# How have field trials changed in the last 75 years?



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Anyone have a grasp on the past? I Know there have to have been extensive changed in field trials over the decades. I'm guessing distances for both marks and blinds have been extended dramatically. When were doubles, triples and quad marks added? 

As we look at the changes in the look of the show golden, how have changes to field trials effected the field golden? Which maybe should be a seperate thread.

I'm just putting together some thoughts that the world has changed in fieldwork pretty dramatically, as have the dogs running them. Have field dogs gotten smaller, bigger, or whatever over time?

Any thoughts?


----------



## gdgli (Aug 24, 2011)

I bought the DVD 1957 NATIONAL AMATEUR CHAMPIONSHIP TRIAL. I haven't looked at it for a while but some of the things are very interesting and I can recall a couple of them. First of all the use of shackled birds in the trial. Secondly, in one series, there was a walkup with the gunners walking with the handler (if I remember correctly) and a flyer was shot by a gunner on the line. Distances were shorter.

Other things: method of sending the dog and handler attire among other things that I do not remember right now.

Interesting side note: There were a few people who were from Long Island (I am on Long Island) and were big Field Trialers that participated in this event. Actually, I'm glad that I bought this DVD and I gave a copy to my friend, a 78 year old who used to trial with these people.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

The marking tests can be longer and the marks are tighter today than in the past. Blinds are not necessarily longer but they are more technical and require tighter control than in the past.

The dogs really haven't changed much from a size perspective. Today's dogs need to be more intelligent to deal with the technical changes they'll face today. They have to be taught more concepts and be able to remember and recognize them when faced in the field.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

I am very new to field trials and hope to learn more as the year progresses. We have trained now several times for field trials.

Swampy touched on something I was told recently, the more you teach your dog the better chances you have in the field trial. One example was at the horse racetrack we trained. Dog is not required to jump over the obstacles in a straight line; but if your dog jumps over both way in a nice manner and the rest went around it you have an advantage. 

"As we look at the changes in the look of the show golden, how have changes to field trials effected the field golden?" - I do not think that the field goldens have changed as much as the show golden over the years, or at least what is selected in the ring nowadays. 
In my search for the past two years for a field golden I have looked at many pedigrees, many studs and many pictures of field goldens. And honestly I have not seen that much difference over the years. At least in the ones that I was able to see pictures of. 

A novice question for the field trial people. In hunt tests the dog is not required to pick the triple in a certain order. Is that true in field trials?


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

> *A novice question for the field trial people. In hunt tests the dog is not required to pick the triple in a certain order. Is that true in field trials?*


Rule one for a Trial newby, never say never. 

Most of the time it's your choice, but there may be an occasion where that isn't the case. The Derby is supposed to be single and double marks too. But a Triple has been done. So never say never and be prepared for the unexpected.


----------



## FTGoldens (Dec 20, 2012)

Hmmm, 75 years ??? Not even *I* go back that far!  

I'll address this from a couple of different perspectives.
* First, years ago, even as recently as the 1970s, professional trainers were not given the social status that they receive today. My understanding is that they were viewed (and treated) as hired hands. Generally, clients did not socialize with the pros; the pros didn't even go to the tailgate parties which were held by most clubs on Saturday nights after the day's trial activities ended. 
* Speaking of tailgate parties, these have become somewhat of a rarity ... which I consider to be a shame. The parties allowed wonderful opportunities for competitors from around the region or country to converse and get to know each other. They were where participants talked about stuff other than dogs, although dogs were certainly a large part of the conversations.
* As for the stake set ups, I can speak of the last 30 years or so. 
** My perception is that the Derby marks are often much longer than they used to be, both on land and in water. Also, although retired guns in a Derby are still very infrequent, they were NEVER seen 10 - 20 years ago. Unfortunately, now as then, there were/are Derby judges that set up tests that challenged the dogs' trained abilities more than natural abilities, so that hasn't changed.
** The biggest changes seem to have been to the Qual. Years ago, there were almost never retired guns, but now it is more the rule than the exception to see retired guns in a Qual. And the blinds were generally run separately from the marks, instead of often being run in the field where the marks were run as is usually the case now. Nowadays, the Qual is a place where you will often see the greatest scope of talent, from dogs who are just getting out of transition to dogs who are ready to be competitive in Amateurs and Opens. It's now not unusual to be at a trial where the Qual test is more difficult than the Amateur test.
** Tests in Ams and Opens, as a general statement, have marks and blinds that are longer and tighter. I've seen/run 450 yard marks and 600 yard blinds, but those are extremes; on the other hand, I've seen/run a land quad with no mark over 200 yards and land blinds around 200 yards ... the grounds generally dictate the distances. Additionally, some new concepts have been devised to provide additional training challenges (an _in vogue_ example of this for a blind would be putting the bird just a few feet in front of the stand-out blind planter; for a set of marks, we often see a short retired mark in front of and tight to a long flyer, especially an out of order flyer).
The dogs are better, through both genetics and training, so the tests have had to become more difficult in order to separate them enough to place them. I don't mind running a difficult test ... we all have to run the same test ... "test hard, judge easy" is a mantra many field trial judges try to follow.
And as for size, no change noticed. Some are big, some are not so big ... it's all about ability (which entails a whole bunch of attributes).
FTGoldens


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

The one thing we should note is the Golden Retriever dominated early Field Trials for several decades.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

We don't have a tailgate party. We put up a big tent and have a BBQ!


