1162

BREEDING SOUNDER GUNDOGS
By David Hancock                                                     

“Whether retriever or pointer, we want a level mouth, neither undershot nor overshot – the former condition is almost never seen, but the so-called snipey muzzle is a common defect in our retrievers at the present time, and a bad one…The chief points, therefore, to be desired in a working dog are a good head and eye, light shoulders, strong loins, powerful thighs, and compact feet. Given these in our chosen puppy, and we start well with an animal better than our neighbour’s, while we hope to make him above the average in other respects.”

                 From The Keeper’s Book by Sir Peter Jeffrey Mackie, Foulis, 1924.

  We boast of our gundogs’ heritage; we must now honour it. Guided by a respect for their function, we really must breed these quite admirable breeds to a healthy phenotype and, with genetic advice, for the healthiest genotype we can achieve without losing breed type. But perhaps most importantly, we must shake off the shackles imposed largely by 20th century thinking on pure-breeding. Breed type doesn’t just exist in the genes of a breed but in the type those genes produce in combination. Our ancestors never hesitated to use the best dogs for breeding and not always within a breed. We have a moral duty to breed sound dogs ahead of pretty ones. I have made use of registration statistics to show how some gundog breeds have prospered down the years whilst some have not. If we prize our native gundog breeds we need to act soon to save some of them. We need a new man-dog covenant to safeguard our remarkably talented gundogs, as I outline later.

  The division of most registered gundog breeds into a working type and a show variety is, however desirable to some and inevitable to others, to me regrettable. Some would claim that many working gundogs are just not handsome enough for the pet market, that the field trial dogs are too 'hot' even for rough shooters and that working ability in a show-dog is wasted anyway, so why get excited about it? It has been argued that there are in fact three varieties within some gundog breeds: field trial, working test and show bench types. This may well be true in some retriever breeds and, after all, every working and sporting breed evolved in the pursuit of function. Foxhound breeders adapt their pack to their hunting country, so why shouldn't our gundog breeds just reflect the sporting needs of their owners? Perhaps that is how four breeds of German pointer were created, three of the Weimaraner, at one time any number of setters, three of the Poodle and indeed two, by size, of the Munsterlander!



  Sweeping generalisations are regularly made about the different varieties within a gundog breed, on the lines of, on the one hand that all show dogs have been ruined and, on the other, that all good working dogs are structurally sound. Yet we all know of some excellent dual-purpose gundogs and we all see dogs succeed in the field sometimes in spite of their anatomy. Strong working instincts are not automatically accompanied by a strong sound physique. But surely it would be good to see every dog in each gundog breed not only possessing working skills but also conforming to the breed standard. Handsome is as handsome does is no recipe for breeding better dogs. Earlier, I have argued for the title of champion to be reviewed, with harder and wider examinations to justify such a title. Appearance should not be the sole criterion. We should all be seeking sound, healthy, functionally capable, good-looking dogs. Of all dogs, gundogs must be functional.

 This point is reinforced by my experience in past years when judging gundog working tests. Three come particularly to mind. The first concerned a test at the admirable Gamekeepers' Fair when held annually in April, by the BASC, at the Shugborough estate in Staffordshire that I then ran. This was a retriever test and involved some good working dogs, not all of which typified their breed. One yellow Labrador had a head that would not have disgraced a Foxhound. A whippety black Labrador really excelled whereas a handsome Golden Retriever just would not jump into the admittedly fast flowing river. A hard-eyed Chesapeake leapt a good ten feet out into the river without hesitating; but I later noted that it had poor movement, perhaps from upright shoulders and short upper arms. In the end, even gifted working dogs have to be physically sound.

  The second involved a minor breeds spaniel working test - and there wasn't an ugly dog there. But apart from the late Clive Rowlands' Rhiwlas Field Spaniels, there was hardly a dog with nose and hunting enthusiasm. The third, for Curly-coated Retrievers, and also on this same country estate that I used to manage, tested some extremely sound dogs but proved too much of a test for the handlers, who didn't always know enough to keep ahead of or even control their dogs. All this can be summarised as featuring: handsome dogs which couldn't work, dogs which worked very competently but would never win a beauty contest and owners/handlers who didn't know enough to coach whatever working instinct their dogs actually did have further forward. What can be done?

