# wildrose



## labman626 (Aug 31, 2009)

has anyone ever titled a dog with these methods...maybe hunt test?


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

I don't think so. There have been several Wildrose bred dogs achieve AKC & HRC HT titles but I think the owners used conventional training methods. For sure no FC or AFCs


----------



## mlp (Feb 20, 2009)

I have seen a few dogs come out of training there and go on to get HRC and MH titles but never heard of a FC/AFC though.


----------



## Desiree (Dec 27, 2009)

A search for Wildrose on this site may provide some interesting answers.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

labman626 said:


> has anyone ever titled a dog with these methods...maybe hunt test?


I don't think that Mike Stewart, nor Robert Milner ever attempt to present their methods and ideas as those to be used for hunt tests or field trials.

IT seems they are pretty clear on what their methods are designed to do for the handler/trainer and dog.

There is no "one size fits all".

Chris


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

I've wildrose dogs running HRC and maybe AKC hunt tests that were trained using Stewart's methods. One I saw running seasoned. The dog failed, but I don't know if the dog went on to become a HR dog or not. After talking to her owner, I tend to doubt it. He seemed way too satisfied with the quality of her work (NOT GOOD by seasoned standards) to think he would have sought out another method. Another I know trained with those methods did get her HR. The last time I saw her her owner was begging her to pick up a duck she had retrieved to within about 30 yards of the line in a Finished test. Very reminiscent of something you might see in a started/junior test. You see she wasn't FF because Stewart claims his dogs, with their superior breeding don't need it. Obviously she didn't pass that day, but she may have eventually achieved her HRCH, I don't know. I do know that guy was getting a lot of advice from people in the club who do use conventional methods, but I don't know to what extent he tried to apply any of it. I will say that probably the only thing holding her back was the training methodology...or maybe I should say that was the glaringly obvious thing.


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

No kidding Pete, any program will fail when not executed/implemented properly. I happen to think the program in question will fail to produce an acceptable result even when implemented properly.

More marketing and less substance regards.


----------



## Evan (Jan 5, 2003)

Pete said:


> Hunting dog
> 
> Do you know what the program consists of. Is it based on european type gun dog training . If so Europeans have been enjoying great hunting dogs longer than us. And have been running field trials long before the U.S.
> 
> ...


Two very different approaches in each part of the world, Pete. Europeans hunt differently, and certainly field trial differently. We're each sticklers for different aspects of the work, and on different scales & dimensions, especially where trials are concerned.

Also operant conditioning isn't all there is to it in most American methods. There is every reason to pick methods with an approach that more closely matches the way a person will hunt, test, or trial. They are definately not the same.

Evan


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Pete said:


> Hunting dog
> 
> Do you know what the program consists of. Is it based on european type gun dog training . If so Europeans have been enjoying great hunting dogs longer than us. And have been running field trials long before the U.S.
> 
> ...


I disagree Pete, and I know Robert Milner would as well. I would strongly urge you to check out an American Gundog Club event some time.

Milner will readily admit that "lining behaviors" are critical in U.S. hunt test and FT circles. They are not in the Brit games..... 

Like I was warned when I went over to Ireland to compete and judge, dogs are allowed to hunt a lot more on blinds than we are used to in the U.S. Dogs are handled much more readily and frequently on marks than we are accustomed to in the U.S.

Chris


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

Pete said:


> Hunting dog
> 
> Do you know what the program consists of. Is it based on european type gun dog training . If so Europeans have been enjoying great hunting dogs longer than us. And have been running field trials long before the U.S.
> 
> ...


Pete, one of the dogs I referenced (the one that I think could do the work if trained properly) was trained at wildrose. Dude brought his trained dog to a club training session (virtually all HT dogs not FT) and the dog's work was very poor in certain areas due to piss poor training IMO. Just because the huckster bases his "system" on European training doesn't mean it is the same. I have no idea what European training produces in Europe. I do know I am severely unimpressed with what the huckster's "way" produces. It is an inferior "way" unless you don't want your dog to deliver all of the friggin' birds it finds (for one thing). If there is such a thing as a single "optimal" training method, his "way" is a long darned "way" from that. Why do something in a manner that gives you less chance of success than other methods? Why follow a "way" that doesn't give you the tools to ensure that your dog performs its job appropriately?

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to know chicken salad from chicken litter.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Pete said:


> Evan
> I got an MH on my first gun dog using Albert Einstine I mean Richard Wolters,,butt the method morphed as time went on as I learned how to apply other things that I noticed as I trained.
> 
> Don't most people start with a program and as time goes on they learn how to improve just by doing.
> ...


Lots of folks have put MH titles on their dogs using Wolters (actually more of a Mark Twain lookalike if you asked me) program.

Wolters starts off toasting his dog who just won a derby in his book. He drinks scotch out of a silver trophy as a toast to his win. He clearly positions his stuff as that which works for tests and trials. 

In contrast, Milner and Stewart will readily state that FT stuff is counter to their ideas and their training methodology.

Chris


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

Pete said:


> Evan
> I got an MH on my first gun dog using Albert Einstine I mean Richard Wolters,,butt the method morphed as time went on as I learned how to apply other things that I noticed as I trained.


Pete,

I also trained my first dog with Richard Wolter's materials (at least up to a point). I would not consider doing so again. If a newbie asks advice about what methods/training materials to use I don't even consider recommending the Water Dog and Game Dog books that I once used. However, if given only the choice between Wolter's methods or the huckster's "way" I would be Water Dog all the way. That is just about the most damning indictment I can think of.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

I too started with Wolters' stuff. My first demo ever was with Wolters at the microphone, wearing knickers and a bowtie. I loved the old guy... 

Much of his stuff applies today...and the parts that do are basic obedience and simple canine behavior. But the parts about lining, teaching a dog to handle in a stepwise fashion, stuff leading up to decheating and swimby....they are completely devoid in Wolters' material, as well as in Stewart/Wildrose.

Chris


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

HuntinDawg said:


> Pete, one of the dogs I referenced (the one that I think could do the work if trained properly) was trained at wildrose. Dude brought his trained dog to a club training session (virtually all HT dogs not FT) and the dog's work was very poor in certain areas due to piss poor training IMO. Just because the huckster bases his "system" on European training doesn't mean it is the same. I have no idea what European training produces in Europe. I do know I am severely unimpressed with what the huckster's "way" produces. It is an inferior "way" unless you don't want your dog to deliver all of the friggin' birds it finds (for one thing). If there is such a thing as a single "optimal" training method, his "way" is a long darned "way" from that. Why do something in a manner that gives you less chance of success than other methods? Why follow a "way" that doesn't give you the tools to ensure that your dog performs its job appropriately?
> 
> It doesn't take a brain surgeon to know chicken salad from chicken litter.


I first met Bob Milnor when he was stationed @ Fort Lewis. He had bought a well bred washout from a local very well known kennel. Bob managed to bring the dog along & eventually sold the dog to Tommy Sorenson for 1 of his clients. Most of us know the dog as FC Toni's Blaine Child, so I would believe the dog must have had considerable improvement under Bob's tutelage.

I would ask you, whomever you are, How many FC's have you developed? I believe your criticism of Bob Milnor unwarranted as when I knew him he was a pretty typical sort of person.


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

Marvin S said:


> I first met Bob Milnor when he was stationed @ Fort Lewis. He had bought a well bred washout from a local very well known kennel. Bob managed to bring the dog along & eventually sold the dog to Tommy Sorenson for 1 of his clients. Most of us know the dog as FC Toni's Blaine Child, so I would believe the dog must have had considerable improvement under Bob's tutelage.
> 
> I would ask you, whomever you are, How many FC's have you developed? I believe your criticism of Bob Milnor unwarranted as when I knew him he was a pretty typical sort of person.


Marvin, I have not said a single thing about Robert Milner in this thread. I have never knowingly seen a dog trained by Mr. Milner. What I know about his methods is limited to what I have read on the RTF, posts written my Mr. Milner and others and a few video clips posted by Mr. Milner. I have read enough of his posts to know that I have significant differences of opinion with him, but I was not addressing that here. I also know that he used to follow methodology that, at least in some aspects, was more similar to what we consider conventional retriever training than what he now espouses. Like I said previously, I have not seen what his training produces, so I really couldn't comment on his ability to produce an adequately trained retriever with his current methodology. To answer your question, I do not participate in field trials and likely never will, so I have developed zero FC's and that will almost certainly be my lifetime total. This thread was about wildrose dogs titling in hunt tests. When I referred to the huckster, I was NOT referring to Milner as he is not the present owner of wildrose nor is he the one selling a method marketed as the wildrose way. I hope that clears things up for you a bit.

