bred for different things.


Not really. I breed dogs from field trial dogs for hunters. Wrap your head around that. You just don't understand anything about field trial dogs.


----------



## Brian Urban (Jan 17, 2012)

You guys are making my point for me. A dog is not scenting a duck from 400 yards away. It's being handled to the area.
Is it following a track at all? Tracking ability is important in recovering wounded game. Is it actually being bred for? The drive to continue to follow a track is an important thing to have in a hunting dog. What FT test measures that drive?

And yes, there are rules for pointer field trials. But most FT pointers aren't good hunting dogs unless you have a horse to follow them with. Most range too far for foot hunting.


----------



## Brian Urban (Jan 17, 2012)

ErinsEdge said:


> Not really. I breed dogs from field trial dogs for hunters. Wrap your head around that. You just don't understand anything about field trial dogs.


Why are you being so insulting? I heard a number of times that I don't know anything about field trial dogs. If you're not breeding for tracking ability or even measuring it... how can I wrap my head around how the traits are being passed on?


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

Brian Urban said:


> You guys are making my point for me. A dog is not scenting a duck from 400 yards away. It's being handled to the area.
> Is it following a track at all? Tracking ability is important in recovering wounded game. Is it actually being bred for? The drive to continue to follow a track is an important thing to have in a hunting dog. What FT test measures that drive?
> 
> And yes, there are rules for pointer field trials. But most FT pointers aren't good hunting dogs unless you have a horse to follow them with. Most range too far for foot hunting.


LOL...Work with me OK?

They will stay on point whether you are on horseback and/or on foot. 

Edit to my post:
Sometimes it is best to cut your looses and quit while you are head. Your choice.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Brian Urban said:


> You guys are making my point for me. A dog is not scenting a duck from 400 yards away. It's being handled to the area.
> Is it following a track at all? Tracking ability is important in recovering wounded game. Is it actually being bred for? The drive to continue to follow a track is an important thing to have in a hunting dog. What FT test measures that drive?
> 
> And yes, there are rules for pointer field trials. But most FT pointers aren't good hunting dogs unless you have a horse to follow them with. Most range too far for foot hunting.


Have you ever seen a retriever field trial or hunting test? It doesn't sound like it. In the standard weekend FT, the first series is a marking test, there is no handling involved. Like the previous poster said, the dog goes out there (perseverance) and come ups with the bird using its nose. A dog with a poor nose is unlikely to find the bird quickly and succeed in the venue. They also learn to distinguish between the scent of drag back from the birds previous dogs retrieved and in the area of the fall vs the fresher one. 

The tests and trials are about skills for waterfowl hunting so upland skills are not specifically tested but if you have a dog with a good nose you got a good dog.

Even on the blinds, the dog has to be able to smell the bird once it gets near it.

Ironically a dog with a superior nose is not as well tested on perseverance, since a good nose will shorten their hunt once they get to the area of the fall.

A lot of dogs just come up with the bird because they have good noses, I've seen 200 yard "wind saves"


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

Brian Urban said:


> Why are you being so insulting? I heard a number of times that I don't know anything about field trial dogs. If you're not breeding for tracking ability or even measuring it... how can I wrap my head around how the traits are being passed on?


OK I believe you are taking this too personal.
Breathe OK?


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Brian Urban said:


> What test in a field trail demonstrate a dog's willingness to follow a track and not give up on a wounded bird?
> 
> You can be mean and try to insult me but all that I'm saying is hunting is different than field trails. The traits that I want in a hunting dog are not necessarily bred for in a field trail dog.
> 
> I'm not saying one is inferior to another. I'm saying that they're bred for different things.


You seem to want to hang everything on tracking. I will admit that "tracking" in and of itself is not specifically tested in a FT. However having a good nose is most definitely tested for and bred for. A dog with a great nose and high prey drive will take to tracking like a duck to water. If you think my FT dogs cant use their great noses in tracking birds then lets go pheasant hunting and you can put your money where your mouth is.

Now I will address a small tidbit of your lengthy diatribe where you exhibit a lack of understanding of the value of skills FT's emphasize that are quite valuable in hunting. 

