This is not correct.

CJ is VC/FC/AFC Dr N's CJ MH.  He is the first VC/FC in the breed.

Cecil was Windrow's Saddle Tramp MH.  He sired CJ.

At one time, Cecil was the leading sire of UT I GSPs.  I had pulled performance reports for the other NAVHDA leading sires at the time.  I would doubt that this is still the case, due to the large number of litter sired, and dogs tested, in the last 5+ years.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but every single Cecil dog ever tested in UT passed at least once, and something like 75% of them with a UTI.  The total of UTI dogs was around 23. 

Cecil is also the leading sire of AKC Master Hunter GSPs.  He is from a FT background and is a littermate to a NGSPA National All Age Champion.

When looking across all performance venues, no dog has had more impact on the breed in the last 25 years than Cecil.  We've had influential FT dogs, and HT dogs, and NAVHDA dogs but Cecil is the one dog who had made a big impact on ALL of the major venues.

Just wanted to clarify this.

FWIW,
Dave

I can't give you percentages and neither can anyone else.  How on earth can you judge that which you cannot see?  When I do see it I usually have a very good idea as to why it was done.  If the dog has the wind and position and passes a bird at a reasonable, pointable range, then obviously it's a nose issue or a desire issue.  Such a dog won't place under me.

A dog cannot place or win in an AKC trial at anythign other than the puppy level without pointing a bird.

Are you this dishonest in all aspects of your life or just when discussing dogs?  I have no where, ever, knocked versatile dogs or versatile venues.  You cannot show otherwise.

We use poultry to plant trial grounds because the rules require us to do so and there are few places left in this country where we have access that there are sufficient wild birds to run a trial, much less 5,000 or more annual field trials put on by various AKC clubs across the country.  It requires a few hundred acres to put on a good trial with planted birds, it requires tens of thousands of acres of good wild bird habitat to run the same number of dogs, and many, many more days.

The rules and proceedures specify that we are to plant the course in such a manner as to plant the areas where wild birds would be found were they native to the course.  A "real birddog" hunts the course appropriately vs a plodding bore who trots along in front of the handler and never gets off of the path.

Thank you Dave, you are of course correct.  Silly me getting TWO great dogs confused! 

Replace "run" with "hunt" and your statement is somewhat more accurate.

A field trial is a proving ground.; the goal is to find the best producers of the best hunting dogs in the nation.  The goal is NOT to perfectly replicate hunting.  The goal of trialing is to focus on the core elements that make up a hunting dog (point, nose, hunt, stamina, independence, cooperation, etc).  The goal of trials is to push hunting dogs harder and further, to ask more from them than any hunter ever would, to expect more from them than the average trainer can deliver.

You've got to remember that in most cases we're dealing with planted bird trials, and the quirks that come with them.  Handlers can often see birds sitting out in the open, or mark where flushed birds have flown to.  They then hack the dog back into the bird until they point it.  The dog has a "find", but has shown no real hunting (i.e. the ability to search for game on their own).  Other birds are not strong or smart enough to hide in cover and sit out in the open, on paths and roads.

So you have two dogs; one that gets called back into 3 separate birds by the handler and finds 2 on the horse path.  The other hunts the cover on his own and has 2 separate finds.  One dog has 5 finds; the other has 2.  Which one in your opinion has shown to be the better hunting dog?

The job of the judge isn't to count finds and award placements simply on finds.  The job of the judge is to look at the complete dog and the complete performance. We don't hamstring the judges; instead we have faith that they are intelligent bird dog folks who understand ALL of the aspects that make up great hunting dogs.  Even with wild bird trials, the judges have to take things into consideration; dogs that get run in the cool of the morning or on courses that hold many wild birds will, as a group, have more finds than the dogs run in the heat of the day or on courses that have not produced as many birds.

One of the great ironies about this thread is the supposed obsession with style in FTs, along with the desire to see run over point.  The problem is "style" is defined as how the dog looks ON POINT.  In order to judge style, the dog needs to find and point birds.  "Class" is defined as how the dog looks while moving.

Everyone wants to obsess about run and drive and style and speed and range.  At the end of the day, they all are trumped by the two attributes that wins the most trials; APPLICATION and BIRD FINDING.  Does the dog go to where wild birds would naturally be and hunt those areas, and ignore the places where birds would not often found?  The key element to a pointing dog is efficiency; they can't hunt everywhere so they must decide what places they will focus on.  In planted bird trials, you hope that birds have been placed in those places that reward dogs with enough intelligence and training to hunt those locations.  To win trials dogs have to hunt the right places, and find the birds that are there.

JMO,

Dave

Some do, some don't.  The goal of FTs is to ask more than the average hunter wants; the goal of HTs is to mimic what the average hunter wants.  Some folks find HTs boring and enjoy the competitive nature of FTs, and like the challenge of FTs. Some of us are such dog nuts that we enjoy watching every brace, day after day. You can’t do that at a hunt test.

The goal of HTs is to provide the sportsman a way to evaluate his dogs against a standard.  The goal of FTs is to challenge the breeder/trainer/handler to push for the best of the best, which is a perpetual challenge.

Don't forget that FTs are run against a standard too, just like HTs.  The difference is in FTs the dogs that win are the ones judged to have best represented the standard.

There's been a lot of politics involved with hunt tests and field trials, and at least in GSPs it's a somewhat different crowd.  I do both with my dogs, as do virtually everyone else that I train & hunt with. 