EDIT: I really wasn't trying to be arcane. I thought it was obvious who I was referring to. I didn't want to name him because, among other things, it would possibly only result in more web hits for him.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Marvin S said:


> I first met Bob Milnor when he was stationed @ Fort Lewis. He had bought a well bred washout from a local very well known kennel. Bob managed to bring the dog along & eventually sold the dog to Tommy Sorenson for 1 of his clients. Most of us know the dog as FC Toni's Blaine Child, so I would believe the dog must have had considerable improvement under Bob's tutelage.
> 
> I would ask you, whomever you are, How many FC's have you developed? I believe your criticism of Bob Milnor unwarranted as when I knew him he was a pretty typical sort of person.


Whomever I am is Chris Atkinson, the janitor here. I have duck hunted with Robert Milner. I have broken bread with Robert Milner at his home with his lovely wife. I have slept in his guest cabin at his home while judging the first ever American Gundog Club event with Robin Watson and others. 

The subject line of this thread is "Wildrose". Marvin, Robert formed Wildrose after he chose to step away from traditional North American FT events. He wrote his first book in the late 70's when he was still doing FT stuff. He had not yet established Wildrose. 

He wrote his second book after the establishment of Wildrose. The cover photo of the recently released version....I am the photographer! (not the one of the guy with the wedding ring on his left hand sending the dog...the second version shows Robert's deceased lab Jake at the famed Nash Buckingham duckhole known as Beaverdam near Tunica, MS.)

I was referring to the WILDROSE methods and mentality. The method and label should NOT be confused with the person. 

I have no doubt that if Robert Milner put his mind to putting an FC on a well bred retriever, he'd knock it out much better and easier than the majority of the RTF membership. A good dog man is a good dog man.

Chris


----------



## taddy1340 (Sep 2, 2006)

Chris Atkinson said:


> Whomever I am is Chris Atkinson, the janitor here. I have duck hunted with Robert Milner. I have broken bread with Robert Milner at his home with his lovely wife. I have slept in his guest cabin at his home while judging the first ever American Gundog Club event with Robin Watson and others.
> 
> The subject line of this thread is "Wildrose". Marvin, Robert formed Wildrose after he chose to step away from traditional North American FT events. He wrote his first book in the late 70's when he was still doing FT stuff. He had not yet established Wildrose.
> 
> ...


Pretty sure since he was quoting huntingdawg, he wasn't referring to you Chris. You're arguing with the very guy that was supportive of Milner.


----------



## mdupre (Sep 29, 2009)

I have a BLM from Milner (Duckhill Kennels).He has a differant outlook on what dog games he wishes to play. I've been around FT, HT and british FT.They are are very differant, yet similar.By far, American FT is the most impressive in distances & straight lines.The downside is natural instincts are frowned upon & line manners are alot of times ignored.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

taddy1340 said:


> Pretty sure since he was quoting huntingdawg, he wasn't referring to you Chris. You're arguing with the very guy that was supportive of Milner.


The quoted stuff was about Wildrose/Stewart. The only person who had brought Milner into this was me.

I wanted to clarify that I'm not anti-Milner in any way.

Chris


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

mdupre said:


> I have a BLM from Milner (Duckhill Kennels).American FT is the most impressive in distances & straight lines.The downside is natural instincts are frowned upon.


I think the idea that natural instincts are frowned upon is comical. IMO this is what people say when their dog displays a lack of training.


----------



## Joseph Kendrick (Mar 19, 2010)

HuntinDawg said:


> I think the idea that natural instincts are frowned upon is comical. IMO this is what people say when their dog displays a lack of training.


How do you feel that it is comical?


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

Joseph Kendrick said:


> How do you feel that it is comical?


If you think American field labs are penalized for having natural instincts or are not bred for natural instincts then I don't think we can have an intelligent discussion about the subject. If instincts were not important FC's would come from the dog pound. The comment was absurd on it's face and is typical of something someone would say if their dog is typically out of control IMO. In other words a comment that someone values natural instincts or "natural hunting ability" is something you can expect from someone whose dog runs hunt 'em up type blinds, runs through whistles, disrupts the whole field because it hunts a large area instead of marking the fall or at least the area of the fall, etc. I'm not saying that is the case with the poster's dog who I quoted, I have no idea, but that is the type of thing someone says whose dog is low on training/trainability and behaves as I've described.


----------



## mdupre (Sep 29, 2009)

I stand by my post HuntingDawg. It may be comical & absurd to you.I sure dont understand how you feel excuses for a dog lacking in training has anything to do with this. A dog who is not up to par for whatever fieild event for which he is entered (FT,HT or British) will show his a$$. American FT's are the ultimate show of dog & trainer excellance in retriever dog games, but some of the criteria to show seperation is contradictory to natural instincts. I'm not knocking it.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

HuntinDawg said:


> If you think American field labs are penalized for having natural instincts or are not bred for natural instincts then I don't think we can have an intelligent discussion about the subject. If instincts were not important FC's would come from the dog pound. The comment was absurd on it's face and is typical of something someone would say if their dog is typically out of control IMO. In other words a comment that someone values natural instincts or "natural hunting ability" is something you can expect from someone whose dog runs hunt 'em up type blinds, runs through whistles, disrupts the whole field because it hunts a large area instead of marking the fall or at least the area of the fall, etc. I'm not saying that is the case with the poster's dog who I quoted, I have no idea, but that is the type of thing someone says whose dog is low on training/trainability and behaves as I've described.




Running the bank is a natural instinct for any dog. The American game requires specific training to counter it while the British dog is expected simply to get the retrieve in the most efficient manner.

Fading w/ the wind is a natural instinct. The American perspective is that the dog should rely primarily on his eyesight to mark the bird but in the British trial format, it is often necessary for the dog to use his experience to estimate the actual area of the fall as it disappears behind a tree line or over a hill and to then use his nose and the wind to make the retrieve.

Due to the nature of the British game, if the dog needs to be handled to a bird, the exact location is often unknown so the handler can only cast the dog downwind of where he thinks it might be and expect the dog to use it's nose to work it out.

It's a different game w/ different priorities, therefore it shouldn't be a surprise that the training methodology used for one isn't optimum for the other.


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

mdupre said:


> I sure dont understand how you feel excuses for a dog lacking in training has anything to do with this.


Let me try to be more clear. And please understand, I don't know you and I've never seen your dog work, so I'm not directing this at you and your dog only at the comment you made.

I would imagine you would agree that a dog that follows it's natural instincts all of the time is an untrained dog. A dog who is following it's natural instincts which are counter to it's training (or counter to the training it SHOULD have received) is many times out of control. A dog who is following it's natural instincts which are counter to the commands it is currently being given is out of control.

British style trainers value steadiness very highly (and they should), but that isn't a natural instinct at all. It is my humble opinion that a comment such as "we value natural instincts more than" (insert name or group here) is another way of saying "we don't train our dogs to a very high standard" or "I couldn't train my dog to do what yours does." That is just my opinion, but that is what I think of when I hear a statement like the one of yours that I originally responded to. Like I said, I haven't seen your dog. He may be twice the dog that mine is, so don't take the comment personally.



mdupre said:


> A dog who is not up to par for whatever fieild event for which he is entered (FT,HT or British) will show his a$$.


Agreed, but I might say a dog whose TRAINING is not up to par will show his arse.



mdupre said:


> American FT's are the ultimate show of dog & trainer excellance in retriever dog games, but some of the criteria to show seperation is contradictory to natural instincts. I'm not knocking it.


I think that most training of almost any sort is counter to natural instincts. I can't remember who said it, but I remember a quote about retrievers and retriever games that was something to the effect of "remember none of this was the dog's idea."



Dave Flint said:


> Running the bank is a natural instinct for any dog. The American game requires specific training to counter it while the British dog is expected simply to get the retrieve in the most efficient manner.
> 
> Fading w/ the wind is a natural instinct. The American perspective is that the dog should rely primarily on his eyesight to mark the bird but in the British trial format, it is often necessary for the dog to use his experience to estimate the actual area of the fall as it disappears behind a tree line or over a hill and to then use his nose and the wind to make the retrieve.
> 
> ...


I agree with what you've said, especially the last sentence, but why not teach a dog to overcome it's natural instinct to run the bank? Many times running the bank (or avoiding any cover) will hurt the dog's ability to retrieve that particular mark, which at that point means that running the bank was not the most effective and efficient manner in which to retrieve that bird. Also this still does not support the idea that the Brits value natural instincts more than American HT or FT because as you've said bank running is natural to all bloodlines. It isn't like the Brits have carefully nurtured and bred for this wonderful trait (bank running). The only time I can think of where bank running should be permitted by the handler is in a hunting situation where the water is so frigid that you don't want your dog making a long swim, but that is just my opinion.