You said:

_Ridiculously long blind retrieves during which the dog is expected to follow hand signals without using its nose may look impressive and make the handler swell with pride with his buddies but, in reality, a dog that takes over once it hits scent and doesn't stop tracking until it brings back the bird is the dog that belongs in a duck blind. It is a conservation tool. Give me an atta boy when the dog uses its nose to bring it back on his own. I don't know where the bird is. That's why I brought the dog

_If you actually knew anything about FT's you would know that on those "ridiculously long blind retrieves" in a FT is actually trained to ignore his great nose and the smell of birds that he encounters as he is running that "ridiculously long blind retrieve". He is trained to take the hand signals and go where he was told to go in spite of what he smelled en route

In a hunting situation your dog can't do that "ridiculously long blind retrieve" so a bird that sails out 4=500 yds is out of your dogs pay grade.

More importantly you claim that; "_a dog that takes over once it hits scent and doesn't stop tracking until it brings back the bird is the dog that belongs in a duck blind. It is a conservation tool_" I say BS Many times when hunting there is a bird down that is not going anywhere. If I send my FT dog on a "ridiculously long blind retrieve" and he encounters the smell of a bird that I know is not a threat to go far, I can handle him off of that smell to a bird that may have plenty of life left and put him on the trail of that bird before he can escape. I can then pick up the other bird Your self employed dog _ "that takes over once it hits scent and doesn't stop tracking" __just became a liability and NOT a conservation tool. I won't even mention all the other problems presented by a dog _ _"that takes over once it hits scent and doesn't stop tracking until it brings back the bird"__ But getting himself killed or trespassing come to mind 
Im glad you are happy with your "versatile breed" 
But I am thrilled with my very versatile and WELL TRAINED retriever

__
_


----------



## Todd Caswell (Jun 24, 2008)

mitty said:


> Have you ever seen a retriever field trial or hunting test? It doesn't sound like it. In the standard weekend FT, the first series is a marking test. Like the previous poster said, the dog goes out there (perseverance) and come ups with the bird using its nose. A dog with a poor nose is unlikely to find the bird quickly and succeed in the venue. They also learn to distinguish between the scent of drag back from the birds previous dogs retrieved and in the area of the fall vs the fresher one.
> 
> The tests and trials are about skills for waterfowl hunting so upland skills are not specifically tested but if you have a dog with a good nose you got a good dog.
> 
> ...


Acually the great marking dogs don't use there nose at all they use there eyes, and good judges will put birds in places the nose is of little value..


----------



## Brian Urban (Jan 17, 2012)

WillMoncrief said:


> I am saying that first off, "tracking ability" seems to me to be just a trained extension of how good a dogs nose is, but then again I am a lab owner and not a versatile dog owner. And if you observe field trial dogs, the best dogs seem to be good markers with their eyes and use their noses effectively at the area of fall , so yes I do think that dogs with good noses are more desirable.


I currently own two Llewellin Setters. In the past I have owned two Drahthaars. The setters have a far far superior noses to my drahthaars. But they struggle with tracking. The drahthaars would run a pheasant track 10 yards down wind on a full run and would follow a track as puppied without an ounce of training.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Brian Urban said:


> Why are you being so insulting? I heard a number of times that I don't know anything about field trial dogs. If you're not breeding for tracking ability or even measuring it... how can I wrap my head around how the traits are being passed on?




You have told us all that field trial dogs don't need good noses, don't need perseverance, and don't need to tolerate cold water. Folks have tried to set you straight, yet your response is that you are being insulted. No, you are being educated.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Todd Caswell said:


> Acually the great marking dogs don't use there nose at all they use there eyes, and good judges will put birds in places the nose is of little value..


The dogs get to the AOF with their eyes, once there they find the bird with their nose.


----------



## Brian Urban (Jan 17, 2012)

Wow. You guys are mean.

If you go back and read my diatribe as you call it, my point was a hunting dog and a field trail dog are bred for different things. Nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise.

You tell me that I don't know a thing about field trail dogs. Have I spent time around them? I own one. Her mother competed in the 2015 Master Nationals. I will be getting another one. I will pick him up on December 18th. So you still think I have my head up my ass don't you?

