about training for field trial skills?

This seems to be a "juicy" topic. However, the question poses the ongoing problem of having opinions about something most don't do. Carrying this one step further, opinions are tempered by a personal paradigm.

Therefore, since the discussion parameters are wide open, I would venture to say most will feel field trial training is unnecessary for hunting.

Is there any value in field trial training as it relates to hunting? How about as it relates to pointing Labs?

Jim it seems to me that the FT training is very helpful in a hunting situation. It is great to be able to rely on the dog to execute multiple marks and blind retrieves at reasonable distances. My thinking has always been that the FT's have become very extreme particularly in distance because there is a need to thin out the ranks to declare champions and this would never be achieved at typical hunting distances. The breed is just too good-they would almost all pass! I my self almost exclusively hunt upland. Even so there are occasional blinds involved although not much past say 75 yrds. All in all I think the FT training is good and useful in the PL and certainly cheer on any PL handler makig a run in the nationals! GDG as they say

Like you mentioned in another post, if a dog can handle FT marks and blinds, then a hunt should be a walk in the park. As far as training to that level, I would love to, but there is no way. It's not that I don't want to learn, it's that I don't have the facilities to do so. I believe that anyone can train a MH with a couple golden farm ponds and fields, along with a good dog of course. FT's however require much more. It's hard enough to find one re-entry, let alone two or three, not even counting a good stretch of land before they even get to the water.

I need to move closer to you!

Jay

I think that some field trial training is valuable for hunt tests and hunting. Particularly for getting dogs running at long distances.

I am an archery hunter, who rarely takes a shot over 30 yards, most are at 20 yards. Yet before the season, I practice archery out to 60 yards. Why? Because the challenge of nailing the target consistently at that distance makes me more intense and I have to concentrate at a much higher level. The challenge brings out the best in me. When I come back to practiice at 20 - 40 yards, its seem much easier and I have much more confidence in my abilities.

Now to dogs: Zeke loves the challenge of running 250 yard marks, it makes him concentrate at a much higher level, and the challenge brings out the best in him. We consistently run pattern blinds that are 200-300 yards in distance. I will also run cold blinds at that distance at different points in our training.

This hunting season, Zeke had 2, 250 yard blind retrieves. He was used to the distance, it was no problem and he looked good doing it. The majority of birds were 50 yarders, no brainers. The point it, I think it is important to train for that 1 or 2 birds a year that will really stretch your dog, even if you dont plan on running field trials.

Just my .02 cents.

Zeke

At first, I wanted basically what you would call a “Meat Dog”. The FT and Hunt test skills weren’t really important to me. I wanted the dog to find birds and put them in the bag. As a time went on, and in certain situations arose, I needed more from him. More in the area of casting and blind retrieves.

I taught him casting at the age of 5-6 and wish I would have much earlier.

I believe that FT skills are almost necessary if you plan to hunt wild game, especially waterfowl.. The ability to mark multiple birds, take casts through cover, have the ability to pass on a dead Mallard floating in the water 30yrds off the blind, in plain sight and go after the wounded bird that is heading for cover at 150yrds. Wounded geese will sometimes sail easy-200-300yrds.
Skills like that save game and make the hunting experience a little more enjoyable.

I agree with Jay though, to train a dog to that level would require life changing events to happen first. Facilities, recourses and time, are not there for me.

I am blessed to live just miles from Chichaqua and blessed with a group of knowledgeable ameteurs that train for field trials. I can say that their standard for work is extremely high!! This has helped me with my first dog that I have had, and yes I will run her in field trials! We are already running the informal club trials in my area and doing pretty well. I can say that the field trialers are the extreme end of the retrieving game, and they expect alot out of their dogs, atleast the ones I know.

The dog is nearly 20 months old, will run some derbies and hunt tests this summer. She at her age can run triples with the long guns at over 250 yards, and we routinely run singles at 400 yards. She is a great marker, and she can do the work. Without their help or knowledge I would have never thought a dog, let alone one this young could do the work.

In closing I would say field trial training, has been a huge benefit to my lab!

I dont see Field trials emualting a day in the field. Worse I dont see even the slightest attempt to do so. Many tasks ask the dog to ignore its instincts, Bank running, using its nose on blinds etc. I have a high regard for the level of trainig it takes to be a FT dog, but mnay questions as to how this makes a better hunting dog. The ability to mark an remember multiple falls is the main benefit I can see to the hunting dog. A crucial task the labs should excell at is trailing and bringing to hand cripples. Where is it in the modern day HT's and FT's?

Great question.

First of all, a dog gets better when it practices and gets exposure. However, what kind of potential should a dog have to begin with? I would think an excellent nose, intense drive and the ability to figure things out would be important.