I also agree that fading with the wind is a natural instinct and my thoughts on it are much the same as what I posted about bank running. It quite simply hampers a dog's ability to find the bird, so why embrace this undesirable natural instinct that all dog's have? It just sounds like an excuse for not training the dog to me and that is the crux of what I'm saying and the original point I was trying to make in replying to mdupre.

Why don't we allow them to break since that is natural? Or eat the bird? Canines are predators after all. Or fight the other dogs? That is a natural instinct for an uncut male.


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

This would be an interesting time to interject some of the thoughts of Dave Elliot, the man that brought Hand signals to the US.

Dave Elliot was one of the first Scottish gamekeepers to come over and help get the Labrador established in America. In 1934 Dave was hired by Jay Carlisle to run one of the early important American Labrador kennels, Glenmere. Dave Elliot was a gifted trainer and went on in later years to become a significant spokesman for the sport of field trialing. He was a contributor to Field and Stream, Country Life and The Field Trial News. In 1952 he wrote the book, Training Gundogs to Retrieve.
Dave Elliot was one of the first trainers to train hand signals and was a cheerleader for retriever field trials, but he was not happy with the direction they had taken. In 1949 he wrote:

"As the retriever trial season rolls around I cannot help but wonder what new and complicated tests will be given to try out the mechanical ability of our dogs. I use the word mechanical because that is exactly what we are developing. Our field trials call for precision in every performance, and they do not care from which end of the leash it comes. In fact, many tests are given today that call for a great deal more from the handler than the dog; it is like keeping a dog and doing the barking yourself. Such tests have forced the trainer to train his dogs to act only under his complete command; the dog is not allowed to quarter his ground as is the correct way for a retriever to work. He is not permitted to show his natural ability in hunting out a fall. Yet what would give greater pleasure to a retriever man than to watch that keen natural ability that puts the hallmark of excellence on all his dog’s work? It is to be regretted that this type of work is left out of our trials. A great deal of what belongs to the dog has been placed in the handler’s hands; a more artificial performance could not be demonstrated.
Handlers and owners brag about how their dog will go in a straight line for one hundred and fifty yards unless stopped by the whistle. This is seldom called for in hunting. Niney-five per cent of your work with a retriever is accomplished within gun range, and the less whistling and handling done during a shoot will put more birds in your bag. I am sure there is nothing that will bring down more wrath on a handler’s head from his fellow gunners than one who insists on blowing whistle and waving arms to pick up a stray duck while the flight is on.
The more we train our dogs to depend on that whistle and direction, the more helpless they are going to become, and it is going to show up in our breeding. We cannot expect the offspring of mechanical parents to show much natural ability. To keep our dogs from looking like complete mechanical nitwits, we will have to breed to the old river rat, whose natural ability has been given full scope; and only then will we get back to the old type of retriever who has a head and knows how to use it. 
The old adage of “when in doubt, trust your dog” seems to have died a silent death with the introduction of scientific training. To be able to give a dog direction out to a fall is a great asset, but I do think that we should make it the exception instead of the rule. We should encourage and protect natural ability. We will most surely lose it if we continue to monopolize those hunting instincts that make the retriever one of conservation’s greatest friends."


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

I think what people get confused about is they think FTs are about hunting they are not it's just a game they play with there dogs and if it takes a mechanical dog to play that game then so be it there will still be plenty of hunters out there that will bred dogs with natural instincts for hunting but I believe that FT dogs have to have those same instincts to do what they do you just have to know how to control them and use them to your advantage.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

HuntinDawg said:


> I agree with what you've said, especially the last sentence, but why not teach a dog to overcome it's natural instinct to run the bank? Many times running the bank (or avoiding any cover) will hurt the dog's ability to retrieve that particular mark, which at that point means that running the bank was not the most effective and efficient manner in which to retrieve that bird. Also this still does not support the idea that the Brits value natural instincts more than American HT or FT because as you've said bank running is natural to all bloodlines. It isn't like the Brits have carefully nurtured and bred for this wonderful trait (bank running). The only time I can think of where bank running should be permitted by the handler is in a hunting situation where the water is so frigid that you don't want your dog making a long swim, but that is just my opinion.
> 
> I also agree that fading with the wind is a natural instinct and my thoughts on it are much the same as what I posted about bank running. It quite simply hampers a dog's ability to find the bird, so why embrace this undesirable natural instinct that all dog's have? It just sounds like an excuse for not training the dog to me and that is the crux of what I'm saying and the original point I was trying to make in replying to mdupre.
> 
> Why don't we allow them to break since that is natural? Or eat the bird? Canines are predators after all. Or fight the other dogs? That is a natural instinct for an uncut male.



There are different kinds of bank running. Certainly a dog that avoids water is undesirable however, many HTs set up marks where the most efficient way to the retrieve is to run the bank at least some. The American HT/FT mentality calls this "cheating" while the rest of the world (especially hunters) considers it a sign of intelligence.

As far as emphasizing the dog that uses his eyesight primarily to mark birds down, the British perspective is that the "raison d'être" for bringing the dog along is because of his nose. As an example, the ideal might be the dog that marks the bird down, races straight to the AOF, then fades slightly w/ the wind to bring his nose into play. In contrast, an American judge would typically rate that performance slightly below the dog that "pins" the bird. In my opinion, the dog that emphasizes eyesight over nose works best over water while the dog that turns on his nose at the AOF has the advantage in quickly finding a wing tipped pheasant on land as is common in the British format.

Your statement that both of these behaviors hamper the dog's ability to find the bird simply isn't true in all cases. In fact, I'd submit that they are an advantage in most hunting scenarios. Almost the only place they become a problem is in the artificiality of a HT/FT when a skilled judge sets up the test specifically to put the dog into trouble on multiple marks if he "gives in" to those factors. The American format where the bird is thrown and watched all the way to the ground before the next birds are thrown over a 10-12 second interval is however, highly unrealistic. The occasional triple retrieves a hunting dog will see in a season will usually hit the water at almost the same time. In other words, the primary skill set that is evaluated in the HT/FT marking test seldom occurs in the field. On the other hand, the British emphasis on impeccable line manners is something that can be appreciated every minute of every hunt.

For the record, I've never owned a "British Lab" and have my own skepticism about some of the claims made about them but I do appreciate the perspective of the British trainers.


----------



## J. Walker (Feb 21, 2009)

Dave Flint said:


> There are different kinds of bank running. Certainly a dog that avoids water is undesirable however, many HTs set up marks where the most efficient way to the retrieve is to run the bank at least some. The American HT/FT mentality calls this "cheating" while the rest of the world (especially hunters) considers it a sign of intelligence.
> 
> As far as emphasizing the dog that uses his eyesight primarily to mark birds down, the British perspective is that the "raison d'être" for bringing the dog along is because of his nose. As an example, the ideal might be the dog that marks the bird down, races straight to the AOF, then fades slightly w/ the wind to bring his nose into play. In contrast, an American judge would typically rate that performance slightly below the dog that "pins" the bird. In my opinion, the dog that emphasizes eyesight over nose works best over water while the dog that turns on his nose at the AOF has the advantage in quickly finding a wing tipped pheasant on land as is common in the British format.
> 
> ...


The straight line issue you mentioned can be very relevant in hunting. I have often hunted in a spot along a creek where there's a slough that brings in ducks and geese like crazy. If a bird goes down on the other side of the creek and a dog tries to run the bank, the dog will get swept off-line by the current. If the dog takes a straight line from the blind, he can avoid the narrow area where the current is much stronger.

Another area where I've hunted has some really dense brush and cattails along the bank on each side of the blind. I've seen a friend's dog take off, run around on the bank, and by the time the dog got to where she thought she was even with the bird, the slight current had moved the bird about 15 yards. The dog had no clue where the bird was because she didn't mark the fall and take a straight line to that fall.


----------



## HuntinDawg (Jul 2, 2006)

Dave,

Once again I agree with much of what you've written, however:



Dave Flint said:


> The American HT/FT mentality calls this "cheating" while the rest of the world (especially hunters) considers it a sign of intelligence.


I agree that this is how a lot of hunters view this subject, but I don't see how it can be a sign of intelligence when virtually every dog will do it if allowed to do so. Instead I would think that a dog who has been trained to take a direct route and then does so is displaying intelligence and trainability.