You guys have continually insulted me by saying that I know nothing about field trial dogs. Wrap my "head around this" you say? And then when I call you out I am the one that is getting too personal ? How dare you be so condescending ! All I was trying to do was have a discussion about the differences between field trial dogs and hunting dogs. I have owned both. 

Did you even read the nice conversational tone I've been using? But you don't have time for me? You make assumptions based on my avatar. I'm not one of your crowd? But, I am!

Then when I call you out on it it's suddenly getting too personal? Seriously? You know my name and you know where I live I am NOT hiding behind a handle. Yet you are condescending to me. Amazing.

Go back and read my post. I am talking about upland hunting. I am NOT talking about your ability to send a dog on ridiculously long retrieves and smell a stinky duck. That's retrieving. You could probably smell the oil in the duck's feathers that has been sitting for that long . How is that a proper measurement of a dog's scenting ability or tracking ability? And...trespassing...seriously?!?

The ability of a dog to search out in front of you to scent game, follow/track the game until it flushes...that is what I mean by upland hunting.

And, if one of you is selling field trail dogs to hunters without measuring the ability of your dogs to follow a track or to produce game in the uplands, I am really impressed by your marketing ability.

I think the ability of FT dogs is amazing. What they are bred for and what they do is incredible. But, don't assume that by breeding for the ability to make tremendously long blind retrieves and to smell a stinky oily duck in the marsh anyway translates in the ability of a dog to be successful at upland hunting. If you read my original message, you may understand that.

You guys said it yourself. A field trial dog is trained with the ability to turn off it nose so its handler can direct it to a fallen duck.

A upland hunter needs a dog that can pound heavy cover in search of scent of a live birds that are trying to elude detection. We're not talking about oily ducks here... as you put it aren't going where . We're talking about pheasants and grouse and woodcock that don't want to be found. The upland hunter also needs a dog with the ability to follow a track of a wounded bird. 

Maybe I am not as smart as you guys. You've been pointing that out to me since we started this nice little conversation. But, it is my understanding that the traits of a dog are based on what it is bred for. Nobody here has explain to me how a field trial dog is measured in its ability to track or to search out live game in front of a hunter. If you read my post again, I was simply pointing out that what you guys measure as success is different than what a dog that the upland game hunter measures as success. And therefore, the dogs that are bred to do either activity are different.

If you are a field trial breeder, do you really have an idea, a guarantee that your dog will get out in the blackberry tangles and actually hunt? Do you know that your dogs will have the nose for it? The tracking ability to finish up the job? Exactly how and when do you measure this? 

You see, I made the phone calls. I sent the emails. When I was looking for my new pup, I asked the same questions. I asked if their dogs would hunt. Would their dogs track? Do you know what I got? I got: "I think many of the field trail dogs will do what you are asking...with the proper training."

I got: " I wish my dogs didn't have a nose it all. It hurts them in field trails."

I'm sorry that I insulted you and caused you so much grief. No, I am not as smart as you but I know a little bit about dogs. And as I said in my original post, maybe you're lucky. Maybe some of the traits that I look for in a hunting dog come along with the breeding of your field trail dogs. Maybe. But, when I did the research and I made the phone calls, I heard the uncertainty in the voices of the breeders that were nice enough to speak to me. 

I'm just happy that the breeders that I spoke to didn't act like you guys when I asked the tough questions.

You guys aren't exactly stellar ambassadors to your sport.


----------



## BJGatley (Dec 31, 2011)

Brian Urban said:


> Wow. You guys are mean.
> 
> If you go back and read my diatribe as you call it, my point was a hunting dog and a field trail dog are bred for different things. Nothing you have said has convinced me otherwise.
> 
> ...


Preaching to the choir. I hope you understand that.


----------



## T-Pines (Apr 17, 2007)

Brian,
You posted up your very nice pedigreed Field Trial breeding( any "golden" person with any knowledge of the dogs in this pedigree will tell you this) for the new Golden Retriever pup you are picking up in a few weeks. Both sire and dam are from very strong field trial lineage, and this is a breeding you could entertain the idea of getting into field trials if you had the time, inclination, training instruction etc.
Anyway, I think that you will be singing a different tune in a year or two once you see what your own pup is capable of in a hunting and tracking situation.
Colleen


----------



## Brian Urban (Jan 17, 2012)

I'm really, really excited about the pup.

