Successful trainers' commonalities ?

[Dawnrazor]

The number of dogs a lot of trainers go through has to be in the equation also, I spoke to one professional two years ago, I asked him if he had any youngsters on, nine was his reply!!!
I was speaking to a keeper mate of mine on the phone a couple of nights ago, he's a real good trainer and has trialed springers on and of for about 30 years, he also said that how himself and I "do" our dogs makes success harder, we get a pup or two every year or two and have to fit them in with work. Nick makes a very good point, as usual! about the more challenging dogs finding it hard to get placed, it seems to me, compared to not so many years ago, that you'll win more trials with an average hunter who hunts a very tight pattern and handles really well than you will win with a real hard hunting dog that's taking in a bit more ground and doesn't handle just so precisely. A fine case was Ian Bateson's dog last year, getting about but still well with in range, hitting the bramble but hunting a more ragged pattern, really looking for game rather than hunting in a pretty, precise way, people thought the dog was wild!!!!! People new to spaniel trials, say in the last 10 to 15 years, have seen the tighter hunting and better handling dogs win against harder hunting more natural dogs and this is what we have, I think Will Clulee summed it is really well in The Trialing Spaniel a few months back!!!

[Naj]

But it's judges who are putting up these weaker hunters over the others. On that basis it seems that spaniel trials have gone the way ofvretriever trials and are more a test of the control that the handler has over the dog rather than the quality of the dog as a hunter/gamefinder.

Naj

[Dawnrazor]

But it's judges who are putting up these weaker hunters over the others. On that basis it seems that spaniel trials have gone the way ofvretriever trials and are more a test of the control that the handler has over the dog rather than the quality of the dog as a hunter/gamefinder.

Naj

Judges put up the dogs they like and would have, they judge and are judged by friends. One friend of mine was judging a novice stake a couple of years ago as the "A" penned, the other judge was a "B" panel, when they were making thier books up there was a diffirence of opinion, the "B" panel wanted as first a small shoe shiner that, and I quote "did f**k all for 20 minuted but looked busy!!" the "A" panel tried to point out this but the "B" panel was adamant because "if ***** ***** wins trials with dogs like that that's how they should be"!!! Some judges have only seen this type of dog win and this is the type of dog they have and train for this as the finished article.

[shamykebab]

But it's judges who are putting up these weaker hunters over the others. On that basis it seems that spaniel trials have gone the way ofvretriever trials and are more a test of the control that the handler has over the dog rather than the quality of the dog as a hunter/gamefinder.

Naj

Despite the control, the retriever still has to find the game! Yes, there are some who like to put their dog exactly on the bird, but that IMO isn't the norm.

I can't speak for spaniels but regarding control, compare modern retriever trials to those before the mid 90's - the added control means that dogs are getting to the area more efficiently and live birds are despatched more quickly. What people describe as "good hunting dogs of the past" are pretty much the same as current dogs but without the control - they took in more ground, disturbed more game and the handling was noisy as . A good hunting dog isn't the one that rakes about like a pleasingly demented hoover, it's one that has game sense and takes into account wind and scenting conditions.

Ducking down, tin hat on.

[Naj]

I don't think the welfare of birds is particularly high on the agenda in a retriever trial. If it was you'd send the nearest dog rather than the one from the opposite end of the line and also not have wounded birds lying around, sometimes within yards of a gun or an official, waiting for dogs to take their turn to retrieve. It's all too easy to forget it's live birds and not dummies that you're dealing with.

Naj

[WGD]

But it's judges who are putting up these weaker hunters over the others. On that basis it seems that spaniel trials have gone the way ofvretriever trials and are more a test of the control that the handler has over the dog rather than the quality of the dog as a hunter/gamefinder.

Naj

I would come at it slightly differently, rather than laying it at the door of the judges.

I've judged a handful of spaniel trials, shot and stewarded at others. Certainly good control is essential and there are differences in the type of dog you need to win a pheasant trial compared to a rabbit trial (although the good ones will do both).

From a novice stake perspective, the top three or four seem to be agreed on by just about everyone and in my experience the top dog relatively easily agreed between judges. So when panel judges who've been looking at dogs for forty years and folk like me who've been doing this for ten minutes agree how can you blame the judges?

