just different.
A recent topic discussed issues with hunting an “early pup” on upland or waterfowl. The issues dealt with a lack of control and limited skills leading to potential complications. For me, there is a huge difference between "early exposure" to birds and "actual" hunting.
From my experience this does not equate to a "tough transition".
Does anyone have examples of how they introduced live birds, shooting and/or "simulated" upland work early on? Will an upland "intro" make a different program than the tradition Carr based methods? Does this require a longer period of time in developing retriever skills?
Anyway, I recognize that dogs trained for hunt tests need to follow a set program. Retriever training forums generally stress “working the program” with the term "sequential" as key. It is important to note that none of the "in vogue" programs deal with upland hunting as a sequence. Keeping this thought in mind, it is apparant to me that any "infusion" of the "free thinking" required for upland training would require "adjustments" in those programs which in turn adds significantly more time to the total process. Therefore, the addition of upland may be a more difficult transition if attempted in the same time frame.
My goals for a trained retriever are three fold - 1) have the skills necessary to think freely and work the uplands, 2) know the “rules of control & search” while hunting waterfowl and 3) understand the expectations of a hunt test. There is considerable disagreement on which order is more effective. It should be noted that not everyone has the same end product in mind. In any event, it will take longer to do all three.
The question is "upland before or after"? Retriever dogma often states "eyes first, nose afterwards". Somehow this translates to "control first, then freedom". What happened to the concept of "balance"?
Now if I have a really good pup and my training is effective, we might actually do better than some dogs over the same time frame. However, I don't pay any attention to what others are doing in terms of time and certainly avoid comparing individual dogs. We get where we want to be based on how things go and it is always done with balance in mind.
Here is an example of early “bird exposure” for Daisy. Given this sequence, Daisy would require more time to run a cold blind (in theory). Daisy had a flushed rooster shot over her in the uplands at 4 months old. She was pointing and retrieving pheasants in the uplands and running tower shoots when she was 6 months old...before she was FF.
She was not “rushed” and could run long, cold blinds with her head up. Training was sequential, compartmentalized and took as long as was necessary. Daisy didn't run her first hunt test until she was 18 months old. It was an HRC Seasoned test and she passed. None of her training involved difficult transitions.
I think there is a huge difference between 1) “early bird work”, 2) upland & waterfowl hunting, 3) retriever training and 4) testing. The complications created by the order of upland vs. waterfowl vs. testing as they relate to training are manageable......if you know what you are doing.
In any event, if a trainer makes no mistakes, it will take longer with upland "intros" (early or later). I still believe doing very early, live bird work is better in the long run....even if the dog doesn't end up hunting in the uplands. I think in the long run, a dog needs a good reason to train. A few early upland birds produces a lifelong love for being with his trainer.
Daisy (four months old, flushed, shot and retrieved pheasant}
![Image]()
"Say uncle!"
![Image]()
Daisy (six months old - tower shoot)
![Image]()
Daisy's “haul”
![Image]()
Daisy - scanning (note the tab)
![Image]()
Daisy - another one
![Image]()
A recent topic discussed issues with hunting an “early pup” on upland or waterfowl. The issues dealt with a lack of control and limited skills leading to potential complications. For me, there is a huge difference between "early exposure" to birds and "actual" hunting.
I understand what Gooser was driving at. However, I need to point out the quote started with a pup ("dog early in life") and in one paragraph jumped way ahead to running blinds and poison birds. For my dogs that would be jumping from 4-6 months to about 18 months.
From my experience this does not equate to a "tough transition".
Does anyone have examples of how they introduced live birds, shooting and/or "simulated" upland work early on? Will an upland "intro" make a different program than the tradition Carr based methods? Does this require a longer period of time in developing retriever skills?
Anyway, I recognize that dogs trained for hunt tests need to follow a set program. Retriever training forums generally stress “working the program” with the term "sequential" as key. It is important to note that none of the "in vogue" programs deal with upland hunting as a sequence. Keeping this thought in mind, it is apparant to me that any "infusion" of the "free thinking" required for upland training would require "adjustments" in those programs which in turn adds significantly more time to the total process. Therefore, the addition of upland may be a more difficult transition if attempted in the same time frame.
My goals for a trained retriever are three fold - 1) have the skills necessary to think freely and work the uplands, 2) know the “rules of control & search” while hunting waterfowl and 3) understand the expectations of a hunt test. There is considerable disagreement on which order is more effective. It should be noted that not everyone has the same end product in mind. In any event, it will take longer to do all three.
The question is "upland before or after"? Retriever dogma often states "eyes first, nose afterwards". Somehow this translates to "control first, then freedom". What happened to the concept of "balance"?
Now if I have a really good pup and my training is effective, we might actually do better than some dogs over the same time frame. However, I don't pay any attention to what others are doing in terms of time and certainly avoid comparing individual dogs. We get where we want to be based on how things go and it is always done with balance in mind.
Here is an example of early “bird exposure” for Daisy. Given this sequence, Daisy would require more time to run a cold blind (in theory). Daisy had a flushed rooster shot over her in the uplands at 4 months old. She was pointing and retrieving pheasants in the uplands and running tower shoots when she was 6 months old...before she was FF.
She was not “rushed” and could run long, cold blinds with her head up. Training was sequential, compartmentalized and took as long as was necessary. Daisy didn't run her first hunt test until she was 18 months old. It was an HRC Seasoned test and she passed. None of her training involved difficult transitions.
I think there is a huge difference between 1) “early bird work”, 2) upland & waterfowl hunting, 3) retriever training and 4) testing. The complications created by the order of upland vs. waterfowl vs. testing as they relate to training are manageable......if you know what you are doing.
In any event, if a trainer makes no mistakes, it will take longer with upland "intros" (early or later). I still believe doing very early, live bird work is better in the long run....even if the dog doesn't end up hunting in the uplands. I think in the long run, a dog needs a good reason to train. A few early upland birds produces a lifelong love for being with his trainer.
Daisy (four months old, flushed, shot and retrieved pheasant}
"Say uncle!"
Daisy (six months old - tower shoot)
Daisy's “haul”
Daisy - scanning (note the tab)
Daisy - another one
2......:razz:
