| Archive for workinghprs.myfastforum.org Chat forum for owners of working HPR and Versatile gundog breeds. |
| santiago |
HPR breeds key characteristicsHello,I have unsuccessfully looked for a good thread that discusses the key working characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of HPR breeds including pointers and setters. Ideally going beyond the "which breed is better question" (which does not make much sense) and focusing on how they are similar or different, what are they most suited for, etc. We all know of the basic stuff (i.e. that pointers and setters run wider, HPRs more versatile) but there must be many other interesting things, that the less experienced would be very interested in. Please point me in the right direction if you know of good discussions covering this. Otherwise, maybe some of the more experienced members of the forum would not mind to share their experience. Many thanks, Santiago NB: I have some experience with brittanys and pointers, but with very few dogs. I am not writing anything not out of laziness but because I feel that what would be most helpful is to keep this as objective as possible and generalizing from just a few dogs does not achieve that. Also I think the more interesting comments probably come from people that have seen most or many different HPR breeds working which I have not. |
||||||
| windem bang |
I haven't had many pointing breeds myself, I've had two brits and four G.S.P.'S . Other than that I have trained a pointer and I was a trainer for every H.P.R. breed that turned up for monthly training classes. I have seen most H.P.R. breeds at training classes but not actually working.
I doubt if forum members will be very forthcoming on your question for fear of upsetting the enthusiasts of other breeds. Maybe if you tried splitting things up into hunting ability- - range differences between the breeds. Attitude to cover. Responsiveness to command. etc. Pointing - is it already there and how much development/encouragement does it need. Prone to stickiness or not. etc. Retrieving - very willing, not so willing or virtually non-existent. Ease of steadiness training. Soft mouth or incidence of hard mouth. etc. I think you yourself will have to start the ball rolling on this topic - I think I'd like my head to remain attached to my neck !  
Bill T. |
||||||
| santiago |
Hum... I see your point here Bill.
However, I just think that one can be passionate about the HPR breed he/she owns and at the same time try to be objective. I really do not think it makes sense to claim one HPR is the best, because that assumes everybody is looking for the same thing in a dog. It is true though that people might disagree with this and I apologize in advance if anybody is upset by comments made here. It is also true, that it is probably unhelpful to avoid giving an opinion to start with. So I will try to give mine based on my limited experience (which I describe too below, to be very clear). Experience: Brittany and pointer owner. Have seen maybe 25 Brittanys, 10 pointers, 10 labradors and 10 other HPRs working over 20 years, mostly rough shooting and in driven days and in a few FT in France. Brittany Hunting ability: Ranges wide (just short of pointers and setters), therefore naturally better in open terrain than in heavy cover. Very passionate hunter with high endurance. Takes initiative. Strong nose. Adapts fast to different quarry and way of hunting. Obedient. Pointing: Point not as intense as a pointer, does not hold point naturally for long periods without training (as opposed to pointers). On the other hand, less likely to point old scent than pointers are. Retrieving: Moderate natural retrieve instinct in general, fast learner though. Can retrieve in water but not the best swimmer (mine just does not enjoy it - maybe lack of exposure and not to be generalized). I have seen Brittanys that learn to sit in a peg for driven shooting, but probably not easily to the standard required in most driven days in the UK. Hard mouth not a common issue. Other: Good character, easy to train, lots of energy, good interaction with family and kids. Mine barks easily (maybe lack of training?). He has also had problems of injuries in his paws pads (not sure this can be generalized). Again, I probably need to be corrected in most of the above (do not mind at all), these are just some thoughts to see if people find it is worth contributing. If we get some replies I offer to compile a summary at the end, editing this post. Santiago |
||||||
| windem bang |
Where the Brittany is concerned I agreed with your comments on the retrieve section. I disagreed with your experiences on parts of the other sections.
Range , I would say is variable from "line" to "line" of dogs and also is variable among dogs of very similar breeding but that may be down to "nurture." As open ground and as woodland cover dogs I think Brits score highly. I have reservations about Brits on grouse moors .......how many grouse trials have Brits won ? I only know of two Brit won grouse trials but there may be more ??? I think the brit, while very willing and a good running dog is handicapped by its size on grouse moors. When it encounters high, rank heather, the brit has to proceed in a series of bounds and leaps. This tires any dog ,the brit is no exception but it also has to expend more energy than the bigger breeds to cover that kind of bushy ground condition. I'm not too sure about the "obedient " bit. This depends a lot on the handler of course but from my own experience I have found 3 out of the 4 G.S.P.'s I have trained to be more naturally "with me" than the brits. The brits needed more work to get that feeling of "oneness." Pointing - I found brits to be very "natural" pointers. I hardly had to add any "nurture" at all to have my two brits point for as long as I was ever likely to wish for. In fact I had a problem for a while with my half American brit being "sticky." Much of that was probably my fault , she was the first pointing dog I owned and I made too much fuss of the point because it fascinated me. I found just the opposite from you and found that unproductive pointing sometimes was a problem - again probably caused by my making too much fuss of the point. I have had few problems with this since I changed my training style following that first bitch. It took me many months to eliminate that problem at the time. Other - agreed with good character, disagreed with easy to train, few handlers can train a brit to high standard. Good brits tend to have better than average handlers in my experience or maybe I've been seeing the wrong brits !
Agreed with lots of energy ! and agreed about being good with family.
My brits rarely barked when I had them but the one my son now has is now a barker - a lack of discipline ??? I believe the Brittany to be one of the most natural hunting dogs on the planet and one of the most natural pointing dogs too. I.M.O. as a breed its weak points are its independant nature that can make it hard to train unless you can tune in with the dog and a lack of love of retrieving - at least on dummies !
I too would be interested in reading the opinions of others. I think I would summarise by saying that I.M.O. the brit is an outstanding breed but not one for the average beginner handler. I see very few - in fact none at all at shoots up this way. The breeds I do see at shoots are G.S.P.'s , Weimies, G.W.H.P.'s , Wirehaired Viszlas ( a breed I'm seeing more and more of - I like them) and Viszlas. Bill T. |
||||||
| Helen S |
You should talk to chiendog aka Craig who must have seen dozens of pointing breeds working whilst compiling his breed photo website.
Helen S |
||||||
| tashap |
I suppose some of the experiences will be based on the specific dogs people have contact with as individuals within a breed, there is an awful lot of difference from one dog to another. | ||||||
| Ghilliegumdrop |
Brittany's
Hunting........obsessive 
Retrieving.....obsessive if you can get it to retrieve in the first place 
Obedience.....what's that 
Pointing.........good, will point anything ie birds, cats, rabbits, fish and anything else that moves
Water retrieves.....see above 
Best little dogs on the planet if you want a laugh, friend and hunting companion BUT only if you don't mind going hungry when you rely on one to fill the pot. Carry on Bill, I don't mind you telling the truth about them
|
||||||
| windem bang |
Thank goodness for that ! I thought I might get scragged for saying my version of the truth !
Bill T. |
||||||
| BenB |
Looking forward to learning a lot from this thread. | ||||||
| Ghilliegumdrop |
Not by me you won't Most of what you say about them I agree with......and I've got two of the little blighters, glutton for punishment thats me 
|
||||||
| windem bang |
It must be someone elses turn now to say what they know or think they know about brits or one of the other breeds. Roll up, roll up and put your head on the block !
Bill T. |
||||||
| Ghilliegumdrop |
Puking.......when they puke it they do it for England and it goes everywhere  In their bed, in their hair, into corners and other places that don't normally see the light of day
I put it down to the cauliflower stalks
|
||||||
| langhaar |
I think this is a difficult question to answer because of the diverse heritages of our breeds. Each country of origin had their indegenous hunting requirements ie a Vizsla followed hunters on horse back on the Magyar plains so expecting this breed to enter deep cover is diregarding it's fundamental heritage.The Italian breeds are expected to run in a fast trot not a gallop like most other HPR's so expecting these breeds to make ideal grouse dogs is inappropriate.
Another important factor is how long individual HPR breeds have been in the UK, many are now bred for the showring and those natural hunting instincts which made them so appealing in the first place have now been diluted. |
||||||
| johnhod |
A sad indictment on breeders |
||||||
| Ghilliegumdrop |
Lets face it........if everyone who owned, breed or shows gundogs went shooting every weekend the country would really go to the dogs
|
||||||
| munstyman |
I too think this is a difficult question to answer but for different reasons than Langhaar. Most of the breeds are by there very nature `versatiles', and I have found very adaptable to all the quirks of working that we then expect of them, despite there heritage.
