# THE MECHANICAL DOG by Bill Tarrant



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

At JT's request, I have just posted the article in its entirety on the Waterdog Forum --

CLICK.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)




----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

Thanks, Kev. It's been quite a while since I've read that. I used to read Tarrents stuff..."Hey Pup, Fetch It Up", and his books about the methods used by the horse trainer/pointer trainer, Delmar Smith. In fact I used his method of the toe-hitch to FF one of my dogs. But the ear pinch was so much easier and also far more useable in the field, I never returned to it.

UB


----------



## Bill Watson (Jul 13, 2005)

Bill Tarrant was a guest at North Louisiana HRC's 10th Anniversary Hunt and spoke at the tailgate crawfish boil. He spoke of the cruelty of the electric collar and--was not well received. His view was set when collars were HOT only and the first ones I used did not serve either me or my dogs well. It took Georgia Brown, "Sweety" to teach me how NOT to use a collar. That dog had the patience of Jobe. HRC has come a long way since that hunt and Mr. Tarrant has since passed on. I got him to sign my copy of Hey Pup, Fetch It Up. It had a torn dust cover and some of the corners of the pages were folded over and his comment was "It's nice to sign one that has been read". I also have Richard Wolters books signed 'cause I got to know him a lot better during my NAHRA days. He did alot to get people interested in training their dogs, thou I don't agree with much that he wrote, he was an interesting, tongue in cheek old fart and he was entertaining. He loved Cleo, she picked back at him.

You may know that he died while flying and ultra lite plane he had purchased a few weeks earlier. I believe it was a heart attack that did him in, not the crash. He was a world class sail plane pilot and had written a book on flying sail planes. Maybe he was planning on writing a book on flying ultra lites, who knows?

And then there's Omar Driskill. He and Tarrant were friends, but Omar didn't write a book, but he should have. He is one interesting individual in his own rights, but I ramble--if you're still here, thanks Bill
________
Live Sex Webshows


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Hey Steve,

You can justifiably post that pic just as soon as you change that avatar of your's! :wink:


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Can you find the button to make the robot FT dog sleep on the wifes side of the bed?

Hows the avatar now Kevin?


----------



## Peake (Jan 3, 2003)

Aah, your all a bunch of "Fry Cooks"! :lol: 
Peake
________
Big dick pussy


----------



## EdA (May 13, 2003)

Bill Tarrant had an anti retriever field trial agenda and he used his position as a writer for a national publication to spread HIS OPINION that field trial retrievers were unsuitable for hunting dogs and companions, nothing could be further from the truth


----------



## Richard Cheatham (Feb 25, 2003)

Ed,

I agree completely, Tarrant did not write anything relevant to current field trial retrievers.

Richard Cheatham


----------



## Pushbutton2 (Apr 9, 2004)

*My thought's..*

I am a Hunt tester. 

When is the last you went hunting and shot a Duck @ 400 Yards? Hell of gun! Even Better shot!

I think he has some relevant points. Given it was written in 1983 and E-Collars were in ther infancy. 
As far as him being Anti FIeld Trialer.... I can't say I never met or talked to him.

I my dream world the best dog is the one that brings the bird back the quickest. Be it by land or water. The quicker the retrieve the quicker you can get the dog on the next bird. Or catch the next flight of incoming birds.

Why is it that you have to train for a 400 yd mark? So YOU can feel good about your dog? or YOU can say I HAVE THE BEST DOG! Why? Pride? Competitive edge?

For me I feel good when My dog jumps up in bed and lays next to me and my wife. 
I feel good when me and my 2 son's are heading to the uplnad field and their dog is in the backseat with his head in there lap, and mine is up front with her head in my lap. 
Success to me is having a dog that enjoy's the things we enjoy.

I AM NOT SAYING A FILED TRIAL DOG DOESN"T / CAN'T ENJOY THE THINGS YOU DO.

I am asking WHEN did a 400 yard Quad mark and a 250 Yard blind with Straight as an arrow lining become representative of REALISTIS HUNTING?

I think it is because WE want it that way. Again I ask WHY? to prove what to whom? I think to be competitive at that level you have to breed a dog that is "hot" and can be / is a handful. So you breed that FC to another FC and you sell the pup to guy who wants a dog to hunt with half a dozen times a year with his kids,grandkids... But since the dog is "hot" he feels it is a handful and leaves it @ home. 

I read the post on this site and on the other one. You bash the guy because YOUR WAY is better. Again I ask WHY? He has a different viewpoint than yours. So that makes him ANTI Field Trialer? Pullease!

As a token.... I follow Lardy'd Methods. I also use Dahl, Graham, Dobbs, Goodwin, and ...... as BAckup reference when Lardy's method confuses me... i.e Stick Fetch. My Timing sucks. SO i switched to the shoulder area instead of the back of the legs. She would SIT. 

Kyle Ruschmann


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Do give the man some consideration for the era he wrote in and not attribute his ideas to an agenda against Field Trials in general. When I brought my current pup home, it was as a very first time owner of a true field trial bred dog. All I knew was that they needed lots of exercise and consistant training to take advantage of their natural attributes. Not having a clue where to start, and as I've stated before (ad nauseum maybe) there are NO pros or non cookie/clicker trainers in my immediate area to work with, I attended a retriever puppy demo put on by the local Bass Pro shop. Two female trainers were there with a truck full of Boykins. I asked them where to start, what books to read, etc. They both said Tarrant's "Hey. Pup" book. So I bought it and really enjoyed it. His methods were simple and easy to understand for a novice like me. I never thought he really trash talked field trials, simply could not tolerate the brutal methods used as "short cuts" in those days for the people out for a win at any cost. I believe he truly loved dogs and if he had an agenda, it was for their protection. Granted, he was surely an "old fart" set in his ways and closed to new ideas. But look at what the ecollar was when it first came out. Another replacement for shotguns, cattle prods and senseless whipping. If he had not allowed himself to get into such a pi$$ing match with the more brutish trainers of his day, he may have admired some of the advances with Rex Carr, etc. I also believe his feelings were hurt when after helping start the HRC that his ideas were quickly replaced with rules more closely alligned with traditional field trials. At any rate, I believe his name is worthy of respect due to his undeniable passion for dogs and dog games. All opinions I have expressed here are based on what I have read. Thank goodness I can not claim to have experience in his day and time. 
PS: On Butch Goodwins site, he still refers to Tarrant with some respect. So all is not black and white. 8)


----------



## Becky Mills (Jun 6, 2004)

Even though it has been a couple of years since I've run hunt tests, other than when I had the distinct privilege of being the DH for my nephew Graham last spring, I saw some pretty darn technical concepts. On points, off points, around points, key hole blinds, angle entries, tight tight tight marks, etc. Concepts that demanded a dog have some technical training under its belt. Not saying its a good or bad thing, just sayin.
Muddying the waters regards,
Becky


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

*Re: My thought's..*



Pushbutton2 said:


> I am asking WHEN did a 400 yard Quad mark and a 250 Yard blind with Straight as an arrow lining become representative of REALISTIS HUNTING?


