Question for the masses

[HuntinCosta]

none of us are professional trainers except BDM. You're really taking this way to personal. The best advice anyone can give you on here is that if you're going to breed your pup get her hips and elbows ofa certified and pick a proven stud that is also ofa hip and elbow certified. we are all for the improvement of each breed. we dont care how you train, but no one wants anyone else knocking on their way of training. we choose to train our dogs in the way we do and we understand the importance of handling with whistle and hand signals for our own personal benefits. We dont shock our dogs. If you would read some books on training an e collar is not for shocking it is for training with pressure, not to punish the dog. We understand our dogs and what it takes to train them to a certain level. we dont care that you dont agree with it and it interferes with your hunting. we arent professionals we just like to hunt and train our personal dogs.

[HuntinCosta]

and trust me, we are ordinary duck hunters with ordinary dogs.

[Candor]

Originally posted by RCH:
Candor, How would you know if i don't enjoy having puppies. Are u saying that u are a proffesional and only you can breed and train dogs that are acceptable for others to buy. ...

Lighten up RCH...you are taking comments personally when they weren't meant that way. You are even assuming that I think only I should breed. Maybe before you start down your assumptions and trying to run others down you should check your basis. I don't breed for the reasons I mentioned.

I didn't run you down in any way. If you want to start a battle on any of these issues have at it my friend. I assure you I know these issues of which I speak very well. No where in my post did I say you wouldn't enjoy having pups. I gave you my opinion of what having pups is...a pain.

I have asked you several times why you want to breed. That is the crux of the issue IMO. Is it because you want to raise a litter of pups, you don't want to spend the money on a new pup, you feel like you have superior genetics that need to be passed on? Which is it?

And whistle training is superior. If you want to argue it tell me why it is not. When a dog is whistle trained you have all of the tools of a non-whistle trained dog plus more. You choose to use them judiciously, when it is appropriate and when it is not. It may not be necessary for everyone to have their dog trained to that level.

Just like an 1187 is a good shotgun but a Berretta 391 is a superior automatic to the Remington. The Remington may be fine for most folks but the Berretta is a better gun...whether you need that "better" or not.

Ease up a bit....

[ACC/Boykin]

Whistles in the marsh "are" anoying, especially some nut that has to blow on his five or six times every time the dog goes out. The quickest retrieve possible is an asset in a hunting situation so a well placed whistle and quick blind is preferable. But, Take a dog that will run the bank back from a retrieve. In a hunting situation the dog has adapted and found the quickest route back to the blind but in a HT situation this would get him point deductions maybe even fail him. Point is what works for a hunt test might not be whats best in a hunting situation. And yes I have run the HT game many times so Im not just speaking blindly and taking sides. Differen't people have differen't expectations and needs when it comes to a hunting dog.

RCH, I have seen titled dogs I wouldn't breed and I have seen hunting dogs I wouldn't breed. To me it's about the individual dog if it can hunt, fit into my surroundings(family etc if it's well mannered and can do what I expect of it in a hunting situation if he is a genuinely proven hunter then I can't see a problem in breeding this dog. Only after he has had and passed the proper health clearances however. Hips,eyes,heart and elbows. Seems like a lot but everyone wants to better the breed, hunters and HT people alike not take away from it. Breeding a dog that has not been tested or has been tested and has been found to have health problems is doing the breed a real diservice and harm. Hunter or hunt tester. The bitch should have all the neccessary health evaluations as well.

[ACC/Boykin]

And candor as far as your Remington/benelli comparison, that's bold talk from a bald four eyed fat man.

[Fish]

This is laughable. Another hothead that dosen't know anything about messin with dogs and who takes EVERYTHING personally. Thats just what we need around here. Go ahead, get jacked up and say something else stupid. Puleeeez.

I've got two words for you RCH. Reading comprehension.

[NUTZ]

I can vouch for RCH's dog. She is a fine bitch that is a pleasure to hunt with. She has great drive and a very desirable temperament.

If her hips check out, I think she would be a fine dog to breed.

[Huntlabs]

Wow, such an emotional issue about breeding. Let me try it from another point of view. You asked about problems with a pup and Mom. There are several that you need to consider. 1st She will always try to dominate the pup and that could cause problems if you keep them together in the yard vs. in a kennel seperated. The second problem is when she comes in heat you could have pups from a bad breeding, son to mom. Both situations are a hastle. Go with getting your other dog from another source, some have been mentioned. That way you will have only the dominance issue to work out and if an accidental breeding does happen at least you won't have any 3 eyed pups. I have a 4 year old dog and a 16 month old bitch. I just went thru the choices that you are going thru and chose to get my pup from a different source. Good luck with your decision and God Bless. Bob

[Red]

Well I'll be...somebody finally gave an answer.

[2thDoc]

if i may....

I think there is a difference in opinion from the hunt/field trial folks and those that just want a good hunting dog. I have seen plenty of jacked up, funny looking labs that might win a field trial that i sure as hell wouldn't want as a pet. On the flipside, i have seen plenty of poorly trained dogs in the field with little to no obedience.

its just which side of the fence your perspective comes from.

[HuntinCosta]

2th i dont think you understand that the reason why we do hunt tests is so we bring out the best in our hunting companions. The only reason i do hunt tests is to keep me training through out the year so my dog will be a better hunting dog. I run about 10 hunt tests a year and hunt about 60 days a year. My main goal is to have the best trained hunting buddy that i can have within my abilites. My jacked up hunting buddy is asleep at my feet right now. the same one that sleeps in the blind when things get slow.