It is clear that the description given by both Bill and santiago on the Brittany are very different, but they are both right given the dogs in there respective environment. I think we could all describe our breeds one way and then have someone else in the breed describe them totally differently, for example, and I'm sure Langhaar will correct me  Munsters are supposed to hunt faster than Longhairs, yet my experience is opposite, in the early days munsters had a reputation of being `plodders' and stood little chance of catching the judges eye at a trial amongst GSP's and GWP's. However mine were encouraged to `move' and they did and still do, however on merit I would still say the `Dutch' Longhair can certainly hunt open ground faster, as they seem finer built.( or maybe its just the colour  )
One thing I would say about Munsters is they do want to interact with you more than any other dog I've owned, they do like to communicate and want to understand (or be understood  ) This will give them an `edge' over many other dogs and can work for you or for the dog ( its something you just get use too )
They do have an arrogant streak, but then I think most HPR's do, in that if they see another dog do something they are sure they can do it better ( never let them see a lemming )
peter |
||||||
| chiendog |
Thanks for the promo!
Santiago's question is a good one. In fact trying to answer it has taken me 10 years of traipsing around Europe and North America in my quest to see, study and photograph all of the HPR breeds in their country of origin. Last spring my wife and I achieved our goal. We've now "seen 'em all" including a dozen or so we had no idea even existed (ever heard of a Ca Me Mallorqui or Pachon Navarro?). I can now say that I have a better overall picture of the HPR world and the various breeds in it, but I am unable to offer a concise, easy answer to the original question. A longwinded, complicated answer is forthcoming in my book... but if I had to sum it all up, I guess I would make the following points: 1. Despite what we may believe about breeds being distinctly separate, unique entities, they actually represent fairly broad brushstrokes on the canvas of "hunting dogs". You can liken them to dialects or accents of a common language. On the surface, the differences seem fairly obvious. Under a thin veneer however.... 2. If we go beyond the superficial and easily identified characteristics of each breed (size, coat colour) and simply look at the job they are expected to do and how they go about doing it, there are greater differences between individuals than between breeds. Good HPR's are good HPR's identifying minute performance differences among them approaches the realm of hairsplitting. That being said, there ARE differences, but they are subtle, variable, ephemeral, and open to a wide range of interpretations. 3. Within each breed, there are good workers and poor (to very poor) workers. One of the real differences between breeds is the ratio of good to poor. Some breeds (GSP, Drahthaar, Brittany) are made up of mostly good workers...pick a puppy from any litter and it is likely to be a decent hunter. Others (Weimaraners) are a very risky proposition...a small minority is excellent working stock, the vast majority is pure crap. 4. Breed histories are generally based on equal doses of myth, wishful thinking and pure fantasy. Mounted Magyars hunting with "Viszla's" on the steppes of the ancient puszta has about as much to do with the modern Viszla as King Arthur has to do with David Beckham. 5. In most breeds, there are vast differences in the way it "used to" work, and the way it is "supposed to" work and the way it actually does work (or not) nowadays. These differences are magnified by cultural differences in the various countries they are now found. I can assure you that an English setter in Italy or France is quite a different creature compared to an English setter in the USA. Yet they are all Setters, and they are usually fantastic workers....except the show lines. Show-bred setters have more in common with three toed sloths and/or shaggy ponies than with their working cousins. I could go on and on and on about this. Suffice it to say that the original question is a good one, and I really should get cracking on the last few chapters of the book that attempts to answer it. |
||||||
| Ghilliegumdrop |
My brilliant little Brittany went out on a shoot today, we were beating and picking up. The man who owns the farm came over and asked if I could go and take Ghill to see if we could find a hen bird which he had shot. It had drifted over a paddock and, he thought, landed across a ditch behind some trees. We got to the ditch only to find it was about 4/5 feet deep so when Ghillie was in the bottom she couldn't scent the bird.......she followed the ditch to the end and then jumped up to the other side and came back along the fence line where she found the bird picked it up and brought it to hand. Guy, the owner, was well pleased....he said he didn't think she would have found it as he wasn't really sure it was there nor was he sure he had hit it hard enough to kill it.
Next beat someone shot a bird and she took off into the sunset totally ignoring my whistle
|
||||||
| santiago |
Craig, please work fast on those final chapters... that book is a must read!
The question asked in this thread can only be answered incompletely, based on experiences on a limited number of dogs, offering contradictory views and so forth. However, the debate is still worth having, because in the process of trying to answer, most of us will learn a lot. |
||||||
| windem bang |
Craig , I too look forward to reading your book - please put me down for a copy !
I thought your broad summary given here was pretty fair . I found nothing to strongly disagree with at any rate . You are correct - I have never heard of the two "odd bod breeds " you mentioned. Will I have to wait to read your book to know more about them and to see how they look ? Bill T. |
||||||
| guy |
craig - if your book is as good as your posts on this forum and your pictures on your site then I would like to put my name down for a copy- perhaps you might like to collect names pre publication? | ||||||
| lagopuslagopus |
I'd like to get a copy too please. | ||||||
| BritAnnie |
Both of these may be very subjective descriptions and based on just a few dogs owned by these forum members. Bill has had two Brittanys I believe, I don't know about Santiago. I have owned 15 Brittanys over a period of 25 years and continually disagree with not only Bill but others on the Breed's abilities, traits, and temperaments. Each of my dogs was different, had different advantages and disadvantages. For that very reason I would never come on a forum and describe the typical specimen of my breed. I doubt if there is one. The one thing my dogs all had in common was their determination to hunt. I cannot compare any other feature as they all were individuals. What I can compare is their general demeanour in comparison to my other breeds, Cockers and GWP. But again that would be too general to be of use and again would be subjective rather than objective owing to their individual temperaments and foibles. I believe only an in-depth study of a number of breeds and a large number of these breeds could be useful, such as Stan Smith's 'Bird Dogs of the World' BA |
||||||
| chiendog |
Thank you everyone for the kind words and encouragement. I had hoped to have the book done by this Xmas, but a new pup in the home this spring/summer set me back by several months. I do intend to put nose to grindstone this winter though and hope to have it all wrapped up by summer.
There are photos of them on my (newly updated) website http://www.craigkoshykphoto.ca Here is the direct link to the page with links to the galleries of their photos http://www.craigkoshykphoto.ca/Sporting%20Dogs%20New%20Work.html You can also visit the sites of the breeders I met in Spain and on Mallorca (they are in Spanish though...) Pachon Navarro: http://www.pachonnavarro.com Ca Me Mallorqui: http://www.camemallorqui.org/ |
||||||
| windem bang |
Thanks Craig , I've never seen those breeds before. They are too heavily built for my personal taste but everyone to his own.
I await your book with interest ! 
Bill T. |
||||||
| windem bang |
Surely Annie you cannot put all 15 Brittanies into the same basket as hunters. I would be willing to bet they did not all have hunting in common if you break it down a bit. Some would be faster, some would use the wind better, some would be natural wide rangers while others would be moderate range hunters . Some would be more prone than others to completely ignoring you, the handler, as they hunted. I thought what was being asked for on this topic was a sort of "rough general average." I posted the truth as I have experienced it for the dogs that I have seen working on game and seen in training. I think that is all Santiago is asking for. I don't think the Brittany has been critiscised by anyone , only what I think to be fair comment based on working the breed has been given. Bill T. |
||||||
| santiago |
I am simply trying to learn more about how the different pointing breeds compare to each other.
I have realized a few things. First, the answer is probably too long to discuss here, so I am happy to find out that Craig is preparing a book that discusses it and that there are others such as the one Annie mentions (although that one seems to be quite difficult to find, anybody knows where I could get a copy?). Second, starting by describing the dog(s) each of us has owned over the years is not the ideal way to achieve this (and I started by pointing that out in my first post). But how to open the debate otherwise? I think Bill's comments have helped a lot in that respect. Unfortunately, we have talked mostly about the Brittany which was not the intention at all. If what we have said is not correct, please say so. I would encourage others to share their thoughts too on the breeds they are familiar with. We will all learn from that process in my humble opinion. |
||||||
| BenB |
Would love a copy of the book when it is done please. | ||||||
| Ghilliegumdrop |
Annie how much hunting, in a shooting situation ie beating or picking up, have you done with your dogs
I, myself, stand by my description of these dogs as obsessive and stubborn when and if you can get them to work [to my direction] in the field
|
||||||
| tashap |
ooo does that mean you might do a sneak preview craig?? I'll have a book please... signed let us know where to send the cash to when the time comes.
|
||||||
| Ghilliegumdrop |
Me too, please
|
||||||
| tashap |
here at this rate he won't have any left better make that two so we can raffle one off for the club.
|
||||||
| Ghilliegumdrop |
As long as he gets paid it won't matter
|
||||||
| Blue |
How's Winterpeg Craig? How many feet of snow yet? I was up in Sudbury day before yesterday, damn cold and the swamp-donkeys are getting Cranky
My breed is the Blue Picardy Spaniel. In a nutshell: -More setter than spaniel -range = 50-200 metres depending on cover -retrieving - BRUTAL! but working on it
-nose can only be described as excellent -pointing is a 3 stage process, would take awhile to describe, followed by a "creep" to flush - Craig, you once wrote that the French have a word for this, can you refresh my memory? -temperament would be 'soft' but not in a derogatory sense....harsh training is very counter-productive - equally interested in both feather and fur...completely silent when on birds, very vocal when on fur -very soft mouth, in fact she's caught chickens and dropped them at my feet with no more than a feather damaged -favourite bird? - woodcock. love the swamps and marshes (it's in the blood) keys to success with the breed = don't micro-manage and trust the dog and Craig, who's the other Ponto on your site? |
||||||
| chiendog |
Hi Blue,
Only a few inches of the white stuff so far! More on the way though... 