----------



## MillionsofPeaches (Oct 30, 2012)

that is one thing I really enjoy about the HRC around here, there is always a food thing after the first day


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

FT,
Goldens were a popular dog in FTs in the past. What happened? When did goldens disappear from FTs? Why did it happen?


----------



## gdgli (Aug 24, 2011)

Alaska7133 said:


> FT,
> Goldens were a popular dog in FTs in the past. What happened? When did goldens disappear from FTs? Why did it happen?


Check out the hot thread in Main Discussion i.e. Breeding to improve the breed.


----------



## Claudia M (Aug 8, 2012)

Alaska7133 said:


> FT,
> Goldens were a popular dog in FTs in the past. What happened? When did goldens disappear from FTs? Why did it happen?


As a lab FT person said to me - the trials have developed as the winning dogs aptitudes have developed. More and more labs have won so the trials are more based on their aptitudes. Few of the other retriever breeds have kept up with it or bred for it. 

As another lab FT person said to me, not all labs will break it in field trials but you do have thousands of breedings keeping the genetics and the aptitudes in place. So you will get more labs in the field trials. When you only have a hundred golden breedings with those aptitudes in mind then your number of dogs that make it is much lower. And the same goes for chessies, flat coats etc where the numbers are even lower.


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)

I love every year in the National Specialty issue of the GRNews, they will have a drawn pictorial of each FT stake, with yardage and order given. It would be interesting to go back as far as these are in existence and compare to today's trials. I have some GRNews from the late 80s that were given to me, hmmmm I need to go dig those up!!

FYI The landowner where we train owned a very famous bitch back in the day :
Pedigree: FC AFC Tigathoe's Magic Marker FDHF

He said until she was 2 she only saw orange bumpers for marks because he didn't know the difference and the store only sold orange ones!
I will have to pick Joe's brain on what FTs looked like when he ran Chick


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> The one thing we should note is the Golden Retriever dominated early Field Trials for several decades.



I am very interested in learning more about this time period - but Google is coming up short. Lots of information about labs and a few mentions of Flat Coats dominating field trials before they became popular (in English trials from what I can tell) but nothing is coming up about Goldens ruling the sport. Could you narrow down the time frame for me so I can refine my searches a bit? Thanks in advance!

Julie and the boys

Edited to add: here is what little I was able to find, to give you a better idea of where I am hitting a dead end. 
On this page, it lists important firsts in field trials. First golden retriever field champion is listed as 1939. 
https://www.akc.org/events/field_trials/retrievers/history.cfm

This one lists winners of the National Retriever Championship. In the first 11 years (from 1941 to 1951), 4 golden retrievers won. The other 7 years were labs. No golden appears to have won since 1951. 
https://www.akc.org/events/field_trials/retrievers/past_nrc_champions.cfm

This is from research I did on an older thread concerning a similar topic. This book listed the entries from the National Retriever Championship competitions between 1967 and 1972. http://books.google.com/books?id=Y8...=national retriever championship 1951&f=false
1967: 0
1968: 1
1969: 1
1970: 3
1971: 2
1972: 1

But those numbers are only limited the championship and only for a very few selected years, so it doesn't give the wider picture of field trials in general and likely doesn't cover the time frame to which you refer. That's the part I can't seem to track down.


----------



## Swampcollie (Sep 6, 2007)

You would need the back issues of the Retriever Field Trial News. I don't believe they are available online.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> You would need the back issues of the Retriever Field Trial News. I don't believe they are available online.



I had a feeling the answer would be some book or magazine I don't have. Thanks for letting me know. 

Should I manage to come across the means to access old issues (I have some new field training friends around here who may have some or may be able to lead me to them when we start getting together again next month) - what time frame would you suggest I look for? Are we talking 1940s-1960s? 50s-70s? 

Julie and the boys


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Swampcollie said:


> The one thing we should note is the Golden Retriever dominated early Field Trials for several decades.



Bumping this thread in hopes that my question will be seen now that the weekend is over. I was hoping you (or someone else in the know) could be more specific about which decades we are discussing here so that I have a better idea of what I am looking for. Thanks in advance!