Why don't you ask about "white coats" while you are at it?!! :roll: 

Field Trials, like hunt tests, are about testing dogs on CONCEPTS that a dog sees when hunting. They are not about simulating hunting. 

The difference between FTs and HTs is the competitive element. Unlike in HTs, FT judges are forced into compounding the concepts in series and often stretching out the distances in order to put daylight between the competitors. 

The fact that FTs are about testing hunting concepts and not about simulating hunting is precisely what Tarrant apparently did not understand. We come to expect that from newbies. Tarrant should have known better.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

Tarrant et al fail to acknowledge that it is thru competition and "pushing of the envelope" that breeds and training methods improve.
The qualifying dog of today is the open dog of 1970's. This relationship continues in all levels. The people that push their dogs beyond adequate in any venue enrich the gene pool. That makes the average dog better for the average FTer,HTer and Hunter.

Tim


----------



## Peake (Jan 3, 2003)

2tall said:


> Do give the man some consideration for the era he wrote in and not attribute his ideas to an agenda against Field Trials in general. When I brought my current pup home, it was as a very first time owner of a true field trial bred dog. All I knew was that they needed lots of exercise and consistant training to take advantage of their natural attributes. Not having a clue where to start, and as I've stated before (ad nauseum maybe) there are NO pros or non cookie/clicker trainers in my immediate area to work with, I attended a retriever puppy demo put on by the local Bass Pro shop. Two female trainers were there with a truck full of Boykins. I asked them where to start, what books to read, etc. They both said Tarrant's "Hey. Pup" book. So I bought it and really enjoyed it. His methods were simple and easy to understand for a novice like me. I never thought he really trash talked field trials, simply could not tolerate the brutal methods used as "short cuts" in those days for the people out for a win at any cost. I believe he truly loved dogs and if he had an agenda, it was for their protection. Granted, he was surely an "old fart" set in his ways and closed to new ideas. But look at what the ecollar was when it first came out. Another replacement for shotguns, cattle prods and senseless whipping. If he had not allowed himself to get into such a pi$$ing match with the more brutish trainers of his day, he may have admired some of the advances with Rex Carr, etc. I also believe his feelings were hurt when after helping start the HRC that his ideas were quickly replaced with rules more closely alligned with traditional field trials. At any rate, I believe his name is worthy of respect due to his undeniable passion for dogs and dog games. All opinions I have expressed here are based on what I have read. Thank goodness I can not claim to have experience in his day and time.
> PS: On Butch Goodwins site, he still refers to Tarrant with some respect. So all is not black and white. 8)


2tall,
With RIP respect to HRC member #1 and his motto of "Conceived by Hunters for Hunters" well said! I would bet your assumptions of Tarrant toward _that era_ are honest and accurate! :wink: One thing is apparent his motives for speaking out were pure as he must of truly "loved the dog"! 
Peake

PS Just curious Kevin as many of your topics are of the white coat game and it's obvious you really know your stuff! :wink: How do your own personal dogs do handling the "compounded hunting concepts" they see in FT's? No doubt very well I'm sure! 
________
BLACK VIDS


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Peake said:


> Just curious Kevin. . . .How do your own personal dogs do handling the "compounded hunting concepts" they see in FT's? No doubt very well I'm sure!


Not even close.  I don't train enough. I don't have the grounds. I don't have the money. I just have the smarts. :? And even that is just because I am a sieve. :wink: 

Whenever my dog doesn't pass at a HT, I always say the same thing -- sometimes to myself, sometimes out loud -- _don't blame the dog, blame me._


----------



## Pushbutton2 (Apr 9, 2004)

*Amiable labs*

"Why don't you ask about "white coats" while you are at it?!! "

The white coats are so the Handler can be seen better @ distance. Some peeople say that Blue is becoming the new White.

I am not tryinig to get into a Discussion of my way is better than your way. My views differ form yours. This is AMERICA! I can accept that.


Tim Carrion:
"pushing of the envelope" that breeds and training methods improve. 

My question is: What needs improving in the Labrador Retriever? Who is the last Dual Champion Dog?

I BELIVE there are 4 seperate styles of Labs: FT, HT, Show, and Pet.

In Pointers: ELHEW Bred seem to be the Gold Standard. 
GSP's are GSP's All seem to posses similar body structure, Tempermant...... 
I BELIEVE the Irish of of BIG RED Fame is a thing of the past For several reasons........

I say this because I think that we are breeding the Natural Instincts out of the dogs and replacing it with Training. 
I chose to believe Mr. Tarrant was pointing that out. 
So when do we as responsible people and lovers of all things Labrador Retriever say is this what the dogs were bred for?Is this that Accepted Standard for the breed?


With the lab being the most registered dog In AKC for years we might want to start taking a look at what it is we expwect form the breed. 

My dream Lab loves to Retrieve, Delivers to hand Naturally and is calm in the house and Field. Needs little training in Basic Obedience and Delivery to hand. Eagerly learns advanced comcepts.......

I have 2 labs. One Whines at the line but has had a natural Delivery to hand. I did the FF, and CC with her, I did it for me. She has HD  
I have a Lab from GOOD lines.. He has so much more go than MY dog that he NEEDS to be CC and FF'd for SELF Control.

Both came from the same breeder but different lines. I have 2X the amount of time in the 2nd dog as I do in the 1st. For 1/2 the results......

I CHOOSE THE DOG'S! I knew what I was getting into when I got the Male.

My uncle had GSP's and **** Dog's. The dogs had different traits.... Treer, Cold Trailer, Hot trailer... But all of them seemed to have similar tempermant

I am not saying anything bad about anyone or anything. Just making a comparison of Similar dogs with different but breedings being so markedly different.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

*Re: Amiable labs*



Pushbutton2 said:


> The white coats are so the Handler can be seen better @ distance.


The point was you were criticizing FTs for not simulating hunting, but you left out the white coats.



> I am not tryinig to get into a Discussion of my way is better than your way. My views differ form yours. This is AMERICA! I can accept that.


I wasn't interested in discussing ways, either. I was interested in discussing what FTs are about -- testing hunting concepts vs. simulating hunting.

And while we may have differing views, we cannot both be right. Only one of us can. (Or we can both be wrong, which I don't think is the case here.)