His name is Vinnie. He belongs to a good friend of mine here in Winnipeg. Vinnie is Uma's cousin and one of only three Pontos in North America (the other is in Ontario...Gravenhurst). Your description of the Blue would describe the Ponto in many ways as well. They are quite similar...as are the Epagneul Francais and Picard (which may be a bit tougher headed with a stronger retreive). All are quite French in some ways, but if they could talk, I'm sure they would all have an English accent. And it stands to reason. All of the French "Epagneul" breeds (except for perhaps the Epagneul de Saint Usuge) have had measured doses of English Setter blood infused into their respective gene pools over the years. Interestingly, it is actually a case of what goes around comes around...the English Setter itself was derived from French dogs of yesteryear. |
||||||
| Emma_ |
Craig is writing a book? I want a copy too, signed! From one weim owner to another
From what I have seen at trials here in Finland, the breed-specific differences are indeed more a question of differences between individuals and also a difference between owners... In Finland, all continental pointing dogs are judged within the same trials and the english pointing dogs have there own trials although it is allowed to participate in both with both type of dogs. Therefore it is interesting to compare different breeds within the same trial and being judged by the same judge. From what I've seen, a good dog is a good dog no matter what the breed. They must have a quite wide and broad search area, a strong point, an aggressive flush and they must be obedient. The major problem with the "small breeds" here in Finland which basically includes all other continentals except the GSPs, are the owners. While most GSPs end up with experienced hunters, the "small breed" individuals are too easily sold to non-hunters. We have too many dogs in the hands of people who don't really hunt for real and because of this, the dogs never get to develop their skills. I've seen many talented dogs in trials but they cannot handle the birds because they don't have enough experience and many dogs are not properly obedience trained and they only chase the birds instead of pointing and flushing. I think here the brittanys are in the best situation, many experienced hunters like them and therefore the breed has gone forward in a positive way. We have many good weims here as well but now we see a trend toward non-hunters buying in show weims. Most people here agree that it is easiest to buy a GSP if you want a good hunting dog because most breeders are hunters but as for the other breeds - it's like the lottery
|
||||||
| chiendog |
Excellent post Emma.
Worldwide, GSP's (Kurzhaars) tend to be a hunter's dog. Other breeds enjoy a similar situation. The Drahthaar for example is pretty much 100% hunter owned and bred (note: by Drahthaar I mean those dogs bred according to the German Drahthaar club standards/system. German Wirehaired Pointers, especially in North America run the gamut from hard working field bred dogs to fat show-bred couch potatoes..). The Pudelpointer, Large Munsterlander, many of the French breeds (Braque d'Auvergne, Ariege, Francais, Epagneul Breton, Picard) also have a field oriented majority in the breed. On the other end of the scale are breeds like the Poodle, Irish Setter, Weimaraner, Braque Saint Germain, Irish Water Spaniel etc. The well-bred capable hunters among them are in a very small minority. And therein lies the greatest difference among the various hunting breeds: the group of people breeding them. The lucky breeds are in the hands of dedicated hunters. The "also rans" are in the hands of non-hunters, pretend hunters, wannabee hunters and outright fake hunters. |
||||||
| tashap |
Do you think that the breeds in the latter group will have a chance to be turned around and put back in the hands of hunters with the help of enthusiasts or do you think its to late and better to focus attention on the other breeds if you want a working dog?? | ||||||
| chiendog |
Excellent question! There are, to be sure, some breeds that are far too gone to ever really hope for a return to the glory days (if there were in fact any glory days in the first place). The most they can hope for is the establishment or maintenance of a small but dedicated minority within the breed focused on field work. The Weimaraner, Viszla, Drent, Braque Saint Germain, Spinone, Bracco Italiano, Irish Setter, Irish Red and White Setter and others are currently in this position. They are now in the hands of non-hunters and I can see no way of stuffing that genie back into the bottle. However, there are enough (just) people in each of those breeds (mainly in the country of origin and in small isolated pockets elsewhere) to ensure a decent level of hunting ability in a few lines. Obviously those people have decided that, for them at least, it is worthwhile sticking with the breed. I count myself among the supporters of the working weimaraner...and regularly gnash my teeth thinking about the boat load of non-hunting breeders churning out grey couch potatoes. I stay with the breed because I managed to find outstanding breeders producing dogs that are the equal of any other. Without them, I would have left the breed long ago in favour of another. I maintain that it is "easier to put on slippers than to carpet the world". In other words, it is pointless to try to re-orient an entire breed...it will never happen. It is much easier to take care of one's own little chunk of paradise as it were. So I gave up long ago hoping that the Weimaraner, as a breed, would ever return to its former glory. Instead, I work with a very small group of excellent breeders on the outer fringes of the breed who have done wonders to maintain and improve its field abilities. To me, the machiavellian machinations of the show-dominated majority is of no interest or consequence. I know where to get excellent dogs and am perfectly happy with the ones I have. Each of us has to decide just how much anguish we are prepared to deal with in our chosen breed and how far we are prepared to go to find good stock. Those with a low pain threshold should (and do) gravitate toward breeds that are in better shape. Those who are up for a bit more of a challenge may want to look into some of the lesser known breeds that could really use a helping hand. My wife and I have a Pont Audemer Spaniel (world wide population: 300). We chose her because of the hunting ability I saw in the line she comes from. However our interest in the breed is also somewhat philanthropic. We genuinely want to help it out and have tried to spread the word among other hunters. |
||||||
| josie |
Craig, that is an excellent explanation of the situation, IMO.
On another subject, I'm taken aback at the difference between Slate (UK bred Weim) and Grey (Slovak). These are only 2 individual dogs, so don't all go generalising things too readily. I wouldn't really know where to start listing the differences but here are some that come to mind: Slate (4 yrs) - has a v good relationship with me, to the point of being too dependent when hunting. She gives the impression that she is keeping one eye on me and working with me, rather than doing her own thing. However, she blows hot and cold with hunting, sometimes runs well, often times just pootles around and looks like crap. She is an excellent retriever, however, and handles as well as a lab and has a soft mouth. She rarely makes a noise. She hates stinging nettles, thorns and very dense cover but will usually get in if I give her enough encouragement, but then picks her way through delicately as if she's walking on hot coals which doesn't exactly look good. She isn't naturally a water dog and took a long time to get swimming. She is still slow and unsure about getting in the water, but once in she is fine and a strong swimmer. (Ie in fast flowing water this is a problem because it has floated away!). She handles in water as on land. She often puts up game without pointing it, she just bumps it, so I sometimes question her nose. Alternatively, if she points right up on a bird tucked in tight, she refuses to flush because she's right on it. She is extremely steady on both ground game and birds and very obedient. In short: She can lack confidence and be unsure of things as a default behaviour; she looks to me for a safe base more than I'd like and could do with more independence and drive and birdiness. She is obedient and an excellent retriever though. But I feel as if I have had to work very very hard to make her into even the just-acceptable dog that she is. Grey (now 18mnths) - is an ultra confident, bolshy, impetuous, obnoxious pain in the ASS, man. No, really you can just reverse all the above and you have Grey! She is much less dependent on me, much more independent, totally wired (!) when hunting as if she's on rocket fuel, I have to take a lot more precautions to ensure I don't put her in a position where she can disobey, drill drill drill obedience. She is an "I WANT IT NOW" dog. She will bust through dense, impenetrable thickets of thorns and nettles instantly, to the point where I think she is going to tear her eyes out, she seems to have no pain barrier if there is game scent around, will throw herself into water without a thought for what could be in it. She just does things first and thinks after - Slate worries beforehand about whether something is safe or not. She is a GOBBY pain as well and barks and whines for ages if there's something she wants or if we're arriving somewhere. She will bring me back any old gross dead thing like rotting rabbits and decomposing birds (Slate never bothered with that, I don't know why). She often finds birds which Slate has just missed or run past. She is an acceptable retriever but Slate handles better, as she naturally looks to me more anyway. She has a v high play drive (prey drive too!), and really is an absolute clown, a very excitable dog! I was practising some cold game retrieves with her yesterday, and when we'd finished, I chucked the manky pheasant across a huge ditch of reeds and water. Grey wasn't in a stay, and she instantly launched herself in and retrieved it for me. I tried one more time, threw it further, and she did it again. Seeing I couldn't throw it anywhere without having it retrieved, I decided to leave it where it was! (Slate would have taken LOADS of encouragement and a command to go and get that pheasant!) I have hopes for Grey in FTs (next season). I think Slate's forte will always be working tests (mainly retrieving).