Julie and the boys


----------



## K9-Design (Jan 18, 2009)




----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

Jersey's mom, not exactly an answer to your question but from the AKC site it looks like Goldens were strong competitors for the NFC title up until the early 50's.
American Kennel Club - Retriever Field Trials


----------



## gdgli (Aug 24, 2011)

Jersey's Mom said:


> Bumping this thread in hopes that my question will be seen now that the weekend is over. I was hoping you (or someone else in the know) could be more specific about which decades we are discussing here so that I have a better idea of what I am looking for. Thanks in advance!
> 
> Julie and the boys


I'm sure those records are somewhere.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

I'll drop a note to Glenda Brown, knower of all things field trial related. She's probably in the know. When I get an answer I'll post.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

TrailDogs said:


> Jersey's mom, not exactly an answer to your question but from the AKC site it looks like Goldens were strong competitors for the NFC title up until the early 50's.
> American Kennel Club - Retriever Field Trials


Thanks, but I had actually already found and posted that link. I'm not sure that 4 wins in 11 years could be seen as indicative of several decades of dominance but those results only tell us how things turned out on that particular day and don't give much insight into what was being seen at typical field trials around the country throughout those years. 




gdgli said:


> I'm sure those records are somewhere.


I agree. I've actually already tracked down one source that may be of great help in providing the stats on early field trials. That's why I asked for some guidance as to which years to seek out. If I didn't think the records could be found, I likely wouldn't have bothered. But I'm not a big fan of throwing away money and was hoping to confirm I was at least looking at the right time period before moving forward. 





Alaska7133 said:


> I'll drop a note to Glenda Brown, knower of all things field trial related. She's probably in the know. When I get an answer I'll post.


Thank you, I appreciate the earnest effort at finding an answer and am interested to hear what info Ms Brown has to share. It would , of course, be easier if the person who put forth this fact (or those who seemed to indicate agreement by thanking the post, unless I'm mistaken and that wasn't their intent) would simply reveal which "several decades" he was referring to. I never imagined this would be such a wild goose chase (pheasant chase? Duck chase? Okay, pun officially beaten to death). 

Julie and the boys


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

I got Glenda Brown's answers back. She wrote me like 5 pages. So it's going to take some time for me to put them all together on here. She also sent me an interesting article from April, 1961 GRNews. Even back then people were concerned about goldens not being in the field trial game as much. The article is: Breeding Field Dogs. It was written by Dr. Henry Lardy. If you don't know who Dr. Lardy is, he is the father of Mike Lardy the famous pro field trainer. Glenda also suggested I contact some other long time field trial people. By the way Glenda has written field articles for GRNews for a very long time.


----------



## TrailDogs (Aug 15, 2011)

Alaska7133 said:


> I got Glenda Brown's answers back. She wrote me like 5 pages. So it's going to take some time for me to put them all together on here. She also sent me an interesting article from April, 1961 GRNews. Even back then people were concerned about goldens not being in the field trial game as much. The article is: Breeding Field Dogs. It was written by Dr. Henry Lardy. If you don't know who Dr. Lardy is, he is the father of Mike Lardy the famous pro field trainer. Glenda also suggested I contact some other long time field trial people. By the way Glenda has written field articles for GRNews for a very long time.


The Henry Lardy article was reprinted this past year in the GRCA news. I will see if I can find it. I am pretty sure it's the same article.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Here's a copy of the article. I was finally able to reduce the file size so that I could load it here.


----------



## gdgli (Aug 24, 2011)

Jersey's Mom

The GRCA has a field statistician. Maybe get info there?


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

gdgli said:


> Jersey's Mom
> 
> The GRCA has a field statistician. Maybe get info there?



Thanks but that information hardly does me any good when nobody can be bothered to clarify which years/decades I'm supposed to be looking at. Care to shed some light on the subject? 

Julie and the boys


----------



## gdgli (Aug 24, 2011)

Jersey's Mom said:


> Thanks but that information hardly does me any good when nobody can be bothered to clarify which years/decades I'm supposed to be looking at. Care to shed some light on the subject?
> 
> Julie and the boys


I wish I could help but I can't. I will go through some of my old books and look for information. As I recall, the James Lamb Free book that I have has a list of field champions. I will take a look at the years. I also have an old book (I collect old retriever training books) that may also have info.

I will take a look when I can.


----------



## John G (Dec 27, 2008)

To answer a few questions; AKC Hunting Tests and Field trial marks may be picked up in any order. The marks can be interrupted by blinds that may be specified to be picked up in a certain order. UKC/HRC marks are sometimes specified to be picked up in a particular order.

Size and shape of Goldens has not changed much in the last 35 years and maybe longer. Still all sizes and shapes although maybe seeing more slender dogs. More dark and darker dogs now.

Blinds and marks have gotten longer and more technical. Tighter. Shackled birds are now illegal but used to be mandatory in WCX.