What does seem to be having an impact in the general quality of the stock - I can only really comment on springers as that is where my interest lies. I think there is an element of that is down to social media (we can blame that for everything can't we???) and dogs being hyped up. Not just champions... litters being advertised FTCH x FTAW when the FTAW is a poor but lucky dog that got a sympathetic ticket in a novice stake. Folk are buying these thinking they are getting top trialling lines when in reality there are better shooting dogs out there than the FTAW.

[Nickheref]

What does seem to be having an impact in the general quality of the stock - I can only really comment on springers as that is where my interest lies. I think there is an element of that is down to social media (we can blame that for everything can't we???) and dogs being hyped up. Not just champions... litters being advertised FTCH x FTAW when the FTAW is a poor but lucky dog that got a sympathetic ticket in a novice stake. Folk are buying these thinking they are getting top trialling lines when in reality there are better shooting dogs out there than the FTAW.

That is sort of my thoughts, poor dogs who do nothing wrong but precious little right being judged as better than good dogs who made a small error, which I suppose brings us back to the question "is the trial system to assess the quality/ability of the dogs or the quality of the training" but if poor dogs are getting any sort of award something is not quite right as whatever is judged to be the purpose of the trial an award will be seen generally as a sign of quality in the dog not the handler, hence the sort of adverts you mention and I completely agree with your assessment of that. For years HPR trial results read "No awards were made".......
I have long stood up for trials against friends who queried some aspects, but if the aim is not to assess and promote the genuine working ability of the dogs it seems a bit pointless to me at least.
I am one of those who realistically can only have a pup every year or two and if large numbers are simply not much use (I accept not every pup can be the best dog ever or get to the championship but some it appears cannot make any real claim to be a gundog in my eyes) and need passing over I have a major problem.

[munstyman]

I don't think the welfare of birds is particularly high on the agenda in a retriever trial. If it was you'd send the nearest dog rather than the one from the opposite end of the line and also not have wounded birds lying around, sometimes within yards of a gun or an official, waiting for dogs to take their turn to retrieve. It's all too easy to forget it's live birds and not dummies that you're dealing with.

Naj

At the risk of derailing a perfectly good thread

... litters being advertised FTCH x FTAW when the FTAW is a poor but lucky dog that got a sympathetic ticket in a novice stake. Folk are buying these thinking they are getting top trialling lines when in reality there are better shooting dogs out there than the FTAW.

Harsh...but I know what your saying

But it's judges who are putting up these weaker hunters over the others. On that basis it seems that spaniel trials have gone the way ofvretriever trials and are more a test of the control that the handler has over the dog rather than the quality of the dog as a hunter/gamefinder.

Naj

Judges put up the dogs they like and would have, they judge and are judged by friends. One friend of mine was judging a novice stake a couple of years ago as the "A" penned, the other judge was a "B" panel, when they were making thier books up there was a diffirence of opinion, the "B" panel wanted as first a small shoe shiner that, and I quote "did f**k all for 20 minuted but looked busy!!" the "A" panel tried to point out this but the "B" panel was adamant because "if ***** ***** wins trials with dogs like that that's how they should be"!!! Some judges have only seen this type of dog win and this is the type of dog they have and train for this as the finished article.

You mean face judging is rife in working as well as showing..... I'm If a judge knows f- all about wind, how can he mark a dog for the best use of it? Probably why the `image' of a busy dog carries more weight in their view than the practical aspects of `finding game' Which brings me neatly back to the `commonalities' of a good trainer, reading the dog and the ground would mean you are in a better position to manipulate how a dog works more easily to take into account the `preferences' of those `looking on' if that floats ye boat. ( Comes back to the individuals definition of what is their measurement of success, and being a successful trainer )

[TravisW]

"I would come at it slightly differently, rather than laying it at the door of the judges.

I've judged a handful of spaniel trials

"From a novice stake perspective, the top three or four seem to be agreed on by just about everyone and in my experience the top dog relatively easily agreed between judges. So when panel judges who've been looking at dogs for forty years and folk like me who've been doing this for ten minutes agree how can you blame the judges?
I think there is an element of that is down to social media (we can blame that for everything can't we???)