  Are field trials being conducted by the KC in a manner most likely to develop the most useful gundog? As long ago as 1901, Leo Parsey was writing: “At field trials the dogs engaged have no opportunity of giving proof of their steadiness under heavy fire, nor have they the chance of showing their perseverance and nose on winged birds where ground game is plentiful. Many of the dogs do not even see a bird fall to the shot, and only in exceptional cases have they the chance of testing their abilities in finding and retrieving a runner. Then, too, the excitement and jealousy of other dogs at a big shoot or heavy partridge or grouse drive is entirely absent, and the energy and stamina of the dog cannot be effectually tested…The only tests to which retrievers are subjected at field trials are of a simple and elementary nature…” Do his words have application today? Are we testing our gundogs in the most appropriate way? Why don’t real gundog men take over? Not just the conducting but designing the whole system of gundog field trials?

 Most sensible gundog men are full of admiration for show people who try to work their dogs. We all love a handsome dog; but a handsome useless dog has little value for me. As Wilson Stephens once memorably remarked on this subject: "They didn't send male models to recapture the Falklands." (As a one-time member of 3 Para, I know only too well that none of us were ever chosen for our looks!) Perhaps the ability of a gundog to carry the title of show champion without a working certificate, a health check, a temperament test and a morphological examination, is itself creating not just a wider gap between show and working dogs, but between sound dogs and rosette winners that may not be sound.

  It is both worrying and potentially damaging, to a breed, when a gundog wins in the show ring with serious anatomical faults for a functional animal. When conformation to a wholly physical blueprint, the breed standard, is the only criterion, it is vital for sound dogs to win. They get bred from the most. In Mary Roslin Williams’s book, Advanced Labrador Breeding of 1988, she provides clear convincing guidance on the working anatomy desirable in a functional gundog. She points out the dangers of ‘flashy’ dogs, with upright shoulders, straight elbows, a high-stepping Hackney action, too short a body, lacking a waterproof coat, exhibiting too much hock-action in the trot and then explains the disadvantages of these features in a working gundog. Yet, a few decades ago at Crufts, a Pointer won not only its breed class but the whole Gundog Group with a pronounced Hackney action, a feature condemned in its own breed standard. This occurred under a famous judge who breeds well-known retrievers. How long would such a Pointer last on a grouse moor with such a defect? Surely the whole point when judging a gundog in the show ring is to consider whether its anatomy allows it to carry out its traditional field function. Otherwise it doesn't belong to that breed of gundog. And Crufts winners are extensively bred from, winning sires especially.

  If this were an isolated case, it could be overlooked, but it is not. Here are some critiques from the judges themselves at shows in recent years: German wire-haired pointers at the 1996 Gundog Breeds Association of Scotland show: "In the last five years the breed has altered dramatically and not for the better I hasten to add. At least 50 per cent of the breed is incorrect to the standard and this has resulted in some poor quality dogs winning championship certificates." Labrador Retrievers at the 1996 North West Labrador Club Championship Show: "The true Lab head and expression seems to have gone...Feet are distinctly odd at the moment throughout the breed...There can't have been more than about 20 bitches who were a suitable weight for a working breed...Coats surprised me no end...They gave an impression of density until you put your hand on them." German short-haired Pointers at a 1996 show: "I was pleased to have 122 exhibits making 129 entries. The disappointment was the poor standard overall...They cannot perform the intended function in the field unless their construction is correct. They were after all bred for working." Do the exhibitors of these dogs actually know a bad dog from a good one?

Critical comments on the last-named breed continued at the 1997 Manchester Championship show: "...very few of the exhibits before me at this event actually displayed any drive or satisfactory rear end movement." Other comments at 1996 shows included these words, on Pointers: "Movement left a lot to be desired" and at a different show, with a record entry: "Are we becoming a breed of cardboard cut outs? ...it must look and act like a pointer, or we will lose the characteristics of the breed we love."; on Labradors: "What worried me...was the continued deterioration in head quality...Movement was, as I expected variable." and at another show: "Front movement still needs our attention, this stems mainly from a short straight upper arm or upright shoulders." (How many pups have been bred from these flawed exhibits since then?)

