My Part of the Prarie
By Tom Ness

My part of the prairie is suffering through a serious drought, many people and animals are suffering through very dry conditions and triple digit temperatures. In spite of all this I've had a great spring. Lake Oahe/Missouri River has put on a great walleye bite and Robin, me and my kids have had many a fine evening sitting on the banks of the Big Muddy. I've also found favor with the Red Gods and been able to make two new FC's, one Cocker and one Springer. There are a couple of things sticking in my craw which I find disturbing/perplexing. My intent here is to call attention and give an opinion (and, possibly vent a little), I hope not to offend, and if I do I apologize in advance.

I see the gunning at trials drifting away from that described in the Blue and Green books (Conduct and Judging of Springer and Cocker Trials). I have been to a number of trials this spring and for the most part I would describe the shooting as dismal. At a few of these trials it was nobody's fault, just bad luck. However several of these trials had good to great guns and were just poorly shot -by design. I have gunned at a few trials, but my point of view comes mainly from the standpoint of a judge, handler and first and foremost a pheasant hunter. A case in point. This late spring I attended a trial where scenting was poor to nonexistant. There was a great gunteam assembled, most the members I considered good friends and several who would be considered elite among trial gunners. These guns consistently rode birds and had many, many long wingtipped birds-not one of which I saw collected. Had I been guiding this crew there would have been some serious ass chewing going on over shooting at birds that were out of range. The books are very clear: "kill cleanly and consistently". I won this trial, with a really good springer, but there were other dogs that were at least as good as mine, put out on long cripples. The guns had very much of an affect on the outcome of this trial.

Not too long ago I walked in the gallery with a fellow contestant who has been around trials a good long while. The first dog up was a really powerful going dog that was "hauling the mail". As it passed it's handler but before it got to the wing gun it wheeled 180 degrees and launched itself into a flushing hen which it followed 5 feet in the air and nearly caught. "Wow", my friend whistled, "what a find". I answered that it was a very short find, but certainly a vigorous flush. As we continued we came to a nice dog that lacked the pace and power of what had been behind door number one. At about the same location as our first dog this dog broke pattern and dropped it's nose to the floor quickly trailing out to about 10 yards beyond the wing gun. At this point (no pun intended) it turned into the wind, slowed a bit and s-o-r-t of p-o-k-e-d it's bird which flew was shot and retrieved. Ugh! groaned my pal, 'that was ugly". "Probably not exactly what we want" I responded, "but a far better find then or hard flushing powerhouse" . We disagreed vigorously on this - which illustrates how two people can judge things totally differently. My feeling is that there is a big difference between a find and a flush and the find is by far the most important. I really favor a dog that has a long positive nose, that is, he winds his birds a good long distance away and then he accelerates directly to the bird without any dilly-dallying back and forth. Having said all that, the best bird finder I have ever had would point tightly planted birds.

Not long ago I was booted out of a trial when my dog set down a trap and it flew away. The bird was shot and retrieved, at which time I made my dog sit and hold this bird a good long time to erase any doubts the judge may have had about his ability to retrieve. When I first started trialing this seemed to be norm, if you caught a bird an released it you were out. Many dogs set down dead birds which had been shot-some of which had been trapped without disqualification, this didn't and still doesn't make much sense to me.

Over the years I have seen many dogs dropped for failing to produce a runner. This used to be more common, but still occurs. Where we hunt, after opening weekend very few birds are taken off the end of the dogs nose type flush. Our wild birds run far ahead or out to the side of the line and most fly off hundreds of yards ahead of us. Occasionally we trap a bunch of birds which flush closely but mostly the business is done by far wing guns or blockers set in some sort of ambush position. When I am judging a dog that loses a runner, I assume it flew off. The judgment of that usually comes much later when I can compare what I have seen to other performances.

There is no difference between the work a Cocker does and that of a Springer. Let me repeat that one more time. There is absolutely no difference between the job a Springer does that which is performed by a Cocker. There are some differences in the styles and personalities of the breeds as there is between a Chessie and a Golden Retriever, but they do the same work. There is no such thing as Cocker cover and Springer cover, there is cover that has birds, period. Here on the prairie we have many thousands of acres of CRP grass land, surrounded by brushy ditches, and intersected by single or multi row shelter belts, woody draws and cattail sloughs. In the course of the hunt the cover changes often. We want VERSATILITY from either breed of spaniel. In Canadian Trials, where I most often compete, all breeds are trialed together, as it should be here. Certainly there are differences between the styles but at the end of the day the work is EXACTLY the same.

The summer is quickly slipping away, the Walleyes have long ago quick biting (although Catfish are picking up). Soon trial and hunting season will be upon us, be safe and good Luck.