Performance books will have all the stats you want. Goldens never dominated Field Trials, but more than held there own. When I began competing in Field Trials 35 years ago Goldens made up approx. 20% of entries in the Midwest. Now they are about 5% or less.

Judi Carter WAS the Field Statistician for the GRCA but is/has stepped down from this position.

Glenda is a Field Wizard/Goddess and an all-around great person.

Some of the current "trends" such as running a blind planted at the feed of the exposed gunner/bird boy are more gimmicks than tests and hopefully will have a short shelf life.

Any other questions?

John Gassner


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

John G said:


> To answer a few questions; AKC Hunting Tests and Field trial marks may be picked up in any order. The marks can be interrupted by blinds that may be specified to be picked up in a certain order. UKC/HRC marks are sometimes specified to be picked up in a particular order.
> 
> Size and shape of Goldens has not changed much in the last 35 years and maybe longer. Still all sizes and shapes although maybe seeing more slender dogs. More dark and darker dogs now.
> 
> ...



John - sincerely, thank you for all of these answers! I really appreciate you taking the time, as it seems you don't often post on the forum. I had never heard of someone setting a blind at the gunner or bird boy's feet -- that seems like a colossal waste of time. Is that a current trend in field trials, hunt tests, or both?

Julie and the boys


----------



## gdgli (Aug 24, 2011)

John G

Hello John G. Glad to see you on the forum.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

gdgli said:


> I wish I could help but I can't. I will go through some of my old books and look for information. As I recall, the James Lamb Free book that I have has a list of field champions. I will take a look at the years. I also have an old book (I collect old retriever training books) that may also have info.
> 
> I will take a look when I can.



Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore this response... I only just saw it. Thank you so much for the offer. I wasn't really looking to send anyone else out to do research for me, I was just looking for someone to clarify the statement that was made regarding several decades of golden retrievers dominating field trials. Thanks to a member of the forum, I have just heard about a particularly special time in the Midwest during early field trials where a number of incredible goldens, while perhaps not dominant, had more than their fair share of success under some pretty awesome owner-handlers. I look forward to taking some time (when someday I have it) to learn more about these people and dogs. I'm a student by nature and though history has never been my strong suit, certain aspects of history are really fascinating to me. 

It's just hard to have worthwhile discussions about these important issues within the breed when earnest requests for information are met with either hyperbole (in response to the OP's question) or silence (in response to mine). Even so, your offer to look through records was more than generous and I really do appreciate it, even though I'm going to say it's not really necessary for you to do so on my behalf. But should you someday skim through any of it on your own time for your own reasons, I'm sure you would have a fairly captive audience with which to share anything you learn about field trials of old and the dogs who ran them. 

Julie and the boys


----------



## gdgli (Aug 24, 2011)

Jersey's Mom

I started to take a look. The book lists birthdates and field trial points as well as field champions from the 1930's up to 1975. I broke it down into 5 year groups. I have only looked at dogs, not bitches. Some impresions and info:

There are 5 pages for Goldens and 36 for Labs. This tells us that more Labs are earning field trial points. Probably due to more entries for Labs.

If I take the years 1940-1945 (these are birthdays, not years, years of trial points and titles not listed) and count the field champions (I counted multi titles as one) and compare, I find the following: 5 pages for pointed Goldens and 35 pages for pointed Labs; Goldens--1.6 champions per page; Labs--.69 per page. When one looks at just the number of champions and compares 25 Labs to 8 Goldens, it is misleading. Also, I would guess that trials back then looked like trials today---a ton of labs.

This is really oversimplified and there may be more than one reason for these statistics and if I really wanted to delve deeper I could find more info but it is a task larger than I want to do. I will also compare another group of birthdays. From 1951 to 1955 birthdays there are 15 Goldens. I will look at the Labs.

My overall impression, very not scientific, is that there are a ton more Labs getting field trial points but the number of pointed Goldens that are running trials that get their championship is much more frequent than Labs. (1.6/.69). I was surprised at this (well, not really).

Also, looking at my tally sheet, I get the impression that the Golden's best years were from 1946 to 1960. Remember, these are birthdays. I count 43 champions listed.

I will try to get some more info today.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

John G
Thanks for showing up! Your dogs are wonderful by the way. if a person wanted to look at specific dogs that were game changers for the look and style of field goldens today which ones would you pick out?


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Here's some information from Glenda, it's a really long email and I'm trying to get it right.

1. When did golden retrievers dominate field trials?

To give some quotes from "The History of Field Trials in America" by Fred Kampo and Carolyn McCreesh--- in 1939 "while the number of Chesapeake entries remained constant, the number of Golden Retriever entries increased significantly, primarily in the Midwest." Again in 1939 "This victory for Rip was the first time a Golden Retriever had won an Open in the U.S. and, to make it more remarkable, the dog was both trained and handled by an Amateur." --- Rip also was awarded the Field and Stream Trophy at the end of 1939 for the Outstanding Retriever of the Year. 