 Such worrying comments come from dog show judges who are so often accused of being too tolerant rather than hyper-critical. If the dogs drawing these comments are 'show quality', what is the quality like in those dogs sold by breeders to the pet market because they lack quality? If these dogs in the show critiques are representative of their particular breeds, what a commentary on pedigree dog breeders. There are clearly far too many people producing puppies for sale nowadays rather than breeding dogs. One hundred years ago, if a gundog was unable to perform in the field for any reason then it was culled. Today it would be bred from. This stems from a dog now being valued for what it looks like rather than for what it can do.

  Where do you advise the pet owner seeking a companion gundog to go for one? The Kennel Club advises us to go to an assured breeder. But regularly in The Kennel Gazette, the KC’s own monthly publication, there are cases of breeders being banned for cruelty to their own dogs, cheating purchasers of puppies, falsifying hip scores, reneging on sale terms and otherwise acting discreditably. Unlike our ancestors who developed our splendid gundog breeds, we talk more proudly of a dog's pedigree, a piece of paper, than the dog. A Danish geneticist once went through his own country's dog breeding records and found that, on genetic grounds alone, 1 in 10 of the breeding records could not be correct. A recent test on registrations in the United States found that 13% were false. Our Kennel Club carries out no rigorous formal routine checks on the validity of its pedigrees - just takes the registration fee! In the United States, a number of scientific institutions are working hard to improve the genetic health of breeds of purebred dogs. The Institute of Genetic Disease Control in Animals at the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of California and the School of Veterinary Medicine at Purdue University however both find that their biggest obstacle in research lies with breed clubs. Breed clubs there simply will not provide honest reliable information to assist research, perhaps guarding their wallets more than their breed – a breed under their stewardship.

  A study a few years ago by a group of distinguished Canadian veterinary surgeons concluded with these words: "The next hundred years look rather bleak for the pure-bred dog industry unless dramatic changes are introduced. We have a problem which if not addressed and speedily rectified, may destroy for all time many beautiful breeds of dog. All dog lovers share the blame for not acting..." They were referring to the practice of breeding dogs to a harmful design and to the failure to face the challenge posed by inheritable diseases. Breeding for virility should be our watchword.

If we do not breed for soundness, then we are betraying an inherited trust, the belief that we too would care for our gundogs and perpetuate them in their ancestral mould. But we have been reckless with the genotype as well as their phenotype. Cocker Spaniels can now inherit ectropian, entropian, a bleeding disorder known as factor X deficiency, progressive retinal atrophy, distichiasis and three different skeletal anomalies. How many mandatory control schemes have been set up to reduce their incidence? Not one. Commendably, the KC now has a Dog Health Group looking at the number of litters registered to one bitch, veterinary inspections of Best-of-Breed winners in certain breeds, one of them, the Clumber Spaniel, being a gundog breed, and introduced the Mate-Select system to guard against unknowing inbreeding. Hip dysplasia is a crippling disease affecting a number of gundog breeds, especially Labradors and golden retrievers. Every year another 50,000 retrievers are registered with the Kennel Club. They come from breeding stock only a tiny number of which has been hip scored. Who knows what their hips will be like? Why shouldn't their purchasers get their money back if these pups develop hip dysplasia in due course? Most of them will be too distressed by their dog's suffering to even try.

The literally cruel fact is that nobody cares enough to lobby for mandatory clearances for all pedigree dog breeding stock. This does nothing for subject creatures in our care. It does nothing to perpetuate pedigree dogs as sound healthy animals for working use or as companion dogs. We should be thoroughly ashamed of the way we breed our gundogs and even more ashamed by our total failure to safeguard their health and well-being. We are a nation of dog-owners not dog-lovers. We have lost our way. There is a way back; but it is conscience-led not wallet-led. Kennel Club registrations are not being sustained; since 1996, when over 270,000 registrations were processed, the KC has regularly lost thousands in annual registrations. The gundog group accounts for around 100,000 of these registrations, easily the largest group. If the Countryside Alliance or BASC made themselves responsible for such registrations and maintained the same scale of costs, they would receive the best part of a million pounds. Quite a thought! Think of the health schemes and sporting competitions that could be financed by such income.