[mirroman]

To each their own...

[Palmetto Bug]

I'll drop my opinion in here but I'm not aiming at anyone in particular.

I think that only dogs that have proven themselves in a competitive or hunt test environment should even be considered for breeding. The dog breeds we have now are the results of a long history of careful selective breeding programs. They came about by breeding the best to the best. Anything less only muddies the gene pool. In Germany, where many breeds originated, they had what seem like draconian rules for breeding. A potential breeder had to get permission to breed and then once the pups hit the ground, the breed official would come around and might choose one or two from the litter and the rest have to be put down. It sounds drastic but those folks created some great breeds of dogs.

When it comes to breeding, you are either helping the breed or hurting it. There isn't much room in the middle. If you breed average dogs to average dogs, over time you will end up with less a than average breed. In fact, if you put a bunch of dual champion dogs of a single breed on an island, they would eventually breed themselves into curs.

The breeder has to take into account not only field performance but conformation and health issues. Breeding a great field dog that has a propensity towards hip dysplasia hurts the breed. Breeding a perfect looking dog that's dumb as a brick hurts the breed. Breeding a great field dog that happens to have short legs or an underbite or any other deviance from the breed standard hurts the breed. I had a NASTRA champion shorthair with a couple legs towards his Master Hunter that I refused to breed because he had an overbite. I would have loved to have "one of his puppies" but it just wasn't good for the breed.

Everyone thinks their dog is great. Only by letting impartial judges assess your dog can you ever really know if he's extra special. If you think your dog is great, take him to a test and see how he stacks up against others dogs whose owners also think theirs' is great. It will often humble you. But again, even if your dog excels in the tests and trials, his conformation should not be ignored. That's how we have ended up with breeds in which the "hunting dogs" look so different from the "show dogs". Look at any of the setter breeds for glaring examples of this.

I didn't even touch the subject of line breeding. Breeding two dogs that have very disimilar family lines can be a real crapshoot, just like breeding mutts. You may end up with the best dog ever put on the ground but the others in the litter might not be able to find their food bowls. Line breeding helps promote the reliable passing of characteristics from one generation to the next.

The breeds we have won't stay even as good as they are unless we take very seriously our responsibility to better the breed.

You have a MUCH bettter chance of getting a really good dog if you pick one from a litter with PROVEN parents. If you breed your own without taking into account all of the factors that need to be considered, you are hurting the breed.

[2thDoc]

i guess the point i'm trying to make is that those that runs trials think they have the only decent dogs and would never consider a non-field trial dog to be worth a shit.

[RCH]

Hey fish i obviousally hit a spot you always have an opinion. Just trying to get the world turning. Why don't you go back to your ":expertise" on marlin fishing. If i rmember a hot head it was you and your Fish only tournament. Yuo cathin a lot of blues up on green river

[HuntinCosta]

2th ive always respected you, but that comment makes me think you need to get out more, or you've left the gas on to long in the operatin room. anyones dog is capable of doing what my dog or anyone elses dog does. a hunt test is just a way of proving it. a dog is no less capable if he doesnt run a test or trial. any dog is welcome in my blind.

[quackaddict]

If you would read some books on training an e collar is not for shocking it is for training with pressure, not to punish the dog.

so are you saying that e-collars dont shock dogs? elaborate on this if you will...

[Fish]

There it is. [img]graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[2thDoc]

well i'll be damned if i want to lose anyone's respect....but i'm also prone to give my opinion in spite of what others think.

OK. i turned the nitrous off....

its just a "feeling" i get when i visit candor's wonderful retriever forum. it seems that the hardcore trainers/field/hunt test guys think their dogs shit doesn't stink. I did the field trial thing with my last boykin but it seemed that everyone took it so daggum serious that i took the fun out of it. again, from other's perspective, its what makes it fun for them--the competition and the chance to prove that their dog is better than someone else's. I guess I'm just trying to get people to understand that my dog doesn't have to prove anything, nor is he any less of a dog because he doesnt have a ribbon around his neck.

AND--these kinds of debates is what I LIKE about the site...while others say that scducks is just a bunch of bitching and moaning. i guess they can have their opinion, too, but i dont have to agree, do I?

[BrownDog]

2th – You would be wrong in your assumption! I hunt with a friend that lives at Realfoot that has a meet only dog. He is a great Dog. He could never compete in a hunt test or Field trial (By the way there is a BIG difference in a FT and HT dog) but that is not what this dog was trained for. In his ten years he has picked up more duck and geese than most of us will shoot in a lifetime. That is what his owner wanted. For me I will never have a dog that is not trained or being trained to a Hunt Test standard. Let me explain why. Several years back I was hunting in a local pond just north of Columbia. After sending my dog on a downed bird, I noticed something else moving in the water. It was a 7 ft alligator. I had no idea that Alligators had moved that far in. I know now. Had I not had complete control of this dog I would not have been able to call him off a bird he was on his way too? Yes a dog that is not trained for HT can do this and many other things. The key word is trained. HT training just gives me an opportunity to set goals, see progress, and have my dog compete under judgment. If you chose not to run HT or FT with your dog good for you may still have a great dog.