Dave Flint said:


> As far as emphasizing the dog that uses his eyesight primarily to mark birds down, the British perspective is that the "raison d'être" for bringing the dog along is because of his nose.


Interesting. I had not heard this before. I got into this because I wanted a hunting dog and that is still my primary purpose. I have only owned two hunting dogs and have been fortunate that both have had very fine noses and the brains to use them, but I would still rank that far lower on my list of reasons why to bring a dog waterfowl hunting with me. Everyone has their own reasons, but my list would be something like this:

1) Enjoyment. Hunting waterfowl and doves (what I do) is just more fun with my dog than without. He loves it as much as I do and I like watching him do what he was bred and trained to do. Also, his ability to do it well plays into the other reasons below. If he cannot do it well then some or all of the reasons below are null and void.

2) He can get to the birds that I cannot get to. If I don't have a boat (I don't currently) then I cannot get to birds in deep water or across a deep channel, etc.

3) Disruption of the hunt. He can retrieve the birds much faster than I can and get his butt back in the blind to minimize disruption of the hunt. Even if birds begin to come in while he is out of the blind he is less likely to flare them than I would be if I were out of the blind retrieving birds.

4) Lazy factor. If he goes and gets them I don't have to. I am inherently lazy.

5) He can find birds that I cannot. Here is where the nose comes in. This doesn't come into play on a regular basis, but when it does it REALLY DOES. I have learned to trust my dogs when they get birdy or insist on hunting where I don't think the downed bird ought to be.



Dave Flint said:


> Your statement that both of these behaviors hamper the dog's ability to find the bird simply isn't true in all cases. In fact, I'd submit that they are an advantage in most hunting scenarios. Almost the only place they become a problem is in the artificiality of a HT/FT when a skilled judge sets up the test specifically to put the dog into trouble on multiple marks if he "gives in" to those factors.


Almost nothing is true in all cases, but I am of the opinion that a dog who fights the factors will retrieve more birds with less disruption of the area on average than the dog who gives in to the factors. We'll probably have to agree to disagree here. I do not run field trials, but a dog who fails to "pin" the mark and then begins to work downwind of where it marked the fall is not giving in to the factors in my opinion, nor is the dog who tracks on the downhill side of the track rather than directly on top of it. These are entirely different behaviors IMO and are not to be faulted. A dog that fades with the wind en-route is another matter (the typical natural reaction to a cross wind) and this dog will have a hard time coming up with the bird unless he gets lucky and his nose bails him out.



Dave Flint said:


> The American format where the bird is thrown and watched all the way to the ground before the next birds are thrown over a 10-12 second interval is however, highly unrealistic. The occasional triple retrieves a hunting dog will see in a season will usually hit the water at almost the same time. In other words, the primary skill set that is evaluated in the HT/FT marking test seldom occurs in the field. On the other hand, the British emphasis on impeccable line manners is something that can be appreciated every minute of every hunt.


I agree to some extent. The American FT/HT triple/quad sequence is definitely unrealistic. As you likely know, it is done in order to allow the dogs an opportunity to properly mark each fall and therefore display it's ability to mark (or not) and also remember those marks (or not). Since marking is deemed of primary importance in those games, this is reasonable. While I agree that the scenarios in terms of the timing of the falls are pretty atypical, I do think it does a good job of allowing the judges to evaluate marking and memory. Also, I am not willing to concede that the Brits have the market cornered on steadiness. At times I have been frustrated as judges overlook what appear to me to be fairly bad line manners, but in the American HT game you do see a lot of dogs with nice line/blind manners IMO. I don't have the experience to comment on whether the Brits claim of poor line manners being the norm in American FT is true or not. I am a stickler for steadiness because I often hunt with multiple dogs in the blind and because when I hunt out of pit blinds steadiness is literally a life and death issue for the dog (jumping out prematurely puts the dog at muzzle height if anyone is still shooting). However, I would still prefer to have a dog that would rather go than stay (and then train the sonofagun to be steady) than to have a dog that would rather stay than go. Their manifest desire is part of what makes them so much fun.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

I would love to take the Dave Elliot of 1949 out training with me and my two bitches in 2010. I wonder what he would see, if in his mind, my two girls are mechanical black robots, or if they are hard charging talented retrievers who love birds and retrieving?

Once you send your dog on a mark whether it's a 30 yard swim just past the decoys or a 530 yard run and swim to a dimly seen bird, the dog is relying on his natural talent and trained abilities. 

Honest, I think trial retrievers are a wonderful combination of trained and natural talents.


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

robert i dont know what happened along the way to turn you against field trials and field trial bred dogs since i meet you many years ago threw charlie bunn and ed apple but something did. i have made prolly more field champions than any one on this forum could imagine and i have used your methods on ff on everyone of them. as for my dogs not be able to hunt is pure bullshit. i thought you were on of the best in the day and you had a big influence on my ability to make a field champion. i agree with chris, and thats not very often, that you are one helluva a dog man. i wish you the best.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

> The more we train our dogs to depend on that whistle and direction, the more helpless they are going to become, and it is going to show up in our breeding. We cannot expect the offspring of mechanical parents to show much natural ability. To keep our dogs from looking like complete mechanical nitwits, we will have to breed to the old river rat, whose natural ability has been given full scope; and only then will we get back to the old type of retriever who has a head and knows how to use it.


I think this premise is entirely wrong when extrapolating it to breeding and puppies' natural ability. While the old school thoughts are we are messing with the natural ability by training them to be overly mechanized and they will produce "helpless" offspring, the reality that we all see are young puppies with great natural ability. I have a 9 week old puppy that immediately retrieved and brought the puppy dummy back to me. She is now retrieving an adult bumper and holds it and delivers. My pups naturally quarter on walks. We don't begin formalized training (CC & FF) until the pups are much older so we rely on the natural ability for marking. This is not just an occasional puppy, but most will retrieve and come back and hold without training. This is the part most of us object to in the published material because we ourselves see it is an incorrect theory. I think some are unwilling or unable to train their dogs to the level of field trial dogs, and that is the sour grapes, because it is poppycock that these dogs have the natural ability and ability to hunt bred out of them.


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

kip said:


> robert i dont know what happened along the way to turn you against field trials and field trial bred dogs since i meet you many years ago threw charlie bunn and ed apple but something did. i have made prolly more field champions than any one on this forum could imagine and i have used your methods on ff on everyone of them. as for my dogs not be able to hunt is pure bs. i thought you were on of the best in the day and you had a big influence on my ability to make a field champion. i agree with chris, and thats not very often, that you are one helluva a dog man. i wish you the best.


You usually disagree with me Kip?


----------



## Jim Thompson (Feb 25, 2003)

Pete said:


> Hunting dog
> 
> Do you know what the program consists of. Is it based on european type gun dog training . If so Europeans have been enjoying great hunting dogs longer than us. And have been running field trials long before the U.S.
> 
> ...


France has also had an army a lot longer than us and look what they got. lol


----------



## captainjack (Apr 6, 2009)

Has anyone answered the OP's question?

I have the Wildrose Retriever Training DVD and it is little more than an outline of a training program IMO. 

I like some of the group work ideas to encourage steadiness but to think someone with limited knowledge of retriever training could develop a dog that achieved HRCH or MH titles using only the information on the DVD seams to be a stretch.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Would it be safe to say that to develop an FC, the "trainablity" is more important then the "natural Instinct" 

Don't they have to run past heavily scented points w/o breaking into a hunt. I am NOT saying they have no natural instinct. Just saying they are showcasing far more trained behavior then natural instinct.


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

limiman12 said:


> Would it be safe to say that to develop an FC, the "trainablity" is more important then the "natural Instinct"
> 
> Don't they have to run past heavily scented points w/o breaking into a hunt. I am NOT saying they have no natural instinct. Just saying they are showcasing far more trained behavior then natural instinct.


Nope, you can't train natural ability into them. Memory and marking are what win in trials, both are enhanced with training but you can't put in what they don't have.

You need good to great training and a good to great dog to get an FC.


----------



## Dave Flint (Jan 13, 2009)

captainjack said:


> Has anyone answered the OP's question?
> 
> I have the Wildrose Retriever Training DVD and it is little more than an outline of a training program IMO.
> 
> I like some of the group work ideas to encourage steadiness but to think someone with limited knowledge of retriever training could develop a dog that achieved HRCH or MH titles using only the information on the DVD seams to be a stretch.


I think the consensus is that it would be very unlikely to use only the methods from the Wildrose DVDs to produce an HRCH/MH dog.

