1172

TYPING ABOUT THE MASTIFF BREEDS
By David Hancock

  Breeds of dog that cannot consistently produce smooth lines of physical appearance do not breed true to type. The early American Bulldog breeders realised this and soon acknowledged its penalties, breeding away from the Georgia Bulldog heavy-headed type to a strong-headed but not heavy-headed type. Breeds like the Rhodesian Ridgeback, the Dobermann and the Dogo Argentino, manufactured breeds with more ingredients than the Mastiff or the Bullmastiff, now breed truer to type and are rarely coarsely constructed. But this piece covers the ‘seizers’, the ‘gripping dogs’, filas or perros de presa, descended from the ‘alaunts of the boucheries’ rather than the ‘running mastiffs’ like the Great Dane, the Rhodesian Ridgeback or the Broholmer. The ‘seizers’ needed great jaw strength and powerful fore-quarters to seize and hold their quarry, that ranged from elk, boar and buffalo to stag, bear and even aurochs. The Boxer illustrates the fact that a breed can come from a broad-mouthed origin and not be coarse-headed. But if you look, say, at the winning Bullmastiffs at successive World Dog Shows – and I have attended seven - it is becoming apparent that if the intense exaggeration of the broad-head continues then the breed will have to be renamed 'Pugmastiffs', for that is what even the winning dogs were. Over-wrinkled, loose-lipped, massively-boned, heavy-headed, coarse in construction and with no trace of the symmetry required by the breed standard, it is sad to see such wholly undesirable features being rewarded in such a highly visible arena. Veterinary surgeons constantly warn us of the health problems caused by excessively wrinkled skin, too much bone and too wide a jaw.

 This apart, what is the value of a Breed Standard if judges ignore it? Just as bad as being coarse in the head is coarseness in the shoulders. Far too many Bullmastiffs display ugly shoulders, lacking symmetry. For a breed to possess these two features so regularly after the best part of a century as a recognized pedigree breed on the Kennel Club's lists is disappointing. So many of the early registrations in the breed lacked this awful coarseness. Where is the logic in extolling the virtues of outstanding dogs of the distant past and then producing dogs in the same breed that look nothing like them? Breeds like the Cane Corso too are far too often seen in the type of their sister breed the Neapolitan Mastiff, which spoils breed-type.

  In a letter to Dogs Monthly in August, 2001, Marguerite Penrrenoud, in the Mastiff breed for half a century and whose parents had the breed in the 1930s, wrote: "Different types of Mastiff in the same class is unforgiveable. I must strongly state here there is only one type of Mastiff...In my view the present state of the breed, the incorrect type and poor conformation is serious...If the Mastiff breed clubs fail to act...I feel in less than ten years the Mastiff I have known since childhood will be lost forever!" A year later, the judge at the Blackpool Championship Show concluded: "I have to express concern at the direction in which this fine breed is going. I found many exhibits of incorrect type...Many had weak hindquarters..." In a letter to the Mastiff Association's Newsletter in December 2001, veteran breeder Sylvia Evans wrote, on giving up the breed she loved: "I have been as dismayed as anyone by the inexorable loss of breed type, perhaps more than some, as I was told many times, when I agitated about health problems, that type would suffer if we tried to reduce them. I find it a bitter irony that type has suffered anyway, despite our inertia..." Five years later, the judge at the Old English Mastiff Club's Championship Show, wrote: "I feel very despondent about the quality of the Mastiffs in the country at this time. With only a very few exceptions, there was a definite lack of type and poor movement to be seen."                                      

 What constitutes true type in any breed of mastiff-type? No breed standard tells you what is essential in each breed; it is for the Breed Council perhaps to set out the breed's stall. Too difficult to obtain agreement, the pessimists would claim. In the Bullmastiff, it varies from kennel to kennel, I was informed by one prominent breeder; so much for breed type! It's all in the breed standard, advised another breed elder; but is it? Why does the standard not state that the nose of a Bullmastiff should be black? The standard tells us that the ears should be 'folded back', but they are not actually desired to be so. What really makes the Bullmastiff the breed that it is? How beneficial it would be, before any all-rounder judged a mastiff breed for that judge to be handed, not just the breed standard, but those essential points which distinguishes the breed of Bullmastiff from say the Dogue de Bordeaux, the Mastiff, the Perro de Presa Canario or the Boerboel. All had a common origin yet have distinct differences, differences that really matter. Is a fawn Boerboel with a full tail not easily confused with a Bullmastiff? Is a brindle Mastiff, 26" at the shoulder, not very very similar to a Bullmastiff? I have seen a Dogue de Bordeaux, with a black nose, looking very much like a Bullmastiff with the same degree of 'wrinkle'. Would a fawn Perro de Presa Canario without cropped ears not look very much like a Bullmastiff?

  If the Bullmastiff really is, in that damaging expression, a 'head breed', which of the different heads being presented to show ring judges at the moment, is the one most representative of the breed? If you read 'Exchange and Mart' magazine or attend unofficial bull-breeds' shows or rallies, you will know that Bullmastiffs are being crossed with Dogues de Bordeaux, Neapolitan Mastiffs and American Bulldogs. Bullmastiff devotees may not like it, but it is happening. Unless essential breed type is established for the Bullmastiff, breeders of these hybrids can pass off their pups as purebred Bullmastiffs; plenty of genuine Bullmastiff pups are sold without papers. The breed standard of the Bullmastiff does not mention the word 'mask' and does not stipulate a black nose. It could be argued that a black muzzle brings a black nose with it and that dark markings around the eyes constitute a mask. But why not spell it out and reduce the likelihood of arguments? If the black muzzle is essential, why isn't the black mask too? If the coat should be pure and clear in colour, how can two-tone coated dogs become champions? As they have. If the head typifies the breed, how can dogs win with muzzles far less than one third of the distance from the centre of the occiput to the tip of the nose? The words of the breed standard don't always protect the breed from its own breeders.