With my experience in training my previous dogs, I want to believe that some of it will benefit me on the new pup. But just knowing what goes into it all is very daunting.

Then, when I add to my desire to have a tracking dog that can out-track my DDs but with the over-the-top intelligence of a FT retriever...I get a bit intimidated by it all.

I just wish the two paths were a lil' closer together so I can do all those things I learned to bring out the "hunting stuff" in the pup without potentially jeopardizing the "FT stuff".

My search wasn't easy. I wish there was something on FT pedigrees that could properly direct an upland hunter looking for a dog wirh upland ability.

I think I made a good choice. Thank you.

Brian


----------



## jhnnythndr (Aug 11, 2011)

I don't know why no one has suggested looking into nahra as a venue for you to investigate. Probably find some similarly minded folks involved in that program as far as people who value more of a pure hunting retriever. It's still canned and contrived but the folks who are training for upper nahra titles will probably have similar priorities to your own as well as being able to help teach you how to maximize your nonslip retriever without jeopardizing your upland dog. Mayb no one is suggesting it because they wouldn't want to inflict uou on there mother in law at this point, much less some sympathetic dog folk- I don't know. Anyway, if there's a nahra chapter near you, that would be my first stop. 

Not that it's worth the time it'll take you to read or me to type- but.... What really makes a good field trial retriever is desire for birds. Bird drive trumps all. You keep pointing out how well trained they are- and it's true, they are trained to a T, and the only ones tha can truly survive that grind are the ones who love birds enough to put up with the training. 

I have a bitch who is turning 5 on Christmas who I wish I had done proper basics / yard with prior to hitting the grouse woods. She is a first rate bird dog, plenty of experience, knows to check up before she flushes to make sure there's a gun there works close, and lives in the cover. Go through more bag balm on her undercarriage hunting than with a litter of pups But she will get self employed at the drop of a hat and simply requires a collar correction to clear her head- and I think if I had prioritied a little better while she was a pup- I would have an even nicer dog.


----------



## RetrieversONLINE (Nov 24, 2005)

Brian

My experience with my dogs is very different than your impression of "field trial" dogs. My experience is 45 years of training and handling dogs for field trials and hunting. By field trials I mean CKC and AKC field trials not hunt tests. By hunting I mean duck as well as upland for pheasant, grouse and woodcock. I have trained 9 field champions including 3 National wins. All these dogs have been hunted extensively. All were capable of running ridiculously long water or land blinds (500 yards plus) in the face of diversion birds. All would track cripples independently in extremely difficult cover. At my duck camp, I often hunt up river and after the hunt come down stopping at each other hunter's blind to dig out cripples shot hours ago. I canoe or boat up to a spot and launch my dogs. This year my 3 year old has been digging out dozens of birds sometimes 75 yards back in the jungle where I can't see him and where I could not possible walk. Like my others he has a fantastic nose, great perseverance and tracking savvy. I did no training for this. He just learned it in a few hunts. He also runs extremely straight lines for those extraordinary retrieves. While upland hunting, my dogs quarter in range with very little guidance except to go where I am going.

All of my dogs have been out of major field trial lines-most had NFC sires or grandsires such as Honcho, Lean Mac, Chopper, Rascal. I am not boasting here about my dogs but rather trying to emphasize that my actual experience is dramatically different than your beliefs. Tracking and good noses are inherent in good field trial Labs. I would hate for other RTFers to read your viewpoints and subscribe to them.

Regards

PS:Incidentally, among the traits of a good field trial dog is good eyes. Field trial dogs use their eyes to mark and get to the area of fall. But I estimate that 90% of birds are found in .trials with their noses. Superb noses are a pre-requisite for good trial dogs. Judy Aycock was asked many years ago what makes a good marker. Her answer? scent discrimination!


----------



## Brian Urban (Jan 17, 2012)

Dennis - wow! Thanks for the response!

That was extremely helpful.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

You come on here with ill conceived opinions and expect no feedback or correction? Any feedback you get you reject because you know FT dogs and own (just bought?) a MH. Listen to what people are trying to explain to you instead of calling us mean. You are getting a new puppy and it would behoove you to listen and learn for the sake of your dog.

