state your case
Printable View
state your case
Yep... sad but trueQuote:
Originally Posted by RCGSP
I reckon our system rewards the wrong type of dog sometimes. What is greater, a dog that puts on consistent displays of great work, ranging, finding and producing birds, or a mediocre dog that gets placings because it didn't do anything wrong?
Mediocre dogs do plenty wrong and don't often get through due to manners . Part of a "finished" dogs make up should be their good manners both in trial and field especially when you hunt with other dogs --backing - obeying whistle commands consistently -retrieving game - utilizing the ground to best effect - finding finding finding ,hopefully holding
One could be critical of the type of ranging a dog does in the trials compared to the reality of cover we actually have on a whole in NZ but I haven't been to the live game trials for years and haven't seen the current crop of dogs work that cover -Ryan has .
I haven't been around the current trial people long enough at all to know if they hunt their dogs or not but from my past years we were all hard out upland game hunters and for some with continentals both duck and upland game hunters .
My thoughts and experiences come from 10 years ago
this kinda doesnt make sense ??as the dog didnt do anything wrong , found pointed and had good manners --what more is it that you want to seeQuote:
Originally Posted by Pointer
I have been sent a very interesting article from Robyn Gaskin which is frank and honest about field trialing and have asked if I can publish it here .If so I will place it under a new thread -Its a good read !
It makes absolute sense and has been a problem with our pigeon trial negative judging system for a long time... Pigeon trials rewardthe training more than the dog. A dynamic with great pace style and finding ability can be penalised on a minor handling issue where as a mediocre dog, of less natural ability but with either better training, or by virtue of its mediocrity doesn;t put a foot wrong and wins... this is fine, but it does nothing for the future of the breeds.Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
Pointer and Ruff have already hit the main points I had in mind. I will say that I feel it extends beyond just the negative judging system though.
It's a bit difficult to explain in a post as I don't really have time to spell it all out.
I think trialling is very important especially for breeders but I think what's important to take away from it is not the ribbons and toasted sandwich makers but what you learn from seeing your dogs run against others. People bag on pigeon trials but I like the because I can see my dogs run the same ground and the same birds as a variety of other dogs and to me it makes for the most accurate comparison.
How much is enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
I've owned/trained/trialed/hunted 3 pointing breeds in 2 countries under half a dozen trial formats and 3 testing systems and I currently own dogs from whelped in 4 different countries and have seen and hunted over dogs from several others. I don't claim to be an expert but I think I have a reasonable perspective.
what your failing to recognize here is consistency of dog !!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruff
Mediocre may have a win but the better dogs will win consistently .
What do you term as a minor handling issue ?
One thing one notes about dogs is they also have their off days ,they screw up and dont do the best job on any given day so consistency over time and trials must be recognized rather than a one win .
A negative judging system doesn't appeal to all but is based on your dog going about its work with the least amount of handling possible -a dog that knows whats it there to do gets on with the task at hand.A dog that consistently screws up may in fact be being handled poorly and the handler may need to revisit their training .I feel people make excuses for their lack of in put into training their dogs -if you feel you have lost consistently or seen this it might be you that needs to change their view on whose dog is better than another's --I fail to have a problem with it personally --what would you all suggest is better given our poor game areas and numbers and ability to run live game trials ???
This was said to me by a very knowledgeable and able Dog person and I agree with 100%
I am constantly amazed by the attitude of people who don’t trial with respect to dogs who do. Every P&S dog who has been titled in NZ game trials (and I certainly would NOT claim this for pigeon trials) is a hunting dog. They are work-bred hunting dogs who have been taught manners and proven they can perform to a high standard in a public arena on WILD birds. There may well be better dogs out there, but we will never know unless they compete.
Where do folk get the idea that you can win game trials (or braced pigeon trials for that matter) by being mediocre and doing no wrong? You must do a lot right! Judges withhold wins regularly from sub-standard performances. This is in contrast to conventional down-the-line pigeon trials where the dog with the most points wins, regardless of the standard on the day.
There is a minimum standard in down the line as well. A dog must score at least a 75 to get a challenge point. It has been withheld many times.Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
that is a good thing then as it doesn't allow challenge point wins for sub standard work which would be undermining our ability to say we have high standards amongst our working dogs
Either you and I have different perceptions of mediocre, or I hadn't explained that properly. Ruff hit it on the head, how can a consistently great gamefinder who makes a mistake and is out worse than a mediocre gamefinder who gets the nod because he made no mistakes? Rewarding the handler, not the breeder.Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
Quoting other people without naming them means nothing...Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
Short answer - your dogs ok your not that's how
It is utter folly to base your breeding programme on a competition base...especially when the competition format has small or miniscle numbers involved as it is in this country...if there were entries of 40 plus dogs it might make some difference...in the meantime, any breeder with even only a couple of neurons synapsing happily will know that conformation, type, prey drive, stamina, courage yardy yardy yardy are really what allows a breed to sustain itself and to endure..