 Where are the mastiff breeds heading? At worst they could each be heading for a gene pool in which inheritable defects are being concentrated and in which the short muzzle is being enshrined. The mastiff breeds are relatively short-lived and this needs attention too. If you throw in unacceptably poor movement, then there is an enormous amount to be done within the breed. But by whom? Breed clubs? The Breed Council? By a group of enlightened individuals forming a new breed club? The future of the breed is very much in the hands of present-day breeders, judges and club committees. I do hope that mastiff fanciers of the future will be proud of them.

 Finally, whilst my views expressed here are highly individual ones? What are the words of those involved in just one mastiff breed? Take those on the Bullmastiff, for example:

"Each time I judge this breed in the UK, the quality deteriorates...the larger proportion of both dogs and bitches were appalling in movement." Terry Thorn, top UK judge, July 2001.

"Over the years a variety of types and sizes have crept into the breed, which is a pity...Movement overall is not good..." Jean Lanning, leading UK judge, October 1998.

"Decisions on the majority of placings were made difficult by virtue of the enormous variety, in so many aspects of the breed, which have appeared in recent years." Ann Arch, leading UK judge, Breed Show, December 2000.

"I have long been intrigued by the seemingly endless variety of Bullmastiff heads presented to me inside and outside the show-ring." Robert Cole, international expert on conformation, December 1997.

"This year marks the 75th anniversary of the KC recognition of the Bullmastiff as a pure breed.  Yet after all this time there is still such a wide variation in type." Bill Harris, veteran breeder of Bullmastiffs, Manchester Show critique, 2000.

"...I was rather sad to see that there appeared to be as many problems in the breed as there are in Mastiffs. It was quite hard to find anything with all the essentials I was looking for, to find a typical head allied to a good body..." Betty Baxter, top Mastiff judge, February 2001 (judging Bullmastiffs). It is so sad to see this fine breed develop into a type totally unlike the early dogs in the breed, bred to look like a gamekeepers’ night-dog, not a Mastiff look-a-like.

 Of course, in each and every breed, show ring judges find disturbing flaws; here are some on some other mastiff breeds: Crufts, 2013, Mastiffs – “I saw some pretty awesome movement, a lot of average movement and too much just plain sloppy movement much of which was, in my view, down to lack of exercise…but the worst fault I saw to differing degrees in dog after dog, was narrow, weak and snipey forefaces. This problem seems to have become so pervasive that there is a danger of narrow muzzles becoming the norm and the proper Mastiff head being lost forever.” How do these exhibits actually qualify for Crufts? Poor movement was commented on by the Dogue de Bordeaux judge at the same show: “I was shocked and although a heavy breed with a long low gait, they should still be able to move around the ring more than a couple of times.” Unsoundness is so often revealed when the dog is on the move.

  The year before at Crufts, the Neapolitan Mastiff judge commented: “I was surprised at how lacking in muscle some dogs were…There were a few with rather deep-set eyes and others with haw. The Standard does of course call for a tight eye with no haw and I fear until this is achieved the breed will face problems.” How do dogs that breach the breed standard manage to qualify for the top show? A judge at a championship show that year in this breed gave the view that “One comes across weak hocks in many breeds but the problem in this entry was that the percentage displaying this trait was too high…Head type varied alarmingly…in too many cases the amount of haw was undeniably excessive.” In 2011, at another show, the Mastiff judge reported: “By far the most common faults were lack of rear angulation and weakness in hindquarters with inadequate muscular development…” The latter seems to be a perennial problem in Mastiffs, yet it can so easily be bred-out, as the Mastiffs of a century ago demonstrated and as Lesley Thomas’s Albert shows so vividly.

  But all these knowledgeable judges, quite separately, all wrong? Nearly three hundred years ago, Jonathan Swift, the Anglo-Irish poet and satirist, wrote: 

     "They never would hear, But turn the deaf ear,

      As a matter they had no concern in."

 Who is to say that huge hunting dogs will never ever be needed again? When a sizeable meteor hits Mother Earth, with or without warning, man could be reduced to being a primitive hunter once again. Hunters without vehicles, binos and bullets, would quickly become aware of the crucial support big determined hounds could provide in the relentless pursuit of food, in chaotic conditions. Sight-hounds can catch the fleet-footed quarry; scent-hounds can track the hoofed and furred quarry for a hunter to trap but to pull down the bigger sources of food: stag, boar, wild bull and the fiercer quarry, big brave hounds are needed, as our distant ancestors learned. If such valuable dogs are allowed to drift into being show specimens only, with field performance overlooked, a vital contributor to man's future survival could be lost.

  It is entirely understandable for each mastiff breed to develop quite separately as the Fila Brasileiro, the Perro de Presa Canario and the Neapolitan Mastiff of today demonstrate. But do those ‘breed points’ still allow it to be a ‘seizer’, a ‘holding dog’ or ‘gripping dog’? Would the modern Bullmastiff’s jaw allow it to function as a ‘gripping dog’ used to detain poachers? The state of each breed, the condition of the breed, is surely of concern to every genuine lover of the breed. Turning a deaf ear is the coward's way out. The magnificent breeds of mastiff will not improve unless those 'in charge of' each breed take positive steps to safeguard its future. It is no solace for them to hear that other breeds have bigger problems. Each breed is primarily the responsibility of its own fanciers, mainly through its various breed clubs. It should be no chore to look after your own breed. Actions speak louder than words; these are mere words.