Andre's extradionary trial misadventure

[Prue Winkfield]

Andre - I have read the wildrose threads on the US forum and have recently read an article in Milner;'s Fetchpup training articles about trained versus inherited behaviours where he continually cans Field Trial dogs for hunters!. Please could you give a brief run down as to why there appears to be such a split in the retriever world in the US. Any discussion on the US threads are always extremely emotional and would love an 'unbiased' view! Prue

[Andre Fendlason]

Prue

The split is mainly in the show dog verses the field dog breeding. One for looks and the other for performance.

If what you are asking about is Robert Milner's somewhat different views I would say that this is a split which does not exist but with the exception of a very few individuals. Not many folks who could be counted on to know something about the subject would concur with him.

The main problem with his views are that there is just enough sense contained in them that it makes it entirely too easy to buy into.

thus ... there is a growing segment of the US public that are buying into his ideas. Mainly new folks who read their way into the retriever sports and who don't have exposure to knowledgeable field folks. Have seen many of these same new recruits converted to the main stream as the become involved with their local retriever clubs and their members.

Fact is ... all US field trial bloodlines come from hunting stock. Also a fact ... most of the better US hunt test performers come from hunting stock and or field trial stock. We are all working with the same blood and the main difference is in the training and how specialized it is.

I am mainly a hunter and then hunt test participant. Give me whatever field trial breeding you choose and when I am done with the dogs training I will have a solid hunter and hunt test dog. Give the same dog to a field trailer and the dog will be trained for and turn out to be a field trial dog. Where then is the split?

Another way to look at it involves the constant talking down of UK dogs by the US trainers. Imagine taking every field trial lab in the US and UK and then switching their home countries. It would be a matter of about 15 years and the dogs would assume the traits of their new home country's preferences. Is there really a split there either?

Also know that US field trial folks are much better at cutting their losses and washing out a dog than most other folks. They simply don't waste their time on dog which won't be competitive. There in lays the reason you see such high performance in a US trial. They are only running the cream.

US hunters don't need the cream but they most certainly won't suffer by having it.

I think Robert Milner assigns too much genetic make up value/potential to traits which are much more likely trained abilities or things which are shaped by the training environment.

I also know he is not even a marginaly acceptable judge of US style retriever performance.

André

[Wayne Parkinson]

Andre.
Everyone who has trialed has thought they got shafted at some stage.

2 Years ago at our National they had a run off at the end of the trial.
at the presentations we found out it was for 3rd and 4th.

If you have minor places in trials you can get a run off for them.
That is just a fact of life.

I don't think you have been ripped off anymore than anyone else that has trialed. Some judges look at things very differently.
Get over it.

Waynep.

[Graeme Parkinson]

Wayne

I am not sure, you would have ask either Steve or Jack but I think they had been told they were not running off for first place. If they hadn't then they should have been.
If Andre was in a run off for the minor placings I think the judges should have declared themselves sooner.

Graemep

[Kirsty Blair]

Andre.
Get over it.

Waynep.

Don't ya just love the empathetic and understanding nature of the Australian male


Kirsty