Right, there's my critique of the two of 'em! |
||||||
| chiendog |
Excellent critique Josie,
As you have noted, vast differences in temperament, drive, ability, character etc exist from dog to dog. You see it in your own home with your two. Most often, and in many ways quite rightly, these variations are attributed to differences between breeds. After all, we all expect differences between a Rottweiler and a Tea-Cup Poodle. However a friend of mine has two dogs; one is like Grey, the other very much like Slate. And they are littermates! (Brittanies). Granted, two chalk and cheese dogs in the same litter is a fairly rare occurrence but it does happen. So I think we need to look closer at the whole issue of variability. What causes it? How wide are the variations within certain populations (litters, lines, breeds)? To answer these questions, we first need to think about the whole concept of "purebred" dogs. Despite what many believe, pure breeding has only two advantages over random breeding. 1. It provides a greater degree of predictability than random breeding. If you want the greatest odds of getting a black puppy, breed a black dog to a black bitch. Pure-breeding's main function is to reduce variability. 2. It enhances the social status of the owners/breeders. That's it. Purebreeding offers NO other advantages over random breeding and in some ways it offers considerable disadvantages. Purebred dogs are not intrinsically "better" than random bred or cross bred dogs. They simply stand a better chance of meeting the requirements we may have of them. And therein lays the rub. If pure-breeding distills the genetic package of a population of dogs to better meet our requirements, what happens if our requirements are highly variable? Well, we get wide variations in populations that are not supposed to vary very much. That is what happens. Let's look at the Weimaraner. On paper, the breed is an indefatigable hunter in the field, forest and water...a grey ghost from the mists of time. Yet when I read the description of your Weim, I realized that you were basically describing the vast majority of Weimaraners being bred today. The main complaint against the breed is that they lack desire, have a weak pointing instinct and tend to be far too dependent on their handler. I would add that a lot of them are bouncing-off-the-wall crazy...but you seem to have lucked out with yours in that regard. So the question is why is the majority of Weimaraners like that? Why is there such a difference between the way they are supposed to be and the way they actually are? I would argue that like any breed of purebred dog, they are simply meeting the requirements of their breeders. Since the overwhelming majority of Weimaraner breeders do not hunt, they have NO NEED for a dog with a high degree of drive. They have NO NEED for a dog with a ton of point, a great nose and a gung-ho attitude towards busting cover and fetching rotting carcasses. Not only do those breeders not have any need for those traits, but I would go so far as to say that the majority of Weimaraner breeders don't even know what those traits are. What they do know is that they want a companion dog, a dog that is good with the kids, easy to train...and good looking. That way they can show it.. see advantage # 2 above re: social status. So by selecting for the traits they want and selecting away from or simply ignoring those they could do without, the eventually arrive at a population that within itself is not very variable, but is quite at odds with populations..of any breed... that are still selected for hunting. And let me assure you, Weimaraners from stictly field bred lines are anything but low in desire. Most of the ones I know would jump through burning napalm to get to a bird (my first weim actually jumped through a plate glass window to get back into our house. He almost died from a severed artery). Dogs like that represent a population that meets a different set of requirements. They are at the extreme end of the scale in terms of desire, run, point, retrieve etc. And they should be; hunting is the original Xtreme Game. Ok, so I've spelled out two different sides: breeders selecting for companion animals and those selecting for field work. Is there a middle ground? Well yes, sort of. I think that if you ask both sides about their ideal dog, the description would not be very different. Both would like nice, friendly, quite, obedient, pleasant to be around dogs that hunted like the dickens. But both realize that this ideal dog, this perfect specimen of the middle ground is about as easy to obtain as the holy grail. So in their quest, they understand that along the way they have to make choices about what they must have and what they can let slide. With show/companion breeders, looks and personality are the must haves. Most would be willing to forgive a lack of desire in the field for a nice "shoulder layback" ( I hope that is a show term...I have no clue) or trade a rock solid point for a "great front". Field breeders on the other hand would find a lack of point or a pottering trot unforgivable no matter how fantastic the head or shoulder is. So you apply the two different ways of selection over generations and it doesn't take long for a complete split to occur. This is the Weimaraner today. It is split along the line where the requirements of two groups of breeders differ. And then there is Grey, your Slovak. She sounds a lot like my first Weimaraner Felix (of plate glass window jumping fame). Grey, I would guess, is from a line of hunting dogs. Dogs that were chosen for their field abilities and drive first and foremost, and given a free pass on things like whining, over-excitability and pain in the assness. Her breeder and the breeders of her parents and grandparents have requirements vastly different from the average breeder of Weims in the UK..and it shows in Grey. So from your descriptions of your dogs (and a healthy dose of pure supposition on my part) you basically have two dogs that represent something beyond simply being two different breeds, they represent what happens when different sets of requirements and priorities are applied to a breeding population. It will be interesting to see what happens to the Slovak in the UK as the requirements shift from hunting to the show ring. Will they follow in the footsteps of the Weim? |
||||||
| josie |
Yes, I'm a bit worried about what will happen to the Slovak in the UK too. Seeing that the folk breeding it are largely Weim kennels, who show Weims - and some of which don't work their dogs at all - I don't have many hopes. There's also not enough genetic variation in the UK, yet still people who want to have a litter of Slovaks go to the same people and use the same studs, again and again, thereby filling the UK up with progeny of the same few dogs. (Personally, if I were to breed Grey, I'd go back to the Slovak breed club and ask them to recommend a stud and take her over there.) There are only a couple of Slovaks who have recently started to compete in FTs, and if you don't assess a dog's working ability, how do you know if it's worth breeding from or not? (Then we get into the whole subject of testing, which we are way behind on in the UK, IMO - the only form of assessment we have are FTs, and the only qualifications given out are FTCh - a level which v few dogs ever reach. Beyond this, we have no way of sorting the rest. I hope that munstyman's proposed scheme goes ahead.)
As for the Weim situation, I think that in the US things are more clearly split and you do have a small selection of elite hunting breeders who are doing their best to preserve the breed as a hunting breed. In the UK, I can't think of a single breeder who only competes in working stuff with their dogs and doesn't show them at all. I think of it like a soup: By far the majority of Weims bred in the UK are not shown OR worked, they are from people having a litter (or two or three) from their pet Weim. That makes up about 60% of the soup, I'd say. Then there are a whole whack of breeders who don't work their dogs but only show them. That makes up about about 35% of the soup. And finally, there are breeders who both show and work their dogs - however given the current testing situation in the UK, there is no real way to determine, objectively, if a dog is worth breeding from (working-wise, not show-wise) - it's left up to breeders to decide which of their dogs is demonstrating enough working ability to breed. And no one can be objective about their own dogs (in working or showing), I think. So, really, the genetic soup ends up being 95% show or pet and of the remaining 5% people are breeding both for appearance and working ability, so let's say perhaps 2% ability goes into the soup overall. The only way I can think to turn this around is for some people to breed only for working ability and not for show, much as you have in the US. The downside of this would mean that it would result in a split in the breed, as you seem to have, and a lot of people are against that. Nearly everyone seems to believe that it's possible to continue breeding "both for show and for work" without jeopardising the working side. If I wanted a Weim now, I'd go to a working breeder in the US and import one... (Ok, I'll now settle back for the onslaught!!!) |
||||||
| windem bang |
I have never owned a weim Josie but I have seen some of them work. I agree with you, I too would go to the U.S. if I wanted a work bred weimy. I have now seen a few decent working weimys but not nearly enough to form a good working gene pool. Personally I wouldn't give a toss if my U.S. bought weimy couldn't even win a booby prize in a showring as long as it could leave most other weimys trailing in its dust !
A split in some of the H.P.R. breeds is almost inevitable just as long as there are people like me with very little interest in showing and other people who have very little interest in working. One will go and breed one way and the other will go the other ! Those who show and make working claims for their dogs would have to prove those claims before I would buy one of their pups. Personally I rather like the present field trial system where either a dog shows it can do it or shows it cannot. For the cannots the answer is to try harder themselves or to buy or breed dogs that can. Bill T. |
||||||
| Emma_ |
Josie, you could also import a weim from Germany. They still have quite many for-hunting-only-weims and most of them sell to hunters only.