 Of course, owners of gundogs who are solely interested in showing their dogs at KC-licensed shows will still want to register their dogs with them. But most dogs registered are just pets. These, together with gundogs intended for work, would probably make up around 55% of gundogs registered. If these alone came over to a new scheme, they would still bring with them well over £500,000 in revenue, a sum worth more than a passing thought.

 The fashion of registering sporting dogs with the KC should have gone 'out of fashion' a long time ago. Owners of sporting dogs have been slow to realise that the Kennel Club itself is slowly but surely going out of fashion. Gundog fanciers need to ensure that our native breeds don’t go out of fashion too. Thirty years ago I tried hard to stir the consciences of the gundog fraternity in an article in Shooting Times entitled "Do we need the Kennel Club?" pointing out the value of the International Sheepdog Society to the working sheepdog, the National Greyhound Racing Club to the racing greyhound and the Associations of Masters to packhounds, despite their disassociation from the KC. I was inundated with letters of support and the editor's Letters page vastly oversubscribed. But the support of such notables as Peter Moxon, Derry Argue and Diana Bovill was not reinforced by the field sports' organisations, to my deep regret.

 Commenting on my article, the editor of Our Dogs wrote that "The gundog section of dogdom, particularly that part of it concerned with field trials rather than show competition, has always shown great independence of spirit." I wish that "great independence of spirit" in the field trials world had only matched that of their counterparts in the sheepdog, greyhound and packhound world down the years. Diana Bovill, in her letter to the editor, wrote: "Having for about 20 years watched and studied the Kennel Club in relation to field trials, I do not think one can easily overestimate the evils which spring from autocracy and privilege." In the late 1920s, a gundog breakaway was planned and only averted at the last moment by the clever intervention of the Earl of Chesterfield and by taking the rebel's general, the redoubtable Lady Howe, on to the field trial committee, the first and only woman to serve on any KC committee for more than forty years. Are Diana Bovill's words that wrong?

  Subsequently I wrote another piece for the same sporting magazine, pointing out that in Canada, the monopoly of their Kennel Club has now been broken - by law. Sadly, in this country two quite separate ministries, the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, neither of them noted for their vision or surefootedness, seem to dabble in the welfare of the domestic dog, unlike the Canadian situation. But the welfare of our gundogs - the control of psychopathic dogs, the eradication of inheritable diseases, the restriction of back-street breeders and the promotion of well-bred, physically-sound, functional, working dogs to support us in the field is the business of all of us who have had the privilege of working such dogs. Master breeders of the last century passed these revered sporting breeds into our hands during our lifetime, in the belief that we too would carry their torch and then perpetuate these splendid animals for the benefit of those who come after us. We are betraying that trust.

 After the publication of that second article, several gundog society secretaries wrote to me expressing support for a gundog breakaway from the KC. I asked them to write to the BASC; perhaps I was wrong. But all of us who admire field prowess in gundogs have to accept the need for change. The destiny of our gundog breeds, as breeds, must be recaptured by those who use them as functional animals. Perhaps the new thinking at the KC, in the light of the immensely influential TV programme Pedigree Dogs Exposed of 2006, will restore our faith, but so much valuable time has been lost over safeguarding the whole future of our precious gundog breeds.

 If we did have a separate working gundog studbook, perhaps then we could work to eliminate entropion in Clumbers, inherited canine cataracts in Labradors, hip dysplasia in Golden Retrievers, central progressive atrophy in Chesapeakes and PRA in all too many gundog breeds. The studbook can play a leading role in such work - if we are determined, that is, to work towards the reduction rather the limp acceptance of such flawed stock. We would no longer need 44 words to describe the tail of the Labrador and could work to restore true type and the correct temperament in our gundog breeds. We might even find genuinely yellow Labradors and truly Golden Retrievers being bred again! And, after all, do the American shooting men allow the show dog people over there to run their sport? No, they do not and that alone is a lesson for us.

