Are cockers named after the cocking bird? Discussions

Woodcock have a very distinctive taste, the breast meat is red and the leg meat is white. The traditional way to cook them is with the intestines intact, and beak up the but, the intestines, when cooked are supposed to be spread on toast, like a pate. Never tried that bit, but the breast and leg meat are delicious.

Both, but field trials don't really count for me as they're too simulated as are the dogs bred for a competition rather than for work. What was it Rory Major said "A working gundog can make a good field trial dog, but not the other way around". If a good, true working Cocker works out wide then that is what a good working Cocker is, field trials are just about the trophy, not the breed and it's work imo. It's much the same as showing: FT kennels will breed whatever is winning at that time, rather than actually paying attention to the breeds true working heritage.

Remind me what that all important name creating, Cocking action looks like again?!

Yes I've often heard this. Oscar has flushed a few, but we've never been lucky to have any shot to retrieve.

Having Googled this subject, I can find nothing about this 'cocking' action, merely that the smaller dogs in the litters were perfect for getting under brush and flushing woodcock. I'm intrigued now to know what 'cocking' looks like, but I darent Google too in depth!

I'll go with the woodcock theory ;-)

It does make more sense, to me anyway!

I dare you to Google cocking......

I don't agree with this. There is nothing simulated about a spaniel field trial. You are working the dogs on live game how could that possibly be simulated?
Rory Major's quote might apply to HPR breeds but certainly not to spaniels. I have yet to see a spaniel at any of the shoots I beat that could possibly be a good trialling dog. None of them sit to flush, most of them hunt out of range without any style or pattern and their handlers need a lot of whistle and other noisy handling to control them.
I go out rough shooting with my dogs, springers and a cocker, and a wide ranging dog is simply useless to me. No point flushing game so far away from me that i haven't got a hope in hell of hitting it.
My trialling dog is probably my best shooting companion. She hunts nice and tight, with very little handling from me, sits to flush or drops to shot, without whistle or hand command and she will retrieve from any distance. Now, to me that is the perfect shooting dog.

Here's his website. All I can suggest is you ring him and tell him you disagree? I do agree with what he says, field trials are simulated and as such can only test a dog so far. There has to be game about in order to judge the dog, in the working world this just isn't the case. In the field a dog can often work for a very long period of time before finding anything, in the FT it's a very short space of time in comparison as a result the dogs often become very robot like. Game can sometimes be few and far between in the real world, as such I do tend to find FT kennels are bred just for that: the competition and as such don't have the stamina or independent thought that true working bred dogs need out in the field.

The first run in my last field trial at the beginning of the year lasted exactly 45 minutes. In that time my dog hunted in top gear from start to finish. I can assure you it was the longest 45 minutes in my life and I was drained mentally and physically at the end of it and yet my dog never lost an ounce of her concentration or enthusiasm.
As i said before Rory Major might be talking about HPRs. There is absolutely nothing robotic about my dog.
Do you actually work or trial your dog(s) ?

No he was talking all breeds, he has plenty!

45 minutes is only a very short space of time really in comparison to a full days hunting on a shoot.

I work my dogs on a small local shoot, trials don't interest me for the reasons I've stated.

Oh also, I don't recall calling your dog robotic. I think perhaps you're taking my opinion personally, which considering I've never met you and am unlikely to do so is a tad pointless.

Am I not allowed an opinion unless I work/trial my dogs like?

I just had a look at the website and Rory Major's dogs. There is quite a few FT CH, FTW and FTAW there. That's why I find the remark even more puzzling. His cockers are bred from FTCH and FTAW. These achievements in trials are obviously not without value or he wouldn't mention them on his website.

Why is it puzzling? He stated that a good working dog can be a field trial dog, just not the other way around. Not that he didn't like or agree with field trialling?

Like I said, ring him and ask him.

Agreed their is a huge difference between working and show type cockers not only is it nocible in pictures but when you get to meet the two you can definately see a considerable difference the working cockers could almost be a seperate breed if they wanted.

I was chatting to a lady with a working cocker who she worked too and said her dog was 6 only just starting to slow down.

Well, after carefully reading Rory Major's website I have come across a statement that I do whole heartedly agree with unlike your comment.

