Successful trainers' commonalities ?

[Judy]

Presumably he means one he can win Trials with? Most of us mean one that gets down and dirty doing the job it was bred for, preferably without embarrassing the handler too much on the way.

[WGD]

I think he was simply saying that a good trainer is somebody who can consistently produce good dogs.

It really doesn't have to be any more complicated than that... does it???

[Judy]

Only if you don't discard any...

So, what's the commonality, other that being able to pick and choose what dogs you train?

[newf]

Only if you don't discard any...

So, what's the commonality, other that being able to pick and choose what dogs you train?

Good one Judy !

[scot-ish]

Only if you don't discard any...

So, what's the commonality, other that being able to pick and choose what dogs you train?

doesnt everyone have that option? you choose the breeding you pick the pup from, you pick a pup from lines you have experience with, and have had success training.

[Contender]

Only if you don't discard any...

So, what's the commonality, other that being able to pick and choose what dogs you train?

doesnt everyone have that option? you choose the breeding you pick the pup from, you pick a pup from lines you have experience with, and have had success training.

The difference is that many 'top triallers' will retain whole litters and place the puppies with trusted people for the first 12 months. Typically, a first 'cut' will be made around 6 months and then a final at 12 months. They're in the business of making up FTCH's and they're very good at it but they do this from a super, professional business way - you can easily see the similarities if you compare to professional horse trainers You can't argue with their results as I think they speak for themselves if you're looking purely on the number of made up FTCH's. From a business point of view, a 'problem' dog is a complete waste of time so it will never see the 'cut' ..


Natasha

[crackerd]

The difference is that many 'top triallers' will retain whole litters and place the puppies with trusted people for the first 12 months. Typically, a first 'cut' will be made around 6 months and then a final at 12 months. They're in the business of making up FTCH's and they're very good at it but they do this from a super, professional business way - you can easily see the similarities if you compare to professional horse trainers You can't argue with their results as I think they speak for themselves if you're looking purely on the number of made up FTCH's. From a business point of view, a 'problem' dog is a complete waste of time so it will never see the 'cut' ..

Natasha, that overview, especially starting with "They're in the bidness," almost has a 'Merican capitalistic ring to it. But that's as applies to professional retriever trainers, of whom there's a preponderance in the US. The difference is, very good amateur trainers will often get the best pups from a litter and work toward FTCh training their own dogs. Another difference is, the pros who get the best pedigreed puppies to play with are usually given two years' training time before a determination is made between the pro and owner on "washing out" the dog. That's a business decision too - as is the subsequent sale of the "wash-out" as a "duck dog" for anywhere between $5K-$10K (which won't even come close to recouping the owner's investment in professional training for his or her "would've been" FTCh).

Back on topic: As far as "commonalities" of successful trainers, seems to me that's someone who can continually learn from his or her dogs and also teach those dogs through patience, encouragement and the "read" of her or his charge with the foreknowledge that no two dogs are alike.

MG

[trekmoor]

I can only say that I like the breeder I buy from to have done 90% or more of the work involved in producing a good gun dog for me. All I want to have to do is to take off the rough edges from the natural diamond I buy and then add a few frills and fripperies of various forms of obedience to the pup.

If I really had to train a complete non retriever to retrieve from scratch then I could do it, I did it in the far past, but now I'd simply give the pup to a good pet home. I could not train a non hunter to hunt though .....hunting is such a natural thing it cannot actually be taught......not in a way that makes a dog look keen. I could train a non-hunter to quarter but that is not the same as hunting.

Good trainers can "see" which pups have a strong inclination to hunt and/or retrieve "naturally" and if those pups are likely to be reasonably straightforward in regard to their general personalities then those pups are more likely to become gundogs most of us would want to own.

If the "good trainer" has a strong interest in trialing then he will want the cream of the better pups to work with/on and will reject the other "lesser" good dogs. Trialers go trialing to win so they do what it takes to win.

............In the world of field trialing another word for good could be mediocre.

Wullie

[High On]

Time, patience, consistency and also very important, reading the dog, grounds, wind and game are factors. You must have a dog with the required qualities needed to play the game. Not all will meet the needed criteria. One thing you must consider is the pack hierarchy, for if you are not at the top the dog is. The pros can usually tell what a dog is going to do before they do it. This comes from the experience of training and handling many dogs. Something most amateurs never get. Amateurs do have the advantage of spending more time with one dog. To date my best trial dog only came out of the kennel for training or trials and she became a Field Champ, Amateur Field Champ and Master Hunter. She also completed the National Open, and the National Amateur with a CM. Some observations I have made over time.

[Springfield Pointers]

One thing you must consider is the pack hierarchy, for if you are not at the top the dog is.

Not sure I'd agree totally with that.