See, in example when you see a 250 yard blind, you apparently like Tarrant see _just_ a 250 yard blind. A FTer, and the judges that set the test, see the factors, of which distance is just one. They see the suction, the terrain, the wind, the sun, all the variables and can fairly predict how a trained versus untrained dog will behave en route. It is those concepts -- how a dog deals with the factors -- that the dog is being tested on. Not just whether the dog gets the bird and brings it back. It is much, much more than _just_ a 250 yard blind.

So if you are going to criticize FTs for their lack of simulating hunting distances, you might as well also bring up the white coats. They are equally disingenuous.


----------



## Pushbutton2 (Apr 9, 2004)

*I agree Completly*

There are more to marks than distance. All the things you pointed!

I don't run Field Trial's.

If you train the concept do you train away the dogs ability to think?


----------



## TxFig (Apr 13, 2004)

*Re: My thought's..*



Pushbutton2 said:


> I am a Hunt tester.
> 
> When is the last you went hunting and shot a Duck @ 400 Yards? Hell of gun! Even Better shot!



I am a Hunt Tester too.

I am also a goose hunter. These days, I hunt more than I test (my dogs are older and mostly titled out).


The *majority* of our goose hunting days have at least 1 goose sail off in excess of 400 yards. And if you think about it, if all the geese fell inside of 100 yards, we wouldn't need a dog. It's the birds that fall outside that range we NEED them for.


----------



## NateB (Sep 25, 2003)

*Re: My thought's..*



CNBarnes said:


> Pushbutton2 said:
> 
> 
> > I am a Hunt tester.
> ...


No doubt.
I have done both FT and HT. My dogs are better now, I am not sure if it is because of my additional experience or my working for better details in FT world. Dogs do need to be able to think but have to be taught concepts too. 
My dog's who is now 8 rs old, very first hunting retrieve was a 250+ yards water blind. So that extra distance came in handy. This past year I saw a duck fall from another group of hunters that was behind the island they were on. I tried to yell at them as I was one bird away from a limit. But I ened up sending my 2 yr old dog, was about 200 yrds, has a strong crosswind but needed only a couple of casts to fight the wind and get the bird. Then paddled in my boat to give it to them.
So I not stating that either test/trial is better but there is definate a need in hunting for extra distance.


----------



## Uncle Bill (Jan 18, 2003)

*Re: I agree Completly*



Pushbutton2 said:


> There are more to marks than distance. All the things you pointed!
> 
> I don't run Field Trial's.
> 
> If you train the concept do you train away the dogs ability to think?



Quite the opposite, I believe. Nothing sends a tingle through my body as much as having my dog display his thinking when given a choice of different possibilities. Like heading for the shoreline, or squaring his exit, but then correcting on his own to continue towards the point, and pick up the mark.

I am in awe of the incredible achievements attained by these magnificent animals, none of which we could witness were it not for the trialing program and those diligent trainers. I marvel at what those pros and accomplished amatuers are able to train these dogs to do; to be the very best they can be. Why would we want to deprive our games from their efforts?

When my son showed a like for baseball at a young age, I got involved in his teaching via Little League and Pony Baseball, and he later went on to American Legion Baseball. There were, I suspect, many in this PC world that would have chastied me for "pushing" him too hard to achieve what we accomplished. I had no preconceived notion of him becoming a Major Leaguer. But we did become the best team we could be, and along the way won two city championships. 

He now has children of his own that aspire to compete in baseball and soccer, and he is coaching them in the same fashion he was coached...to try to excell, and train and reach for goals that match your desires.

The Field Trial games have not only produced the most awesome retrievers in the world, but they have given us a legacy of fundamentals for all dog trainers to follow. Of course we don't need to carry these teachings to the FT level, but knowing how to teach my dog the basics have made me a far better trainer, and capable of getting my hunting dogs to the level that is pleasing to me. 

I too am thankful for the hunt test games, because it gives me an opportunity to 'hunt' almost all year around. But I know we wouldn't be anywhere near as good as we are, without having the guidence of so many super trainers who shared their knowledge with me.

So let them play the games of finding the best dog standing on any given weekend. I will continue to appreciate their efforts, and stand in awe of the accomplishments of the dogs they train.

UB


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

CNBarnes; I'd still need my dog for geese that fall within 100 yards as I'm not very fond of of breaking ice and swiomming in freezing cold winter mornings. Guess I'm just a WUSS!!


----------



## labsforme (Oct 31, 2003)

Pushbutton2: you stated:"My question is: What needs improving in the Labrador Retriever? Who is the last Dual Champion Dog? 

I BELIVE there are 4 seperate styles of Labs: FT, HT, Show, and Pet. 

In Pointers: ELHEW Bred seem to be the Gold Standard. 
GSP's are GSP's All seem to posses similar body structure, Tempermant...... 
I BELIEVE the Irish of of BIG RED Fame is a thing of the past For several reasons........ 

I say this because I think that we are breeding the Natural Instincts out of the dogs and replacing it with Training. 
I chose to believe Mr. Tarrant was pointing that out. 
So when do we as responsible people and lovers of all things Labrador Retriever say is this what the dogs were bred for?Is this that Accepted Standard for the breed? "

How far from the truth that is.If anything field trial labs are much closer to the breed standard than most other sporting breeds.I trialed GSPs and the show dogs aren't even close to field dogs.Fied pointers aren't the same as show pointers.Both GSP and show poiters have had the hunt bred right out of them.I have trial bred,Cosmo daughter 12 yrs old and a double G grandaughter of Maxx that are house dogs and companions.I want my dogs to have the capability of long retrieves if necessary.Read up some more before you make statements.

Jeff G


----------



## KNorman (Jan 6, 2003)

I will never understand why people get in such an uproar on this Forum over imposing their own narrow little definition of "best dog" on others.


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

labsforme said:


> Pushbutton2: you stated:"My question is: What needs improving in the Labrador Retriever? Who is the last Dual Champion Dog?
> I say this because I think that we are breeding the Natural Instincts out of the dogs and replacing it with Training.
> I chose to believe Mr. Tarrant was pointing that out.
> 
> ...


Having Chesapeakes myself we have our Dual Champions!  

What Natural hunting instinct is missing in the FT dog?
A FT dog must have: good eyesight to see a 300-400 mark, a good nose to hunt an area, the prey-drive to transverse land & water with multiple obstacles on a mere word, the intelligence to learn obedience and to think/remember while on the move.

Please define what else you want.

Tim


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Tim 

WELL SAID!!!!

When I go pheasant hunting my Field Trial dogs signal if the birds are there by their body language. I don't have to think about whether any birds are/were in the field. All I have to do is shoot them when the dogs get em up! & all they have to do is retrieve them when/if they fall. 