The point I tried to make is that the Wildrose/British goal is to develop something else.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Howard N said:


> Nope, you can't train natural ability into them. Memory and marking are what win in trials, both are enhanced with training but you can't put in what they don't have.
> 
> You need good to great training and a good to great dog to get an FC.




Ok then, maybe the natural ability needed to develop an FC is not the same natural instinct that most hunters prefer....

Ability/tendancy to use eyes vs. ability/tendancy to use nose

Which brings a question that I will start a nother thread


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

limiman12 said:


> Ok then, maybe the natural ability needed to develop an FC is not the same natural instinct that most hunters prefer....
> 
> Ability/tendancy to use eyes vs. ability/tendancy to use nose
> 
> Which brings a question that I will start a nother thread


 they watch them with their eyes, they find them with their nose.


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

Limiman12 have you ever hunted with a FC AFC? I have and they learn when you are hunting and when you are trialing. The Bullsh!! that FC's are not good hunting dogs is bullsh!!. It's simple as that "BULLSH!!"


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

this is the most entertaining thread i have read since becoming a member. i am sad the fire died and everyone evidently went to take an afternoon nap before training time this evening.

i agree with everything everyone has said so far. (i should be more opinionated) my first self trained huntin dog had all the "natural abilities". he was an unregistered backyard $50 huntin machine. he was a cheater, a bank runner and had a carl lewis take off after the gun sounded. 400 yard mark? heck he'd catch it before it hit the ground. i was 18 to 28 and bloodthirsty and so was my dog. that's not what i want now. things change, people change.

when someone uses the term "british lab" i think fat and slow (if it would bite your friends it might as well be a chessie). i know this is a ridiculous statement because i have seen awesome cbr's (and expect to someday see an awsome british lab). i just prefer athletic ft bred american labs and am thus prejudiced like everyone posting. many of us play different games with our dogs. it is logical that different games have specific requirements for training and breeding.

evan stated yesterday that he NO LONGER uses patern blinds because methods have advanced. (a change). robert may now believe we risk diminishing natural talents by breeding for american ft's. (a change since he once participated). but lets face it, stewart and wildrose have out marketed the rest of the lab world with this "british thing". (a change in the last twenty years). 

how many "non lab" people on the street have asked about your dog "is that a BRITISH lab". i would rather be told that my son looks like a member of barrack obama's cabinet than asked if i own a british lab. but that is just me i am sure british labs are great for others. 

as for hunting abilities of ft stock i have a pup out of fc afc blue (may be kip's dog who posted above) and he is the bird luvin huntin deal, a ground poundin fire breather who will certainly never each his potential with his current trainer. but that dog sho gonna hunt.


----------



## limiman12 (Oct 13, 2007)

Mark Sehon said:


> Limiman12 have you ever hunted with a FC AFC? I have and they learn when you are hunting and when you are trialing. The Bullsh!! that FC's are not good hunting dogs is bullsh!!. It's simple as that "BULLSH!!"



I have not said that they don't have natural insticnt!!!!

I have said that they are demonstating highly trained behavior.

There have been threads that people have debated on hunting esp. pheasent hunting a trial dog because pheasent huntign is an (relatively)independant activity. I know some are very good hunting dogs, but i also know that there are some FT people that don't want to (at least pheasent) hunt their competition dog because it develops bad habits...

I repeat that I DID NOT SAY THEY HAVE NO NATURAL INSTICNT. Only that it would seem that the trainability is at least as important (along with the trainer) as the natural instinct of the dog.


----------



## kip (Apr 13, 2004)

i have a fc afc bitch that is one of the finest sqirrel dogs around. if they didnt have the natrual instinct to hunt they would never make a trial dog.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

roseberry said:


> when someone uses the term "british lab" i think fat and slow (if it would bite your friends it might as well be a chessie).
> 
> how many "non lab" people on the street have asked about your dog "is that a BRITISH lab". i would rather be told that my son looks like a member of barrack obama's cabinet than asked if i own a british lab. but that is just me i am sure british labs are great for others.


Actually, no one ever asks me if mine is "british", but I certainly don't consider it an insult when I get asked her "american" pedigree!


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

GulfCoast said:


> Actually, no one ever asks me if mine is "british", but I certainly don't consider it an insult when I get asked her "american" pedigree!


Mark, you and your pigadore are welcome to come smack flatland greenheads with me and my pointy-headed, skinny, hyperactive, can't do a mark under 300yards black robot anytime!


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Why, thank-you, sir! You are a most gracious gentleman. My motto is always: "Have pork, will travel!" ;-) However, mine might be in the family way this duck season, if I can link her up with another posters HRCH (500) UH MH*** "continental" dog...  Should be some most chubby piglets!


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

in my ten man duck blind at any time you may have cigars, coffee with bailey's, a shot of sweet lucy(whatever that is) two pounds of bacon sizzling, a dozen eggs on the griddle, fourty mallards still wing flapping while hangging on duck straps, three teal coming back to life and trying to get out the back door, duck calls blowing, two guys on the phone with their wife, three texting people at work and ten stools hitting the back wall when the shot is called. i think the dog with the poorest nose(presumably the fc afc) has the best chance of keeping his head pointed out the front exit hole of the dog box and not back in the blind when the marking takes place.

the british dog is bred to be asleep in the corner on a rug as soon as a cigar is lit, right?


----------



## Mark Sehon (Feb 10, 2003)

I also own a British bred dog that no one "EVER" ask me if he was British bred. By the way, he is QAA for what ever that stands for. He is almost 11 years old and still runs faster than most dogs I have owned. Lean and fast!! I am one of the few that have trained US and British bred dogs for Field Trials and Hunt Test. Most people that make comments about British dogs have never trained one. I'm talking about "Field Bred Dogs". My dogs have ran and competed with the best, take it for what is worth!! Good dogs are where you find them!! I have sen some pretty bads dogs from both sides of the pond.


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

Didn't one of the top two AKC FT pros in the country take a few of his FT* Dawgs *to England a few years ago to compeat in an English FT competition ? If my memory serves me correctly he did not do as well as was expected by the throngs of AKC FT enthusiast ...........:razz:
He himself though , the gentelman that he is, had nothing but genuine superlatives for those who had done him better.

That same year didn't a contributer to this very forum, who trains for and compeates in English type FT competition here, go over there and win an English FT similar to the one said pro referenced above compeated in unsucessfully .......... 

On the other hand one of the other top FT PROs did well in the SRS here with competations which tested skillsets more closely aligned with training for American FT competation.

In my view, one thing left to be done in this vain is to try it with some AKC MN HOF and SRS Dawgs and PROs who are not primarily trained using British standards and methods. 

Conversly, I'm sure that if given the opportunity and the right training the British Lab could be as successfully represenative in upper levels of FT as at least six of Retriever breeds( Lab, Chessie, Golden, Flat and CuarleyCoated,
IWS, Toller and Poodle) and more so than at least four or five of them.

In the AKC HT arena I feel that ,trained for that venue ,the British Lab could more more than hold its own against all comers

With all that said when I used go _hunting_ (read upland) I would take one of the pointing breeds my buddie field trials, they would find he birds, and I would mark the fall, we then continue to work the field in the direction of the downed bird possibly shooting others as we progress on to the "find". 

It must be noted here that similar practice is used in the UK where at tmes a Lab is braced , and at an appropriate time is used for the picking up.



To each their own regards

john


----------



## roseberry (Jun 22, 2010)

guys i am just kiddin around here. if you looked at my original post i followed up the slow and fat "stereotype" thing by saying that what i just said was "ridiculous". i was trying to point out that what has made this thread so entertaining is that ALL ARE CLEARLY PASSIONATE about their respective sport, breed and etc. 

one of the best dogs i ever hunted over was a golden grhrch, one of my very best friends has had 3 of the finest cbr's you could imagine, another good friend put an hrch on his british lab last year and made it untill day 3 at the spring grand and i love his dog, i have goose hunted with a standard poodle that did the work to perfection, i have hunted several titled ft dogs(none of them my own). i have owned, trained and sold to a good friend a nice wildrose dog(yes he is still a good friend), and i owned and trained a boykin too!

i enjoy them all, they are all full of potential. i have seen few that wouldn't make a good hunting dog. mark, your pics are sharp and the dog looks awesome. chris now that i appologized and clarified can i come to flatlands too?

john mc


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

This will strictly depend on the quality of the cigars you bring. ;-)


----------



## Ironwood (Sep 25, 2007)

All my field trial champions go through Robert Milner's obedience method and force fetch (conditioned retrieve). They get the Smart dog work (Evan Graham, Mike Lardy and Jerry Patopea. A smattering of Roy McFall, Jack Woodland and Danny Farmer.
Without question I always put forward Robert Milner's "Retriever Training for the Duck Hunter". His book is a no nonense organized thorough,clear description of how and why we need obedience and force training in our best performing dogs regardless of the venue.
Once they have digested that book. We now have a basis to begin the discussion of more advanced training for field trials.