'Our aim is to always produce a good shooting companion
which could then lead on to a top class field trial dog'

My other two spaniels are very good shooting dogs, they work on different shoots of varying sizes from very small to large, prestigious shoots. I have got no doubt that they would also make trialling dogs, as they have no eliminating faults, like hard mouth or noise. But they would never win any awards because working on driven shoots several days a week has taught them to pace themselves and not run at the flat out speed required from top field trial dogs.
My trialling dog could come to any driven shoot and work either as a beating dog or a picking up dog and not disgrace herself. And that is exactly what i train for with all of my dogs regardless of what my aims might be with regards to working them.

It is pointless though debating this with you since you seem to have a firmly fixed opinion on field trialling spaniels even though I suspect you actually have very little or no knowledge of spaniel field trials and the standard of dogs that run in them.

Interesting observation, what field trial kennels would you say produce dogs that do not have high levels of stamina or independent thought?

My experience, so far, is the exact opposite, everyone I know has WCS for a days work, have no interest in competing in field trials, yet always source their stock from FTCHs.

Furthermore, the people I'm aware of who compete in FTs, and producs FTCHs, all also work their dogs in the field.

The one and only time I have heard of anyone advising to avoid the "red" in the dogs pedigree was when a woman asked what kind of lines would make the best "pet" dog - i.e. less stamina, less drive...

I don't know why you're taking this so personally, I don't like FTs or the dogs they often produce, I never said I didn't like your dog or that it was robotic?!

I'm purely quoting what Mr. Major said to me and the group of people I was with and I happen to agree with his sentiment: FT dogs are very good for what they are bred for - competing, but they more often than not don't make good shooting companions because of this.

My opinion is my opinion based on my experiences, the things I've seen and the people I speak to. And given that England is still a free country I'm pretty sure I'm entitled to an opinion regardless of whether you think my experiences are vaild or not!

Yet Rory Major's cockers are sourced from field trialling stock, and, as per his website, he uses them for picking up, for roughshooting, and at the peg

Maybe you could explain why dogs that are bred to be biddable, have drive and natural retrieving ability, are soft mouthed and don't make a noise and can do it all with style and pace do not make good shooting companions.
What makes a good shooting companion in your mind?

I don't think it would be fair to start naming kennels I don't like, especially as they aren't here to defend themselves.

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Rory said that a good shooting/working dog can become a trialling dog due to the way they're trained for shooting, but that a dog bred and used solely for competition/field trials is a poor shooting companion because it has only ever been used for competitions and lacks the ability to think for itself or the stamina to complete a full days work mainly due to the way a FTCH has to be trained I imagine. I'm not saying FTCHs can't be good working dogs, but that for this to be possible the shooting/working foundation has to be in place first. In essence I don't like pure triallers as I feel they change the breeds depending on what look/style is more likely to win or is in fashion. Much the same a top show kennels.....

Again, he stated he always uses a dog for working/shooting first and then goes on to trial and that he doesn't find it is possible to do it the other way around. His words, not mine.

See above (and previous) posts for the answers to those questions (I'm not in a habit of repeating myself).

has anyone else noticed what is getting flagged up (scroll down) as 'Similar threads'? Looks like the Dogsey software has definitely got the wrong idea about 'cocking'!!!

My view is that the spaniel breeds we have today and their names are largely down to circumstance and coincidence!

If different experts, writers and people with the time and influence (and funds ;-) ) to promote certain types or strains had been different, we could just as easily have spaniels classed as they are in one of my old doggy books as Norfolk Spaniels; Black Spaniels' English Water Spaniels; Clumber spaniels....not a springer or cocker in sight

Sounds to me a bit like a case of the show benchers (back in the days when showing was just taking off and people really could do both with some success) wanting to classify based on size and then finding a name that justified the split - based losely on something or other

In the days of the really huge shoots when many more keepers were employed, every estate would probably fix a type of spaniel to work whatever cover they had, so it stands to reason there would be some strains of smaller dogs that hunted in the typical cocker way.

Nowadays, we have some springers that are small and weedy and some cockers that are smaller than Cavaliers.....and some that look more like Field Spaniels, or even Sussex (but not quite as heavy!)

So...I can see why the woodcock theory was put out there and I can see why the hunting action theory was too

I shall now get down off the fence because I'm haven't found my dream spaniel pants yet and I don't want to get splinters

I think I'm getting what you mean - are you saying it's just the way they are trained that you don't like, rather than the actual types of dogs themselves?

I'm still wondering what a "cocking" bird is in the first place

I think you are probably right with regards to the name etc.