In 1940-41, "The entries in the Midwestern fall trials continued to grow. While the professionals dominated as handlers, Goldens predominated in the placements."
In 1941 the Country Life Trophy for the top Derby dog went to the Golden, Stilrovin Nitro Express, owned, trained, and handled by teenager Audrey Meyers with the help of Bill Wunderlich. 

The first National Open was held in December 1941 and the first winner was King Midas of Woodend (Golden). A Golden won it again in 1944 and that was Shelter Cove Beauty. Her grandson won it in 1950 and that was Beautywood's Tamarack and it was last won by a Golden in 1951 and that was Ready Always of Marianhill. I have written up about all 4 of them in the GRNews. No Golden has won it since.

I have done a history of Goldens in National Amateurs and was going to start it in the recent Field Theme Issue, but I submitted too many articles (!) and some had to be bumped, so it has been on hold. Will probably include it again sometime this year. In it, there have been some very good Goldens who accomplished a lot consistently. Especially remarkable was Val Fisher Walker with Lad -- a teen-age girl with a family trained Golden that was in the Final group over and over. Also, we have had years in the past, where we had a good group of Goldens with their owners competing at a National level.

I don't think Goldens were ever truly dominant, but during that time in the Mid-West, there were a lot of good Golden breeders who did everything with their Goldens, from the show ring to the field trials and also hunted them. Right from the beginning of field trials, there were more Labs running than Goldens.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Here's the next:

2. When did that end?
Actually, more than when did it end, is why did it start. In going back through old GRNews, you will see more and more complaints about Golden breeders breeding for conformation only. Originally, you often had Goldens that went directly from the field trial to the breed ring, and this started to diminish as breeders concentrated more and more on looks rather than retrieving ability. Attached is a copy of an article by Henry Lardy which covers this -- this is a pdf used for proofing if you see typos, etc. Also, am attaching an article by Judy re duals, and you see the same type of comments---again, pdf used for proofing.

Also in going back through and coming forward in the GRNews you will see years where you will see almost no articles at all about the field. Personally, I think what happened was that there was a significant group in the Lab breed that really focused on field work and field competition with their dogs -- bred them for this alone and really produced more and more outstanding field dogs. This is in contrast to what the Golden breeders did. As a result, the Lab people have a huge reservoir of dogs bred totally to do field work, pros who are used to working only (or primarily) with Labs, and owners who love and run their Labs and see no reason to switch breeds.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

And next:

3. Why did it end?
There is a hard core of Golden owners who are focused on preserving the "field genes" in their dogs, but there is a much bigger group that isn't. In 2007, when I brought up that I felt that we needed to encourage more Golden owners to become involved in field work, and I felt the GRNews was a good place to start -- I was told by the FEC (of which I was then a member) that if I could find or produce enough articles to do one issue, that would probably be it. Going into 2015 -- I probably have enough articles on hand, without working on new ones, to cover the next few years if I wished. Was also personally told by some Board members that field people don't buy ads so why have an issue just for them. Well, wrote to everyone I knew and we had more ads for that first Field Theme Issue than they had in any of the other issues that year. What was so terrific, is Sylvia was supportive the whole way and encouraged me and she still is. This is not meant as a "pat me on the back" paragraph, it is that we need to really encourage more and more owners to get out there and try field work with their Goldens. The dogs love it. Discouraging words do tend to discourage so we need more cheer leaders. 

One deterrent has been how difficult it is to do field work as life styles change --- used to have sporting dog judges who actually hunted --- and land, water, etc. is hard to get. Also, talented Goldens are their own worst enemies because they are so capable in so many fields such as obedience, agility, tracking, etc. There are many venues which can be done with considerably less financial and time/energy involvement. I have spend a large portion of my time, especially when I started, training alone as there was no group or anyone reasonably close that I could join on a regular basis. But -- my dogs and I sure had fun.

Another, if people are successful in one venue, they are less inclined to switch to something they don't know or that may prove very difficult. This is where having friends who are also interested is good as you can support one another and offer encouragement and help. A shoulder to cry on when necessary and a lot of cheering when that is needed.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Next:

4. How are field goldens different today than goldens were when goldens dominated field trials? I hope that question makes sense.
I don't think they are, at least in the time I have been in field work which started in the '80s. If anything, I think Goldens can do even better due to the increase in better and better training methods which are based more on working through their minds rather than bodies. I ran a National Amateur with my first field Golden, Luke, when he was 10 1/2 --- was standing around with him when some people came over to me and wanted to take his photo --- one was Billy Wunderlich who was there at the beginning of field trials. They were putting together the Bird Dog Hall of Fame and were doing bronzes of the different breeds. Billy wanted them to photograph and go over Luke as he told them that Luke looked and acted just like the Goldens he had when he was so successful with them -- what is interesting is Luke's grandsire was in the SDHF and both grandparents on his dam's side were CHs and his Daddy was from all field lines----I took a lot of heat for this as everyone thought I was crazy to do that breeding.

