There have been so many comments about dogs trained to stand game recently that I think we should at least put such things in perspective.

I have been involved with the APLA since 2004. In that time I have watched hundreds of dogs run upland either as a handler or as a judge - generally attending most or all of the mid-west tests each season. I have seen a huge improvement in the overall quality of dogs in the past 7 years. Many of the "stand-out" dogs when I first started watching this stuff would now be considered just "ok" or even considered mediocre compared to what I see running at ALL LEVELS today.
 
From what I see, these dogs are getting better.  The group of dogs I see that are litterally taking this performance to a "different level" is getting larger.  No longer one or two standouts in a test with most "ok" and a few real pigs.  Now I see tests where most of the field goes out and rocks it. 

We are getting better and WE SHOULD want to continue that.  Process improvement involves looking hard at where you are not performing and fixing it.  We have areas we need to work on.  Judges need to score all categories including desire, search and control. 

Many things are possible in training animals. I am sure it is possible to train dogs to do a lot of things but some of this is just not PRACTICAL .  I think most of what we see that bothers us is when a dog has weak point (not "no" point) and is trained in a high pressure manner to pass tests.  Jere can bring up all the sophisticated possiblities in the world but the reality is that the problem, (IMO), is much simpler than that.  Jim, in answer to your question - those dogs dont point wild birds.  They are heavily pressured into a high control bird contact on preserve birds to pass a test. That does not translate into a disposition to point and "work" wild birds, so the question of whether it matters if it is a natural or trained point in hunting is sort of a non-issue.  IF the dog trained to hold with a high pressure program HUNTS then it is generally as a game-pursuing flusher.  Nothing wrong with a good flusher but dont represent it and breed it as a PL.

I think it is good that we have these discussions on how to improve what we are doing, passing, certifying, breeding.  However people come on here to learn about PL's and I dont want to give the impression that it is a low-odds crap shoot to get a good dog ( the exact impression given by some in order to make their points).  Actually, I see a huge improvement in performance of these dogs and there are MANY, MANY opportunities out there for those new to the PL to verify the performance of these dogs and have an excellent home and versatile hunting partner.

THANKS bsmiley and Richard. VERY informative!



Best,
Jim

Very nice thought. While something may be in the realm of possibility does not mean it is very probable.

Jim, my only issue with your dont buy from the first litter theory is that where do those puppies go? It would be nice if a breeder could keep all of the pups from the first litter, raise them right, train them right and then sell them all as started dogs, but again, not very practical. The good thing with dogs is the probability of the characteristics of the parents passing to the pups are good. If you like the parents, the chances are good that youll like the pup.

Where do the puppies go? To some other buyer than me! (-: But I DO agree that if both the parents are great the offspring are highly likely to be as well. I just think that a 2nd+ litter of the same parents just makes the odds even better. Of course one major issue is that the VAST majority of offspring...even from highly titled parents are never even entered into Tests/Trials and unfortunately I think...exit the gene pool because it's hard to breed a non-titled male or because of what I think it the excessive castration rate. On that last point...RE: testicular cancer...the treatment is castration and is HIGHLY successful in terms of the dog's life expectancy...if caught early which it OUGHT to be. Cody will remain in tact in hopes that his breeder (who offered to buy him back after his first 3 month training cycle) will get him breed. That is about the only way to get the job done since I don't plan to take Cody beyond the SH and CPR designations so he won't appear...on paper anyway...to be a "superstar" that bitch owners would seek out. So far, he hasn't exhibited any excessively undesirable "male" characteristics and there is a growing amount of research arguing against too-early castration...if at all...with one of the major issues being asymmetric skeletal growth as a result of castration. Best, Jim

Repeat breeding, more of the same even if quite good ? Breeding to improve includes a lot of folks that don't think you should repeat....I am not one, but makes you think !
Sounds like another thread, and for the breeders forum...: )

Posted By Maximillion on 20 Dec 2011 03:17 PM

Posted By av84fun on 19 Dec 2011 09:42 PM
THANKS bsmiley and Richard. VERY informative!



Best,
Jim


Jim and others, let me add one thing here, For one of those dogs I saw earlier this year, and after talking to the owner and giving some guidance, he has stopped whoa her and has let her return to pointing natural. Only fault in this,the owner thought he was doing good by using whoa as she got birdy. She is looking good now and she does have a very nice natural point also for a brown dog . I should have clarified my earlier post to mention the dogs did point and when they held it they were very nice points, but the dogs were getting bold as they do, and the owners didn't know how to correct it, once told of one way, the dogs are good now. Hope this helps
 

Right Richard. I side with the school of thought that the hunter should keep his mouth shut when the dog is on point. I had Cody whoa trained and have kept up the reinforcement of that command in hopes of getting him to hold his position AFTER the flush. I shout WHOA at the flush as I'm mounting the gun and today at least...it worked fine. Best, Jim

How about this for another angle on this topic???