As far as testing "my marketing", you bet I get feedback from my puppy owners in the form of pictures and notes how happy they are with their piles of ducks or pheasants, even with this years pups! The dam of a weaned litter still here under 7 weeks, daughter of an AFC, went out on a hunt yesterday and I got a sunset picture of her with 16 ducks. Online Retrievers is right on. They take to hunting naturally because they have all the faculties and they just put them to a different use than field trials. You are buying a FT pedigreed puppy, and you will see and you will get a lot more useful feedback if you drop the baloney and listen. Maybe on the research phone calls you did the same thing as you are doing here. You do not understand the blind concept at all in field trials. I went to a senior hunt test and the first test was to track a bird. He had not been asked to do so before but I just said hunt em up and and gave a wave of my hand and he did it. He was a FT dog too and son of LeanMac


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

Brian, I echo Dennis' statement. I have a 13 1/2 yr old who hunted and is as tight FT lines as you can get. Shooter x Sparky as grand parents on top, Code Blue x Pricey as grand parents on the bottom. Great nose and loved hunting. My current hunting dog has FT JAMs and is Shadow (Abe x Lottie) on top and Ice ( Chavez x CFC Meadowcreek's AM a Waldorf High Tech daughter) . Again loves to hunt. Great in a blind and has a good nose. Please don't confuse HT with FT. FT dogs have to want and find birds in order to win.

Jeff G


----------



## krakadawn (Jan 8, 2006)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> Brian
> 
> My experience with my dogs is very different than your impression of "field trial" dogs. My experience is 45 years of training and handling dogs for field trials and hunting. By field trials I mean CKC and AKC field trials not hunt tests. By hunting I mean duck as well as upland for pheasant, grouse and woodcock. I have trained 9 field champions including 3 National wins. All these dogs have been hunted extensively. All were capable of running ridiculously long water or land blinds (500 yards plus) in the face of diversion birds. All would track cripples independently in extremely difficult cover. At my duck camp, I often hunt up river and after the hunt come down stopping at each other hunter's blind to dig out cripples shot hours ago. I canoe or boat up to a spot and launch my dogs. This year my 3 year old has been digging out dozens of birds sometimes 75 yards back in the jungle where I can't see him and where I could not possible walk. Like my others he has a fantastic nose, great perseverance and tracking savvy. I did no training for this. He just learned it in a few hunts. He also runs extremely straight lines for those extraordinary retrieves. While upland hunting, my dogs quarter in range with very little guidance except to go where I am going.
> 
> ...


Dennis I'm glad you responded as I too would not want other casual readers here to get the sense that tracking and good noses are not inherent in field trial labs. I really believe folks need to see how these dogs can perform and not just talking about navigating a tight key hole blind in a FT but in real demanding hunting situations.

You'd better believe him when he tells you about digging out cripples in unwalkable marsh areas several hours later. I know because if it wasn't him it was me since I was a member there too. It was our FT dogs who were responsible for that chore and we're not talking about jumping in the water and do a 30yd swim. Try swimming across a large bay, climbing up in the bog and be gone for several minutes tracking a wounded bird....seen it many times and often at extreme ranges and the dog was on his own, I certainly couldn't have handled him once he began to track/trail.

I really believe most people have little idea about just how good FT dogs are as hunting dogs. Remember....smart dogs are smart dogs....they learn quicker, have better memory, and are better problem solvers. They can perform some unbelievable stuff. Have dug out so many birds at the camp that one tends to forget the individual efforts although all note worthy and done by FTCH's as some of us are hard core hunters as well as field trailers.

I am still reminded of one opening day travelling down a small creek with a mud motor roaring. Two dogs were standing at the bow sampling the marsh smells, anticipating the hunt......one black, one yellow....one a 2x National FTCH, the other just a FTCH......yet just duck dogs on that day but boy were they duck dogs!

Here's to good noses!


----------



## Brian Urban (Jan 17, 2012)

This is awesome!!!

I am very happy to know that there are good embassitors to the sport who don't require me to kiss their rings. I feel much better now.