The Germans test all their breeding material in trials and these trials are quite tough. I am now talking about the VGP, HZP etc. But yes, also I have been looking at US working weims as an option for the next weim. I think the situation that Josie just described goes for most Europe, except Germany. Here in Finland people are not showing their weims as much as in Britain I think but now we see an increasing number of imports meant mostly for the show rings. But also we have a lot of weims being only companion dogs. Here a pointing dog (continentals and english) can not be ShCh unless it has a hunting trial result but you can get CC or CACIB and they are put on hold. Now they want to change this so that the dog can not get any CC or CACIB unless the dog participates in the Working class and for this the dog must have a hunting trial result. In this way, the is hope that people would bring their weims to hunting trials. I am not sure this will be of any help because this means people will bring their rather untrained weims to hunting trials and instead of testing a hunting dog´s abilities they will just keep on taking the non-hunting weim to as many hunting trials as needed to achieve the result for the working class in shows. We will only see more bad weims in hunting trials without achieving the main goal, to get weims to hunters. |
||||||
| Bareve |
Interesting comments Josie - most of which I am presuming are all Weimar related. However
I take it from the comment above then Josie that you have no faith in any dog winning any F/T award other than the coverted two 1st's in Open Stakes? 
I can certainly tell you one thing Josie I "value" my F/T awards as highly as any of my major show wins as they aren't given lightly on the basis of a couple of minutes assessment. Plus any F/T award does give your dog a stud book number so even the KC value F/T awards. |
||||||
| Blue |
This seems to me to be a vast over-simplification. Are you saying that in #1 pure breeding only produces predictability in appearance? #2, maybe with certain breeds but that's again tarring all with the same brush Maybe you're just speaking about Weims? |
||||||
| josie |
I said "qualification". To me, a "qualification" is something which goes on the beginning or the end of a dog's name, so that, at one glance, someone who knows nothing about your dog can get the gist of the level it has reached in competition. There are many more such awards available in showing, in agility and now in obedience in the UK than there are in gundog work. Where still, the only qualification available is FTCh. (FTW is not an official qualification although commonly used.) |
||||||
| chiendog |
Pure breeding distills the entire genetic package. For better or worse. Appearance is only one part of that package of course. Character, ability, health...all other genetically controlled variables are more predictable in purebred dogs. They are not absolutely guaranteed, but the traits we seek are more probable than with random breeding. If you want a dog that points, your best chance of getting one is by breeding a dog that points to a bitch that points.
Short answer: It applies to all purebred dogs. The main reason 99.9% of dog owners have a purebred dog of any breed is because they believe it provides them with a greater amount of social currency than a mutt. And it is an easy thing to prove. Try this: find someone, anyone, with a purebred dog. Point to it and say "that is a mutt". I am willing to bet dollars to donuts that the reaction will be anything but "Thank you very much for the compliment". In fact, calling someone's purebred dog a mutt is probably a great way to start a fight. Why? Long Answer. Before the middle of the 19th century, the entire concept of purebred dogs was unknown. Dogs were bred based on performance or ability or look with little or no regard to the "purity" of the line. For example in France the word braque was used for pretty much any kind of short haired pointing dog, epagneul for any longer haired pointing dog and griffon for the rougher haired ones. It was conceivable to have braques, epagneuls and griffons in the same litter. They were simply sorted by the type of hair. The same could be said for Cockers and Springers in the UK. Prior to about 1900 they came from the same litter and were simply classified according to their size. Pure breeding of dogs really took off just after the middle of the 19th century. Embraced by the growing middle class in Europe and North America and seemingly supported by Darwin's new concepts of natural selection, the "sport" had two goals. Officially, it was to produce "superior" strains of dogs in much the same way that farm animals and crops were being improved at the time. "Improvement of the breed" is still an important phrase in many breed clubs constitutions. However it soon became obvious that the main motivator for most breeders and the public eagerly purchasing their dogs was not some altruistic, selfless desire to create a better mouse trap. Rather, it turned out to be a quick and easy way of raising one's social status. By obtaining the trappings of the nobility, which included some sort of fancy dog, preferably from an exotic land, and parading around a ring in one's Sunday finest, the growing middle class could quickly and easily take on the airs of the higher classes. And so it remains today. If purebred dog breeding were truly about improving the breed, the Westminster Dog Show (and Crufts I would imagine) would be a gathering of veterinarians, statisticians and trained judges dressed in whatever work wear is appropriate for their profession, putting each dog through a series of physical, medical, genetic and performance based tests. Instead it is a black tie and ballroom gown affair attended by a few rich people and hordes of others who wish they were rich. They ooh and ahh as each specimen is trotted about the ring. They eat caviar and place bets. They gossip, back stab, conspire and perspire (discreetly of course). And at the end of it all they declare a new "Champion", the new and "improved" best of the best. And all this without a single objective measurement being made, without a single drop of blood being drawn and srcutinized, without a single performance based test applied. In short, without anything whatsoever that could conceivably aid in demonstrating any sort of improvement in the breed. Pure breeding of dogs is indeed an effort to improve something. And that something is ones perceived station in life. |
||||||
| windem bang |
Ever thought of a career in diplomacy Craig ? I cannot begin to tell you how much I enjoyed that last post of yours !
I did disagree with one or two small parts of it but overall I thought it just about sums things up. Bill T. |
||||||
| josie |
Yes, great post Craig! | ||||||
| Ghilliegumdrop |
I've never seen anyone in a ballroom gown or even black tie when we have been at Cruft's......am I missing something here. When Bill gets to Crufts is he going in tie and tails....the mind boggles, and I bet we will all be there to cheer him on
|
||||||
| Bareve |
OK I understand your reason but I've always thought anything in front of the dog's name is a title so FT CH would be a title in much the same way as AG CH, Sh Ch, Ch etc. So you still wouldn't really take any notice of or acknowledge a dog who had a FTAW or a FTW against it's name? I can understand that it isn't a recognised title but it still takes some doing and for a lot of people/dogs they never even get a field trial award |
||||||
| Bareve |
Good post Craig - maybe our KC would be interested in employing you
Janet if Bill ever made it to Crufts we would be there with a red carpet let alone evening dress
|
||||||
| windem bang |
Ladies this show I've got myself into is likely to be my one and only one. You had better make the most of it 'cos I can't see me getting to Crufts! ...........I wouldn't inflict that on a dog, I like the creatures !!!
Where awards on pedigrees are concerned I used to be in favour of adding info like F.T.W. I felt this little bit of info was useful to a puppy buyer. I have since been forced to change my mind on this matter. Years ago I noticed that some breeders were putting F.T.W. on pedigrees when their bitch had won a field TEST
At that time I laughed at this, thinking that it didn't matter as everyone involved knew the bitch had never won a trial ,had maybe never even ran in one. As time has gone by however and the pups from those field test litters have been bred from ,this "mistake" has been perpetuated in the pedigrees of their pups. People are buying pups thinking that their mum or their grand dam was a TRIAL winner. I still think even Novice trial winning or award info is useful and I would not object if the K.C. allowed the addition of that to a pedigree but with the proviso that a working Stud Book number must appear alongside the award initials. Bill T. |
||||||
| chiendog |
The Westminster Dog Show is THE gala of the year for the AKC. Judging from what I've seen of it on the TV, black tie is "de rigueur" 
I take it Crufts is somewhat less formal...? 
|
||||||
| josie |
I think we're not understanding each other, which could be because I"m not explaining this well... I, personally, would definitely take into account a dog with FTW or which has been placed at FTs. I mean, that would "mean" something to me, if I were looking for a pup, for the parents to have FT success. What I mean is that it's not very transparent. Sure, we can ask the breeder to (honestly) give us a list of the dog's FT achievements, or we can request them from the KC (can we?), but it's not something which is readily apparent from a glance at a dog's name. For people who are new to dogs, even if they are experienced hunters who are new to dogs and are looking for a dog to shoot over, it can be bewildering. I mean, I could describe Slate as having passed her NAT, her KC Working Gundog Cert, won out of Novice at WTs, where she is frequently placed, competing in FTs in Novice and AA stakes and picking up on a shoot. None of that is a lie, it's all true. It probably sounds impressive, especially to someone not currently involved in dogs. But she is not a good working dog and I'd be doing a disservice to anyone wanting a hunting dog if I sold a pup from her to them. (IMO). I doubt very much if she would pass a NAVHDA Utility test and would not have scored a very good score on the NAVHDA NAT. If she were in that system, it would be immediately apparent that she's not a good working dog. Not sure if I've explained anything there or made it more complicated! |
||||||
| Mike |
I've always thought it would be nice for FT dogs to be able to add their highest award as a title e.g. WN1 would be first in novice (the W could signify winning?) WAA3 would be a third in all age but winning the trial, I know it would make a dog with places in novice, all age and open potentially have clumsy "names" but no more so than the working test titles. Maybe if they could only place the highest award in the highest stake and drop any suffix's if the where ever made up to FTCh?