A better person to ask might be Jackie Mertens as she has been around the breed for years, been highly successful with both Goldens and Labs, and really knows the history involved. Also, Pat Sadler might have a lot of insight --- I did an article on her Tigathoe Goldens and she was very active when Goldens were doing well.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Next:

5. Any thoughts on what it would take to have goldens return to a significant place in field trials? I believe we are at 8% right now.
I think the ones out there now are outstanding dogs and are appreciated by the field community as a whole. I think they are significant. The only thing we can do is get more of them out there who are the same which means getting more Golden owners involved. A large faction of Lab people are going to continue to breed primarily for field and they have many generations, now, of dogs and people who support that. I don't know if we can do that with the Golden community. We need considerably more involvement by members. Each Golden that does well, makes everyone aware of the capabilities of the breed and, I hope. encourages others to consider becoming involved in it.

 I think we should keep on trying to do our part to have outstanding field trial Goldens as well as Goldens involved in field events at all levels. The hunt tests have brought a lot more Golden people into the field game at a level which is more sustainable than competing in field trials. 

I don't think we should worry about the Labs (and I have Labs as well as Goldens) but concentrate on working with what we have, building on it, and continuing to demonstrate that Goldens can do the work and do it successfully. I think trying to water down the work requirement levels, as some Golden people have wanted, or just having Golden only field trials to "make it easier", is just like in the schools where every child has to be equal and wonderful or you might hurt his/her feelings. We aren't all equal --- we all have strengths in some areas and weaknesses in others; some kids are exceedingly bright or musical or athletic, etc. and trying to say all kids are their equals is quickly seen through by the kids themselves early on --- and I think it is demoralizing. Let's work with what we have and do the best we can in that regard and breed to our strengths in developing Goldens who are stronger in the field.

One thing I thought about was that when I started in obedience, the popular breeds were German Shepherd, Shelties, and some poodles. Then Goldens and Border Collies became the breed to have and you rarely saw German Shepherds much after that. I always used to cheer on the people that showed up with what was not considered an "obedience breed" and did well and/or got a leg or just tried. Same with agility, you have people breeding just for that. Yet, you can have a great time in agility and so can your dog, no matter what breed you have -- you just might not get a MACH. 

I never went to a field trial trying to beat the Labs, I always wanted my Goldens or Labs if I was running one as well, to beat the test and give me their best efforts. If they got a placement doing that, it was all to the good. Some of my strongest water dogs have been Goldens, and I have had some very good Labs so this means those Goldens were very strong. I have always felt a good dog is a good dog is a good dog! 

Instead of focusing on having as many Goldens running as there are Labs, why not focus on having all the Goldens that are running be very good dogs. When I started field trials, at many, many trials in my area, I was often the only one running a Golden, at least in the All Age Stakes. I can remember overhearing some guys putting down Goldens, they turned and saw me, and to a man they all said that they didn't mean Luke, because he ran like a good Lab. I laughed and said that no he didn't, he ran like a very good Golden.


----------



## gdgli (Aug 24, 2011)

Thank you Stacey. Very informative.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

George,
Don't thank me, thank Glenda. Glenda is so amazing!


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Thank you for sharing all of that. Definitely gives an interesting and different perspective than what has come across (from some, not all) on this forum lately. I like how she talks about inclusiveness and supporting each other, being a cheerleader or shoulder to cry on as needed. Because ultimately, that type of community is what will be needed to encourage newcomers to play the game and get out there with their dogs. 

Rather than dismiss beginner levels as pitiful or snicker behind someone's back (and I'm sure they're not oblivious to it) about how their dog lacks style or tip toes through the brush or is tentative on entering the water.... What if those who have made the rounds in field competition offered that person and dog a few words of encouragement? What if that person happens to be a breeder who has to put in some pretty serious effort to eke out a JH on their bitch.... but in doing so they decide that they should put a higher priority on building working ability with their next few litters. So maybe they choose to breed that girl to a dog like Tito (who has proven himself to work very well in hunt tests and upland tests) or maybe Oscar (who, despite not having any titles, spends his weekends hunting with his owner and fullfilling the practical purpose of the breed). Maybe the bitch they keep from that litter is birdy and drivey and she makes it as far as a MH with that natural ability in combination with the knowledge the breeder gained in training a dog who was less equipped for the field. And maybe she decides to use some frozen from a dog like Yogi on this girl to further ingrain and enhance those traits (I'm purposely picking dogs who have CH because I'm going to assume that this imaginary breeder won't throw conformation showing out the window in favor of field trailing in the course of a few years and these dogs seem like conservative choices in that respect. Also, I'm only using two generations here and maybe it would take a lot more than that but you get the point so why belabor it) What if the bitch she keeps from that litter starts running in a derby or even tries a couple all age trials? Maybe she will never get a single point, and surely she would be unlikely to be the first dual champion in 40 some-odd years, but what if she could kind of hold her own? Wouldn't we have then made a pretty big step forward in improving the breed..... or at least in improving that particular line? What if ten breeders had similar positive experiences in the field with their fluffy dogs? What if over the next decade or two it was 50 or 100?? What would the golden retriever of tomorrow be compared to today?

