Gundog Training Forum

kelco wrote: I told him that it did not matter how good his dog was(and believe me he is good) his genes will be lost because he cant be mated to and reg bitches(illegitimately ).He is a bastard of his breed!

There is another thread running where a non KC dog without papers is going through the new registration process.... if the dog is that good he can register it now

Polmaise wrote:

Naj wrote:The main problem that I see for the average shooting man is that the first past the post system that we have today encourages outbreeding, because competitors are looking for a bit of a flyer, whereas the shooting man would do better with closer line-breeding, where all pups in a litter are like peas in a pod so you will have a better idea of what you are getting.

Surely that a myopic view naj? there is more to it than just that?...the average shooting man doesn't trial!....or am i missing a point

Whether its the 'main' problem is a moot point, and while the average shooting man might not trial, they'll be getting their dogs from stock that emanates at some level from trial breeding, because most 'shooting dog' breeders dip into trials breeding periodically, at least they used to ... or am I missing a point

Surely the majority of shooting dogs come from trials breeding, either through popular sires or direct from the kennels of trials enthusiasts. It stands to reason that the majority of trials bred dogs are not trialed but go to shooting homes, so there must be many gems out there waiting to be discovered if you dare trust your own judgement & put your eye for a good working dog over the temptation to add more red ink to a pedigree. As for a shortage of stud dogs, presumably you are referring to 'titled' dogs for there must be many good trials dogs that produce consistant, solid performances but never manage to get that last leg up to FTCh. Are these not better prospects than the flash in the pan that is made up in short order & then is never seen again because it is too busy at stud? I suspect that if there were trials for dogs only, then you would see all the usual suspects at the top of them & would be no better off.

Naj wrote:

Polmaise wrote:

Naj wrote:The main problem that I see for the average shooting man is that the first past the post system that we have today encourages outbreeding, because competitors are looking for a bit of a flyer, whereas the shooting man would do better with closer line-breeding, where all pups in a litter are like peas in a pod so you will have a better idea of what you are getting.

Surely that a myopic view naj? there is more to it than just that?...the average shooting man doesn't trial!....or am i missing a point

Whether its the 'main' problem is a moot point, and while the average shooting man might not trial, they'll be getting their dogs from stock that emanates at some level from trial breeding, because most 'shooting dog' breeders dip into trials breeding periodically, at least they used to ... or am I missing a point

Surely the majority of shooting dogs come from trials breeding, either through popular sires or direct from the kennels of trials enthusiasts. It stands to reason that the majority of trials bred dogs are not trialed but go to shooting homes, so there must be many gems out there waiting to be discovered if you dare trust your own judgement & put your eye for a good working dog over the temptation to add more red ink to a pedigree. As for a shortage of stud dogs, presumably you are referring to 'titled' dogs for there must be many good trials dogs that produce consistant, solid performances but never manage to get that last leg up to FTCh. Are these not better prospects than the flash in the pan that is made up in short order & then is never seen again because it is too busy at stud? I suspect that if there were trials for dogs only, then you would see all the usual suspects at the top of them & would be no better off.

Hmmm.?
Agreed the shooting man has always,and still does (and is driven) by the stock that comes from trials.It was the ''encouraging outbreeding'' part that I have obviuosly missed ,as you say thats where all the stock has derived!..therefore is it the lack of 'competition', within the shooting man ,that is missing?
Commercial perspective will fall in to most camps ,but I dont see it in the 'shooting fraternity' (they have other commercial interests), as much as the 'professional breeder/trainer/trialer' fraternity?, as that is their source of income

Maybe too much insistence of Red Ink in dam and sire pedigrees is resulting in some other undesirable factors proliferating as a result of mating.
Epilepsy in particular for example, and I have had personal experience in non gundogs of that, and have now heard of two recent cases in springers.
Most of the gundog handlers I know are pretty evenly split between those who trial and those who do not, that is personal choice but there may be some exceptional working dogs who will never be mated because the owners have no interest in trialling, valuable genes sadly lost to future generations.

There are plenty of good potential stud dogs and breeding bitches out there without any titles. The trouble is it is harder to find them than it is to find FTCH's. A title means someone else has assessed and selected the dog as being a good one, saving you the effort. Sometimes you will be lucky and come across a bitch or dog in the shooting field that is everything you want, you may even see it's offspring on the same day but otherwise you have to take it on faith that the dam of the pups, or the stud advertised is the 'great shooting dog' it is claimed to be...