What would be nice about a system like this is that it could be applied retrospectively relatively easily I would assume, it would certainly make the working dog's pedigrees a bit more informative. Looking through Harleys pedigree the other night I had no idea if the champions in his pedigree had a CoM in Novice or place in AA or Open or a SGWC. |
||||||
| Blue |
Maybe I'm just not understanding you. You're saying that the pure breeding of dogs has nothing to do with producing desired traits, making a better herder or gunner or guard dog but it is only done and has only been done to bolster the fragile egos of the people who breed and/or own them? Surely this isn't what you mean? How many people have asked you what mix Uma is? What was your reaction? That question has been put to me many times and i don't recall getting into any fisticuffs, and I'm sure I'd remember. |
||||||
| chiendog |
Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Creating better herders, better guard dogs and better gun dogs does not require keeping them "pure". In fact the whole notion of "pure" breeds with their closed stud books and dogmatic resistance to any "foreign" blood is in many ways counterproductive when it comes to truly improving performance. It is perfectly possible, and to performance focussed breeders quite desirable, to produce dogs that have all the traits we could ever want without much "pure" breeding going on at all. All you need do is look at the winning team of the Iditarod, a thousand mile long race across Alaska. The dogs in it are, bar none, the finest athletes on the planet...canine or otherwise. And they are about as "pure" as a puddle of mud. Compare them to the purest of the purebred breeds we have today. Those arthritic, malformed, unable to even copulate decently dogs we see in the show ring. They are so "pure", that their family tree is all trunk. What has their purity, in and of itself, actually done to improve them in terms of performance? Nada. The concept of "pure" breeding is an outdated Victorian era leftover made up of equal parts misinterpreted Darwinism and crazy notions of Kings and queens marrying their cousins in order to keep the blood blue. But it is the backbone of an entire sport, the sine quo non of an activity that brings pleasure to millions of people. It is a fascinating pursuit that has given us the fantastic mosaic of breeds we know and love. I am not against purebred dogs. I own some. I am not against people pursuing the quest for their ideal dog in all its glory. Nor do I dismiss the necessity for people to engage in things that stroke their ego from time to time. But let's not kid ourselves about breed purity, in and of itself, doing much at all in terms of improved performance in our dogs. If we were truly bent on creating the perfect hunting dog, we'd open the studbooks and allow a general free for all. We'd let anyone who figures he/she has the perfect recipe take a shot at some sort of brass ring. After all, the few who dared do such things 150 years ago created the Drahthaar, Griffon, Pudelpointer et al. Those who do it today are running the Iditarod or out lurching rabbits...not wallowing around in the self congratulatory circle jerk of the show ring.
A few have asked, but not many actually. When they do, I proudly tell them she is a mix of Irish Water Spaniel, Epagneul Francais and English Setter. Then I send her off to point another pheasant for me to shoot. |
||||||
| Bareve |
Now I can understand where you are coming from It was just the way it was written/me reading it as it sounded so different to this explanation. Glad that is sorted
Any F/T awards are listed in the relevant stud books so they would be quite easily checked by looking at a stud book which would save miss-quotes being made by people and making them sound grander than they are! |
||||||
| Blue |
Aha! Now we're on the same page, sometimes you just need to be challenged so you'll post more
So would you consider it appropriate even in this day and age to "mix in" some other breeds to the established pure breds such as the Weimaraner to infuse more drive for example? I get a lot of guesses of English Setter with my Blue and my response is always "yes, but not for many years"
No mention of the Barbet in the Ponto? |
||||||
| chiendog |
Thanks for the prodding. I find forums sometimes useful to work out ideas I'm checking into for my book project.
I believe that the fatal flaw in the current system is the closed stud book. The whole idea of pure = good lead to the idea of radically, and permanently, isolating breeds from one another in the hope of establishing some sort of pure-as-the-driven-snow super-breed. For some breeds, with sufficiently large gene pools, there is little need to inject blood from another breed. I believe that there are enough good Weimaraners about to ensure a ready supply for the limit number of people actually seeking a working Weim. However, if ever a time did come when the ability of the breed declined below acceptable levels, I would certainly be in favour of crossing to another breed. I would vote for the GSP. For some breeds, it was necessary to do some crossing sometime in the past. For others, it is absolutely necessary to cross right now. Yet there is no official way of doing so in most cases. Crossing to another breed is completely contrary to the entire premise upon which the sport of purebred dog breeding is based. Even mentioning it in some quarters is tantamount to treason. Yet, in this day and age, it is done nevertheless. Usually under the light of the moon and with knowing winks it has gone on and is going on in many breeds. Your own blue is the remarkable result of open minded Picardy Spaniel breeders choosing to breed English setters into their lines almost 100 years ago (and much more recently than that as well). The results speak for themselves. I've seen a number of outstanding blues that I would be honoured to hunt with.
Barbet, IWS, Poodle...same church, different pew. No one knows the exact Ponto recipe. A good friend of mine is trying to recreating it though. There are litters on ground right now that are the offspring of an IWS x Setter cross. They are, for all intents and purposes, Pontos. |
||||||
| josie |
The Slovak stud book is still open in Slovakia, (I'm sure you know that anyway Craig). I believe they are in the process of creating a new line by re-crossing the original breeds from scratch. | ||||||
| Mike |
Hi Sharon, I've only thumbed through a studbook at a show and TBH it only looked like a list of events and placings at those events (although TBH I didn't look that closely) Does a studbook have a listing of all dogs awards or are they only published in the specific book (i.e. the information only appears once in one stud book) What I am getting at is that unless you have a complete collection of studbooks it might be quiet hard to get the information you are after? or have I misunderstood something? Thanks. It would be nice if the KC had an online searchable database! |
||||||
| tashap |
they do... its just not open to the public you have to phone in and ask. Even with a full range of stud books which I have you will be hard pushed to find specifics unless you know the actual date of qualification, some results are not posted. | ||||||
| BenB |
Surely this all slightly goes in the face of the original breeds having been developed to do different jobs? My way of understanding is that latterly cross-breeding took place to improve certain existing breeds?
Are you thinking that there should be no base stamp for any breed - that all breed lines should be open for cross-mating? If this is the case then whilst it will save a large number of breeds (althought they will not be those "original" breeds anymore) you will have to cross the progeny back to the base breed for a few generations to hide the fresh blood if you want to claim it as the original breed. Also by opening up stud books the % of surplus and dud animals produced will be vast. If you look at lurcher breeding we get very excited and talk about 1/16th mix of this and an 1/8th of that and everyone strives to produce dogs for different tasks. The reality is that there are a huge number of crap lurchers out there - a lot with amazing breeding change hands regularly and then get ditched because the recessive genes throw something into their mix which means it will not do the job as well as another one. The only way would be to DNA test for pure blood and start again from scatch to improve the HPRs. i hate this forum - it really makes the brain hurt!
|
||||||
| Mike |
Just as an interesting aside (if slightly off topic) the retriever championship winner in 1921 and 1922 (Flashy and Dazzle respectively, both handled by C. Alington) where first generation crosses between flat coats and labradors (the terminology of the day was interbred retrievers rather than designer crosses!) I am pretty sure in the book I saw them mentioned in they where both reported to be FT.Ch. as well.
So it would appear that out crossing used to occur in post victorian KC registered dogs for a time at least? |
||||||
| windem bang |
I am thoroughly enjoying this topic ! I am a believer in outcrossing because that which does not move on is stagnant.
I know of several outcrosses (done darkly ) among the gundog breeds and among a certain line of German Shepherd too.
To my mind it makes sense that if a breed is full of hard mouthed dogs to introduce a carefully selected soft mouthed dog or two. I know that this was done years ago to improve another gundog breed. The labrador itself is not a "pure lab" - the original small St. Johns Dog when introduced into this country was at once bred to other dogs of various breeds including border collie, that it was hoped would improve it. I think the breeders back then did the right thing. I have had a total of 6 labs in my life (I think) and every one of them was a "natural" and not one of them was in any way difficult to train. Compare that to six dogs from the H.P.R. breeds that we see here. I've had good H.P.R. 's but I wouldn't call some of them problem free ! I.M.O. The H.P.R.'s have a way to go yet in their development. I think some of our breeders have dug in firmly and have adopted a head in the sand position. They do not want to see the faults within their own breeds.