I think that's a big part of the reason I get so frustrated in these discussions. Sometimes it seems as though some would rather widen the divide because it is more important for them to prove that their dog is superior than it is to acknowledge the effort of someone stepping out of their comfort zone (and maybe outside their dog's comfort zone too). The dual purpose dog is important to me, which is pretty apparent if you look at the goldens that I own. I want MORE breeders to branch out and try something new in order to see the whole picture about their breeding stock so that they will be in a position to make the wisest decisions about the breeding they choose to do. So I absolutely cringe when I see the snarky, mean comments that some people make about dogs from the "other side" (in both directions, though lately the fur has been flying in one direction decidedly more than the other). Because I think we all lose out in the long run. 

Okay, end rant. Thanks again for sharing, Stacey!

Julie and the boys


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

Thanks Stacey and Glenda. Great stuff.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Here are some of the dogs that Glenda has owned and some she bred. They are all very interesting pedigrees. Glenda is proud of the fact that the Ch's are not that far back in her dog's pedigrees. 

Pedigree: AFC Glenhaven Devil's Advocate UDT MH WCX OS FDHF

Pedigree: FC AFC Glenhaven HTRS MN Baronet MH OS FDHF

Pedigree: MHR DD's Especial Triever MH MX MXJ *** OS WCX AAD EAC EJC EGC


----------



## gdgli (Aug 24, 2011)

Alaska7133 said:


> Here are some of the dogs that Glenda has owned and some she bred. They are all very interesting pedigrees. Glenda is proud of the fact that the Ch's are not that far back in her dog's pedigrees.
> 
> Pedigree: AFC Glenhaven Devil's Advocate UDT MH WCX OS FDHF
> 
> ...


All nice dogs.


----------



## John G (Dec 27, 2008)

Jersey's Mom, unfortunately yes, the trend continues in All Age Field Trial stakes to run a blind that is placed directly in front of a bird boy. I have not seen this much in Hunt Tests but have seen where a blind was run to directly in front of a holding blind.

Do you want to know a secret? The anecdote is to teach the dog a separate cue to send on instead of the typical "back". Try a different cue such as "Fetch". Start by simplifying at short distance, and as dog gains confidence running directly to a gunner/bird boy start extending distance.

Stacey, there are so many dogs that have all influenced the breed. Many are local or regional. 

Barty and his son Cotton have probably had the greatest influence. Pardner and Lad especially out west. Duncan, Bro, Bart and Luke have all been influential. Rugby and Sprint too. Rocky and Devil too. Boomer is another great dog that has influenced the breed. Judi Carter's "Red" has a lot of dark red puppies out there doing well in the field doing well.

Not all of these influences are the same. Some have influenced by sheer volume of field pups they produced, many of which are very average. Marketing and "flavor of the month" influence field decisions too. Think British Lab or English Cream.

I'm just doing this off the top of my head. I know I've omitted some obvious great dogs that have produced some wonderful offspring. I will add to this when I have time.

John


----------



## gdgli (Aug 24, 2011)

gdgli said:


> Jersey's Mom
> 
> I started to take a look. The book lists birthdates and field trial points as well as field champions from the 1930's up to 1975. I broke it down into 5 year groups. I have only looked at dogs, not bitches. Some impresions and info:
> 
> ...


I have looked through 1951 to 1955. I have also been including CFTC. Total Golden Field Champions: 15; Total Lab Field Champons: 127. This comes out to Goldens---3 per page and Labs---3.5 per page.

It looks like Labs increased their rate of Field Champions by the second tally.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Attached is a list made up by Glenda of field trial champions from 1935 to 2013. They are by birth date. Does that help?


----------



## John G (Dec 27, 2008)

John G said:


> Jersey's Mom, unfortunately yes, the trend continues in All Age Field Trial stakes to run a blind that is placed directly in front of a bird boy. I have not seen this much in Hunt Tests but have seen where a blind was run to directly in front of a holding blind.
> 
> Do you want to know a secret? The anecdote is to teach the dog a separate cue to send on instead of the typical "back". Try a different cue such as "Fetch". Start by simplifying at short distance, and as dog gains confidence running directly to a gunner/bird boy start extending distance.
> 
> ...


 I would also add Ranger, Beau, Speaker and Eli. 