Geez.


Having taken two dogs through the German testing system and seeing first hand how the evaluation of track, nose, cooperation and duck search has on the natural abilities of the dogs, I was confused on how those things can be "in there" without the evaluation and corresponding breeding program. That's why I kept asking about tracking. Some dogs have killer noses when it comes to airborne scent but can't track naturally. My Llewellins are a prime example. 

And...even though some of you claim that I wasn't listening and my questions were baloney, as a puppy buyer, there is a peace of mind that comes from seeing test scores for generations and knowing that the evaluations did occur and just didn't happen from a wave of a hand.

What gets measured gets attention.

But...I will say that the same isn't always the case for german shorthairs. My brother raises shorthairs. And, even though the dogs are hunted and go through NAVHDA and AKC hunt tests, there are occasional dogs that do not make the grade when it comes to tracking or duck searches. It isn't in there. No amount of hand waiving or photos of successful hunts of previous clients can change that.

A quality puppy isn't cheap. I tried to ask all the right questions when I made my search. I am happy to hear that the qualities that I am looking for in a hunting dog are important to FTers. From some of the answers that I received, I was gettin' worried. I was half convinced that a weaker nose benefited a FT dog. I know better now.

Now I need to find the right training videos/advice to have the best of both worlds.

Thanks again!


----------



## Wade Thurman (Jul 4, 2005)

Griffons have the cutest faces!!!




Brian Urban said:


> This is awesome!!!
> 
> I am very happy to know that there are good embassitors to the sport who don't require me to kiss their rings. I feel much better now.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ted Shih (Jan 20, 2003)

Brian Urban said:


> I am very happy to know that there are good embassitors to the sport who don't require me to kiss their rings. I feel much better now.
> 
> Geez.


​well, that was certainly endearing.


----------



## NateB (Sep 25, 2003)

RetrieversONLINE said:


> Brian
> 
> My experience with my dogs is very different than your impression of "field trial" dogs. My experience is 45 years of training and handling dogs for field trials and hunting. By field trials I mean CKC and AKC field trials not hunt tests. By hunting I mean duck as well as upland for pheasant, grouse and woodcock. I have trained 9 field champions including 3 National wins. All these dogs have been hunted extensively. All were capable of running ridiculously long water or land blinds (500 yards plus) in the face of diversion birds. All would track cripples independently in extremely difficult cover. At my duck camp, I often hunt up river and after the hunt come down stopping at each other hunter's blind to dig out cripples shot hours ago. I canoe or boat up to a spot and launch my dogs. This year my 3 year old has been digging out dozens of birds sometimes 75 yards back in the jungle where I can't see him and where I could not possible walk. Like my others he has a fantastic nose, great perseverance and tracking savvy. I did no training for this. He just learned it in a few hunts. He also runs extremely straight lines for those extraordinary retrieves. While upland hunting, my dogs quarter in range with very little guidance except to go where I am going.
> 
> ...


I do not have Dennis, success pedigree, but my dogs are trained similarly to his, to field trial standards. I have found the same thing as he states. My 3 yr old knows the difference between "dead bird" (a blind) and "hunt'em up" upland command. Two weeks ago in N. Dakota, we had a teal buzz the decoys and got hit but did not fall for a long time. Was a good 200 yrs water blind, in pretty cold water. Not freezing yet, but I fell in a few days before and can tell you it was cold!!! She faded a bit in the wind, and needed one cast. Once at the bird the darn thing came back to life and tried to dive. She just knew to circle and wait for it. After about 3 chases I could see the bird weakening thru binoculars, and next thing I knew she was on her way back. She is also a fantastic upland hunter, we pheasant hunted yesterday. I could tell stories upon stories of hunting adventures in which you cannot specifically train for the scenarios. Her grandmothers first hunting retrieve was a 250yrd water blind in N. Dakota. So one will ever convince me long blind training is not essential in hunting.

Enjoy your new dog.


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

My 2 cents, If you want a dog with a good nose, get it out and work it on nose work, trailing, quartering, scent discrimination young. Very fun puppy games, just get a pup out and let it explore and they pick it up very natural. Much harder to teach a dog to be as nose oriented and free range later, after you've focused on obedience and eyes eyes eyes. Not saying it can't be done, but it's easier to let nature teach nose.