Let's look at each of those three traits as they relate to a talented field trial performer. The ability to figure things out is the easiest one to agree on. Any dog that excells in field trials has a tremendous capacity to figure things out and has a knack for remembering "stuff". The drive issue should, also, be rather apparant. Keep in mind field trial dogs do the things they do because they get high on it. The best are generally easy to train which makes success more attainable. There is a common misconception they do it because they have to.

The third issue is the most common anti-field trial argument. These dogs are expected to ignore their noses, and those that have poor noses do better. For example, they are not allowed to hunt on cold blinds......if they do......they loose. They are not allowed to pick up a poison bird.....first. They get in trouble with the trainer when they get "sucked" back to an old fall because of their nose. And the "biggy", the winners step on marks and don't need a nose.

With all this "ammunition", it is clear that field trial dogs are not nose orientated and therefore would be at a disadvantage in learning to trail and search out cripples. This creates an assumption that there is a genetic nightmare in the making. In addition, there is no testing on this skill. Those are the "facts".....or are they?

Kwicklabs, I would say that your third issue is one I do not agree on. Allowing to a dog to hunt in an area of a blind is not acceptable for lots of reasons. One if you can handle him to the area of a blind he should not have to hunt it, and if he decides to go against his trainer and hunt the area isn't that a more of a trainablitly issue if he has been trained correctly on poinson birds.

Field trial dogs have to as you say "get high" to run the long marks or run long challenging blinds, I believe this is caused by a huge prey drive and an immense drive to please the handler, and be incredable trainable. If we are saying that field trial dogs are creating a "genetic nightmare" I would say we are hugely mistaken. They are world class athletes, and they do know the difference in a trial or a hunting situation. They are intelligent enough even my young dog knows the difference!

I would say that hunt tests, field trials, or hunting are all good tests for dogs, but hunt tests and trials put the dogs ability on paper whether it is a standard or a competetiion. Alot of people claim they have a great hunting dog without ever seeing great dogs work. So by in large by doing hunt test or trials, you can put your dogs abiltiy to the test, and they have hunt tests AKC,UKC, APLA, or NARHA to test the attributes of your dogs. Every dog should be able to show what in can do in any of those arenas. So I guess what I am getting at is take the dog to the an event and show what they can do whatever it is.

Iowa Hunter, we are in agreement. The paragraph presents what I feel are misconceptions. Hence the question - I guess the "or are they?" didn't clarify the intent of the comments. Sorry about that.

Interestingly, there are hunting dog breeders making big money using the Iowa Hunter said, A lot of people would not agree with that.......I am not one of them. Well said.

This is a cool discussion. I don't see an argument here however, on any front. Field trial dogs have to have great noses, you can't run a 450 yard retired memory mark if you don't have a keen ability to locate the bird once you get even anywhere close. They aren't supposed to always invoke the nose, but when they do, it needs to be efficient and effective. Always been confusion there, but I still have never seen it in action.

Hunt tests and especially field trials have evolved to something that does not remotely simulate hunting, even though the old write-ups still contain wording to that effect. I see the setups my husband does sometimes and just shake my head. Then I go run my upper level dogs on most of them. Not to prepare them for hunting, but test out various skills and the limits of the skills I have tried to refine on them. Only hunting makes good hunting dogs, not field trials, hunt tests or time at a trainers unless they are hunting the dogs in practice.

I've kind of looked at field trials like car racing. Nobody needs a car with that much horsepower, that expensive, with that kind of torque and speed and all the other stuff. We can all get to the grocery store or the movies or to Grandma's in something entirely different. But for those with a love of it, it is a passion. Engines can be made to drive like that, cars can be designed to run like that and drivers can learn to drive them to their limit without killing themselves.... part of what people love to do.

Interesting. Dogs need to have certain abilities that can be developed in order to perform certain tasks or play certain games. You cant develop what is not in there no matter what expecatation you have for them. There are traits found in field trial dogs that can easily be applied to hunting situations. My observation is that dogs get good at what they spend the most time training for or doing. You take the average competitive field trial dog and spend as much time daily, weekly, monthly learning how to hunt birds for a living as they do at their jobs and I would suggest they would get very , very good at it. On the other hand take a good hunting dog out of his typical training enviornment or the job he has learned, and start training for competive events like field trials and what would you expect to see. Depends on the dog, but I would suggest that not as many of them could make the transition from hunter to competitive dog.

The race car is a good analogy. Another one is planes. Sometimes I like to fly an F22 fully loaded with smart bombs. Other times I just want to sit in a Cessna 180 and enjoy the scenery. Some people should take the F22 for a spin sometime if they have not before. Especially in the field hunting. It might change their perspective on some things?

Gary

Way COOL --Gary,, Otter points them on the ground with his GPS collar and you come in with a "Heat seeking Pheasant missile" (HSPM) at Mach 2-- whoa
<<<<-----"Otter Dog"

I like to take a spin in your F22, Gary --- I have plenty of (180) tailwheel time...

All jokes aside, good discussion guys..

I would say that if field trial is what you are into then do it. But there is very little need for the training in actual hunting scenarios. In the past two years I have had 1 time when I wished that my dog knew how to do a 300yd blind. Instead I walked out with the dog and handled him from closer. I have never been in a situation when my dogs needed to do 2 300yd blinds, and do a triple at a 1/4 mile. A dog usually only needs to be able to do SH skills to do everything that is normally needed while hunting. But if that is your deal then do it

Sure nice to hear this come from a pro. We closed out a great season yesterday. Not sure of the bird tally yet, but we spent 41 days hunting this season. Zero birds lost, numerous multiple retrieves, two retrieves in the 250 yard plus range that both included land, water and ice. Pi learns something new on each outing. Diving ducks, running ducks, river currents, ice, remaining motionless when they are circling the decoys, sneaking up to jump shoot. She spots them at a distance much greater than I can, quite often behind me or to either side. How the heck would you or could you possibly train for any of those situations other than hunting a bunch?

There is no way I could spend the time needed to train a dog for FT’s and spend 41 days hunting and have any time left for fishin or keep my wife from leaving me. Best of luck to those of you competing and hats off for the time and dedication needed to succeed!



Initial thoughts were why would it be easier to transition a FT dog, to a hunting dog, vs the other way around? You’re probably right Gary and would love to hear why you think so.

It is interesting to watch a topic slide off the orginal premise. Field trials set up situations which do NOT look like hunting. Therefore, the misconception is that talented field trial dogs are far removed genetically from what is desireable in a hunting dog.

You do NOT have to train at field trial levels to have an excellent hunting dog. However, the genetic desire, drive, "smarts", trainability and nose of top field trial retrievers IS related to having an excellent hunting dog.

Here's a simple question (or two). In studying many of the pointing Labs' pedigrees back a few generations, why are there generally FC genetics? Did the breeders want FC traits in their hunting dogs and why? and if these "hunting" focused breeders bred to emphasize just certain traits related to being a good hunting dog, what might those DIFFERENT traits be?

The original question was "Is there ANY value in field trial training as it relates to hunting?" The hunting dog does not need those advanced skills, but genetically speaking there is significant value in selecting traits which make for a good hunter.

Another issue with FT and HT bred dogs that I think is often missed is proper conformation that will allow a dog to go all day in the field. FT dogs arent asked to extend theselves physcially like a hunting dog is. There are PLENTY of FC's out there that arent put together prpoperly for an all day hunt. They have the heart but not the proper equipment.

I would venture to say that the FT and AKC HT guys are largley responsible for the lab as a breed having a distinct "lack of a nose". Anyone who owns one of the true pointing breeds know what Im talking about. My shorthairs both posess better noses than any lab I have ever seen by a wide margin. There are always exceptions but thats just it, they are exceptions. The Lab should have a much better nose that what is being bred now and one of the main reasons are the numerous shortcomings in our current testing.

Not sure there is a misconception Jim at least not on my part. All of my dogs have come from FT stock, pointers and my lab. I don't remember genetics as part of your original question or post??? Which was, "Is there any value in field trial training as it relates to hunting? How about as it relates to pointing Labs?" Since no one has offered up the value in field trail traing as it relates to hunting. What is your take on it? From your post I assume you feel it is of value and not sure where you are going with this or where you want it go.

What I was expecting was agreement in the fact that training to field trial skill levels is unnecessary for hunting dogs, and then searching for ANY VALUE as it relates to hunting might bridge the gap to genetics. Clearly it didn't.

I was looking for the recognition that some train and develop superior dogs so that there might be better hunting dogs. The question was not a gem.

Well, I'm kinda slow....I agree training to field trial skill levels is unnecessary for hunting dogs. I also agree those that train and develop superior dogs help to ensure that meat hunters have the best package available.

Ironically most hunters looking for a pointer or a setter shy away from FT bred dogs. With the thought they are too "hot", or too much dog for them. Reality is there may be 1 may even 2 pups out of a FT bred pointer or setter litter that will make it in FT's the rest will probably make fine hunting dogs.

It may be different in the retriever FT world and litters. Since I have no knowledge in the FT retriever world, will leave that up to those that have.

Still not sure where the gap in genetics is????

Since the discussion parameters are wide open, it really didn't slide off the original premise or I missed it...