One secretary of the KC, with regrettable complacency, likened his registration department's role with that of Debretts; in other words, to record statements of fact not evidence of quality. All of us with responsibilities towards captive animals need to act more honourably than that; those that feature in Debretts are free not to choose diseased partners. A machine can record facts; humans have a higher duty towards dumb animals bred for their use. We now have to raise our level of thinking, act responsibly towards dependent creatures which exist to serve us, keep faith with breed-creators like Llewellin, Laverack, Boughey, Phillips, Tweedmouth, Lloyd and McCarthy and obey our consciences. Can any caring person sleep well when 600 unwanted pedigree gundogs end up in Battersea Dogs' Home alone each year? But more and more dogs means more and more money coming into the registration department of the KC to be passed on to support its social activities - and working gundog men actually go on paying up!

 Look at the early photographs of our gundog breeds and then ask yourself: "Have our gundog breeds gained anything at all from past KC patronage?" Then think of the capability that the desktop computer has given us to record, register and co-relate the statistics we feed into it. A working gundog register/studbook could be established by any enterprising gundog society secretary, but how much better it would be if the BASC took on the task - with the fees being used for the benefit of our country sports as a whole. We have experienced some 150 years of KC rule and seen nothing so far but ever-increasing costs, deteriorating breeds and show-ring bias.

 Only a combination of apathy and a clinging to the status quo is preventing working gundog men from running their own ship. There is no practical reason why they should not do so without further delay. There is every moral reason for them to do so as soon as possible. Failing to take such an initiative might give the less ethical and the apathetic few sleepless nights, but who is going to safeguard the future of our precious gundogs? My recurring nightmare is waking to find myself in the year 2020 AD and witness a Rottweiler-headed, white-coated, hard-eyed, hound-like Labrador Retriever, with clicking hips and poor eyesight, (but KC-registered and with "an excellent pedigree") winning a field trial, not on merit, but because the other entrants were even worse! Come on, you allegedly hard-headed gundog men, wake up and do your duty!        

  Sadly, gundog breeds that become highly popular are more likely to be carelessly bred and thoughtlessly owned. For every comment on Labradors at field trials resembling 'black Whippets' twenty could be made on fat Labradors in suburban gardens. It is sadder still to see both the Labrador and the Golden Retriever featuring high in breed listings for dogs with unacceptable temperaments. In some places in North America both breeds are banned under local so-called dangerous dog legislation. Popularity has its perils; when demand is high, standards can be lowered. The over-use of successful sires, which have not been screened for inheritable defects, is surely the road to ruin.

  But whilst unpopularity need not lead to lower standards, a reduced gene pool, the lack of a major leading kennel and declining field employment can all add up to diminished quality. Just as the HPR breeds have been favoured by individuals ambitious for their dogs, so surely could the minor native gundog breeds. Gundogs like Ben Randall’s Cocker Spaniel FT Ch Heolybwitch Fatty and the outstanding Hungarian Vizsla Ch Hungarguna Bear In Mind are splendid examples of top quality gundogs – to inspire the whole range of gundog enthusiasts. Natural working ability has to be matched by expert handling of course, but how ambitious are the other breed enthusiasts? We need more enthusiasts like Peter O’Driscoll who runs training courses for Pointer and setter owners at Edenmouth in the Scottish borders, both to offer a chance to learn about the working side and for owners, especially newcomers, to gain experience with their own gundogs. It may not be 'fashionable' to enter gundogs in such working trials but new competitions attract talent from unfamiliar sources. In America, the United Kennel Club has announced the expansion of its extremely successful Hunting Retriever Program with a new Started Hunting Retriever title available this year. Its object is to attract those who support hunting and promote the use of hunting dogs, the fourth title available for hunting retrievers from the UKC. This shows the advantage of having more than one kennel club and of having one more interested in working dogs. This is a fashion we could benefit from.