When I talk of "faults" I think of mental attributes that are not there or are not correct, I think of the things that cannot be seen just by looking at a dog on a lead. If I mention possible faults to a show person they seem to at once think of "conformation ." If conformation was what counted then show greyhounds would win greyhound track races beating their less well conformed cousins - but they do not beat them . A show greyhound cannot even put up a good enough time to be allowed onto a track to race ! I believe that much the same occurs among gundogs. Showdogs aren't bred for what happens in their heads out in the fields yet the gundog needs that probably even more than it needs to conform to a particular breed type. I think of gundogs as dogs that actually do a days work out shooting. All of the other "gundogs" are only playing at being worthy of the title Gundog. Bill T. |
||||||
| windem bang |
A cross that I would love to train and work as a gundog would be a good Brittany mated to a non yappy border collie that liked retrieving.
I have a feeling that if I managed to choose a pup with the collie breeds willingness to please I could make something really special out of such a pup. The working collie already has a pointing instinct so no problem there. They have a strong hunting instinct too and most of them retrieve just as well as the average Brit does. For the last 3 years I have been watching two border collies belonging to a hill shepherd working as beaters dogs and sometimes as retrievers. I have been very impressed by them. Those dogs are "with" their owner, even at times when the spaniels etc. go a bit haywire ! Bill T. |
||||||
| langhaar |
This practise was known as "stamping the genes " done with KC approval up to 1969.
The famous Rivington kennels added some setter blood which was absorbed into their springer breeding programme, that's why some lines exhibit setter characteristics.Keith Erlandson writes " Since then (1969 ) similar things have been done surreptitiously to produce certain desired characteristics, such as wide, fast running and high head carriage, so if the ESSC still insists the breed is of " pure and ancient origin " I will say it's a wise dog that knows it's own origins". Introducing blood from associated breeds is not a new philosophy, as mentioned before the DLV has instigated a programme of introducing Kurzhaar blood into the Langhaar. |
||||||
| chiendog |
The topic of cross breeding is indeed fascinating. We could (should?) start a thread on it alone.
In the meantime I will make a few comments in response to others in this thread:
The idea of each breed being developed to do a different job is a common one...and not quite right. There are, to be sure, different types of dogs that eventually developed to perform different tasks, from herding to hunting to companionship. They are however "types" or groups and not necessarily individual breeds. Indeed, for any one task (herding, guarding, digging etc.) there has been more than one breed (sometimes dozens) developed to take it on. Among the only exception I can think of is duck tolling. The Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever may be the only one specifically, at least in name, developed for that job. But if we consider the HPR group, it is clear that all members have been developed to hunt, point and retrieve. Breed supporters do go on and on of course about just how different their HPR is supposed to work when compared to the other HPR's. And they support their position with breed histories about how it was developed by barefoot mountain dwellers from an exotic land to hunt the mythical two headed snow-grouse of Timbuktoo. In reality, all the HPR breeds are simply variations on the same theme: a dog that can muddle through a variety of tasks for the (then) nouveau riche middle class doctor/lawer/teacher who finally won the right to hunt game on the land of the noble guy who lost his head in the latest round of public unrest. I have watched double nose Spanish pointers hunt quail across the arid hills of Guadalajara and Old Danish Pointers hunt partridge under the wind turbins of Jutland. I have chased sharptailed grouse across the endless prairies of Saskatchewan with a Pont Audemer Spaniel and a small herd of Large Munsterlanders and I have seen a Weimaraner kill a roe deer with a single bite on the island of Baltrum. And in the end, they all did what they were bred to do. They hunted, pointed and retrieved. Each with its own individual style and, granted, a hint of breed specific flourish (how can you NOT stare at that cleft double nose?!) but for the most part, if I were colour blind and did not pay too much attention to the length of the dogs' coat, they were more or less interchangeable.
No. There should indeed be a base stamp or ideal to which breeders should aspire. A Pont Audemer Spaniel should be a brown or brown and white curly coated, top knotted, epagneul like breed that hunts, points and retrieves. But what do you do when there are only three hundred left in the world, many of which no longer hunt, point, retrieve...or have a curly coat and topknot? The problem is that in most countries and with most kennel clubs, there are no official mechanisms to address the issue of cross breeding. There is no emergency procedure, no "plan B" to go to if and when breeds get into trouble. As it stands, the only plan is a dogmatic intransigence to the very idea of ever allowing "foreign" blood in...purity at all costs. Even when a well founded effort is undertaken in public, as with the Irish Setter in the US in the 1970's and the Dalmation as well, it tends to get very messy quickly (for more info on those programs see: http://www.nrsftc.com/history.htm and http://www.dogstuff.info/backcross_project_nash.html) I do not believe that all breeds should simply be left open for cross-mating at any time by anyone. Many breeds are in the enviable position of not needing any help from other breeds. What I do believe is that all breeds should at least have a formal plan or mechanism to turn to if the need to cross breed ever arises.
Actually, what you've just written applies to many "pure" breeds with closed studbooks. The % of dud Weimaraners and Irish Setters for example is vast. The amount of recessive genes causing problems in most (all?) our purebred dogs is huge. And there is NO official way of addressing the problem. At least with Lurchers there is some sort of method to the madness..or at the very least the liberty to resort to some sort of plan "b" or "C" or "D"... |
||||||
| BenB |
This is far more interesting than working on the databases that I am supposed to be doing! Thanks for the replies. Shall need to reread sections of this and cogitate!
The only quick thing I can think of to add or think out loud is that lurchers and longdogs use a staple and stable base of sighthounds as the base blood. Realistically there is only the choice of a few breeds, then rather like a cocktail you add to that base with whichever breed traits you require. The basic work and requirements for a lurcher is pretty simple - speed, stamina, fire and brain. The requirements for the HPRs is so much more complex in terms of what we ideally would like them to do as well as look like. Where on earth would you start? |
||||||
| langhaar |
When the motorcar was invented you could have any colour as long as it was black, but decades later we can choose for comfort, colour, speed, size, capabilities etc, same concept in gundogs insn't it ? | ||||||
| chiendog |
I forgot to add:
The obvious differences in HPR breeds is their look and (usually tongue twisting) name. The reason the various breeds look different from one another and have different names is that they were developed in different regions of Europe at a time when the flow of genetic material was far less than it is today. Much like the various languages spoken today, they arose from a common root stock, developed along slightly different paths in relative isolation, occasionally adopting bits and pieces from one another but in the end, they serve the same pupose. For language it is communication, for HPR's it is hunting, pointing and retrieving. And like language, what we are seeing today is a trend towards homogenization. With the traditional barriers of mountains, rivers, national borders now more or less gone, the dominant languages (English now...Chinese soon?) are having more and more of an influence on the minority languages. There are regular efforts across Europe to safeguard mother tongues and clean them of the English words being adopted wholesale. Regional dialects are going extinct, even accents are becoming less and less identifiable. And so it is with HPR breeds. The main activities nowadays for them in countries like France and Italy are field trials. All the breeds run against each other in competitions where they are all held to more or less the same standard of performance (despite the belly aching of many regarding "breed specific style"). In the US the hprs compete against Pointers and Setters as well. The trend is therefore towards a standard, ubiquitous trial (or test) dog that hardly differs from its competitors in any obvious way. I have seen GSP's that were basically Pointers with cropped tails, Brittanies that were for all intents and purposes bobbed English setters, GWP champions with nary a whisker and Griffons that "set" on point. I guess the point I am trying to make is that dog breeds will always be works in progress. No matter how hard we try to seal them in aspic, forever freezing them at some arbitrary point in time when they were just right, they will continue to evolve as our tastes, requirement and cultures stumble along toward the nirvana of "some day". |
||||||
| chiendog |
I'd be perfectly happy to start with speed, stamina, fire and brain! Add a rock solid point and Bob's your uncle
|
||||||
| Emma_ |
Craig,
the Finnish KC decided this year to allow the crossing of Irish water spaniel into the Pont Audemer spaniel. It will be interesting to see how that turns out. I really enjoy reading these posts, wish we had these kind of discussions here in Finland too (without people starting to throw virtual tomatoes on each other that is...). |
||||||
| chiendog |
That is good news indeed! I have been working with a French friend on such a program in France. The SCC (french kennel club) is allowing it. The Pontos in Finland come from my friend's line in fact. I have communicated with the breeders there. They have dogs that are cousins to mine here in Canada (small world!). |
||||||
| kiwi |
all very interesting, but of those things you would be happy to start with, how would they help the hpr's that work on other game apart from upland work......i reject alot of stud dogs because they have all that speed, stamina and fire, it may work well in the bird trial world but is counter productive sitting in a duck blind or stalking deer on the snowline. crossing one of the four breeds used in the dd can still be done in the vdd or am i wrong
|
||||||
| chiendog |
As a duck hunter, I would argue that speed, stamina, fire and brains are very important. A speedy retrieve is preferable to a leisurely stroll when a wounded bird is making haste to find cover over rough waters. Fire in a dog will help propel it through the thickest of reeds and is vital when it comes to subduing a thrashing 15-pound goose in open water. Stamina applies as well. Just this fall one of my dogs sat in the blind with me for over 2 hours until I managed to wing-tip the only duck that flew by that morning. The dog then spent the next 20 minutes fighting through mud, reeds and water looking for it. She found it more than a 1/4 of a mile away. An hour later we were in the uplands hunting grouse. She ran for a about an hour and a half, pointing three grouse (I missed each and every one!  ) And all this was on the third day of a three-day hunt. Without stamina, she would have given up half way through day one.