Bill Tarrant being a common name, I remember one at the Spokane National Amateur in 196? who was interested in buying my friend's dog. This guy was mayor of Wichita or Topeka. Is this the same Bill Tarrant? He ran a dog that was very unimpressive for being a qualifier. OINK - OINK!!

Richard Wolters was at our Montana State trial in 1965, did not impress anyone with his negative attitude toward Field Trials. All I remember about him is he had a huge slide in camper with very large tires on the back. He ran test dog for the derby with a 3 year old dog.

Marvin Sundstrom


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

I have only read the first couple of pages. The introduction, comparing sheep dog trials is a little unfair as herding dogs are expected to break control etc. I think sheep dog trials are great. Love their whistle commands. 

Also, another quick thought. Some may think a simple sit command, is mechanical, after all dogs can sit all on their own.


----------



## Pushbutton2 (Apr 9, 2004)

*I agree with everyone....*

Trying to figur out What I have been trying to say.. I think/Hope.

How do you discern if certain characteristics are Nature, Nurtured or Trained? Is it even necessry to know? 

If a trait is Natural Versus, Nutrued or Trained Does it make the dog more or less Effective(?)?

I hope you understand the Question.... I am not sure exactly how to word what I am asking. SORRY>

Kyle

Tim: I am not sur why I wrote that. As far as I am concerned the Lab is the COMPLETE package. I have met some labs that had no desire to do anyhting more that lay on the couch.

I phesant hunt mainly and my Female has saved me, read as made me look like I knew what I wasa doing,on several occasion's.
She only has 1 started Pass 1 JH Pass and 2JH Failures. (the failure were mine).


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

I'm a Fter who some day would like to give Ht's a shot. But for now it's just FT's.
Quote "I am a Hunt tester. When is the last you went hunting and shot a Duck @ 400 Yards? Hell of gun! Even Better shot! "Quote


Last month during our Feb goose hunt, of the 28 birds we shot, six retrieves were in excess of 200 yds. Sometimes hit birds don't fall for a few seconds, then they die in the air. Any dog can mark this fall. Not all will get to the bird.
One retrieve we had, was about a half mile on a cripple that got up and flew, only to be tackled 3 feet in the air after a 250 yd chase.
Only a very physically fit dog is going to get that bird.

Getting those long cripples in quickly served another purpose.
It got dead or flopping birds out of the area of our hunt, so that other decoying birds would not be pulled away from our spread.

When I hunt bluebills on Lake Erie my dogs have always been called upon to retrieve birds that are 100-200 yds outside the decoys.

This is not a brag on my dogs.
Any field trial dog with a little hunting experience will do this work, and probably alot of HT dogs as well. I find the ancient argument about FT's being unrealistic of a typical days hunt to be way off base.
Countless times I have had to pull my dog off a close dead bird to get a longer bird drifting away in the current. (Sometimes I even get the work)
I'll bet others can give similar experiences. Maybe a thread about FT type hunting retrieves should be started.
Anyway, just my $.02



[/quote]


----------



## Pushbutton2 (Apr 9, 2004)

*Scott*

I am not trying to say FT'ers are bad or any of. That. If it seems like that I am SORRY! 
In My statement ABout SHOOTING a Bird @ 200 yards..... was meant to insite a some debate on the issue. It seems it worked.

So now what? 

My dream is to have an FC/AFC Dog. I have a WONDERFUL MALE that I think will make it. But we all say that about our dogs. The only way to prove it is to get out there and do it. I don't have the experience to train to that level yet, nor do I have the $ to have it done for me.

So now what? 
Not sure. I know I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the repsonse's. Some were taken a little rough. But hey this is AMERICA LAND OF THE FREE HOME OF THE BRAVE! 

I look forward to reading the response's from my Previous post. Hopefully you can understand the question. I am not even sure if I do. :? 

The question is meant to ask an age old Question. I think Mr. Tarrannt was asking. 

To have a competent hunting companion what is/are the Key ingredient/s? 
Natural ability - Prey drive, desire.........
Nurturing - Start young - make it fun
Training - past the basics. to me basics are OB, Marking, Handling, and all the CONCEPTS. Advanced are CC, FF. 

If you breed for a truly tractable dog and do the yard work right you shouldn't need to CC. I KNOW IT IS A TOOL! I use one myself. 

If you breed for a Natural delivery to hand you wouldn't need to FF. My dog is FF'd my male is going to get done. 
I also believe that by CC'ing and FF'ing you develop a bond with the dog and a way of communicating. 

With that being said, is it really importanat to seek out dogs with the traits theat we can just train into them?

I know of a guy with a HR dog that only does it becasue she was trained to. IMO she has no style. She just does it. Yes she gets the job done but.......I find more amusement in watching paint dry.

However when me and my dogs PLAY it is a thing of beauty. Just watching their quirks and antics..My male is a HOOT he pounces on the bumpers. Going throught cover he tries to jump over it... kinda reminds of TIGGER... that is why I changed his call name to TIGGER, Sorry/Thanks Walt!


Kyle Ruschmann

P.S I copied and pasted Amiable labs post from Waterdog and have it as a pdf. I can email it to whomever wants it.


----------



## rmilner (Dec 27, 2005)

*What the AKC rule book states on field trials*

For those who have not read it lately, here are the basic principles as put forth in the AKC rule book on pages 25 and 26.

STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR NON-SLIP
RETRIEVER TRIALS
In order that trials may be conducted as uniformly as
practicable, standardization of objectives is essential and,
therefore, all Judges, guns, contestants and officials who
have a part in conducting trials should be familiar with and
be governed so far as possible by the following standard:
BASIC PRINCIPLES
1. The purpose of a Non-Slip Retriever trial is to determine
the relative merits of Retrievers in the field.
Retriever field trials should, therefore, simulate as nearly
as possible the conditions met in an ordinary day’s shoot.
Dogs are expected to retrieve any type of game bird
under all conditions, and the Judges and the Field Trial
Committee have complete control over the mechanics
and requirements of each trial. This latitude is permitted
in order to allow for the difference in conditions
which may arise in trials given in widely separated
parts of the United States, which difference may well
necessitate different methods of conducting tests.
No live game bird, or any other species of bird or fowl,
shall be used in a test while under any form of restraint
or physical impairment at any sanctioned, licensed, or
member club event for Retrievers.
2. The function of a Non-Slip Retriever is to seek and
retrieve “fallen’’ game when ordered to do so. He
should sit quietly on line or in the blind, walk at heel, or
assume any station designated by his handler until sent
to retrieve. When ordered, a dog should retrieve quickly
and briskly without unduly disturbing too much
ground, and should deliver tenderly to hand. He should
then await further orders.
Accurate marking is of primary importance. A dog
which marks the fall of a bird, uses the wind, follows a
strong cripple, and will take direction from his handler
is of great value.