----------



## chip laughton (Jan 26, 2005)

Mark,

Nice picture of ellie


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

It was taken by a gifted professional, as you know! Thanks!


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

This English vs American argument comes up every year. All I have to add it that I have seen two "finished" wildrose dogs and both had poor desire and would be marginal season level dogs even though they cost top dollar.

What I want to comment on is the assumption about "British" knowleged for hunting dogs. But how much hunting do they actually do with wild birds in the UK? I would bet that there are 10 times or more hunters and dog competitors in North America (including HT, FT, HRC, SRS....ect..). I would say that has held true for the last 10-20 years. So if North America has a greater body of knowledge why would anyone put more stock in British methods. If I want to know what ti took to make a hunting dog I would go to a place that hunts. Just like if I wanted to learn to play soccer I would go to Europe, basketball the US.


----------



## Take'em (Nov 29, 2006)

Nate_C said:


> This English vs American argument comes up every year. All I have to add it that I have seen two "finished" wildrose dogs and both had poor desire and would be marginal season level dogs even though they cost top dollar.
> 
> What I want to comment on is the assumption about "British" knowleged for hunting dogs. But how much hunting do they actually do with wild birds in the UK? I would bet that there are 10 times or more hunters and dog competitors in North America (including HT, FT, HRC, SRS....ect..). I would say that has held true for the last 10-20 years. So if North America has a greater body of knowledge why would anyone put more stock in British methods. If I want to know what ti took to make a hunting dog I would go to a place that hunts. Just like if I wanted to learn to play soccer I would go to Europe, basketball the US.



Oh boy. I thought I had heard it all until this one. I don't know anything about Wildrose or their dogs, but to draw a generalization after seeing two of them seems a bit reckless. As far as the hunting part goes, see if you can get your hands on any year's IGL (British Nat'l Championship) DVD and then make the determination as to whether their dogs can hunt and find game.


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

Take'em said:


> Oh boy. I thought I had heard it all until this one. I don't know anything about Wildrose or their dogs, but to draw a generalization after seeing two of them seems a bit reckless. As far as the hunting part goes, see if you can get your hands on any year's IGL (British Nat'l Championship) DVD and then make the determination as to whether their dogs can hunt and find game.


I wasn't making a conclusion about Wildrose at all. That is simply the extent of my knowledge. Take it for what it is worth. That is what chat groups are for right, taking the accumulative information from many people to help make a decision of your own. My observations alone might not make a difference alone but if there are a dozen people saying the same thing their might be something to it.

I am also not saying that UK dogs are bad. In fact I made no comment on UK dogs at all. I was simply putting out the question that some kennels put all this stock in "British Methods" in reality there is a greater depth and breadth of knowledge here in the US/Canada because we have more of it. Can anyone argue with me that there are many more hunters and retriever competitions here in North America then in the UK? Also there are many more types. IE passing a Grand takes a different training program then competing at the NFC. That creates a body of knowledge larger than in the UK.


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Given the population of Asians worldwide to Caucasians, based on your reasoning the Chinese have the greatest depth of knowledge in everything. There are more of them, they do more things. I should pack Fido off to Bejing to be trained? ;-)


----------



## Waterbug (Feb 27, 2008)

GulfCoast said:


> Given the population of Asians worldwide to Caucasians, based on your reasoning the Chinese have the greatest depth of knowledge in everything. There are more of them, they do more things. I should pack Fido off to Bejing to be trained? ;-)


They may put Ellie Mae on a chinese bisquit or make some Poo-Go-Gee stew. Keep her here in the states;-)


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Waterbug said:


> They may put Ellie Mae on a chinese bisquit or make some Poo-Go-Gee stew. Keep her here in the states;-)


'Bug: I totally agree! ;-)


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

I think to some people having a British dog trained British style is just a status thing to them like having a British nanny or butler are they any better then their American counterpart it would depend on the individual but on the most part I would have to say no they just like to tell their friends that they have one.


----------



## Take'em (Nov 29, 2006)

Scott Parker said:


> I think to some people having a British dog trained British style is just a status thing to them like having a British nanny or butler are they any better then their American counterpart it would depend on the individual but on the most part I would have to say no they just like to tell their friends that they have one.


Well then you know drastically different people than I do. Myself and a few others I've met along the way have dogs from British field trial lines and the only way I would have ever known is to ask about pedigrees or where they got them...just general conversation talk. Nobody offered it up because who cares where they're from? A good dog is a good dog, it's just that I guess we have a slight preference for what we have just like probably everybody else does for what they have. I don't know anybody that has trained using strictly the British method, though.


----------



## obsessed (Aug 3, 2010)

Hey Guys, New to the forum but thought I would throw my two cents in !! I have a british lab out of exceptional blood lines. The reason I bought him was #1 - Size he has never hit 70 pounds yet.
#2 - Temprement- he is extremely smart, learns very quickly, and does not need alot of pressure (all characteristics of british labs)
You could not ask for a better dog !! And yes I trained him the american way with all of his characteristics in mind.
I know that in british trials there isi the need for excellent temprement and steadiness which I see lacking in alot of our test and trials.
He also is a HRCH / MH


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

Take'em said:


> Well then you know drastically different people than I do. Myself and a few others I've met along the way have dogs from British field trial lines and the only way I would have ever known is to ask about pedigrees or where they got them...just general conversation talk. Nobody offered it up because who cares where they're from? A good dog is a good dog, it's just that I guess we have a slight preference for what we have just like probably everybody else does for what they have. I don't know anybody that has trained using strictly the British method, though.


As you will note I said some people not all I work my dog at pheasant shoots where people show up in their land rovers dressed in English hunting attire with their English made shotguns and of coarse their British labs which they pay much more for then if they had bought an American lab of the same quality.


----------



## Kirk Keene (Jul 20, 2009)

Nate_C said:


> What I want to comment on is the assumption about "British" knowleged for hunting dogs. But how much hunting do they actually do with wild birds in the UK? I would bet that there are 10 times or more hunters and dog competitors in North America (including HT, FT, HRC, SRS....ect..). I would say that has held true for the last 10-20 years. So if North America has a greater body of knowledge why would anyone put more stock in British methods. If I want to know what ti took to make a hunting dog I would go to a place that hunts. Just like if I wanted to learn to play soccer I would go to Europe, basketball the US.


The British not only shoot immense quantities of live birds (their estate shoots compare to our dove hunts, only they're shooting mostly pheasant), but they use wild, live-driven birds for _their_ trials. Like a previous poster mentioned, get yourself a copy of the IGL Championship from any year and you'll see how it works. In many instances, the scenting conditions are terrible, but the dogwork is spectacular. It takes an outstanding nose, drive, and tractibility for a retriever to succeed under such conditions. I bought my first British pup from a proven field line, and love the result. She's got style, tons of drive, an exceptional nose, and was a breeze to train. She also weighs in at a compact 45 lbs, lives with us in the house, and is a great pet to boot. And yes...she can retrieve a big ole' Canada goose!


----------



## Granddaddy (Mar 5, 2005)

Whenever someone refers to using Robert Milner training methods I get confused since there was a Robert Milner using conventional training methods (meaning for American FTs) in the 60-70s era which I saw train firsthand. Mr Milner may not remember me but I was an occasional companion of Russel Caden at his Wildrose Kennels near Grand Junction TN (before Wildrose Oxford MS). At that time Mr. Milner was using the prevalent training methods of the day among FT trainers. In fact he wrote a book recommending those methods. At some point after that, Mr Milner abandoned conventional Am. FT training methods and FTs and began to promote methods similar to those used by British trainers & wrote a book or two promoting those methods. So I am always confused when someone refers to Milner's methods, just exactly which methods are they referencing. 

From Kip's post, since it provided a timeframe, I know he is refering to Milner's earlier FT-related methods but not sure of others.


----------



## Scott Parker (Mar 19, 2009)

Kirk I don't think they use wild birds those are pen raised birds they release a month or so before.