What does seem to be having an impact in the general quality of the stock - I can only really comment on springers as that is where my interest lies. I think there is an element of that is down to social media (we can blame that for everything can't we???) and dogs being hyped up. Not just champions... litters being advertised FTCH x FTAW when the FTAW is a poor but lucky dog that got a sympathetic ticket in a novice stake. Folk are buying these thinking they are getting top trialling lines when in reality there are better shooting dogs out there than the FTAW."

This smacks of exactly the same thing that happened many years ago in sheep dog trials.
Taking each point above,and not out of context,if a dog is given an award and that dog did not deserve an award,then why is that not the fault of judges?And how can these awards only be at one level?Why does the same not apply to the next level of dogs?If it happens with the same panel of judges at one level,be sure that it also happens at every level above.
Judges need to take responsibility.I would also question the ability of someone to be able to make a sound judgement on "stock",when by their own admission to have only been involved in judging for 10 minutes.Particularly stock at base level.

Painting by numbers through the eyes of another?

Sorry,tried to remove the highlighted areas and manage the quotes,hence the edit.

[trekmoor]

...........................All Our Yesterdays...........................

Spaniels that look very busy but who don't "hunt the wind" were coming under question 40 - 50 years back. I never have trialed spaniels but some of my friends did back then. Dogs that did what was called "finding with their feet" were starting to win trials even way back then. I asked what "finding with their feet " meant and was told it referred to dogs that hunted a very tight and often very short range pattern across the handlers front no matter what direction the wind was coming from , no matter what kind of ground and no matter how scarce the game supply was.

I can do no other than blame the judges for this kind of hunting becoming more and more common as time went on and these dogs were winning trials. Trialers want to win so they tend to do what gets them wins.

One of my friends back then had a spaniel that had just become a F.T.Ch. and he was justifiably proud of this so he showed me him hunting in some very rough grass for a very short distance. My son, who was about 10 -12 years old at the time, was also watching. The hunt ended and my mate asked my son what he'd thought of his dog's hunting. My son replied ......" Oh ! Was he hunting ? I thought he was looking for a good place to crap !"

I dissolved into laughter because my son was being serious about the "hunting." He was used to seeing my dogs hunt at double the range of the F.T.Ch. My mate was not at all amused however !

Retrievers , I think, were "harder going" back then , possibly due to breeding but certainly due to the way they were judged. Dogs were expected to be sent into the probable area of fall and then to be left alone to really hunt for the bird. Over handling was heavily downmarked. We wanted the dog to find the bird not the handler.

I have to admit to being one of the first to "over handle." I did it because I was young, because I'd trained my dogs to "handle onto the sixpence" ..........and because I wanted to win and quite liked to show off ! It worked often enough to give me some wins so it took me a good few years to really understand why the old timers didn't like it.

I didn't really begin to "let the dog do it" until after I got a ballocking from my old mentor Harry Mc Tier. He told me a trial was not a test I love watching a really well trained lab go straight to the fall area of a blind retrieve but once it is there I now want the dog to do the work.

It seldom happens on "real" shooting days that a man is around who can tell me that ," The bird fell 6 inches to the left of that daisy with the bluebottle on it." That is an exaggeration of course but I have heard modern retriever trailers moan that they weren't given a really good "mark" on a blind retrieve......about 40 years ago one very well known trailer made that complaint to the judge because the judge had told him the bird, a dead partridge, was about 10 feet from a particular tree stump. The dog kept looking for further instructions/directions but the handler could not really help much.

He complained to the judge who replied, "What are you wanting ? Fecking signposts ! ???"

On shooting days I often have to find "blind" retrieves. Very rarely am I told any more than " It fell up on the left hand end of the wood ......... I think !" A dog that has become too used to being "handled onto the sixpence" isn't much use to me.

I do think that both spaniel and retriever trials have moved a bit further away from being like a "real" days shooting.

Or maybe all that proves is that I am now too damned old for trialing ?

Wullie