Best regards,

Robert Milner[/url]


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

*Re: Scott*



Pushbutton2 said:


> I am not trying to say FT'ers are bad or any of. That. If it seems like that I am SORRY!
> In My statement ABout SHOOTING a Bird @ 200 yards..... was meant to insite a some debate on the issue. It seems it worked.
> 
> So now what?
> ...



Hey Kyle I have on video a snow goose hunt that I was on and we had 12 or more shooters in the blind. 10-20 birds would fall. even with 2 dogs plus guys and guide to pick-up birds we had to pick up the sailors. We had a range finder that went to around 500 yds (it wasnt mine) but we had 10+ retrieves @ 400-500 yds and maybe a 1/2 dozen in the 700 maybe 800 yard range. It was in nice black dirt recently plowed an dthe dogs would see them 100 yds or so away but they still had to get out that far. 

P.S. Both dogs were of the high strung FT dogs :wink:


----------



## Scott Adams (Jun 25, 2003)

Hey Kyle,
No harshness intended in my post. I'm glad you expressed your opinion, it gave me a chance to express a different viewpoint, and promote the value in training for todays FT tests.
All the best.
Scott


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Aussie said:


> I have only read the first couple of pages. The introduction, comparing sheep dog trials is a little unfair as herding dogs are expected to break control etc. I think sheep dog trials are great. Love their whistle commands.
> 
> Also, another quick thought. Some may think a simple sit command, is mechanical, after all dogs can sit all on their own.


"Way to me" Aussie, come around...

/paul


----------



## Pushbutton2 (Apr 9, 2004)

*I am having fun*

I must say this is Fun for me! it has been a long time since I have had a good conversation.

Scott I take no offense to anything anyone has said.


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

I don't know how many of you understand the significance of the rmilner post. You Should!

Robert was on the coast in the military & had an opportunity to purchase a washout for $125 from one of the local trainers. He trained the dog to the point the dog was sold for a considerable sum & went on to be a successful FT campaigner. 

If he cares to say more about himself you should listen as he knows dogs!!!

Marvin Sundstrom


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

*Re: What the AKC rule book states on field trials*



AKC FT Rulebook said:


> Retriever field trials should, therefore, simulate as nearly as possible the conditions met in an ordinary day’s shoot.


Well, I am not a FTer, but I would suggest the pivotal phrase there is probably "as nearly as possible."

Some see it. Some don't. :?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

itilii said:


> If he cares to say more about himself you should listen as he knows dogs!!!


The man does indeed know dogs and I could learn a ton from him. 

However he also has beliefs about FTs being responsible for the ruination of the American-field-bred Lab, that have discredited the man in my eyes.

So I look for education elsewhere.


----------



## A_Fever (Feb 24, 2007)

In Bill Tarrants defense reading of his work with Delmar Smith and some knowledge of pointing dogs he has basis for concern. AKC field trials have ruined many good field breeds for the ordinary hunter. My personal experience is with the German Shorthair, how many guys do you know who hunt off of horseback? Take 99.9% of AKC field trial champions for a hunt and you will be hunting alone. The field trial game pushed valuable aspects of a good hunting dog to the extreme and left the everyday hunter without a dog.

So while I see the long retrieves in today’s field trials justified just ask yourself, how long were the retrieves 20 years ago? How long will they be in another 20? How close does a hunt test simulate how you hunt? How has a hunt test changes in the last 10 years? Today it may be pushing the envelope but in another few years how will it change the breed’s temperament or trainability.

My point is only this; there is precedent to how competition can change a breed not only for the better.


----------



## Peake (Jan 3, 2003)

Welcome Robert I see this is your first post on the _new(er)_ RTF! I really enjoyed your classic book "Retriever Training for the Duck Hunter" a solid manual with a thorough course on Force Fetch...Well done many years ago! :wink: 
Peake
PS Also, this still has to be the best cover ever put on any retriever book...timeless!









________
Medical marijuana -oregon dispenceries


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

> What Natural hunting instinct is missing in the FT dog?


 Well not that it matters much ,but I think retrievers tend to plod around to much in the uplands.
Weather this instinct has been diminished or is randomly genetically inherited ,,,,,I don't know.
I have been fortunate in my life to own a couple that had a natural back and forth motion ,,,almost spaniel like but not quite.
It is a pleasure to watch and is a little more productive. because there is a stratagy and it seems more purposeful. 
Also I would like a retriever to get in the dense underbrush while I stroll the logging road or hedge row  
hey! If a beagle can do it.( the ultimate pheasant dog for certain parts of the country)  

When you consider the other breeds that are used for hunting and then consider the retrievers ,,,,they are a horse of a truely different color


----------



## Illinois Bob (Feb 3, 2007)

I remember while training my last lab in the mid 1980s this debate was going on between Ft and hunting dog owners.Recently,I came across a big stack of Gun Dog magazines from the mid 1990s and this debate was still going on.I think there is discussion about this in most training books and Labrador books that I've read.Even the very old ones.Now,here in the 2007 the debate is as strong as ever.My guess is that there are probably as many opinions and slight variations of opinions as there are retrievers out there.You may as well debate religion.It's kind of funny,I look at things a little different now than than when I was younger but I have to say that I am just as happy for that little old lady in an obedience class that made an effort to get off a couch and get out of the house to make her little lap dog better as I am of the finalists in the nationals.Whenever somebody is out there training thier dog for anything better it's a good thing.As for Fts,Hts, and Hunting there should be no debate.They're all good.Whatever your opinion is.Pick what you like and do it.


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Tim Carrion said:


> Tarrant et al fail to acknowledge that it is thru competition and "pushing of the envelope" that breeds and training methods improve.
> The qualifying dog of today is the open dog of 1970's. This relationship continues in all levels. The people that push their dogs beyond adequate in any venue enrich the gene pool. That makes the average dog better for the average FTer,HTer and Hunter.
> 
> Tim


My question is how does pushing to the extreme make any/everything better? And, better for whom?

The Qual dog of today may be the Open dog of the 70s, but is that necessarily better? For those competing in field trials, yes. But what about the OVERWHELMINGLY VAST MAJORITY of other retriever owners from which these dogs' offspring trickles down (hunt tester, hunter, pet owner). Is this dog better for them, too? Maybe, maybe not. 

I think that's where the crux of many of these (repetitive) debates is centered.

(I agree with you on the training methods and results, just not completely on board with the evolutionary aspect)


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Pete said:


> > What Natural hunting instinct is missing in the FT dog?
> 
> 
> Well not that it matters much ,but I think retrievers tend to plod around to much in the uplands.
> ...