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

Kirk Keene said:


> The British not only shoot immense quantities of live birds (their estate shoots compare to our dove hunts, only they're shooting mostly pheasant), but they use wild, live-driven birds for _their_ trials. Like a previous poster mentioned, get yourself a copy of the IGL Championship from any year and you'll see how it works. In many instances, the scenting conditions are terrible, but the dogwork is spectacular. It takes an outstanding nose, drive, and tractibility for a retriever to succeed under such conditions. I bought my first British pup from a proven field line, and love the result. She's got style, tons of drive, an exceptional nose, and was a breeze to train. She also weighs in at a compact 45 lbs, lives with us in the house, and is a great pet to boot. And yes...she can retrieve a big ole' Canada goose!


That kind of proves my point. "Estate Shoots" do not reflect reality. That isn't hunting that is a skeet shoot with live birds. In the US we hunt wild birds for the most part. In that sense wouldn't train with American techniques be most effective?


----------



## GulfCoast (Sep 24, 2007)

Nate_C said:


> That kind of proves my point. "Estate Shoots" do not reflect reality. That isn't hunting that is a skeet shoot with live birds. In the US we hunt wild birds for the most part. In that sense wouldn't train with American techniques be most effective?





Nate_C said:


> Can anyone argue with me that there are many more hunters and retriever competitions here in North America then in the UK? Also there are many more types. IE passing a Grand takes a different training program then competing at the NFC. That creates a body of knowledge larger than in the UK.


So, how many of the superior "wild birds" have you ever picked up at a hunt test? How about at a field trial? The SRS? The answer would be ZERO. Every test or trial you have ever run has been a "skeet shoot with birds." A dogs in the UK can pick up hundred crippled birds, both wild and released, in a single days shoot. That happens often over here? I think not. Its pretty obvious that you have neither been to the UK to shoot or seen an estate shoot. Go try your luck on high driven pheasants raised for flying ability in the UK and let us know if you still think its like shooting skeet at 20 yards. Seriously. 

Please tell me how its different to pick up an estate raised released pheasant in the UK, versus one a farmer adds to his fields in South Dakota to increase his bird concentration? For the dog on either side of the pond, picking up a pheasant or a duck is picking up a pheasant or a duck. They neither know, nor care, if it was raised "wild" or semi wild. I can assure you, a crippled bird in the UK hauls azz for its life, just like a crippled bird over here. Likewise, the folks in the UK that can afford to hunt, kill pro rata far more birds than us yanks. 

I neither have a Wildrose dog, nor consider myself an anglophile or apologist, and you may be the greatest dog trainer in the world, but your argument is kind of silly.


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

GulfCoast said:


> So, how many of the superior "wild birds" have you ever picked up at a hunt test? How about at a field trial? The SRS? The answer would be ZERO. Every test or trial you have ever run has been a "skeet shoot with birds." A dogs in the UK can pick up hundred crippled birds, both wild and released, in a single days shoot. That happens often over here? I think not. Its pretty obvious that you have neither been to the UK to shoot or seen an estate shoot. Go try your luck on high driven pheasants raised for flying ability in the UK and let us know if you still think its like shooting skeet at 20 yards. Seriously.
> 
> Please tell me how its different to pick up an estate raised released pheasant in the UK, versus one a farmer adds to his fields in South Dakota to increase his bird concentration? For the dog on either side of the pond, picking up a pheasant or a duck is picking up a pheasant or a duck. They neither know, nor care, if it was raised "wild" or semi wild. I can assure you, a crippled bird in the UK hauls azz for its life, just like a crippled bird over here. Likewise, the folks in the UK that can afford to hunt, kill pro rata far more birds than us yanks.
> 
> I neither have a Wildrose dog, nor consider myself an anglophile or apologist, and you may be the greatest dog trainer in the world, but your argument is kind of silly.


How is my argument silly? The guys that pitch the "English trained dogs" and the guys that want them come off to me as "anglophiles" They use terms like "Gentleman's Dog".....ect... I am challenging the assumption that somehow the "English Approach" makes a better duck dog for actual duck hunting. I am claiming that there is a greater wealth of Knowledge about wild duck hunting in the US/Canada so in turn our methods and breeding practices might produce better "Duck Dogs". And it is also reflected more in our Hunt Tests. To me field trials do not reflect hunting situations. They are really for breeding purposes. They are training to push dogs to find the best marking, highest drive, most intelligent, most focused dogs that will then be most often breed. HRC and AKC Hunt tests are developed to test a dogs training more than talent and it is here that I am saying we are superior. Think about the averaged finished test. How many days hunting wild ducks has the average Judge had? So when he sets up the test it is likely to reflect the challenges of "wild" duck hunting much more than a Judge at an English test where the judge has only spent a few days hunting and mostly just doing an estate hunts. Thus, HRC hunt test in particular and the training that accompanies them makes better duck dogs then UK programs. How is that not logical? I would argue the other way to. If you are going to do Estate hunting then UK dog programs are likely better because that is what they know. Also the fact that we have hunt tests and Field trials is also a plus. They are very different games and stress different things. When US trainer/breeders get exposed to both and share ideas from both they make the overall programs/concepts better. Great hunt test pros see a good drill from a Field Trial and incorporate it into their programs and their dogs get better, vice versa a FT pro goes to a grand or trains with a HRC focused pro and learns something from them...ect... Why do you think 80% of all new computer technology over the last 30 years came from Silicon Valley. Many of the great names: Jobs, Gates, Packard,...ect... many of them worked together off and on learning from each other, driving each other.


----------



## Kirk Keene (Jul 20, 2009)

Nate, let's break down what traits the Brits covet in a gundog, and support by breeding.

1. Natural gamefinding ability
2. Drive & Style
3. Quickness in gathering game
4. Control
5. Quiet handling
6. Marking ablity
7. Superior nose
8. Solid retrieving & delivery

Are you telling me that these traits have no value in a duckblind??? First and foremost, I'm a duckhunter and guide, and all of the triats listed are EXACTLY what I want in a dog that will be sharing a blind with me and my clients. 

I understand you have your mind made up and that's fine, since I'm not trying to change it. However, I think you need to learn how the "other guys" do things before making a blanket statement as to why "ours" is better than "theirs". And for the record, I'm very active in my local HRC club so I know how that game is played, too. Matter of fact, there are probably a few of my club brothers lurking on here right now, laughing to themselves that I got involved in yet another "American vs. British" debate.


----------



## Take'em (Nov 29, 2006)

Nate_C said:


> The guys that pitch the "English trained dogs" and the guys that want them come off to me as "anglophiles" QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Huh? This might be your best one, yet. On second thought it's way too close to call.


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

Take'em said:


> Nate_C said:
> 
> 
> > The guys that pitch the "English trained dogs" and the guys that want them come off to me as "anglophiles" QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Chris Atkinson (Jan 3, 2003)

Granddaddy said:


> Whenever someone refers to using Robert Milner training methods I get confused since there was a Robert Milner using conventional training methods (meaning for American FTs) in the 60-70s era which I saw train firsthand. Mr Milner may not remember me but I was an occasional companion of Russel Caden at his Wildrose Kennels near Grand Junction TN (before Wildrose Oxford MS). At that time Mr. Milner was using the prevalent training methods of the day among FT trainers. In fact he wrote a book recommending those methods. At some point after that, Mr Milner abandoned conventional Am. FT training methods and FTs and began to promote methods similar to those used by British trainers & wrote a book or two promoting those methods. So I am always confused when someone refers to Milner's methods, just exactly which methods are they referencing.
> 
> From Kip's post, since it provided a timeframe, I know he is refering to Milner's earlier FT-related methods but not sure of others.


Well, I just hope Kip was being sarcastic about his lack of agreement with me. 

Granddaddy, it is one and the same (or is it "One in the same"?) Robert Milner, both in the 70's and in the new millenium. He has told me personally that when he made his first trip to the UK to participate in trials there, he decided that we had it "wrong" in the U.S. and that the way they did it over there was "right". 

I was told nearly the same thing in person by Richard Wolters. He ended his days wearing knickers, bowties, etc. at retriever events and did his best to blend the UK "style" with the U.S. "Hunt Test" methodologies at the end of his life.

The way I look at it, it's just like flavors of ice cream. There are lots of flavors, and that's OK. Robert Milner used to love vanilla and decided he wanted straight chocolate. Wolters decided he wanted to create his own "rocky Road" version, realized others had the same idea, chose to spin off his Rocky Road into a RR#2, but wanted to flavor it with some vanilla.

I personally choose to not limit myself to any one flavor. Although I currently spend all of my personal competition time and money on pistachio today, I still judge for rocky road, and have happily participated in vanilla. 