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

Brian, Retrievers are primarily sight oriented. Not saying they don't have noses but are bred to rely primarily on sight initially and then the nose kicks in. DD are a versatile hunting breed that are primarily nose oriented. Yes I know the difference. I was in NAVHDA with my GSP in the 70's. Knew Bodo etc. My GSP had enough points for a prize II Utility except for her " stay by the blind" or really lack of it.  So I am very familiar with the German way of training and testing. Don't think most retriever people are ignorant or unknowing of other breeds. I have judged pointing dog trials too.Although a completely different game.

Jeff G


----------



## Brian Urban (Jan 17, 2012)

Jeff - thanks. That perspective makes sense. 

Indy's (my avatar) tracking ability was jaw dropping. For blind retrieves, I'd just line him up down wind of the duck and send him. We never lost a bird.

As much as he loved retrieving ducks, bumpers were an annoyance.

One hasn't lived until you FF a 95 lb alpha (of the litter) DD with a toe pinch. Every step along the way, Indy knew what I wanted but wanted me to "convince" him that I was in charge. After we moved off the training table and into the pond, he challenged me for the last time.

Yeah, the folks there that day saw me wading into chest deep water with a DD under one arm and me pinching his toe with the other hand. I'm glad I got to the bumper before I had to swim. He never refused a retrieve after that.

Fun stuff.


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

Brian Urban said:


> This is awesome!!!
> 
> I am very happy to know that there are good embassitors to the sport who don't require me to kiss their rings. I feel much better now.
> 
> ...


Yet those of us that spent time trying to educate you of that in red are the ones that need to apologize??
Enjoy your dogs and good hunting!!


----------



## Hunt'EmUp (Sep 30, 2010)

labsforme said:


> Brian, Retrievers are primarily sight oriented. Not saying they don't have noses but are bred to rely primarily on sight initially and then the nose kicks in.
> 
> Jeff G


Respectfully disagree, retriever are sight oriented because in our game we train them to be, we focus on eyes over nose from early development, much of our training-and testing is highly contrary to developing a nose. Any retriever would be just as nosey as another breed, if we we're to focus on nose in their training, rather than eyes. For example a retriever owner focused on detection or search and rescue work (cadaver, water finds etc.), they train a dog to be highly reliant on nose. If a retriever was primary a sight dog without a good nose they wouldn't be used in Detection work, nor Search and rescue, nor as upland flushers for that matter; and people in those professions would utilize other breeds. However retrievers are the go to dog for most types of detection work out-numbering many other breeds, and most of those dogs come directly out of working retriever field stock. It is our training that makes a retriever sight oriented inspite of having an inbred and highly developed nose.







Last surviving 9-11 S&R dog, looks like a retriever to me


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

They use all their senses to "mark." Here is my blind dog doing "marks"---sometimes she has zero hunts. Her nose is no where near as good as my younger dog.

I'm just throwing bumpers for her on the shore of a pond, using my iPhone to record so not the best scenario.


----------



## Renee P. (Dec 5, 2010)

Here she is on land, the throw if from a Thunder 500. Not one of her best but still rather interesting how they use their nose and ears to find "marks":


----------



## Cold Iron (Jan 28, 2010)

Hunt'EmUp said:


> My 2 cents, If you want a dog with a good nose, get it out and work it on nose work, trailing, quartering, scent discrimination young. Very fun puppy games, just get a pup out and let it explore and they pick it up very natural. Much harder to teach a dog to be as nose oriented and free range later, after you've focused on obedience and eyes eyes eyes. Not saying it can't be done, but it's easier to let nature teach nose.


I feel that is worth more than 2 cents, as is your post that follows that one. First year I don't say a whole lot of "too far" either.

