Question
I've gleaned considerable amount of information about dogs from tips you seem to off-handedly include in your single-subject articles. Why not offer a list of briefs that would help beginning (even advanced trainers, if they hadn't heard about it) hunting dog fanciers save some time and money? If you repeat yourself I don't think there will be too many objections.

Long as you've been writing that's probably inevitable. But there should be a lot of readers who haven't seen it before or have forgotten. I don't remember now whether you said rooster pheasants are harder for dogs to work than hens. But I'm planning my first Dakota pheasant hunt and want to know which and why, in your opinion. Can you start with a quickie about that?
--South Carolina

Answer
When a flushing dog starts really thrashing about on the scent of pheasant or a pointing dog points (holding rock steady if so trained, or constantly breaking point and re-pointing) the most common excuse for failure to get an actual bird into flight is the trite explanation, "That was a smart old rooster." Usually there is a chorus of affirmative "You can take that to the bank" statements or a flurry of unprintable or highly literate expletives about the male gender of Phasianus colchicus.

No offense, but if you subscribe to that fairy tale, you've been listening to alcohol stimulated tales, reading about spurious "hunting adventures" or watching some macho, good ol' boy pontificate during some canned TV production…all of which give hunting and gun dogs more of a bad name than impart useful information.

I'm not a zoologist or ornithologist nor have I shot more pheasants and trained better gun dogs than thousands of other sportsmen. I am a hunter and a gun dog trainer. Therefore, I have opinions based upon experiences in those two disciplines, not on something somebody told me or reading something that was literally parroted.

If we disagree, you deserve a hearing should you have scientific backing or you've seriously and contemplatively mulled over this lore during and after a lot of pheasant hunting with dogs.

Whether it is hold tight in sparse cover, skulking and dodging in crop rows or wriggling through dense growth (to let dog and hunter pass unaware), escaping either the hot pursuit of spaniel or retriever or sneaking out undetected from under a pointer's staunch stance, chances are eight or nine to one that it will be a hen, not a cock pheasant.

By my count, when ground hugging birds have finally been put to flight (after an almost completely frustrating chase) the dowdy hen, not the gaudy cock flew on; when wild bird hunting as well as when shooting released game in licensed areas where both sexes could be taken.

Why is this? Charge me with blathering about something with scientific background. But please don't piddle on my parade for offering my belief that the preponderance of cunning (when it comes to non-flushing pheasants) lies with the retiring hen, not the audacious cock.

Every supposition requires a reason of some kind. The shrinking-violet-hen-pheasant hypothesis is a combination of the once acknowledged differences in sex as part of the nature of all beasts, even humans. Like there are more mothers than fathers in the nurturing and education fields and more fathers in professional sports and combat action.

By nature, hen pheasants are more secretive, cautious and wily. Physically, in order to survive, they are smaller and require less food. A dozen or more hens can be serviced by a single rooster. Species survival is assured if hens are smarter; as acknowledged by most state conservation laws that prohibit hen shooting even when artificially reared birds are "stocked" for state hunting license buyers.