Do you really think cancer is more prevalent or is it more easily diagnosed? I believe as with humans it is more of a case of diagnosis than actual higher numbers of cancer.
Printable View
Do you really think cancer is more prevalent or is it more easily diagnosed? I believe as with humans it is more of a case of diagnosis than actual higher numbers of cancer.
agree!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by daren galloway
Good point, yesteryears, "My dog died." Today, "My dog died from cancer." The lifespan probably hasn't changed much.
I think cruciate problems are more common now. I had a dog in about 1983 that had cruciate surgery. Most hadn't heard of it.
John, you hit that one right on the nail!!!! I have trained out at Keiths before, awesome grounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Lash
Starting in about May we are there most weekends, stop by.
Thanks, I might have to take you up on that, maybe jd6400 will stop by as well:)Quote:
Originally Posted by John Lash
IMHO the FT lab of the past would mark and handle as well as those of the present time given modern training methods applied.
As an unofficial personal observation today's lab tends to be smaller and faster. Could this be related to the frequency of various orthopedic conditions? Is the FT gene pool shrinking allowing more diseases to manifest? Time will tell.
Tim
the trainers of yesteryear didnt have wingers, stickmen,two way radios, and multi frequency collars....
but they did have access to more and sometimes better training and trialing grounds than their contemporaries of today, the loss of those grounds can never be truly measured, but the current venues are used by both HT and FT along with other dog breeds
the dogs of yesteryear were great dogs then and would be great dogs now...all you have to do is take a look at the National fields and see how many current and future champions were in those Nationals, along with how many RHOF dogs were around on a weekly basis
You could beat Corky, Honcho,Piper,Moon,Moose,Rascal or Kate back then and chances are you wouldnt beat them now
i feel hunt tests are more for the handlers, meaning the guy who loves to train his hunting buddy and is rather good at it but can afford nor do the field trail life style. i feel thats wut it is, your whole life revolves around trials, right? i think hunt tests are meant for the "average" guy who wants to show the skills of his dog and its fun for him n his dog. i kno for some hunt tests are just as serious. Guess what im trying to say is wouldnt making hunt tests harder can push out those "average" guys with great dogs?
I would say couldn't beat Corky, etc... Otherwise all true, at least in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by BonMallari
Walt