First of all, we are talking Retrievers, not Flushing dogs. I could care less if my Retrievers ever flushed or pointed anything. If I wanted a Flushing dog I would buy a breed that is bred to Flush. My interest in a hunting Retriever is one that can do the difficult retrieving work, one that will not get tired of doing it and one that is fun to watch. 

Second, top Field Trial dogs are bred to win Field Trials, period. Most people do not pay upwards of $2,500. for a pup as a gundog. They are hoping for a future Field Trial winner. A dog that can win with great or poor judging, against the politics or with the politics. Most FT dogs from successful FT parents are not for the average bird hunter with little training experience. 

Top Field Trial dogs are not for everyone! They are way too hot for the average hunter. Many do not need the power and desire of a well-bred FT dog! Some like to drive fast Sports Cars and some like big under-powered Sedans. Both will get you to your destination. It is a matter of which flavor you want.


----------



## Gun_Dog2002 (Apr 22, 2003)

Mr Booty said:


> Pete said:
> 
> 
> > > What Natural hunting instinct is missing in the FT dog?
> ...


Dan, such blasphemy.

/Paul


----------



## KNorman (Jan 6, 2003)

Gun_Dog2002 said:


> Dan, such blasphemy.
> 
> /Paul


Who is "Dan"?

:lol:


----------



## Illinois Bob (Feb 3, 2007)

This debate would be perfect with a big bonfire and plenty of coolers full of beer.You could sit by the fire and listen to everyone weigh in.It would get louder and louder as the beer started to do it's job and everybody dug thier heels in for thier viewpoint on things.And later in the night after everybody starts to quiet down,frustrated that they haven't swayed a soul,you could just smile.You still have your beer and the fire.


----------



## A_Fever (Feb 24, 2007)

*A poor mans race horse?*

Top Field Trial dogs are not for everyone! They are way too hot for the average hunter. Many do not need the power and desire of a well-bred FT dog! Some like to drive fast Sports Cars and some like big under-powered Sedans. Both will get you to your destination. It is a matter of which flavor you want.[/quote]

When field trial dogs are bred only for winning and glory you will have a parking lot full of useless dogs. Look at the show ring. The real challenge would be to breed dogs which are of equal value to both hunter and trialer. Someone has to take those slow sedans because there is no junk yard for the pups that do not have the right motor.


----------



## Pete (Dec 24, 2005)

I did not know that :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 



> What Natural hunting instinct is missing in the FT dog?


 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: 

qUOTE

Trial dogs are bred to win Field Trials, period. Most people do not pay upwards of $2,500. for a pup as a gundog. They are hoping for a future Field Trial winner. A dog that can win with great or poor judging, against the politics or with the politics. Most FT dogs from successful FT parents are not for the average bird hunter with little training experience. 

Top Field Trial dogs are not for everyone! They are way too hot for the average hunter. Many do not need the power and desire of a well-bred FT dog! Some like to drive fast Sports Cars and some like big under-powered Sedans. Both will get you to your destination. It is a matter of which flavor you want.


> eXACTLY
> 
> I believe thats the point many make


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Mr Booty said:


> Top Field Trial dogs are not for everyone! They are way too hot for the average hunter. Many do not need the power and desire of a well-bred FT dog! Some like to drive fast Sports Cars and some like big under-powered Sedans. Both will get you to your destination. It is a matter of which flavor you want.


Booty, here is a link to some stuff that Aussie turned me on to almost a year ago. Very interesting reading for nut cases like me that are interested in understanding dog behavior. He makes exactly the point you're making here.

http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/dog/LA/macdonald1.htm#train

Here is a 4 part series on the same topic. It was a real page turner for me.

http://www.dogstuff.info/modal_theory_part1_macdonald.html

I have two dogs that I would say have extreme retrieve desire, and I'm looking at getting a third. I wouldn't have it any other way, but I must confess being a bit jealous when I watch some folks heeling an extremely calm dog to the line. You can get it done with a high dog, but you're probably right that most people probably aren't willing to do what it takes to get there.


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

buzz said:


> Booty, here is a link to some stuff that Aussie turned me on to almost a year ago. Very interesting reading for nut cases like me that are interested in understanding dog behavior. He makes exactly the point you're making here.
> 
> http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/dog/LA/macdonald1.htm#train
> 
> ...



Hey Buzz,

You might like this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Dogs-Mind-Und...2738343?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174410572&sr=8-1

and this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Dog-Language-...2738343?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174410678&sr=8-5

Both excellent.



buzz said:


> You can get it done with a high dog, but you're probably right that most people probably aren't willing to do what it takes to get there.


I agree and will take it a step farther; it's not that most people aren't just not willing to do it, they don't know _how_ to do it. That's what I think of when Robert Milner wrote "the average man shouldn't have to have a PhD in dog training..."


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Labs are Busy dogs!! Robert Wehle in his book "Wing & Shot" stated that even the OPEN Country pointer should also be capable of doing a 10 acre plot in the corner of a field under control. (Not an exact quote)

This what I expect my Field Trial capable labs to do. I do not want several dogs that specialize in 0ne thing. 1 dog that does some things well & some things acceptable is fine. It is difficult to convey the satisfaction of following a hard going lab through heavy cover after upland game. The labs that plod don't do that!!

More Field Trial dogs are better today than they ever have been. The only things that will be to the detriment of the sport are a limiting gene pool, the overuse of some judges & the desire for instant results.

A quality Field Trial dog is a long term project. Many do not attain satisfaction from that approach. Fortunately for them, there are other venues that require less commitment.

The dog that Bill Tarrant describes is not often exhibited in the Field Trial venue!! & if it is, generally for a short time.


----------



## Steve Amrein (Jun 11, 2004)

Maybe I dont get. I went to a small get together and training day. I think in total 20 dogs. Some puppies, derby hopefuls, QAA, Competing titled AA dogs and retirees to include NFC FC AFC . We stayed the night and had dinner and drinks. The Hosts dogs were inside as well as the little pups and guest retired dogs. No fights and other of the so called bad behavior was exhibited, with the exception of some top notch begging from the old guys. The dogs for the most part are hunted over upland and waterfowl as well as FT work. These dogs are ALL house dogs with the exception of the time at the pro. It would have been fun to add up the AA points of the dogs present which I am sure would reach 350+ As for hunting you could fill tractor trailors with game retrieved. What more do you want???? The only thing missing I can tell is that they will all pass on to the other side much to quickly. 

