Like any ‘good’ field breed, they’re probably as much about how they’re trained as what breed they are. That’s just my anecdotal, not some professional insight....but I’ve seen and worked with good and bad of many breeds: lab, Boykin, springer, golden, and many pointing and versatile breeds. The only thing I (think) I know for sure is that each pup is an individual, and ignoring that to make them fit in some box for a breed generality on temperament, training aptitude, etc is likely an issue...at least as much as hearing about stubborn spaniels, destructive Boykins, or labs with no drive, etc.
Generally it’s not the dog’s fault.
Sure, you’ve got bad apples/examples that are part of the equation, but that’s not the breed. Your personality vs the dog is a thing, IMO. I think labs are my best fit with ‘now’, but I’d ‘fit’ with (and have) with the others, also. I don’t mesh well with Chessies, IMO, but have done well with ‘softer’ dogs, requiring patience and different approaches or attitudes, also.
You know what you prefer, better than anyone, and they’ll often mirror a handler somewhat, anyway....so it seems.
Last edited by hh4whiskey; 02/23/21.