With their earth-dog, Airedale and Beagle trials, for example, the Americans are ahead of us in promoting the use of working dogs across a wider spectrum. The HPR breeds could be entered for a range of working trials, not just those for gundogs by their nature. Here is a group of dogs that can follow wounded game or track deer and boar, work with the falcon, quarter ground close or wide, hold game on point, flush on command, mark and retrieve shot game, work in water and dense cover, withstand the cold and wet, and yet provide companionable loyalty and affection for their owners. Versatile breeds need a whole range of tests if they are to show their mettle and be fully exercised. And when a gundog breed becomes a much-desired brand of dog, it’s time for better dogs not lesser ones.

  Is it enough for us merely to follow fashion in gundogs in Britain and restrict our gundogs to the same old annual trials and working tests? The current campaign against any kind of sporting activity that involves hunting with dogs may in time force us towards different forms of trials and tests. Falconry, hound trailing, lure chasing, tracking and water rescue all offer challenges to sporting dogs. We should never be content just to perpetuate last year's or the last century's competitions. Our dogs would surely benefit from more pioneering initiatives over field tests and less of the stultifying status quo! The use of specialist breeds that excel should not exclude the use of gifted dogs with talent wastefully buried. This might even give new life to our struggling native minor gundog breeds, our lost brands! I look forward to annual tests for decoy dogs, water dogs and hawking dogs!      

  To be fair to the KC however it is only right to commend them for recently increasing their efforts in the working gundog field: in 2011 the KC licensed some 700 field trials, a number exceeded by unlicensed working tests; in 2012, they announced four special gundog training days for novice handlers – right across the UK, as well as their annual working tests for retrievers, HPRs and spaniels, combined with an international team event. The KC now encourages show ring judges to attend field events to see how gundogs function, but it’s vital that they attend the trial for their breed, not one for another gundog type with a different function. It’s vitally important for our gundogs that the KC continues to bring some vision and compassion, as well as scientific realism, into their custodianship of pedigree gundog breeds. It must move on in this sphere of its activities from ancien regime to proactive progression.

 The BASC needs to become much more involved in the breeding, trialing, testing (both for heath and field competence reasons) and the wider working gundog scene. The old expression an ‘eye for a dog’, or a talent for identifying outstanding dogs, has never been ‘bred in the bone’ in certain gifted individuals but shaped by the intellect, however instinctive this has appeared to be. Show ring judges and working dog breeders need to have the knowledge to make decisions not just the authority to make them. It was enlightening to read recently of distinguished Labrador breeder and judge, Carole Coode, stating that even after 45 years of owning the breed, she still studies the breed standard before each judging appointment. We need better informed training techniques – no more ‘dog-breaking’ – and only truly informed breeding schemes, related to health tests, coefficients of inbreeding and sound morphology, regarding the dog’s genotype as important as its phenotype. We need a gundog covenant.

   Here, I have striven to highlight the immense value of the gundog to man, both as a working animal in the sporting field, as a highly effective service dog, and, not least, as a much-appreciated companion dog. Now is the time, in the best interests of the admirable man-gundog relationship, to establish a newly framed partnership, what I have dubbed the Gundog Covenant. This I list as a three-fold commitment:

1. To conduct better-informed breeding systems, with reliance on health testing, veterinary advice on anatomical soundness and genetic advice on inbreeding ratios. It’s the breeders who make or break the gundog breeds.

2. To observe the requirement for:

   1. A healthy genotype, so that short-lived sickly dogs are less likely.

   2. A truly functional phenotype, placing field usefulness ahead of show ring fashion.

   3. A rational approach to so-called ‘breed-points’, in which minor physical features can dominate the overall need for basic soundness in construction and movement. Gundogs can do without the handicap of over-long ears, excessive coats, heavy bone and loose eyelids.

3. To acknowledge the spiritual needs of gundogs, their fundamental requirement for exercise, their innate desire to seek scent from external stimuli and the exhilaration they experience in working with their owner, even in small quite humble ways.

  I do so admire the gundogs of the world, giving praise where it is due to breeds from overseas. I welcome them here and admire their capabilities. But I worry much more about the future for some of our native gundog breeds, part of our sporting heritage and so worthy of our patronage. If charity starts at home, let’s promote our gundogs, respected the world over not just in the field but as companions too. All our distinguished gundog breeds thoroughly deserve our total commitment to their best interests. We really must breed better gundogs.