Nevertheless, there are novice hunters who naively believe that they can pose that question and actually get a answer that carries any weight....
Then, there are hunters thinking about their next dog that desire an improvement, although most hunters are prone to remain loyal to the first breed they own....
Thus, entertaining this topic is not without merit.
I consider myself an outlier and although I develop preferences and are susceptible to bias, I also am ultra-realistic and practical.... I never owned a cocker spaniel, and only hunted over a brace of them them once. I have, however, hunted with neighbors for many years with my dog and their English springer spaniel. These three dogs were very good, if not exceptional pheasant dogs... But why?
First of all, they did not range out of gun range and worked well within it. They did NOT track pheasant. That is what got me thinking; they did not track pheasant.
My neighbor's springer was large for his breed, and I think his effectiveness may have been a combination of high drive and that the terrain we hunted was well suited for this particular dog.
Another acquaintance's cocker spaniels might have been effective for other reasons. They were small - the same height and width of a pheasant. There nose was level with a pheasant's tail and if a pheasant could fit, so could they. If the pheasant was in dense grass and blazed a path to run off, they did the work for the cockers, who fit just right into the parted grass.
The smaller size of cockers, and possibly springers might explain why they will flush birds inside gun range, that very good labs or chessies miss or flush out of range.
Pointing breeds either slam the brakes or slow down and begin to stalk when they hit scent, and often end up tracking pheasant, sometimes for long distances. Some dog training philosophies highly tout the ability to track birds. And this ability certainly is valuable in a pheasant dog. However, the notion the pointer eventually points its quarry is more romance than reality. Indeed, it works out like the script often, but not always. As often as not, since a bird being tracked KNOWS it is being pursued, it is prone to flush before the dog and hunter are close enough for a shot. When birds are scarce, a hunter wants to track a bird if the opportunity presents itself, as it may be the only chance. But on more favorable days a cycle of being led off course by several birds that flush out of gun range is not preferred to following a strategic course and encountering pheasant that do not run or get cornered and cannot. This is confusing, in that experienced pheasant hunters, while aware that some pheasant run off in a mad dash for a great distance, are not always aware that pheasant move in small circles right around them and their dogs. When pheasant do that, a dog that tracks them is effective, the problem is the majority of hunters force the dog to move off too soon. Often there is several pheasant moving around. Even when one bird is flushed, sometimes others stay put, and returning to the general area can be productive.
Returning the discussion to flushing spaniels, particularly the very small ones, such as cockers, instead of pointing or stalking when they hit scent, which essentially translates into slowing down, these dogs speed up. They fit where a pheasant fits, if the bird must trail blaze it is doing the work and facilitating the dog. If it fits through brush and other cover that does not part like grass so does a small spaniel. In my opinion, based on decades of experience with hundreds of dogs, all are about equal in scenting ability across both individuals and breeds. However - if a dog's nose is level with a pheasant's tail it is a reasonable assumption that he can follow that bird much faster. A smaller dog might also be better able to find pheasant as well, since he can penetrate the tightest cover. If a larger flushing dog or pointer locates a bird in the very densest cover, chances are the bird will run. But if a feisty little spaniel is able to keep closing in, it will flush. That may explain why small spaniels produce when other dogs do not. One other advantage to small spaniels relates to gun safety. No doubt someone is going to cry out that spaniels or other bird dogs should be trained to be "steady" which refers to not chasing birds once they are airborne. However, from a practical perspective few hunters train their dogs to be steady, and, contrary to claims, there is no such thing as a dog that never makes a mistake, including breaking at the flush. We emphasize to hunters "If its low, let it go"... So, I understand the concept of a steady dog and appreciate that low birds should never be shot at. Nevertheless, spaniels that are considerably smaller than other breeds, closer to the ground when standing and unable to jump as high. The significance of this is that (if) a smaller spaniel breaks and chases or jumps to catch a flushing bird, it is less likely to be accidentally shot.
One of the things I analyzed was the theory of spaniel trainers which espouses training these dogs to "quarter" and "hup". This is where the small spaniel is less effective. If you have to control a dog's range with whistling or speaking, you will send pheasants running and/or flushing, often before you even see them. A dog that can only be effective working in a quartering pattern is limited in the different types of terrain it can shine in. Indeed, pheasant hunting is associated with grassland terrain, and if that is found where you hunt no problem exists with a quartering dog, as long as it does this without whistling, waving arms, and verbal commands. In addition, one dog can never produce as much as two dogs, and hupping and waving at two dogs would confuse them, so that is another consideration.
Blogs are essentially rants, and in the future I may be motivated to rant about other breeds and/or reveal my preferences and why... Stay tuned and comment below if you like.