It's a lot harder to name any girls with major influence. Maybe Paws and Tess.


----------



## hollyk (Feb 21, 2009)

What about Pony?


----------



## John G (Dec 27, 2008)

hollyk said:


> What about Pony?


Maybe, she definitely produced some nice pups like Pilot, Torch and Rev. Pilot and Rev, in particular, produced some nice pups as well.

The Breeder was very good at putting nice puppies with talented owners that competed with them. 

Torch and Rev, unfortunately died way too early.

So I guess influenced would be yes.




.


----------



## hollyk (Feb 21, 2009)

Anyone have any training thoughts for someone who _might_ like to try a Qual someday? 
I presently have a dog training at the Master level. (2 passes)


----------



## John G (Dec 27, 2008)

hollyk said:


> Anyone have any training thoughts for someone who _might_ like to try a Qual someday?
> I presently have a dog training at the Master level. (2 passes)


 Longer marks is probably the biggest thing. Blinds can be longer, but mainly they are just more technical and you need to challenge them more.

Also, can't talk to your dog while honoring. If your dog is pretty solid at the Master level, try the Q!

John


----------



## FTGoldens (Dec 20, 2012)

John G said:


> Glenda is a Field Wizard/Goddess and an all-around great person.
> 
> Any other questions?
> 
> John Gassner


Wow, Glenda will love the new titles!

I'll have some questions, but they'll be later. Notably, it seems that we have very similar training ideas ....

FTGoldens


----------



## hollyk (Feb 21, 2009)

John G said:


> Longer marks is probably the biggest thing. Blinds can be longer, but mainly they are just more technical and you need to challenge them more.
> 
> Also, can't talk to your dog while honoring. If your dog is pretty solid at the Master level, try the Q!
> 
> John


A controlled break?


----------



## John G (Dec 27, 2008)

hollyk said:


> A controlled break?


 They are not automatically eliminated in minor stakes (Derby and Qualifying).


----------



## FTGoldens (Dec 20, 2012)

John G said:


> They are not automatically eliminated in minor stakes (Derby and Qualifying).


No automatic elimination, but they'll cost you! 
A controlled break cost one of my youngsters a spot on the Derby List by (according to the judges) causing them to knock the pup's placement from first to fourth.


----------



## John G (Dec 27, 2008)

FTGoldens said:


> No automatic elimination, but they'll cost you!
> A controlled break cost one of my youngsters a spot on the Derby List by (according to the judges) causing them to knock the pup's placement from first to fourth.


 I think in the Derby, a controlled break is likely to cost you a placement or two. Going from first to fourth sounds a little harsh to me. In Quals it is likely to be more harsh, even to the point of elimination.


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Holly,
If you would like to run a qualifying field trial, why not volunteer to marshal? They are always looking for help. You'll see up close what is happening, plus if you are marshaling you won't have a dog to worry about. The difference you'll find from a hunt test though, is the marshal is in charge, not the judges. So handlers that want to question the judge's decision, have to come to you first. Then you go to the judge.


----------



## hollyk (Feb 21, 2009)

Alaska7133 said:


> Holly,
> If you would like to run a qualifying field trial, why not volunteer to marshal? They are always looking for help. You'll see up close what is happening, plus if you are marshaling you won't have a dog to worry about. The difference you'll find from a hunt test though, is the marshal is in charge, not the judges. So handlers that want to question the judge's decision, have to come to you first. Then you go to the judge.


I will probable check out Quals when test season ramps up in a couple months. I have been to a couple field trials but have always watched the big dogs run Open. 
My plan right now is to continue to run MH this summer but train with an eye to possibly trying a Qual, someday, maybe. 
I'm also polishing for the Open ring in obedience and I'm looking to enter this spring. We're working on UD skills too. 
So much to try and so little time. I keep telling my DH I need to retire so I can spend even more time training. 
Volunteering is a good way to learn about fieldwork. I'm a pitch in kinda girl so I have marshaled, run a pop and throw, hauled equipment, judges dinner, lunches, HRC hunt test secretary and even judged the last WC/WCX. I think I have done everything at a HT except the flier station. Stacey, the next time you're in town want to go to the gun range and give me a lesson?


----------



## Alaska7133 (May 26, 2011)

Holly I'd like to get you going on shooting. I head down south to Seattle a few times a year. I'll PM you some info.

You might want to put a weekend in Fairbanks this summer on your calendar. You can pick up 2 master runs and 1 owner handler qualifying field trial in one weekend. Before you think no way, there will probably be only 6-10 dogs in each event and only one event each day. Look it up on entry express. It might be fun for you and Winter. Friday June 12 master, Saturday June 13 master, Sunday June 14 o/h Qual. So you would have 2 days to warm up before the Q. There is a nice group to train with up here I could set you up with before the events. It could be fun!


----------