I have heard the term "standing game" many times be bantered about, just as is happening in this thread, but, can anyone tell me they have or they know someone that has trained a dog to do that?? I suspect not! To suggest that doing so would be necessary for a given dog must mean that dog must be a natural flusher, so why would anyone try to turn a flusher into a "stander". If you tell me that it is easy, then please also tell me that you have done it and further explain why you did. Was it so you could enjoy watching your natural flusher stop on scent and look confused and/or look around at you with no nature-driven freeze whatsoever... seems doubtful!! Was it so you could enter that awsome stander in CPR, APR, MPR and GMPR pointing tests and fool those judges, so everyone will want to breed to your stander in hopes they will get an awesome litter of natural pointers.... again, seems doubtful! That would surely be a very short breeding career wouldnt it!

I will submit that there may never have been even one single natural flushing dog that was intentionally trained as a stander and entered into any APLA tests as a real natural pointer! For the reasons above,I think it just illogical to attempt to do so.

Here is what I do think is really happening....

Staunchness of natural point, or lack there of, is being confused with a dog having been trained to stand.

So why does a natural pointer display less than desireable staunchness? I can think of two reasons. First, Its NATURE!! Why is one cheetah faster than another? In Nature, one should expect natural variation. Second, inappropriately applied training techniques. I believe even the staunchest young pointer can be made to look tentative and robotic if too much pressure or just improperly timed pressure is applied.

The very nature of these versitile dogs means we expect them to play well in both arenas, upland and retrieving, which brings about much complexity in the merging of those two worlds and requires a sophistocated and delicate training approach. That is why, IMO, specialized PL trainers exist and books and DVDs are being created. Send a PL to a pointer or retriever trainer that does not know PLs and you are likey to have compromised results on one side or the other (pointing or retrieving).

Considering the above, then, to me, the question becomes should staunchness of point be graded. I would say at CPR no... but APR and MPR, yes with increasing weighting as one moves up. This would ensure that only the strongest natural pointers get the higher titles, as well as, help to improve the training side. If a training issue was the root cause of a failure for a dog that did once have a strong point, that could potentially be fixed, but, a weak genetic point could not be fixed with any training.

In case my meaning was not clear, I do not believe that any dogs are being taught to stand game. I do believe there is natural variation in intensity of point and poor training may be reducing the intensity of some strong pointers. I am not saying that dogs with more drive to flush than instinct to point are not being entered into a CP test by a hopeful owner, that surely happens. I believe those dogs will appropriately fail. Just because a dog does not show a super strong/intense point, that does mean the dog is standing game. More likely, it is either a dog with a weaker instinct to point or the dog's point has been compromised by some training flaw. Doesn't, in my opinion, at least mean the dog is not worthy of a CP title (perhaps not APR though).

I have read many stories about english pointers and GSPs not pointing at all. Why would that be? Just the extreme of the natural variation.

http://dobbsdogs.com/library/retrievers/rj27.html

Just something I found

I suppose that the Dobbs giving advice on how to get a flusher to stand game presumes that they've done it. But I agree with RL to the extent I can't imagine WHY anyone would do it.



As a newbie pointing dog guy I have never seen any research suggesting that pointers produce more game than flushers...although I hasten to add that pointers might excel on CERTAIN types of upland game but not on King Pheasant...as far as I know.



I got a PL mostly because I felt that the best lab litter near me at the time we wanted to buy one happened to be for PL breeding. But I have come to really ENJOY the style and elegance of a locked up point. So, in my mind it is the VISUAL aspects of hunting over a pointer that is what it is all about (for me) and to teach a flushing lab to stand game would not provide that visual beauty or create any other characteristic of any value that I can imagine.



There are SO many things to do in maximizing the skills of Labs, I think it would be a colossal waste of time to teach standing to game.

regards,

Jim

The preserve I go to has started training labs to stand game, they call it pointing. All I have done is politely correct them and say all they have done is teach the dog/s to stand game.
Will we see any of these dogs at an APLA test? No and I know that for certain.

The type of training you mentioned at your preserve is a big reason why people ask "how do you train your labs to point". It also breeds nonbelievers with good reason. Keep correcting the uninformed Rich and let your dog back it up.