I happen to know a lot of folks who HT/FT Labs as well; the process is generally the same.  Some dogs start with HTs, and judges suggest that they might want to FT; others start with FTs and judges suggest they might want to HT. Many dogs can do both. 

There's value in ALL of it; but each venue looks for slightly different things and has different goals.  One has to be objective about that, and not everyone is.  As someone who has played most of them; none of them are perfect.

JMO,

Dave

Really well said Dave, thank you. I agree completely.

Smokin deuces - Jeez, FTs don't usually pay out either! I cringe to think of what we spend, and only the limited stakes if that usually have money attached.

HTs are a GREAT way to start out in a competitive venue with your dogs. That's where we started before progressing to FTs. And to answer your question, yes some folks, including us, do both. We get a bunch of crap for it though.

Jean

Being dishonest isn't nice.  Are you this dishonest in all aspects of your life or just when discussing dogs? 

Quit making false, dishonest accusations then perhaps we might have a reasonable conversation.
 

Anyone who doesn't respect the accomplishment of a SH or MH dog is either an idiot or so uninformed as to not understand what it takes to achieve either.  Unless the rules have changed... .If you have a finished JH, it still takes four passes at SH to achieve that title. 

If you have a finished SH it still takes six passes at MH to achieve that title.  If you haven't completed the lower titles, you add 2 passes at each of the higher levels to earn those titles.  Trust me.  There's nothing at all easy about passing at the SH or MH levels if the tests are run and judged appropriately.

They are two totally different things.  Trials are competitive.  For each stake we have a minimum standard of performance that is acceptable and then we judge who does it best, meeting the criteria for that stake.

Hunt tests are simply pass/fail. There is no best or worst. You have a specific list of things each dog must do, and do correctly to pass and that's all.

I have run both Bullett and Moose in Hunt tests, and will run some in a test next weekend.  I made a decision three years ago that I could not pursue both venues wholeheartedly simply as a matter of practicality due to the time and money required to do both as I have to travel great distances to attend either. 

Those that do both, generally will do one at a time, achieve a given goal, then move to the other venue.

Quote from Bruce:

To take Jeans comment a lil further, I (GASP!)....Shooow my dogs as well. Now you want to talk about catching crap!

You and I HAVE to meet some day. Maybe Eureka this year? I just can't get into showing and no one wants to see me running in a circle in a dress. But I believe field trial dogs should meet the breed standard. When I tell other field trialers that a dog should have to pass a confirmation inspection (maybe similar to Int Ch) to finish an FC or AFC, they look at me like I have two heads. Then when I say they should also have to pass a water test - something simple like retrieving dog novice - that's when they walk away.

Jean

The VCA and I believe the WCA as well require that the dogs meet a basic conformation criteria in order to be eligible to compete in their National events.  I would have ZERO problem signing onto such a proposal for the GSPCA and even NGSPA nationals.  If the Vizsla and Weim folks can do it why shouldn't we?

Those who focus on nothing but performance ignoring all the rest do the breed no good in my opinion.  We have a breed standard to define what is a GSP and to separate them from the other breeds.

Your posts:
In post #4 ,so, you figured this out at what-----8 years old????

In post #5, highl arrogant and sacastic

In post #6,not sure what facts you are referring to, except maybe the fact that you believe you are always correct

In post #7, you are backtalking. 1st, to much pointing does hurt a dog' performance then it doesn't. Well, which is it? Then you go on to say what i said but in your own words.

In post #8, goes on to assume i was talking about you and to you.

In post #9, this post goes on to substantiate what i already said, again, in your own words.

I hope you can see how petty this is. I can go on if you like. I will even compare what you said in this thread to what you stated in the 'Performance Events' thread.

 

None of those posts backs up your claim that I hate versatile dogs, or versatile venues.  They are all fair observations.

1) German bred dogs are bred for cold climates and cold water, not heat tolerance.  Even our "American Bred GSP's" (those with no German breeding for more than 4 generations in their pedigrees) are markedly improved in their heat tolerance, stride, gait, and style over their "American Bred" predecessors from the sixties and seventies. 

2,3)  Had you been dealing with the breed for more than a few years you would have seen that the fighting and biting problems were indeed much more pervasive than they are today.  This is because many of us recognized the problem and worked to resolve it through selective breeding.  No where does I state anything about versatility or versatile venues.  In fact in the third quote I made a point to even specify that I  have seen great improvement in the dogs bred specifically for versatile venues over the last decade or so.

4) A fair observation whether you like it or not.

5)  Again a fair observation based on 40 plus years of working with the breed which you don't have the background or experience to challenge and nothing in the post displays any "hatred".  What do you thin the phrase "improving the breed" means anyhow? 

If we aren't working to improve what we see are faults we aren't improving anything.

6)  Again, you haven't been around the breed long enough to have an opinion on where we are today vs historically.  Again, nothing hateful nor in any way demeaning versatility or versatile venues.

See, breed, and work with a few thousand GSP's over the next three decades and you'll be able to talk about where we are then vs now and do so from a standpoint of experience.

Nothing you've quoted in any supports your claims that I display any "hatred" at all, only that I've been around the breed long enough to form an actual opinion based on experience.

Stating that I demonstrate "hatred" or even a lack of respect for versatile dogs and versatile venues is dishonest, period.