It sounded like an advertorial when i read it. I am so used to that sort of thing from them There was a lot to say about Trial prefferences influancing the breed more than shooting work, there is cavanous gaps appearing between trial dogs and gundogs most who are first and foremost shooting men / women understand that - but then again the same can be said for Farm sheepdogs and Trialing ones. My mate who sucessfully wins at that game says his trial dogs are ok if you want your sheep back in bunches of five

kent wrote:It sounded like an advertorial when i read it. I am so used to that sort of thing from them There was a lot to say about Trial prefferences influancing the breed more than shooting work, there is cavanous gaps appearing between trial dogs and gundogs most who are first and foremost shooting men / women understand that - but then again the same can be said for Farm sheepdogs and Trialing ones. My mate who sucessfully wins at that game says his trial dogs are ok if you want your sheep back in bunches of five

that is as good as anything i have read in ages,
Rewster

kent wrote:My mate who sucessfully wins at that game says his trial dogs are ok if you want your sheep back in bunches of five

sheep farmer I know said exactly the same thing about a trial dog he bought - great to showboat and pick half a dozen sheep of a hillside a couple of miles away with all your mates watching in the yard but useless for gathering 3 or 4 hundred in the pouring rain when you just want the job done.

Polmaise wrote:[
Hmmm.?
Agreed the shooting man has always,and still does (and is driven) by the stock that comes from trials.It was the ''encouraging outbreeding'' part that I have obviuosly missed ,as you say thats where all the stock has derived!..therefore is it the lack of 'competition', within the shooting man ,that is missing?
Commercial perspective will fall in to most camps ,but I dont see it in the 'shooting fraternity' (they have other commercial interests), as much as the 'professional breeder/trainer/trialer' fraternity?, as that is their source of income

Outbreeding, outcrossing, not breeding between close relatives; call it what you will. If you go back to the beginning of the last century, the big kennels of the day were closely line-bred to what many today would consider as inbred. These days a working pedigree is considered to be line-bred if there is a tie up within the third or fourth generation, which is arguably outcrossing, for the influence of any individual in a pedigree is generally considered to have been watered down to the point of insignificance by the 5th generation. They would cull at the drop of a hat in those days & would likely run on most of their progeny so had more control over their breeding programmes than is common today. Close line breeding produces offspring which are very level in temperament & build, & so there is more consistancy between pups in a litter & the parents, which, for the ordinary shooting man, would take the lottery out of choosing a pup from such a litter, because they would be very much of the same type. I believe that Derry Argue of Tain still line breeds his pointers closely but the last breeder that I know of to do so with spaniels was the late Talbot Radcliffe with his Saightons springers. He bred between close family & then outcrossed every 5th generation to bring in new blood. I once visited his kennels & his dogs were very typey. He eventually bred solely for the American market & was very successful for a time but his line seemed to lose its competetive spark, which was possibly a by-product of 'close' line breeding. This style of breeding is common in show pedigrees. I think this is because if you have a winning dog that comes up to the breed standard then you want to produce more of the same. In field trials you are wanting to produce the opposite, something that makes the dog stand out from the crowd, which 'loose' line-breeding/outcrossing tends to produce. This is an incidental outcome of modern breeding practices. Breeders won't, perhaps, see it in quite these terms but there is a general fear of close breeding due to scare stories of potential genetic defects (& close breeding demands intimate knowledge of bloodlines which many people lack) & the drive to use popular sires to keep up with current trends, which might not always sit well in a pedigree from a genetic perspective. Talented handlers like Halstead Snr & Oppenshaw get around the puppy lottery by developing a system where they handle lots of pups & gradually put them through a sifting process until they whittle them down to those they think are going to make it. Rightly or wrongly, that's my take on it, & it aint going to change the way people breed.

My second paragraph was really aimed at Kelco & Helen's earlier posts.

Just wanted to say that the bitch that featured in this article as the middle dog in the first photo won her first ever field trial today at the tender age of 17 months. She is a mixture of the modern and old blood Jeremy was talking about with Robinsmoor Cherry, Bridevalley Hothead, Rhyw ddu Elen, Trawsgoed Lad, Kenine Robb, and Cheweky Wolf in the 3rd generation.

It's been a great discussion with some good input, I'm glad I started the thread now (I was a bit dubious) and even more glad that it didn't deteriorate! Lots of interesting info and opinions.