Brian for years now I only hunt phez in SD (and occasionally sharpies when I run into them) and ruff grouse in Northern Mn. I don't eat timber doodles any more so don't shoot them. Work all year with the dog and then burn my vacation time to hunt ruff and phez, quit ducks when they made us go to steel. This is my 41st year bird hunting. My first dog was a Ryman English Setter and I trained her to stay ~100-120 yards away when hunting thick grouse woods. Last fall I decided that I missed a pointing dog and picked up a 5 year old rescue Lew English Setter from the breeder, the dogs owner had passed away. He ranged on average 1k yards away and came from FT stock. If anyone is able to make it 1K through the grouse cover I hunt before the bird runs or flys off your doing better than I, but I'm not exactly an athletic speed demon anymore either  In the pothole regions of SD where I hunt he was a handicap there too for several reasons. Ended up sending him down the road and he ended up in ND with an owner that hunts from horseback and everyone is happy. Pointing dog FT has left a bad taste in the mouth of many average foot hunters. But Retrieving FT is a totally different game IMO.

You said your 2 Lews struggle with tracking and that is another reason I ended up staying with retrievers. Some of the best pheasant dogs I have seen in the Dakotas have been retrievers. I'm talking birds with Kevlar feathers and a PhD in hunter avoidance that can take 2 or 3 broadside shots moving them sideways then hit the ground and run for 1/4 to half mile through a mix of cattails and grass. The best dog I have ever seen at bringing those birds back was a lab that had a FT background. Much of the time the grass and cattails is so tall it is hard for me to mark the bird let alone the dog. Yes nose matters, a lot, but so does drive and desire to bring home the goods. If I was getting a lab and it had a FT background I would not hesitate to get it as long as the rest of the breeding was in line with what I look for.

I've hunted over Tollers for almost 30 years now and like any breed some are better than others when it comes to upland hunting. It is a small community and getting to know the breeders and what they and I each want has helped me to land the best hunters. At the RGS National Hunt this year the pros with pro dogs and pro guides averaged something like .7 birds a day, the second lowest in history. The next week in an area a few hours away that is noticeable less prime grouse habit I averaged 3-5 times that per day with the new pup that just turned 1. The pup has a long ways to go yet but I like how things are looking. The older Toller I don't think is happy being retired but he can hardly move in the morning and has earned his retirement. 

While tests and titles are supposed to judge a dogs hunting ability the one that comes closest, but only for pointy dogs, is likely the coverdog field trials and though they are done on wild grouse still not a guarantee. Getting to know and working with a breeder is the best path I know of to date. Having a FT background is not a bad thing either from what I have seen. Good luck with your new pup.


----------



## Cold Iron (Jan 28, 2010)

Brian I just ran across some pictures that clarified some things, even for me. I helped setup the first MidWest Upland Journal shoot and get together, most are grouse hunters from Mn. to Mi. with some from the Dakotas. Most die hard traditional grouse hunters hunt English Setters. And when the shot is fired many Setters consider their job is over from what I have seen and my own experience. Yes they will retrieve but most don't care for it much. There is a lab and French Britt here I have hunted over both of those dogs. The lab has been replaced with a Springer which is hell on wheels. 









I hunt SD with a small group of other retired military guys. Back in the day with lots of CRP and birds we would get together once in awhile with other local groups to hunt a few farms in the traditional pheasant drive. Most people use labs labs there, when you absolutely need to get a bird out of thick cover a retriever is the answer. Most of us had put the dogs away when this was taken but you get the idea. Never mind the Admiral and his Weims


----------



## Brian Urban (Jan 17, 2012)

Lots of chocolate!!!

Thanks for tell'n me about your experiences.

The dakotas are an amazing place.My bother, nephew and I spent a week in ND pheasant hunting. I had my DD and he had a GSP. It was heaven.

One late afternoon, we were done and heading back to my brother's truck. From the grid of the road, we knew we had a mile to go. Out in the distance we watched a car as it approached. It was an older gentleman driving by himself in an extremely shiny Buick. The man was dressed up and his car was spotless. He asked us, the three of us with our two dogs, if we wanted a ride back to the truck. We politely thank him and declined his offer. He insisted that it was too far to walk. We thank him for his hospitality and again, declined his offer. What an amazing place.


----------



## patton1 (Jan 13, 2008)

Interesting points made by both sides. I just finished reading Mike Gould's Book The Labrador Shooting Dog, I wonder what he would contribute to this thread. I would imagine he would emphasize lack of control when they are young and letting dogs figure it out.


----------