The dogs all like to train, trial, hunt and be companions in the house. They all have unique style, quirk and personality. If you have not been to a FT, GO you will be impressed at the level of difficulty of the test and how easy some make it look. These dogs are smart working dogs that need a job and can not train themselves. Just cause they may have nice breeding and left out in a kennel only to be let out when its time to hunt or trial or test aint gonna cut it. Thats not the way it works, natural ability and desire will only take you so far.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Steve Amrein said:


> These dogs are smart working dogs that need a job and can not train themselves. Just cause they may have nice breeding and left out in a kennel only to be let out when its time to hunt or trial or test aint gonna cut it. Thats not the way it works, natural ability and desire will only take you so far.


Where is that "hand clapping" emotion when you need it?  

Sometimes I wonder if that's what people are looking for in those "gentleman's gundogs."


----------



## Tim Carrion (Jan 5, 2003)

The concepts of hunting with the so called "high rolling FT dog" vs FTs ruining the breeds are 2 different issues.
The FT trial only dog may have never been exposed to a HT or hunting situation and dog performance, hunting, HT or FT, is influenced by training and repetition.
When talking about ruining a breed you need to look at puppies. Puppies are a gamble. We buy potential. What we do with that potential and how much of that potenial we use varies by our interest.
Hunters and competitors (HT included) look to pedigrees for proven performance to gauge potential. In my experience most everyone wants the most potential from what is available and affordable.
If FTs are hurting the hunting breeds how is it that there are many FT bred dogs providing fine service to hunters? These dogs have been bought as both puppies and dogs that didn't live up to competitive roots. The "hunting"traits must be there.


Tim


----------



## gundogpa (Oct 18, 2005)

Bill Tarrant won 27 national writing awards.

He is a life Patron Member of the bird dog hall of fame.

There is a plaque that states him to be......"Godfather of the hunting retriever movement in America, and founder of the hunting retriever club, Inc."

Which is ironic because 10 years later he did make a little speech that made some folks uncomfortable like was posted earlier...it was at the North Louisiana Hunting Retriever club on their 10th anniversary of their first hunt test. His speech is too long to type but one line bears repeating.

"You've adopted what I fought to kill"

here's another line...."All this was envisioned and built for a kind and considerate guy (or gal) with a mediocre dog who had bonded together and loved each other and they sat in the blinds and hunted the fields together and----Well let me put it to you this way. Every thing I know I learned from a man. But everything I believe I learned from a dog. Look into your dogs eyes. Your going to kick that into submission."

Bill was always wanted what was best for the dog......and dared to say it out loud.

He traveled the world learning about dogs....33 countries. He got a personal invite from queen Elizabeth to write about the retrievers of the Royal kennels.

He brought to us everything from baboon dogs to "the sun also sets"....the story about FC NAFC CNFC River Oaks Corky"

Bill was a lab guy...he hunted them and he trialed them for a while.

I'm guessing he knew a thing or two about dogs.......well maybe not as much as a lot of the "netsperts" I see around today but still......


After listening to the experts here......frankly I am disgusted......and if Bill were here today and you were standing face to face, like a man should, you would never say those things to his face.


----------



## Franco (Jun 27, 2003)

Buzz said:


> Mr Booty said:
> 
> 
> > Top Field Trial dogs are not for everyone! They are way too hot for the average hunter. Many do not need the power and desire of a well-bred FT dog! Some like to drive fast Sports Cars and some like big under-powered Sedans. Both will get you to your destination. It is a matter of which flavor you want.
> ...


Thanks Buzz, finally had a chance to read the links. Interesting material.

Does a breeder of an FC and/or AFC dam to an in-demand Stud, even think of what kind of hunting retrievers the litter would produce? Heck no, cause thre are many willing to invest $$$ and time into what appears to be a can't miss litter. All in the litter would make fine gundogs, health permitting. If, they were raised and trained in the right hands. First time Lab owner trying to train green pup, often too much dog. Not good for the dog or owner.

You, nor I would hunt with anything but a retriever with a solid FT pedigree. What would the average hunter do with a dog that has 6 forward speeds? Average hunter doesn't even know the fundamentals to hunting and handling a retriever. It's, the dog knows more than hunter syndrom.


----------



## Chad Engels (Aug 17, 2004)

AmiableLabs wrote:


> Field Trials, like hunt tests, are about testing dogs on CONCEPTS that a dog sees when hunting. They are not about simulating hunting.


I train on CONCEPTS, I don't test on them. It appears the hunt test rule book states exactly the opposite of what you have said:

“ The purpose of a Hunting Test for Retrievers is to test the merits of, and evaluate the abilities of Retrievers in the field in order to determine their suitability and ability as hunting companions. Hunting Tests must, therefore, *SIMULATE* as nearly as possible the conditions met in a *TRUE HUNTING SITUATION*.”


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Mr Booty said:


> All in the litter would make fine gundogs, health permitting. If, they were raised and trained in the right hands. First time Lab owner trying to train green pup, often too much dog. Not good for the dog or owner.
> 
> You, nor I would hunt with anything but a retriever with a solid FT pedigree. What would the average hunter do with a dog that has 6 forward speeds? Average hunter doesn't even know the fundamentals to hunting and handling a retriever.


BINGO!


----------



## Marvin S (Nov 29, 2006)

Mr Booty

You have to be smarter than the dog to TRAIN the dog!!!

Marvin Sundstrom


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Chad Engels said:


> I train on CONCEPTS, I don't test on them.


At a FT or HT (you choose), the line to the blind is two yards off a point half way to the bird. You trained your dog on the _concept,_ in such cases to stay off the point. If the judge is not testing your dog on the same concept with that test, what then is s/he testing your dog on? If your dog swims two yards off the line to get up on the point, will it be judged the same as the dog that stays off the point?



> It appears the hunt test rule book states exactly the opposite of what you have said:


Nope. You didn't read all my posts before you replied.



> “The purpose of a Hunting Test for Retrievers is to test the merits of, and evaluate the abilities of Retrievers in the field in order to determine their suitability and ability as hunting companions. Hunting Tests must, therefore, SIMULATE *as nearly as possible* the conditions met in a TRUE HUNTING SITUATION.”


Darn it! There is that silly caveat again! 

Like I said -- apparently some people can see it and some people can't. Weird. Words visible to some, and invisible to others. :? Maybe because of the desire of some to all-caps the words that come before and after the caveat makes it harder for some to see the caveat? I don't know. All I know is that it is as plain as day to me. :? 

(I'll ignore the fact we were discussing FTs simulating hunting and you are quoting HTs.)