?? What better view would you have than being able to see the potential dogs work and be handled --pretty good place to begin and end i would think -your going to see more working dogs at comps than anywhere else.And to boot most come from great working lines
So watching a whole heap of other breeds of dogs is going to teach me what about my breed...?
A competition may show case your dog's qualities, but it will never be the competition which put those qualities into the bloodlines.
If its one run at trials yes if not best of luck
The dogs make a trial, the trial doesnt make the dogs.
point was at trials if your breed is well represented you get to make good opinions on the dogs -how well they work and handle all in one place --hard to do that anywhere else .Most tend to have a solid line behind them also. what breed do you have
i see its a Brittany! ive never seen one work
Epagneul Breton...aka French Brittany
But trial results can and should shape a breed and is the best place to get an overview of the breed.Quote:
Originally Posted by EeeBees
I used to have a similar view as Victoria regarding competitive types of Trials…..that was until I entered one. While I am a firm believer of ‘Test’ type evaluations as opposed to ‘Trial’, there is a tremendous amount of benefit to be had from running in competative Trials. However, they should never be the sole determining factor in breeding selection.
Often, running a good dog against a mediocre one will mean the good dog doesn’t put on much of a show. Rather, it just does what it needs to in order to get by. But if you run two good dogs against each other, and you will see the better one lift it’s game and really shine. A lot of the Specialists seem to do this naturally, but my GWP took a while to realise what it needed to do in order to become competitive. Ryen’s Quinn is probably the best example I’ve seen of a Versatile that really chomps at the bit to get out there and do the business.
my Setter has been no different after a 7 year lay off of trialing -it wasnt quite sure how big to run especially in ground with very low cover but is now growing to understand .Most dogs that trial are reasonable -not all ! Often youll compare the dog for its benefits in its work and certainly not against a flop beside it that is pissing around .
From my past trialing days over 10 years ago the standard was good for most but still only one can win and that is the dog that shows the best work "on the day" . My own dog has started out in a good fashion in the trials but yesterday cleared a creek in our park of anything with feathers and certainly didnt stop to point or listen to my whistle -the little shit
ElB you write
Most dogs that trial are reasonable
I do not want to breed gundogs that are just reasonable ...it is no good them being reasonable for 15 to 20 odd minutes...
reasonable means they're not crap and quite acceptable .You may well want to breed super dogs but do you have the lines to breed to that are great and how many are you going to breed to get those dogs ?? Where will you prove them ?Im sure when you arrive at your finish dogs well see them but until then im sure they'll be "reasonable"
In the case of the versatiles, trials performance isn't the only thing that should shape the breed as their job entails more than just bird work but I definitely think it's important as an evaluation tool.
Thanks. I'm waiting to see if his pups have the same kind of drive.Quote:
Originally Posted by gqhoon
If you don;t run them against known quantities how do you know they are anything more than reasonable?Quote:
Originally Posted by EeeBees
Always an exciting time.Quote:
Originally Posted by RCGSP
Sigh. So long as your mutt isn't half pug put the work in and it will preform to a degree.
The breeding the breeding the breeding. But only to a point. If you don't put the work into them then they are all just a mutt, maybe a good mutt, but just a mutt. Some have a bit of inbuilt for some thing's but not other thing's, yet they can learn IF you know how to show them what you want.
Then you've got to get along with them and sync with them, which at times is way more then any breeding or anything else has to do with it.
A bad trainer can wreak the best breed dog there is.
The better bred the dog the easier they are to train and develop into a hunting dog and the easier they are to "sync" with.
breeding for bidability is very important if you want easier trained dogs.
temperament is fundamental to the scheme of things...Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
Absolutely!Quote:
Originally Posted by Wirehunt
as long as your realistic about the dogs temperament and potential I would agree with you wirehunt but to what level this dog can achieve compared to better breed animals will probably go untested and only ever end up a rural myth if its half good !Quote:
Originally Posted by Wirehunt
How do you mean realistic...if the dog has a iffy temperament...its a fact, no need to be realistic about it...it is either of good temperament or not. I am however still caught up with the reasonable term...do you not think that the rough shooter, well some of us anyway, want a very high standard of work in the field from our dogs, just as we would in a trial...if you have dogs possessed and totally driven in their work, I cannot see reasonable as being a good enough level...a very high standard of work, I correct myself, a focused, intense portrayal of their prey drive, with an acknowledged connection with the handler...I for one would not mind in the least my dog being the subject of a rural myth.Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
Let your results speak for you
I do...Quote:
Originally Posted by el borracho
then you probably got a reasonable dog