I hope to continue to enjoy all flavors available. I personally feel that variety is the spice of life. I feel that different dogs are naturally more skewed towards a particular flavor. I feel the perfect dog enjoys and excels at all flavors as a competitor as much as I enjoy them as a trainer/handler.

Chris


----------



## Scott Jinks (Feb 21, 2006)

Kirk Keene said:


> And for the record, I'm very active in my local HRC club so I know how that game is played, too. Matter of fact, there are probably a few of my club brothers lurking on here right now, laughing to themselves that I got involved in yet another "American vs. British" debate.


I can not believe it took you this long to jump in! I thought I had started to straighten you out!

The British vs. American Debate is like Ford vs. Chevy, some, you will never convince the other will get you where you are going too! I train American style, don't agree with a lot of what the British do, but do think they have some very valid points. A dog only really has to please own person, the owner.

I also dont agree with a lot of the stero types. Kirks dog is not the "typical" British dog, all go!. Back when I was doing a little training the only British dog I worked with was a Wildrose pup. Full of talent, go, and a crazy SOB! Of coarse I have seen the pigs also in from both sides of the big pond. I think that the enviornment the pup is raised in has as much to do with how they turn out as anything!

The biggest hang up I have with true British training is you are loosing a lot of the dogs life. I will have a "finished" dog and be spending valuable time in the field with it, while they are still trying to get it steady and reliable. They are never here long enough.

IMO, this is where I think most American Trainers have issues with Wildrose. They are great at marketing their product, which will cost more and take longer and not be as far in training than most american trainers. So it seems like a scam to most american trainers, because the average joe is very uneducated on what a dog can/will/should do in the field. Because of marketing they think they are getting a "gentlemans dog".

Scott


----------



## chip laughton (Jan 26, 2005)

One thing you hear alot about is that they do not hunt the way we do over here. You only ever hear about is the driven shoots. The driven shoot is not much different than a driven shoot in the Dakotas, minus the blaze orange, maybe some trees and some hills. One major exception being the drivers/beaters are not carrying a gun. The drivens could also be an equivalent to dove shoot as far as volume of birds. They do rough shooting which is pretty much just like any other upland hunting here walk through the woods or fields behind a dog. On the coast they hunt ducks and geese with decoys and calls. 

In their working tests it is our equivalent to a hunt test using dummies. Their trials are a typical days shoot at an estate with real birds and real guns, and a play it where it lands type of deal. It is the luck of the draw and the running order, short mark, long mark, blind in open cover, blind in heavy cover, to be politically correct a runner (wounded bird) you never know what you are going to get. There is no such thing as a no bird or not fair. The dogs job is to retrieve what is presented to him. 

Having chose a career as an outdoor(hunting, fishing and sporting dogs) photographer, I am around a lot of dogs all year. A good dog is a good dog. A dog that sits quietly in the blind, is a obedient and can do the work is what I want to share a blind with me.


----------



## MarkyMark (Jun 5, 2010)

*I mean look at their forbes cover. Waxed jacket, the hat.*

Intersting since the waxed hat and coat came from a gent by the name of C.C Filson during the Klondike gold stike then the west coast tree fallers jumped on it. If one has never been over the pond to shoot your missing a good time. They do a helluva job with there birds. Some of the best working dogs I have shot over were shooting pigeons in England. Second was down in Philidelphia Parguay shooting pigeons, there dogs British decent that would mark and pick up 3 marks at a time. Having been all through South America about 25 times in the last 15 years I might step out of line but watching a pair of dogs retrieve a 1000 birds plus a day puts them in a different league. Hell some dogs never do that in there life. 
As to there diet it's all raw breast meat.:razz:


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

MarkyMark said:


> *I mean look at their forbes cover. Waxed jacket, the hat.*
> 
> Intersting since the waxed hat and coat came from a gent by the name of C.C Filson during the Klondike gold stike then the west coast tree fallers jumped on it. If one has never been over the pond to shoot your missing a good time. They do a helluva job with there birds. Some of the best working dogs I have shot over were shooting pigeons in England. Second was down in Philidelphia Parguay shooting pigeons, there dogs British decent that would mark and pick up 3 marks at a time. Having been all through South America about 25 times in the last 15 years I might step out of line but watching a pair of dogs retrieve a 1000 birds plus a day puts them in a different league. Hell some dogs never do that in there life.
> As to there diet it's all raw breast meat.:razz:



O come on you konw what I mean. That style, is generally associated with England. I think you miss my point. I am not saying anything bad about it. Hell I kind of like it myself. All I am saying is that they are pitching not only a training concept by a whole image as well of the english gentleman hunter, with wool knickers and the like. Again, nothing wrong with it. My orginal point is that as part of that pitch they position UK dogs and training methods as superior to US bloodlines and methods. My point was that Organizations like the HRC and the body of knowledge that the professional training organization around it has more insight in the wild bird hunting that we do here in North America then the UK hunting community. However, I think that Milner and others do have some good points. Especially around tracking game and line manors which I do think we don't do enough of in our tests. 
I guess what I am saying is that I think the way wildrose put itself out there is more style then substance. If you want to pay 10,000.00 for a good hunting dog that you can tell everyone is english then go to wildrose kennels, if you just want a good hunting dog, keep your eyes out on the started section of this board and you will find a great one for 5,000.00.


----------



## MarkyMark (Jun 5, 2010)

*O come on you konw what I mean. That style, is generally associated with England.*

NAAA more along the lines with real men like the market hunters. So when Parker ran those adds back in the day they were telling people to buy English Bespoke guns also. Wearing a waxed coat no matter where it was made always seems to put some poeple in an uproar. They think there snobs, rich folk that don't know what next to do with there money. 

Yet there are countless dog handlers that wear Filson Chaps. Now for the Wildrose deal he's proven one thing "he'll build it and they will buy" god bless him he's make a living. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Kirk Keene (Jul 20, 2009)

Scott Jinks said:


> The biggest hang up I have with true British training is you are loosing a lot of the dogs life. I will have a "finished" dog and be spending valuable time in the field with it, while they are still trying to get it steady and reliable. They are never here long enough.
> Scott


Scott, we can always agree on these two things. It does take longer to finish a dog using British methods, and (the good ones) are not with us near long enough!


----------



## chip laughton (Jan 26, 2005)

My philosophy on dog training is know matter what training method you use. The first two years are training, the three years after that are using that training for experience and at around five years the dog is a truly finished dog. Make haste slowly.


----------



## Nate_C (Dec 14, 2008)

MarkyMark said:


> *O come on you konw what I mean. That style, is generally associated with England.*
> 
> NAAA more along the lines with real men like the market hunters. So when Parker ran those adds back in the day they were telling people to buy English Bespoke guns also. Wearing a waxed coat no matter where it was made always seems to put some poeple in an uproar. They think there snobs, rich folk that don't know what next to do with there money.
> 
> Yet there are countless dog handlers that wear Filson Chaps. Now for the Wildrose deal he's proven one thing "he'll build it and they will buy" god bless him he's make a living. Nothing wrong with that.


Again, not knocking it at all. I personnally own some barbour stuff, a filson wading jacket for flyfishing, and I have old school wheatley metal fly boxes. I think it looks cool. But it is part of am image that they are selling.


----------



## Take'em (Nov 29, 2006)

Nate_C said:


> Again, not knocking it at all. I personnally own some barbour stuff, a filson wading jacket for flyfishing, and I have old school wheatley metal fly boxes. I think it looks cool. But it is part of am image that they are selling.



From the Barbour website:

"Barbour is an authentic British brand..."

What were you saying about that anglophile thing, again?


----------



## duk4me (Feb 20, 2008)

MarkyMark said:


> *I mean look at their forbes cover. Waxed jacket, the hat.*
> 
> Intersting since the waxed hat and coat came from a gent by the name of C.C Filson during the Klondike gold stike then the west coast tree fallers jumped on it. If one has never been over the pond to shoot your missing a good time. They do a helluva job with there birds. Some of the best working dogs I have shot over were shooting pigeons in England. Second was down in Philidelphia Parguay shooting pigeons, there dogs British decent that would mark and pick up 3 marks at a time. Having been all through South America about 25 times in the last 15 years I might step out of line but watching a pair of dogs retrieve a 1000 birds plus a day puts them in a different league. Hell some dogs never do that in there life.
> As to there diet it's all raw breast meat.:razz:


I must be Brittish I love me some raw breast.


----------



## Happy Gilmore (Feb 29, 2008)

Real filsons don't use wax- they use bar oil.....


----------



## MarkyMark (Jun 5, 2010)

*Real filsons don't use wax- they use bar oil..... *

Ain't that the truth.


----------