In Canada and many parts of the US, we cannot use dogs to stalk deer (crazy politicians...!) so I will take your word for it that speed, fire and stamina are not as important as other traits. But I know that my friends in Germany that do hunt deer, will only breed extremely hardy dogs with fire to spare. They don't actually stalk deer, their dogs are used to either find and drive deer out of cover toward the waiting hunters of they are used on leash to track wounded deer/boar and will sometimes be left off leash to find it on their own and bark to indicate its fall. Whatever the method, they are expected to possess ungodly amounts of fire and stamina, not to mentions loads of brains. I know what you mean though in terms of having "too much dog" in a blind or on a leash....been there, done that, don't want to go back. But fire, stamina and speed are not always synonymous with whining, pulling and being a pain in the aas. A well balanced dog can actually have both fire and control, speed and manners, stamina and an "off" switch.
I should mention that in areas where the field abilities of the breed are first and foremost, there is a much more pragmatic attitude towards opening the stud book a wee bit from time to time when it is absolutely necessary. In Germany, the Langhaar is now receiving measured doses of GSP blood and the Pudelpointer has had both Poodle and Pointer added recently. In Denmark, the Old Danish Pointer club bred to Braque Francais a couple of years ago. All the French braque and epagneul breeds have been setterized or pointerized within the last 20 years. In Spain the Periguero de Burgos has had some GSP bred in. In Slovakia the Slovak Pointer is still getting regular shots of Weimaraner,...and that's the stuff we know about! There are rumours of Salukis making their way into Weimaraner lines, Greyhounds and Whippets into Pointer lines, Boxers into Portuguese Pointer lines, Afghans into Irish Setter lines... All this tinkering around with the various "pure" breeds is seen by some as just a fact of life, to some purists however, it is akin to seeing how sausage is made. |
||||||
| kiwi |
thanks for explaining that, i think that the off switch is the key, and in my requirements i like a few other settings.....controlled fire being one.
everything must be balanced when looking for an allround hpr, breed for one thing and you will get a shortfall or excess in other area's, that is why the trials world has ruined alot of breeds as much as the show world
|
||||||
| Mike |
That is a very strong statement, can you back it up with examples of breeds that have been ruined by trials and in what way? Don't get me wrong, I don't see trials as perfect but to say they have ruined as many breeds as showing seems unlikely. Whilst I accept that breeding solely for competition will eventually leave you with a breed that is very good at that competition (which may or may not be useful for judging the breeds original purpose) if that competition is still physically demanding then I don't see how the excesses of the show ring are possible. I am thinking specifically of the Brachycephalic breeds in this instance rather than any of our HPR breeds. A prime example of showing ruining a working dog is the clumber spaniel, which has had its breed standard revised a few times to allow its upper weight limit to be raised from a lithe 40lb to a sausage like 80lb!! I cannot imagine any physically demanding competition allowing something like that to happen, can you? |
||||||
| kiwi |
yeah sounds pretty bad i suppose but i stand by it.
i didn't say as many but in it's own way it has changed the various breeds to suit the sport, the early gwp's in this country enjoyed great success in field trials and for many years the only breeders of gwp's were field trialist, no controlled breeding other than to run like a pointer/setter. the gwp is just getting over it's bad boy image here, some better imported and non trials blood {dear i say show blood} has balanced out temp, and slowed the breed down, back to the rough shooters dog it should be....i better add they have improved in looks and conformation too
i like the allround working ability of the european breeds, i feel if owners want a form of dog sport to enjoy with these dogs then testing them and working tests are better formats to see how good they really are. if competion is your thing then field trials designed for hpr's and with room to adjust for the various breeds would be very interesting if there was enough intrest in this country. i like pictures here are two pic's of some gwps, some UK bred gwp and an american trials bred gwp, which one do you think is still close to what came out of germany
|
||||||
| josie |
That second dog is a GWP??
Not without a hefty input from pointers, maybe some GSP too...! |
||||||
| BenB |
Looks more like a jack russell on steroids. | ||||||
| langhaar |
That's a mighty fine versatile Kiwi, comes in lemon and white too I read?
|
||||||
| kiwi |
i kid you not........i can post a link if you don't believe me
http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=228 |
||||||
| Emma_ |
I can understand that some people don't appreciate the trial-system.
We have that here too. Here there is a demand that only dogs that have hunting trial results should be used for breeding. However, there are many excellent dogs that never participate in trials but they would make really good breeding material anyway. Some people just go their own way and use the dogs they feel is the best breeding material, trial results or not, but they usually get a lot of criticism for that. Here we divide hunting trials into Forest or woodland trials and Field trials. The first one is usually in dense forest or in the mountains and the game is always wild birds such as capercaillie, black grouse and willow grouse. The field trials are always on open fields and the game is grey partridge and pheasants (not necessarily wild). Most dogs work very well in field trials because pheasants are easy birds to work on and open fields are easy to run on. The forest trials however, are a different story. Many dogs have problem with handling the game because they have to point them from quite far away and the forest makes many dogs search in a different way, usually for the worst. So there are many dogs with very high prizes from field trials but that have never participated in forest trials. We have huge areas of forests here and most people hunt in the forests so the breeding of dogs with field trial awards only is not a very good thing at all. So an experienced hunter will always first ask about the dogs hunting abilities in the forest before asking further about any trial results. Also, some excellent dogs don't work out well in trials and vice versa. I know many of these and we have two at home My weim is a good field trial dog because he is very obedient and has quite good search in open land but when I hunt with him in the forest, he sometimes lacks the drive.
On the other hand, my husbands GSP is an excellent hunting dog on all grounds and she is an exceptional bird finder but she has a shy temprament. When she was tested in a trial, she got nervous about the other people and dogs and did not perform at all. For us, it doesn't matter that she is shy because hunting here is a lonely business but for these reasons, she might not be used for breeding although she has all these excellent hunting abilities. So one should be very critical towards hunting trials and hunting trial results although I guess they are the best measurement we have right now. Everything can be improved though. |
||||||
| langhaar |
Let's not forget also from that neck of the woods their addition to the worldwide working gundog world
|
||||||
| tashap |
its interesting that the trials are split into those land types, is Finland the only country that does this??? | ||||||
| Emma_ |
Tasha,
I know that in Sweden and Norway the hunting trials are either in Forest, Mountain or Field. The rules are exactly the same, it is just the land type that differs and the idea is to test the dogs in different terrain and different game. This is of course only possible (and necessary?) in countries with large areas of different land types. |
||||||
| countrygirl |
Well there is Cascade behind my wirehair as he was born in quaritin and he looks nothing like that
|
||||||
| Bareve |
An online stud book may come in time Everytime a KC registered dog wins an award that is a stud book number "qualifier" will be listed in that particular "year book". The first time they appear the whole breeding is listed - each subsequent time their name is listed along with the event number - whether it's a show or a field trial.
The only way I can see where a dog winning a F/T award does not get mentioned in the stud book is if the F/T secretary fails to send in details of the awards - which I personally cannot see happening. |
||||||
| Bareve |
And how dreadfully close breeding that was too !!! |
||||||
| Bareve |
But not those Cascade's Carole Pretty sure Steamer was a "smooth" and they've certainly went pretty in-bred to Steamer!
|
||||||
| countrygirl |
You are right as ever Sharon, Maverick goes back to Ike
Caz |
||||||
| sashalgwps |
Do these extreme differences of type not come down to a breeders priorities rather than it being that the trial world has split the breeds?
What I mean is that to breed a dog that is so far from the breed standard as to look like a different breed. A breeder will have chosen to disregard the breed type of the dog and to breed only for the performance of that dog. That is no different from some show people who promote dogs that judges will select or possess the type the breeder or judge they like whether it fits to a standard or not. It is also no different to the gamekeeper/rough shooter etc who has a litter because they like the way their dog works and like the way the stud dog works even though they may look nothing like the breed. I guess what I am trying to say is that it is not individual pursuits that we do with our dogs that change the breeds we have - just the individual priorities that breeders have when they are breeding a litter. I'm rambling sorry.......... Alex |
||||||