DOG OR BITCH

As a breeder I am used to meeting with numerous and sometimes odd requirements.  The most common comes from people who have their hearts set on a bitch puppy.  Usually I am asked for two or three bitches for every one dog.

It is my feeling that, unless you are mad enough to get involved in breeding, or unless you already have a bitch at home, a bitch is not a good choice.  Females come into season twice a year -- usually during the time when game hawking is legal -- and are therefore somewhat difficult to keep at home during those days.  A bitch at this time might be a bit inattentive with game, and definitely cannot and may not be taken out working where there might be other dogs.  Another drawback for people who want wide ranging dogs is the fact that, sometimes (perhaps I should say, too often) bitches become short ranging and less avid for game when they reach four or five years old.

What should first dictate the choice of sex in a new dog is the fact of already having a dog of the same sex at home.  It is looking after trouble to have dogs of different sexes, especially if the breeds are not the same.

If your case is not such, then I strongly advise you to choose a dog which is of a more regular mood and work and who can be taken everywhere all year 'round.  And what if a bitch comes to live definitely in your area?  Then I feel vasectomy is the only practical answer; if the bitch comes in season they will perform and you will be happy in not having the result of the performance.

If it were not for the necessity of having to breed partners which will meet with my needs, I would only have dogs.  In fact I am currently training a young and very promising English Setter dog puppy which I just took to France from our kennel in Scotland.

ABOUT THE COST

A horsey friend of mine used to say, "Horses are cheap but farriers are expensive."

A dog will live ten to twelve years or more; it will work properly from three to nine years old.  The part of the initial cost of buying a dog will be very small compared to the cumulative expenses of training, keep, food, injections, vet fees, etc.  These last will be the same for a crack hunter, a moderately good dog, and a not-so-good one -- the time and cost involved in training will probably be substantially higher with a moderately good or a not-so-good dog.  One is more likely to find pleasure in serving a longwing with a partner from the very best lines he can find and afford.  So it is probably a mistake to be tight when buying the partner who will make or mar your falcons for at least six seasons.

However, plenty make the mistake of spending several hundred pounds for a falcon from proven hawking lines, and then, of hoping to get a top class dog for one or two hundred pounds -- when they do not feel that bit is too expensive.

To feed, breed, and properly train dogs is at least as time consuming and as expensive as it is to feed, breed, and train falcons.  I read that in the high days of pointing breeds, a top trained pointer or setter had the same "money" value as the best London gun.  Check what figure these guns make in a sale before hoping to get a puppy from a good line for less than four or five hundred pounds.

To make a well trained three-year-old out of this puppy will not cost you less than four or five times that amount of money in food, vet expenses, and travel and training ground fees.

TRAINING AIDS AND ATTENTION

Some years ago, a charming young lady with no "sporting" background but high field trial pretensions came on the moor to train a very good little Irish Setter dog -- in fact I understood later that she wished to shock him with an electric collar but was a bit diffident in having me witness that performance.

Her little dog worked quite well; he quartered well, controlled scent, and had two points on red grouse which he flushed and chased happily -- nothing that bad from my point of view.  The young lady blew her whistle the entire time and luckily the dog paid no attention to his mistress' signals.  On his second cast the "telephone" had been turned off and any experienced handler could have noticed that.

At least the charming young lady, after a nice rush and loud cursing, got her dog again on the lead.  Walking back to the car she asked my opinion about the dog.

"I like him very much," I answered.  "Very good little dog.  Good sense of the game."

"And what could I do to improve my handling?" was her next question.  I fear my second answer was not the one she was awaiting as I suggested she sell away the whistle.  Then I had the luck to listen to a lecture about the proper way to handle a pointing dog, which (apparently) is to teach it hand signals and whistle signals and thus to direct the work of the dog.  I was stupid enough to point out my philosophy and ways of training.  My speech received as much attention from her as her handling received from her dog.

I was trained in High School dressage to set the highest importance to the "secret aids" which make one's horse perform without the spectator noticing any action from the rider.  This is my ideal.

I was trained in Grande Quête to handle a dog running eight hundred yards on each side without whistling or waving the arms.  I feel that the falconer who waves his glove, whistles or waves the lure in order to try and keep his bird working with him is missing the "complicité" which is the heart of the art, in my opinion.  Likewise, I feel that the dog handler who has to "handle" too obviously in competition or in the field just shows that he is missing this "complicité" and that his dog has still to be ordered to work properly.

As for every ideal, I must confess that I am too often for my taste away from it. Last summer, when in Scotland, I was invited to fly two days in a rather hilly and not overstocked moor.  Guests and hosts -some acquainted with hawking some not -expressed their surprise that I "whistled up" the dogs very seldom, that I made no hand signals, that I did not wave my glove or lure to my bird, and that everybody was nevertheless working together.

I could only reply that we were a team; that my job was to put the animals and bird in a place where they were in good condition to find game and perform well; that the falcon's job was to wait on high, stoop, and kill; that the dogs' jobs were to find, point, and produce the game; that if any of the partners was not up to the standard, it did not really deserve its part in the team.

All this is to point out that the main quality in handling dogs is ATTENTION:

1) ATTENTION from the handler as to the behaviour of the dog to pass the messages at the right time when they can be received but only when they are really needed; and
2) ATTENTION from the dog to his handler's behaviour which makes him give the proper answer to these few and far between messages.

Let us take for instance the case of the dog very far on the right which you want to make turn to quarter in front and go to the left side.  First (you might think), you whistle "tu-tut," which is the signal for turning.  WRONG.

Just turn your back to the dog and walk quietly to the left; soon the dog will notice you are not with him and will turn.  When he passes you, wave him onto the left and let him go.  You will have taught your dog to pay attention to YOU and not to your order.  This was shown to me some thirty years ago when I was abusing the whistle over a very good English Setter dog.

FIRST . . . EDUCATION

I do prefer this name to "Early training," or "Basic training."

For several seasons I have taken out all the puppies at once -- sometimes up to ten or twelve dogs -- together for a walk lasting ten to fifteen minutes every other day.  They are absolutely free to run, gallop, smell, chase butterflies or little birds, etc.  I very seldom utter a word or whistle, and then only when a good number of the pups seem to get "lost" at a distance.  All I do is to walk in a big turn.  This teaches the pups to pay a natural attention to the direction I am going -- while I watch their behaviour with the greatest attention.  This exercise helps me choose those pups I feel are the best.  When I am some hundreds of yards from the car, I pick up on the lead (leash) two (or later three) pups.  They are exhausted and will learn easily to walk on the lead at this point.  Doing so, they learn their names.  If at all possible, I make them encounter grouse (in Scotland) or partridge (in France) and am quite happy if they flush and chase.

What the puppies learn is:
1) The futility of following one fellow as another is always passing by
2) The taste to run and master the ground
3) The contact with the leader which is the man
4) That it is so good to come back to the safety of the pack when answering to call or whistle
5) The taste of wild game -- this is at least as important as its own name or walking on the lead

Later, when they show some enterprise and taste of the game, I take them out one by one or in pairs and begin, by the way I walk across the wind, to make them quarter the ground.  I always do my best so that they can meet wild game at least once or twice before they are in a true hunting situation.  No lesson lasts more than ten to fifteen minutes.  I usually end it with a "drop down," and always go to the dog where it is lying to pick it up, pat it, and make a fuss over it.  Later, this practice will make things easier to teach steadiness on the wing.

When the first points come, I NEVER ask the young dog to be steady as long as I do not see the game flying:  it is so easy to teach false pointing!