----------



## Chad Engels (Aug 17, 2004)

AmiableLabs,

When I am judging, I don't set up tests to see if I can get a dog to hook a gun. I don't set up tests to see if I can get a dog to go back to an old fall. Now, those things may happen, but that is not the purpose of testing. Any good judge will tell you that too aften judges get in the trap of testing for a training scenario they saw their pro set up in the past. Test for abilities (Defined as Marking, Style, Perserverance, and Trainability). Mike Lardy said it best in his 3rd video, "Judge how well the dog marked the bird, not the line to the bird". Of coarse, going WAY off line as to avoid cover and getting into the water is a different matter. You gave an example of a blind retrieve. If you are a judge, I have some advise, judge the entire blind, not just that one point you defined.

As for the rule book, You need to attend an AKC Hunt Test Seminar. Jerry Mann will tell you that to similute AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE is no caveat. It means just as the rule book says "natural hunting conditions". He will tell you to make the test look as much like a real hunt as possible. That is the AKC talking.

Why did you say "ignore the fact that we are discussing field trials" when you said "field trials, like hunt tests are about testing dogs on concepts".

Too much double talk for my comfort level. Anyway, this is the internet, people deserve to get accurate information.


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

Durn, Chad, you don't sound at all like the wanna-be trial judge some have led me to believe the AKC tests employ.


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Rick Hall said:


> Durn, Chad, you don't sound at all like the wanna-be trial judge some have led me to believe the AKC tests employ.


I believe Chad has judged some trials...


----------



## Rick Hall (Jan 21, 2003)

All the more credit to him.


----------



## Jason Brion (May 31, 2006)

I think it is funny how you will hear the "gun dog trainers" tear down the natural hunitng ability of FC X FC, FC X MH breedings. However, they still show up and want to buy my pros MH for $7,500 - $10,000 for their hunting outfit. If it were not for the FT's and their money. The genetics and training would not be what it is today. Did I buy my first lab 2 years ago to run FT/HT. No I didn't. However, I did buy her because I was sick of hunting with people that had dogs that are "great hunters". What a joke. 

I sent my dog to a pro because I knew I couldn't give my first lab a fair shake. No matter how many books/videos I've purchased. 

She had 3 senior passes before her first birthday. Running derbies at 13 months and doing very well. But this didn't take from the fact that she set next to me last duck season and retrieved 168 ducks out of my blind. Of which many where divers in the river or crawled up on the bank and hid in the weeds. With very few times out she hunted up and retrieved 2 dozen wild pheasants. With all my friends and family talking about how great of a dog she is.

Now the same guy that trains "gun dogs" for "20 years" that told my brothers that I was a idiot to send my dog to the pro I did, looks like the idiot. She hasn't lost any of her drive or natural hunting instincts like he said she would. Only thing missing is all the yelling and poor dog work I see from people that think FT are ruining the dogs!

The only reason that an NFC/NAFC/MH isn't the best "gun dog" you ever seen is because someone hasn't been taking him hunting. Period. Not because he/she is missing anything genetically.


----------



## Patrick Johndrow (Jan 19, 2003)

Kevin, that was a very interesting article and perspective of the dog games...I think everyone that trains or owns a retriever does it for different reasons and none of the reasons are more right than the other...or wrong for that matter.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Chad Engels said:


> You gave an example of a blind retrieve. If you are a judge, I have some advise, judge the entire blind, not just that one point you defined.


Of course you judge the whole blind! I never said anything differently. And you can't do that without taking all factors into consideration.

I said when the judge is taking how the dog handles the factors into consideration he is judging "concepts." You said that you train for concepts you don't judge them. So I gave you a bland example to answer telling me what then is it you call what the judge is judging if it is not called a "concept?" And you try to run away by saying as a judge, you judge the whole line not just the factors. 

But you never answered the question because what I said is true. While the judges indeed do judge the whole line, they do so by taking into consideration how the the dog handles individual factors that make up the line, aka. "concepts."



> As for the rule book, You need to attend an AKC Hunt Test Seminar.


I have been to the AKC Judges Seminar.



> Jerry Mann will tell you that to similute AS NEARLY AS POSSIBLE is no caveat. It means just as the rule book says "natural hunting conditions". He will tell you to make the test look as much like a real hunt *as possible.*


So first you say it is not a caveat, and then you say Jerry will use the caveat. :shock: :lol: 

Look, I don't know if I was unclear or you just misunderstood me, but you are mixing apples and oranges about what I said! . . . . 



> Why did you say "ignore the fact that we are discussing field trials" when you said "field trials, like hunt tests are about testing dogs on concepts".


The discussion about *the caveat* was in relation to _field trials_ not hunt tests. My point was that it is very difficult for FT judges to try and simulate hunting when they are trying to put daylight between the competitors! Of course in hunt tests we are supposed to try and simulate hunting. It is easier for us in HTs because we are non-competitive and less technical than FTs.

The discussion about judges *judging concepts* was in relation to both _field trials and hunt tests._ Every mathematician in the world will tell you a line is made up of points. And every competent HT and FT judge will tell you a line to a bird (mark or blind) is made up of factors, and that you must judge the whole line, aka. all the factors. In order to judge the whole line, you must judge how the dog conceptually deals with each of the factors. You say you don't call them "concepts." I don't know what else they are called. :?


----------



## Buzz (Apr 27, 2005)

Something tells me that if you guys could discuss this over a beer, you'd find a lot more you agree on than otherwise... :?


----------



## mjh345 (Jun 17, 2006)

But could they agree on what kind of beer? Who would decide?


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Buzz said:


> Something tells me that if you guys could discuss this over a beer, you'd find a lot more you agree on than otherwise... :?


Absolutely!

Friends can feel free to say they disagree; If you don't feel free to say you disagree, they aren't your friend.

I have not met very many of you in person. But I already know we have more in common than we have differences. These beautiful animals bring us together.


----------



## Chad Engels (Aug 17, 2004)

I like Grainbelt Premium.


----------



## Illinois Bob (Feb 3, 2007)

Leinenkugels in a frosted mug.


----------



## AmiableLabs (Jan 14, 2003)

Chad Engels said:


> I like Grainbelt Premium.


I like Budweister. :wink:


----------



## Pushbutton2 (Apr 9, 2004)

*I Like....*

Pepsi. Not much of a drinker but I Enjoy Talking about Dog's.


----------



## rbr (Jan 14, 2004)

gundogpa said:


> Bill Tarrant won 27 national writing awards.
> 
> He is a life Patron Member of the bird dog hall of fame.
> 
> ...


It's quite possable to be all those things and a great guy to boot............
and still be wrong.

Bert


----------



## john fallon (Jun 20, 2003)

rbr said:


> It's quite possable to be all those things and a great guy to boot............
> and still be wrong.
> 
> Bert


We have a few on this Forum that are *wrong most of the time *that seem to be OK otherwise. :lol: :lol: :lol: 

I'll PM you with the names :wink: 

john


----------

